100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Questions I'd like 'Teabaggers' to answer | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
nogames39
on
Sat 04/25/09 10:38 AM
|
|
what a long winded line of propaganda I expected better from you no games. unfortunatly their are no jobs at the moment take a good look around able bodied men ready and willing to work cannot find it would you have them starve? I agree times were far better for our g randparents and our parents our standerd of liveing has been erodeing for decades yet you blame the victims? each year the gap between the haves and have nots grows the rich are gettting riher and the poor are getting poorer why do you think that is? I think I just did. No, I don't think you'll understand. If they are not able to find jobs, then maybe they should have diversified their skills more. If all they know is how to swing a hammer, that's their own damn fault. Well then, democrat. If these people have very necessary skills, then how come they are unemployed, genius? That is the additude that put Obama in the white house andrew and I am glad republicans are exposed for the heartless people they are. We democrats are far more compassionate and that is why we had a landslide victory with more to come.
No. The landslide victory in politics belong to a party that manages to attract the widest majority. At this point I should probably stop, before I explain the IQ distribution curve in society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My feelings on the disenfranchised are if they do not get foodstamps or unemployment or some type of aid they will simply turn to crime rather than see their children starve. We can pay to put them in jail after they leave a wake of victims or we can give them temporary aid, it seems though the republicans prefer to incarcerate being the prisons are being privatised by for profit enterprizes who then can make political contributions at election time. What you have just admitted to, is that you believe that workers have no worth, whatsoever, if left to their own devices. Further, you advocate us paying the workers, not because of their worth, but because they should blackmail us. If we don't pay them above their free market value, then they will revolt and turn to crime. I find this deep held degrading opinion of workers to be prevalent among democrats, except it is very hard to make one to really tell us what he thinks, as you just did. Just to let you know, in the real world, without help of the government and completely on their own, workers did just fine in free market. They fed their quite more numerous children, and did not turn to crime. They grew a lot richer than their degraded grandchildren (who are in the debt to their ears). They retired on their savings that, if compared to today's "money", would be around 1 to 2 million dollars. I understand, that this is not something communists want the people to know. Communists want to keep everything revised, so that no one can look back in history and compare the real state of things now and then. If they are not able to find jobs, then maybe they should have diversified their skills more. If all they know is how to swing a hammer, that's their own damn fault. <--- not a Republican (I believe I've told you this multiple times). Thank you, please play again. I love the old economic adage: conservatives have no heart, liberals have no brain. Then I must have no heart. Makes no difference to me. I'm doing just fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of that adage. I have heard it too, on a numerous occasions.
It is a myth though. It is rooted in perversion at the base of Christian belief system: the dichotomy between supposedly existing realm of practical but immoral (Titans), and moral but impractical (Dionysus). Supposedly, smart and moral are two opposite things. You can either be smart or you could be moral (have a heart). The very sign that a person is inclined to believe in such a dichotomy is a sign of a mental deficiency, I think. But, I understand why one would use the assault by test for stupidity. Remember being teenagers, how did you control the dumb a$ses? You bet them that they can't do something that was clearly stupid. And they did! Because of their mental deficiency, they could not understand that there can not be any dichotomies between one being brave and capable and one being smart to recognize the danger. So, they jumped on the rocks and broke their dumb foreheads. Yes! Somehow I think that judging by your "I'm doing just fine." response, there is no way you'd jump to your demise on a bet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was teabaggin...
 and had an emission 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Sat 04/25/09 04:19 PM
|
|
I find it quite amusing to hear from both sides
"our protests are legitimate and deserved their protests are foolish and contrived" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it quite amusing to hear from both sides "our protests are legitimate and deserved their protests are foolish and contrived" Exactly! i love it! This is the root of all of this. When Bush spent recklessly, the left was up in arms. Now that they're in power, the right screams and the left tells them to "shut up, you had your turn" like it's a game of chess or something. Bipartisanship is a fallacy. That is the nature of democracy. There is always a side in power and always a dissenting party. The party in power calls the shots and that's that. The only way to really have this "fair" would be to eliminate the party system but that too will never happen. It's about time one side man up, stop the blame game, and do what's right. Unfortunately for us, neither is or has been willing short of a few individuals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of that adage. I have heard it too, on a numerous occasions. It is a myth though. It is rooted in perversion at the base of Christian belief system: the dichotomy between supposedly existing realm of practical but immoral (Titans), and moral but impractical (Dionysus). Supposedly, smart and moral are two opposite things. You can either be smart or you could be moral (have a heart). The very sign that a person is inclined to believe in such a dichotomy is a sign of a mental deficiency, I think. But, I understand why one would use the assault by test for stupidity. Remember being teenagers, how did you control the dumb a$ses? You bet them that they can't do something that was clearly stupid. And they did! Because of their mental deficiency, they could not understand that there can not be any dichotomies between one being brave and capable and one being smart to recognize the danger. So, they jumped on the rocks and broke their dumb foreheads. Yes! Somehow I think that judging by your "I'm doing just fine." response, there is no way you'd jump to your demise on a bet. i'm not stating it as fact (other than in a sarcastic manner as I was told my attitude was heartless) but as a broad generalization of how liberals claim that conservatives have no heart and are greedy and how conservatives declare the other side bleeding heart liberals for their excessive compassion. The truth is, as with almost all ideologies and beliefs, there is rarely only black and white in the pool. In terms of economics, it's essentially the same as newton's first law: every action will have an equal reaction. for everyone that wins, there is an equivalence of losers. It will not always be in the same place, but since all things (short of the fed's money supply) are scarce, you can't always get what you want. But on that note, economics teaches us that everyone acts in their own self-interest so even though some value their compassion over their greed, they