Are republicans opposed to the leftwing simply because they don't understand it?

[BULLDOG]

Oh and had Obama been successful in raising the minimum wage, far less people would be eligible for food stamps. You didn't know that did you?

They would still be poor and the food stamp limit would have to be raised Ass hat

Why would they still be poor? If the minimum wage was increased to 10.10, the price increase on goods would be pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but the boost to consumer spending would keep prices down.

Pennies add up, economics 101

Um yeah they do. Something at McDonald's may go up 10 cents while a person making $1.50 more an hour can afford to buy a lot more on the menu at a time.

A human in today's modern society will purchase or make use of 200 or more products. From food to toothpaste.

If you add that 10 cents to each item, you come up with an increase of 20 dollars. That means if you raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars per hour, an increase of $2.75, the poor person is losing $17.25. This assumes that just each item add only 10 cents to cover the increase in wage.

So much for your vaunted compassion and living wage.

You realize that person would have to buy each and every item each and every hour .......for your math to work don't you?

 

[Ame®icano]

They would still be poor and the food stamp limit would have to be raised Ass hat

Why would they still be poor? If the minimum wage was increased to 10.10, the price increase on goods would be pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but the boost to consumer spending would keep prices down.

Pennies add up, economics 101

Um yeah they do. Something at McDonald's may go up 10 cents while a person making $1.50 more an hour can afford to buy a lot more on the menu at a time.

A human in today's modern society will purchase or make use of 200 or more products. From food to toothpaste.

If you add that 10 cents to each item, you come up with an increase of 20 dollars. That means if you raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars per hour, an increase of $2.75, the poor person is losing $17.25. This assumes that just each item add only 10 cents to cover the increase in wage.

So much for your vaunted compassion and living wage.

You realize that person would have to buy each and every item each and every hour .......for your math to work don't you?

Person can keep buying Big Mac or Whooper or Big Beef Burrito over and over.

 

[rdean]

Are republicans opposed to the leftwing simply because they don't understand it?

What is it they are supposed to understand? Their economic policies are disasters. Their foreign policies are a fiasco. Their social policies are non existent and they want to legislate what goes on in people's bedrooms.

Name something they got right.

 

[BULLDOG]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Many Republicans aren't all that far removed from the left wing so the entire premise of your argument is deeply flawed. Conservatives oppose liberalism because we are results oriented and tend to be pragmatic. Fix it if it's broke, keep it if it works. Liberals are more ideologically driven and operate on wishful thinking regardless of the results. Look before you leap vs. leap before you look.

I've never heard any conservative or Republican say the left wants everyone on welfare. That's something a toddler might say in an emotional fit. Clearly, YOU do not understand the right and like most liberals you accuse your detractors of your own personality flaws.

If you've never heard those tings, then obviously you haven't been reading a lot of the postings here.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's because we understand it all too well. So does anyone else familiar with history.

I haven't seen this post before I replied. You explained it more efficiently.

There is thing called "discipline in constant dealings". Who doesn't know what is it, Google it.

Over years, liberals gained this reputation of shameless and compulsive liars. Every time they got caught in the lie and people abandon them, they pull back, regroup and change name, then come out again with the same tactics. American voter recognized them for what they are and is now in abandoning phase...

Interesting idea. Can you give a list of those names, and the years when they were changed? The specific lie that caused each change would also be helpful. I'm sure you have that information easily available, but I just can't find it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Many Republicans aren't all that far removed from the left wing so the entire premise of your argument is deeply flawed. Conservatives oppose liberalism because we are results oriented and tend to be pragmatic. Fix it if it's broke, keep it if it works. Liberals are more ideologically driven and operate on wishful thinking regardless of the results. Look before you leap vs. leap before you look.

I've never heard any conservative or Republican say the left wants everyone on welfare. That's something a toddler might say in an emotional fit. Clearly, YOU do not understand the right and like most liberals you accuse your detractors of your own personality flaws.

If you've never heard those tings, then obviously you haven't been reading a lot of the postings here.

I do. What I see is the perpetual mischaracterization of the right by the loony left.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Your OP isn't based on reality.

For example, we don't think Obama wants us to give up our jobs. He needs earners to pay taxes. He just feels anything we earn belongs to the government.... since we didn't build anything without the government helping us.

We understand the left. They just don't understand how they're being fooled by Democrats. They cannot face reality. As Grubersaid on several occasions, you're too stupid to do what the left feels is best. The truth just doesn't register.

 

[BULLDOG]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Many Republicans aren't all that far removed from the left wing so the entire premise of your argument is deeply flawed. Conservatives oppose liberalism because we are results oriented and tend to be pragmatic. Fix it if it's broke, keep it if it works. Liberals are more ideologically driven and operate on wishful thinking regardless of the results. Look before you leap vs. leap before you look.

