OT: The sum total of all political arguments
gammanu95
My casual drinking is your alcohol poisoning.
If you want to anger a conservative, tell him a lie or tell lies about him.
If you want to anger a progressive, tell him the truth or tell the truth about him.
If you want to anger a progressive, tell him the truth or tell the truth about him.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
29 comments
In the meantime you can expect to lose the presidency, the Senate, five supreme court appointments, and a bunch of House seats. You better hope that Trump keeps his mouth shut and starts using that teleprompter.
Conservatives are people who just don't get it. And the younger ones of today just do not understand how unworkable the ideas they support actually are.
Progressives are usually still people who are not yet radicalized enough to go as far as we need to.
SJG
Philip Glass - Koyaanisqatsi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4WlNj1T…
Also most conservatives don't mind change as long as it is still moving the country forward..... These last few years I don't see that happening. The one huge change did show that a minority can and did become the President of the United States. He became the so called "most powerful man in the world". Which is a great step in the right direction.
The real difference is that more conservatives than progressives are unable to recognize their own cognitive biases.
As Mark Twain said, "it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Many (not all) conservatives that I meet "know" a lot of things for sure. Fewer progressives that I meet have that level of confidence.
I'm being fair because I don't know you and I haven't seen evidence that you're one of the idiots that shits on serious threads. But give me a break on you OP...
When I look at your statement structurally I see two unsubstantiated generalizations and an ad hominem attack. Worse, rather than making your case I believe you are just polarizing opinion. The cheap shot has become the commonplace these days, and the easy way out. If you want to believe that about progressives in general (that dishonesty is inherent to the philosophy) have it your way- and yes liberals are just as guilty at taking cheap shots as conservatives. Such a belief does not, however, actually reflect on the real character of persons and is just an obstacle to actual dialog. If you're looking for dialog you need to take a higher road then the one you are on. I'm re-calibrating my bozo meter from what I read and I'm sure I am not alone.
Really, it is pathetic. So many of you are truly pathetic losers, and tragically, you will continue to vote for democrat party candidates who are devoted to keeping you pathetic losers so you must depend on them for survival. Conservatives and right of center Independents like myself will continue to work tirelessly, thanklessly, to save you from yourselves.
The use of "liberal", "conservative", and "progressive" have changed over the years but I was still suspicious. The quote is apocryphal:
www.snopes.com/teddy-roosevelt-anger-a-l…
www.truthorfiction.com/teddy-roosevelt-a…
Liberals look at the facts and then formulate an idea that's supported by them. This can be really difficult because there's so much information out there, and one has to sift through it all. Liberals go down the wrong path when they get bad information, which is more common than they want to admit.
Jackson was a rising attorney who took advantage of circumstances to achieve fame, wealth and several, "firsts." He was the first elected Congressman from Tennessee, the first and only US military commander to invade a foreign power (1817 invasion of Spanish, Florida) without provocation or authorization from Congress or the President. Jackson was the first "frontier" President, elected in his second attempt after a very bitter campaign characterized by ugly personal attacks.
Ever since Jackson founded the Democratic Party, the party and it's members have stood for greater federal government controls, while at the same time championing "state's rights." Jackson ignored Supreme Court decisions he opposed, refused to enforce existing laws and made a number of executive orders - ignoring the wishes of congress. A pattern followed by Democrat Presidents for 187 years.
Jackson was racist, but successfully pandered to anti-slavery groups. He purchased, through cash payments, expensive favors, political trades and personality, most of the press of the time and had them tell every story - his way. His legacy was a national government more corrupt than any contemporary thought possible, a divided nation that would go to war against itself in 25 years, and the Democrat Party.
I really do not see any difference between the party of Andrew Jackson and the party of Hillary Clinton.
Jackson used a small portion of his wealth to buy hundreds of slaves, while at the same time convincing a number of people that he was opposed to slavery and only kept the slaves he owned, "for their own good." Mote
Unfortunately we have had generations of people who do not have the skills for critical thinking and do not have a bullshit filter because they grew up in school systems designed to make them consumers, not thinkers. The press in our country is often less information, more of a polished 'information product' that is a type of entertainment.
Rection: Yes, my theory is best applied to biased media, but I think it has validity outside of religious convictions, where morality has no basis in any facts at all. For example, gay marriage is really a matter of personal opinion; no facts can support or refute whether it's moral or not. Since America stands for equality, protecting gay marriage makes sense but that doesn't make it "right", just as the Bible thumpers can't make a case that it's "wrong" outside of their own prejudices.