are always looking out for number one when they make a decision. Applying that to the adage, you are correct in it being a fallacy. In theory, the "smart" decision (thinking with your brain) would be the most logical that puts you in the best position. However, since we all act in our own best interests, it can be argued that by selecting the "bleeding heart" ideology, we are in fact still acting on what we feel is in our best interest and therefore, are still thinking with our brain. Some value money and material wealth over compassion. I personally hold personal responsibility and liberty as my highest values. I have compassion for someone that truly deserves it like the person born crippled or the victim of a tragic accident. however, not receiving enough life training in order to make yourself more available in the workplace is not high on that list. That is an immediate result of your own decisions and no fault of my own. And, you are correct, I do my best to avoid stupidity and failure, although failure and stupidity are also subjective. I am a bit cold and calculated in my decisions but that keeps me from letting my emotions get the best of me and deter me from my personal goals. I've been pretty good so far and really have virtually no fears of this recession because of it. I was a smart one and while I could afford a new house 4 years ago, I opted to rent because I could not afford the house and school. While I stood at the car lot and looked at that 4x4 V8 tundra, i instead opted for the base model, manual everything, four-banger tacoma for less than half the price because I was only going to kill it driving 600 miles a week to school and it'd give better mpg. Personal responsibility. Planning and prioritizing is a large part of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all things (short of the fed's money supply) are scarce 
Thanks, Andrew! That is a new one. I'll write it down as a new truism. (others are probably wondering why is it funny for us).. Everything is scarce, except for the Fed's money supply. LOL! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all things (short of the fed's money supply) are scarce
Thanks, Andrew! That is a new one. I'll write it down as a new truism. (others are probably wondering why is it funny for us).. Everything is scarce, except for the Fed's money supply. LOL! I do what I can 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So as could be expected I was deluged with mail this weekend, most of it from outraged Michelle Malkin readers, and nearly all of whom sounded the same basic theme: that I was a bad, bad person for issuing ad hominem attacks and should be discredited for "not having my facts straight" and for being too much of a coward to "debate the real issues." Which is interesting, except that no one actually found an incorrect fact in anything I wrote, and no one seemed very interesting in debating any issues. Instead, about 99% of the mail I got focused on the name-calling and the "childish" sexual innuendoes. I would say that is my fault, that I should have known that once you start dropping sack onto another columnist's face in public you can pretty much forgo any expectation of being taken seriously -- except that when dealing with teabagger types, you know in advance you're not going to be taken seriously anyway. So the incentive to be restrained in one's response (particularly when the people you're arguing with are running around screaming about the fascist threat with tea bags dangling absurdly from their hat-brims) is not particularly strong. But the real reason nobody takes the teabaggers seriously is that they have no answers to several enormous holes in the parody of a protest argument they tried to make last week. I got nearly two hundred letters this weekend and not one of them had an answer for any of the following: 1. If you're so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit? 2. If you're so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall? 3. If you're so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006? A number of people wrote in to me and complained that the only reason I'm not seeing eye to eye with them is that I have no children and therefore don't care about the debt burden in the future. Oh, please. There's only one reason we're talking about "the children" in this debate at all: because 95% of the people protesting the tax outrage will actually be getting a tax break. Until you can plausibly answer the question of why future government debt burdens didn't bother you during the last eight years or massive deficit spending, that whole "O the children!" bull**** has to be put back on the shelf. Anyway, I'd really be curious to hear some answers to these questions. Because if the spending argument is moot, if the bailout argument is moot, if the pork argument is moot, and the tax argument is moot, then what you're left with is arguing that it's not waste when we spend billions handing out soccer balls in the Anbar province, but it is waste when we build bridges in Peoria and Tulsa. The only thing even remotely resembling a logical justification for any of this was the argument, made by several letter-writers, that the fact that the teabaggers are hypocrites doesn't necessarily make them wrong about the Obama budget. If that point is conceded at the top, I think most Americans would be willing to discuss the rest of it, because that's a discussion worth having. The problem is that once you admit that you sat on your hands during a period of unprecedented waste for eight years, it makes it very hard to take when you start calling yourselves victims of fascism and tyranny and threatening to secede in year nine, which just happens to be the first year of a new regime you oppose politically. In other words if you concede the hypocrisy, the hysteria automatically becomes obnoxious and wrong. So I don't think the "My hypocrisy is irrelevant" line holds water, not unless you can answer one more question: 4. Would you be protesting any of this bull**** if this had been George W. Bush's budget? _______ About author I'm a political reporter for Rolling Stone magazine, a sports columnist for Men's Journal, and I also write books for a Random House imprint called Spiegel and Grau. My main ambition in life is to someday strangle that chick in the Progressive Insurance commercials who is always waving her hands back and forth and screaming, "Discount!!!" Anyone who has suggestions for how to dump her body without being caught is welcome to write to me. I already have plenty of plastic and a staple-gun. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/21372 As both Jesus and Muhatmah Ghandi said..."Blah blah mother f**king blah" ..oh yeah..I am a Chinese Jet Pilot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have enjoyed this debate. No games and Andrew would win by a landslide if it was graded on intelligent response. Not to say other inputs weren't good too.
Here is my take. People lie to get elected. Once elected, they are easily corrupted (but usually already are anyway) and hard (in the case of congress) to get out of office. They are easily bought and even when faced with problems shared by both parties like illegal immigration and overspending, they just don't want to rock the boat that is bringing them the goodies of the best job they ever had. They say whatever it takes to get elected then do whatever is in their own best interest. Some do the right thing some of the time. Big deal. Meet the new boss..... Same as the old boss ..... We need some improvements like accountability for doing what you say you are going to do. Yeah, I know, that is what the vote is for; but a choice between two dogs still ends up with a dog. I like the Patton idea. |
|
|
|
|