I've never heard any conservative or Republican say the left wants everyone on welfare. That's something a toddler might say in an emotional fit. Clearly, YOU do not understand the right and like most liberals you accuse your detractors of your own personality flaws.

If you've never heard those tings, then obviously you haven't been reading a lot of the postings here.

I do. What I see is the perpetual mischaracterization of the right by the loony left.

Pointing out the ridiculous claims of the right is not mischaracterization. Reminding you of the stupid things the right has said and done is not mischaracterizing. Just because it embarrasses you, and you want to pretend it never happened is not mischaracterization. Look up the word. You're using it wrong.

 

[Darkwind]

They would still be poor and the food stamp limit would have to be raised Ass hat

Why would they still be poor? If the minimum wage was increased to 10.10, the price increase on goods would be pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but the boost to consumer spending would keep prices down.

Pennies add up, economics 101

Um yeah they do. Something at McDonald's may go up 10 cents while a person making $1.50 more an hour can afford to buy a lot more on the menu at a time.

A human in today's modern society will purchase or make use of 200 or more products. From food to toothpaste.

If you add that 10 cents to each item, you come up with an increase of 20 dollars. That means if you raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars per hour, an increase of $2.75, the poor person is losing $17.25. This assumes that just each item add only 10 cents to cover the increase in wage.

So much for your vaunted compassion and living wage.

You realize that person would have to buy each and every item each and every hour .......for your math to work don't you?

LOL....Um....you may want to reflect on that statement.

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Many Republicans aren't all that far removed from the left wing so the entire premise of your argument is deeply flawed. Conservatives oppose liberalism because we are results oriented and tend to be pragmatic. Fix it if it's broke, keep it if it works. Liberals are more ideologically driven and operate on wishful thinking regardless of the results. Look before you leap vs. leap before you look.

I've never heard any conservative or Republican say the left wants everyone on welfare. That's something a toddler might say in an emotional fit. Clearly, YOU do not understand the right and like most liberals you accuse your detractors of your own personality flaws.

If you've never heard those tings, then obviously you haven't been reading a lot of the postings here.

I do. What I see is the perpetual mischaracterization of the right by the loony left.

Pointing out the ridiculous claims of the right is not mischaracterization. Reminding you of the stupid things the right has said and done is not mischaracterizing. Just because it embarrasses you, and you want to pretend it never happened is not mischaracterization. Look up the word. You're using it wrong.

The only thing you're capable of pointing out is that you're full of bulldung. I hereby dub thee...Bulldung!

 

[BULLDOG]

Why would they still be poor? If the minimum wage was increased to 10.10, the price increase on goods would be pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but the boost to consumer spending would keep prices down.

Pennies add up, economics 101

Um yeah they do. Something at McDonald's may go up 10 cents while a person making $1.50 more an hour can afford to buy a lot more on the menu at a time.

A human in today's modern society will purchase or make use of 200 or more products. From food to toothpaste.

If you add that 10 cents to each item, you come up with an increase of 20 dollars. That means if you raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars per hour, an increase of $2.75, the poor person is losing $17.25. This assumes that just each item add only 10 cents to cover the increase in wage.

So much for your vaunted compassion and living wage.

You realize that person would have to buy each and every item each and every hour .......for your math to work don't you?

LOL....Um....you may want to reflect on that statement.

OK. I have a couple of minutes to play along. Perhaps you want to explain it a little more fully. Sounds like you are basing your theoretical total increase of price ($20.00) on a wage increase for only one hour of work ($2.75) Obviously, the same increase would apply to each of the hours of work. So help me understand exactly the scenario you are trying to describe.

 

[BULLDOG]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Many Republicans aren't all that far removed from the left wing so the entire premise of your argument is deeply flawed. Conservatives oppose liberalism because we are results oriented and tend to be pragmatic. Fix it if it's broke, keep it if it works. Liberals are more ideologically driven and operate on wishful thinking regardless of the results. Look before you leap vs. leap before you look.

I've never heard any conservative or Republican say the left wants everyone on welfare. That's something a toddler might say in an emotional fit. Clearly, YOU do not understand the right and like most liberals you accuse your detractors of your own personality flaws.

If you've never heard those tings, then obviously you haven't been reading a lot of the postings here.

I do. What I see is the perpetual mischaracterization of the right by the loony left.

Pointing out the ridiculous claims of the right is not mischaracterization. Reminding you of the stupid things the right has said and done is not mischaracterizing. Just because it embarrasses you, and you want to pretend it never happened is not mischaracterization. Look up the word. You're using it wrong.

The only thing you're capable of pointing out is that you're full of bulldung. I hereby dub thee...Bulldung!

That's the best you can do? An insult? Respond to what I said, and explain the mischaracterization you claim......if you can.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's because we understand it all too well. So does anyone else familiar with history.