Global worming OTOH has plenty of facts to support it, yet there are still some ostriches who will deny the facts that lead to the generally accepted conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------
No, if you want to anger a conservative, tell him that climate change is man-made. Or tell a conservative that we were not created by a divine being.
What I don't believe are any of the Democrat, liberal, globalist "solutions" for AGW. Neither do I believe that the warming is immediately catastrophic. All of the evidence to date supports an increase of 2 degrees C. over the next century, with some melting causing a rise is sea level of about 6 to 10 cm. All of the catastrophic rescue plans start (and most end with), give more money and control to government. That claim is repeated like a mantra even when the most extreme AGW proponents report that no matter what we do, global warming will continue at almost exactly the same rate.
The problem is NOT with global warming - it IS with claims that giving government more power and money will, "fix it."
------------------------------------------
That's still the minority view for the GOP -- even with the influence of a rational and wonderful Pope.
The "rational and wonderful Pope" you observe appears to me to be a very divisive, hard core Socialist. That doesn't mean I think the Pope is a bad person, just a very biased and misguided individual who is in over his head. Your opinion will probably differ.
GammaNu writes a post about any political topic, and everyone loses their minds!
I don't support her but I don't honestly know who to support. I don't have any wealth to protect, and I'd like to see pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-trans, pro-gay marriage rights expanded for all. I have family who are gay and I hate to see them discrminated against. I have friends who are trans -- same thing. I have muslim and immigrant friends (incl. Mexicans).
So I look at the field and the only standout is Hildebeast. She's not my first choice, but there isn't anyone better on the above social issues.
If you see some one else, GammaNu, by all means let me know. But for now, it is Hildebeast.
GammaNu -->"Yet she gets off scott-free from lying to Congress and violating nearly every regulation there is regarding classified material handling? Where's the outrage from the left?" --> end quote
I am outraged. Except I consider myself the right. I am registred GOP and have been since '96. I just find I don't agree with my party on social issues. But I think you guys consider me a "leftie." Okay with me. It's just a label.
GammaNu -->"Obama meddles in a presidential election more than any prior president and even invites foreign leaders to meddle with him. Where is the outrage?" -->
He seems pretty balanace here to me. But you are right, he is involved, at least right now. That does probably toe or cross some line. I will give you that.
GammaNu --> "It's not there, because you are willingly dismissing unforgivable acts because you think her winning the Oval Office will prove you right?" --> end quote
No. I don't agree with "win by all means necessary." I didn't care for it when Nixon tried it. I don't care for it now. It is poor sportsmanship.
GammaNu --> "How can you be so blind to your own hypocrisy?" --> end quote
This is rhetorical. But worth asking. No problems there.
GammaNu --> "Really, it is pathetic. So many of you are truly pathetic losers, and tragically, you will continue to vote for democrat party candidates who are devoted to keeping you pathetic losers so you must depend on them for survival. Conservatives and right of center Independents like myself will continue to work tirelessly, thanklessly, to save you from yourselves." --> end quotes GammaNu
I agree with you on fiscal issues. That's why I'm a GOP/Republican. I even have the hat with the elephant on it I bought in '95 with my gov't class trip to Wash D.C. But I am sorry. The GOP/Republician party is full of Authoritarian-Bible-thumping-Theocrats on social policy and many of their other policies *not* related to fiscal policy.
For those reasons, I have a hard time supporting many of the GOP candidates. Call me a Rockefeller Republican. Call me a Radical Republican. Call me a RINO. Just don't call me a Libertarian. ;)
When GOP starts voting for / calling for Transgender or family restrooms, maybe then, I will feel the GOP/Republicans are about change. Maybe when the GOP/Republicans are to look at all the evidence on climate change, and suggest we use more carbon-neutral processes (including nuc) and addressing ocean acidification, then I will feel they are about change. I also don't like the GOP/Republicans' stances on sex, sex workers, or the sex industry. Again, it makes it part to support them despite being one!
-Dominic
^^TYPO, sorry.
Let me say this: I am not a Trump supporter. However, he is the only viable alternative to Hillary.
Here's the problem: Trump is socially liberal. I believe he will not work against the rights of the gay community. He is not racist. Legal immigrants, like my wife, will not be deported. Only illegal immigrants.
You defended your views well, and addressed mine reasonably. I applaud you, and appreciate the reasoned response. Unfortunately, you are the only likely Hillary voter on this forum who has a rational -although weak - reason to vote for her. You also sidestepped her indefensible actions. Your environmental concerns closely mirror my own. It's too bad that green party can only float an ignorant wacko who is left of Bernie Sanders.