I haven't seen this post before I replied. You explained it more efficiently.

There is thing called "discipline in constant dealings". Who doesn't know what is it, Google it.

Over years, liberals gained this reputation of shameless and compulsive liars. Every time they got caught in the lie and people abandon them, they pull back, regroup and change name, then come out again with the same tactics. American voter recognized them for what they are and is now in abandoning phase...

Interesting idea. Can you give a list of those names, and the years when they were changed? The specific lie that caused each change would also be helpful. I'm sure you have that information easily available, but I just can't find it.

Are you saying that classical liberal teachings of Locke or Hobbes about economic freedom and small government are exactly what today's liberals stand for? Read few history books that don't require democrat stamp of approval.

 

[Iceweasel]

Many Republicans aren't all that far removed from the left wing so the entire premise of your argument is deeply flawed. Conservatives oppose liberalism because we are results oriented and tend to be pragmatic. Fix it if it's broke, keep it if it works. Liberals are more ideologically driven and operate on wishful thinking regardless of the results. Look before you leap vs. leap before you look.

I've never heard any conservative or Republican say the left wants everyone on welfare. That's something a toddler might say in an emotional fit. Clearly, YOU do not understand the right and like most liberals you accuse your detractors of your own personality flaws.

If you've never heard those tings, then obviously you haven't been reading a lot of the postings here.

I do. What I see is the perpetual mischaracterization of the right by the loony left.

Pointing out the ridiculous claims of the right is not mischaracterization. Reminding you of the stupid things the right has said and done is not mischaracterizing. Just because it embarrasses you, and you want to pretend it never happened is not mischaracterization. Look up the word. You're using it wrong.

The only thing you're capable of pointing out is that you're full of bulldung. I hereby dub thee...Bulldung!

That's the best you can do? An insult? Respond to what I said, and explain the mischaracterization you claim......if you can.

I gave an example Bulldung, this thread. I stated so a few posts ago.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's because we understand it all too well. So does anyone else familiar with history.

I haven't seen this post before I replied. You explained it more efficiently.

There is thing called "discipline in constant dealings". Who doesn't know what is it, Google it.

Over years, liberals gained this reputation of shameless and compulsive liars. Every time they got caught in the lie and people abandon them, they pull back, regroup and change name, then come out again with the same tactics. American voter recognized them for what they are and is now in abandoning phase...

Interesting idea. Can you give a list of those names, and the years when they were changed? The specific lie that caused each change would also be helpful. I'm sure you have that information easily available, but I just can't find it.

Are you saying that classical liberal teachings of Locke or Hobbes about economic freedom and small government are exactly what today's liberals stand for? Read few history books that don't require democrat stamp of approval.

Don't try to change the subject. Your statement didn't mention Locke or Hobbs. I'm asking for clarification of your claim. It was your statement. If you don't know what you said, go back and reread it. What was the series of names used? When were the names changed? What specific lie do you claim to be the cause of each name change? I won't call you a liar who just makes up crazy stuff yet, but it's really beginning to look that way.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's because we understand it all too well. So does anyone else familiar with history.

I haven't seen this post before I replied. You explained it more efficiently.

There is thing called "discipline in constant dealings". Who doesn't know what is it, Google it.

Over years, liberals gained this reputation of shameless and compulsive liars. Every time they got caught in the lie and people abandon them, they pull back, regroup and change name, then come out again with the same tactics. American voter recognized them for what they are and is now in abandoning phase...

Interesting idea. Can you give a list of those names, and the years when they were changed? The specific lie that caused each change would also be helpful. I'm sure you have that information easily available, but I just can't find it.

Are you saying that classical liberal teachings of Locke or Hobbes about economic freedom and small government are exactly what today's liberals stand for? Read few history books that don't require democrat stamp of approval.

Don't try to change the subject. Your statement didn't mention Locke or Hobbs. I'm asking for clarification of your claim. It was your statement. If you don't know what you said, go back and reread it. What was the series of names used? When were the names changed? What specific lie do you claim to be the cause of each name change? I won't call you a liar who just makes up crazy stuff yet, but it's really beginning to look that way.

There was no "official" name change. Lefties are not doing that, they usually "evolve"... from Democrat Liberals to Democrat Populists to Democrat Progressives to Democrat Liberals (again) to Democrat Progressives (again)...

Again, read some books...

 

[BULLDOG]

If you've never heard those tings, then obviously you haven't been reading a lot of the postings here.

I do. What I see is the perpetual mischaracterization of the right by the loony left.

Pointing out the ridiculous claims of the right is not mischaracterization. Reminding you of the stupid things the right has said and done is not mischaracterizing. Just because it embarrasses you, and you want to pretend it never happened is not mischaracterization. Look up the word. You're using it wrong.

The only thing you're capable of pointing out is that you're full of bulldung. I hereby dub thee...Bulldung!

That's the best you can do? An insult? Respond to what I said, and explain the mischaracterization you claim......if you can.

I gave an example Bulldung, this thread. I stated so a few posts ago.

I found four posts from you in this thread. The first at 8:01 this morning. You claimed you never heard that one specific accusation, but I assure you others have. Even that is far from proof of your perpetual mischaracterization claim. Back up your silly claims, or admit you are lying again. Everybody knows you can insult. I've never seen you back up a single claim.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's because we understand it all too well. So does anyone else familiar with history.

I haven't seen this post before I replied. You explained it more efficiently.

There is thing called "discipline in constant dealings". Who doesn't know what is it, Google it.

Over years, liberals gained this reputation of shameless and compulsive liars. Every time they got caught in the lie and people abandon them, they pull back, regroup and change name, then come out again with the same tactics. American voter recognized them for what they are and is now in abandoning phase...

Interesting idea. Can you give a list of those names, and the years when they were changed? The specific lie that caused each change would also be helpful. I'm sure you have that information easily available, but I just can't find it.

Are you saying that classical liberal teachings of Locke or Hobbes about economic freedom and small government are exactly what today's liberals stand for? Read few history books that don't require democrat stamp of approval.

Don't try to change the subject. Your statement didn't mention Locke or Hobbs. I'm asking for clarification of your claim. It was your statement. If you don't know what you said, go back and reread it. What was the series of names used? When were the names changed? What specific lie do you claim to be the cause of each name change? I won't call you a liar who just makes up crazy stuff yet, but it's really beginning to look that way.

There was no "official" name change. Lefties are not doing that, they usually "evolve"... from Democrat Liberals to Democrat Populists to Democrat Progressives to Democrat Liberals (again) to Democrat Progressives (again)...

Again, read some books...

Not really the specific name change brought on by a specific lie that you claimed, is it now? What about the rest of it? You essentially described it as caught in lie/change name............caught in lie/change name......caught in lie/change name....... Come on now, surely you have some details don't you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh and had Obama been successful in raising the minimum wage, far less people would be eligible for food stamps. You didn't know that did you?

They would still be poor and the food stamp limit would have to be raised Ass hat

Why would they still be poor? If the minimum wage was increased to 10.10, the price increase on goods would be pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but the boost to consumer spending would keep prices down.

Pennies add up, economics 101

Um yeah they do. Something at McDonald's may go up 10 cents while a person making $1.50 more an hour can afford to buy a lot more on the menu at a time.

A human in today's modern society will purchase or make use of 200 or more products. From food to toothpaste.

If you add that 10 cents to each item, you come up with an increase of 20 dollars. That means if you raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars per hour, an increase of $2.75, the poor person is losing $17.25. This assumes that just each item add only 10 cents to cover the increase in wage.

So much for your vaunted compassion and living wage.

Straight up stupid logic.
Yes we all buy all of the "200 items" that we use all at once every week. Right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Republicans seem to only use labels such as "socialism", "communism", or "facism" in regards to the left. They make outrageous claims like Obama and democrats want everyone to abandon their jobs and live off welfare. They think liberals wants to end capitalism as we know it.

None of this is based in reality but they believe it anyway. They just believe what they want to believe. Do they even understand what liberalism stands for? I think if they did understand it, they would embrace it.

When will facts permeate their stupidity bubbles?

Well why don't you take this opportunity to educate us, tell us exactly what the left wants. Please be specific, no bumper sticker slogans.

A minimum wage people can live off Minimum wage was intended to be a way for a person to enter the workforce and gain experience, not as a living wage, why should it be now?
A moderately regulated market to protect consumers. Define moderately regulated.
Affordable healthcare for the poor We have that, it's called medicade
Strengthen the middle class. How, be specific.

No more bumper sticker slogans, tell us specifically what you want and how you're going to get there.

The minumum wage in terms of inflation is stuck in the 60s. 18 million people make less than 10 per hour. Don't you think that's a problem? Millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs.

Regulations to protect the environment, food and drugs.

Medicaid only pays for so much. Poor people can't afford basic cancer treatment. Big Pharma makes all it's money off of the middle class and wealthy.

Shift most of the tax burden to the wealthy. This will improve education and infrastructure. Both of which improve jobs for the middle class.

Lets put that 18 million in perspective. That means that over 94 percent of the population is making over minimum wage. Of the 5.6 percent that is making minimum wage, how many are teenagers or young adults who live at home or are entering the work force for the first time?

Just throwing out numbers means very little without context. A 5% minimum wage rate is not the crisis some people would like to make out.

You obviously have no understanding of MW demographics or who is affected by MW.
You shouldn't even try to discuss it.