What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[hadit]

Good, that's one less democrat vote.

Functional idiot^^

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you really believe that carp.

Tell me one you know I'm wrong, and I'll prove you wrong, dupe.

Democrats in Washington are wealthy, greedy for taxpayer money and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Prove me wrong.

They want to raise taxes on THEMSELVES and invest in America. You believe a pile of bs propaganda.

Oh, brother, have you ever drunk the Kool-Aid. There is absolutely nothing stopping any of them from overpaying their taxes instead of collecting big bucks from donors and stashing cash in the freezer. Next.

 

[francoHFW]

Functional idiot^^

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you really believe that carp.

Tell me one you know I'm wrong, and I'll prove you wrong, dupe.

Democrats in Washington are wealthy, greedy for taxpayer money and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Prove me wrong.

They want to raise taxes on THEMSELVES and invest in America. You believe a pile of bs propaganda.

Oh, brother, have you ever drunk the Kool-Aid. There is absolutely nothing stopping any of them from overpaying their taxes instead of collecting big bucks from donors and stashing cash in the freezer. Next.

No one pays more than they have to duh.

 

[hadit]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you really believe that carp.

Tell me one you know I'm wrong, and I'll prove you wrong, dupe.

Democrats in Washington are wealthy, greedy for taxpayer money and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Prove me wrong.

They want to raise taxes on THEMSELVES and invest in America. You believe a pile of bs propaganda.

Oh, brother, have you ever drunk the Kool-Aid. There is absolutely nothing stopping any of them from overpaying their taxes instead of collecting big bucks from donors and stashing cash in the freezer. Next.

No one pays more than they have to duh.

Yet they want to raise taxes on themselves? You're not computing. You do know, don't you, that they routinely exempt themselves from costs and regulations they put on the little guy?

 

[francoHFW]

Yes, they want to raise them on themselves and the GOP for the good of the country, of course. They're smart enough to know the mlddle class must be healthy.

Example of these exemptions lol?

 

[browsing deer]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Is the conservative view that the will of the People should prevail?

The will of the people is a will o the wisp. It changes from moment to moment. Sometimes it is conservative, sometimes liberal. mostly the will of the people is practical and sensible and doesn't hang around an ideology.

To reiterated the op, liberals ASSume because conservatives don't assume government is the only answer that government has a place. Governments build roads, put out fires, etc. There are private roads and even private water cos and fire departments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Is the conservative view that the will of the People should prevail?

The will of the people is a will o the wisp. It changes from moment to moment. Sometimes it is conservative, sometimes liberal. mostly the will of the people is practical and sensible and doesn't hang around an ideology.

To reiterated the op, liberals ASSume because conservatives don't assume government is the only answer that government has a place. Governments build roads, put out fires, etc. There are private roads and even private water cos and fire departments.

Is that a yes or no answer?

Would you prefer a government where the will of the People did not prevail? Yes or no.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stupid insults, you got nothing, dupe. See sig. And above. Trump at least isn't bought off, but obviously I would never vote for the megarich greedy idiot bs party.

Good, that's one less democrat vote.

Functional idiot^^

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you really believe that carp.

Tell me one you know I'm wrong, and I'll prove you wrong, dupe.

Democrats in Washington are wealthy, greedy for taxpayer money and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Prove me wrong.

Once you get rid of representative government, what do you replace it with? ...some sort of scheme that keeps Republicans/conservatives in power?

lol, jesus.

 

[hadit]

Good, that's one less democrat vote.

Functional idiot^^

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you really believe that carp.

Tell me one you know I'm wrong, and I'll prove you wrong, dupe.

Democrats in Washington are wealthy, greedy for taxpayer money and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Prove me wrong.

Once you get rid of representative government, what do you replace it with? ...some sort of scheme that keeps Republicans/conservatives in power?

lol, jesus.

Do you really think that we have true representative government now, with re-election rates that rival the old Soviet Union's?

 

[Synthaholic]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

It's all those pesky facts, isn't it?

 

[hadit]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

It's all those pesky facts, isn't it?

Yes, liberals just refuse to face them.

 

[browsing deer]

Good, that's one less democrat vote.

Functional idiot^^

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you really believe that carp.

Tell me one you know I'm wrong, and I'll prove you wrong, dupe.

Democrats in Washington are wealthy, greedy for taxpayer money and out of touch with ordinary Americans. Prove me wrong.

Once you get rid of representative government, what do you replace it with? ...some sort of scheme that keeps Republicans/conservatives in power?

lol, jesus.

This is not the question. Of course you want representative government. You want government powerful in its restricted sphere. And you want it to but out where it doesn't belong. I like the fact that the US government has nuclear bombs and 8 aircraft carriers on permanent duty. DonAld Trump should not have any. There are, however, a million places where the government should not be, because government is not competent in those areas, or tyrannical.

 

[Londoner]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

DEAR BARUCH,
You keep telling us that government is incompetent and tends to make big problems worse. Fair enough big guy.

But your side has been saying this every day for 36 years.

Problem is: every time you seize power, you run up the debt like drunken sailors and create terrible messes for future generations.

From Reagan's War on Drugs to Bush's War on Terrorism and Patriot Act, you have proved your thesis that Big Government can't Save the world - yet you never admit of your folly because your news sources only report Liberal failures (in welfare, taxation and regulation). Your job is not to be a mouthpiece for republican bumperstickers but to actually apply your concepts critically and intelligently (otherwise you sound like a repetitive drone).

Consider this Dear Baruch,

The War on Terrorism places more faith in Government competence than anything ever dreamed by FDR or LBJ. Not only did Bush claim that Washington could stop aggression, but he said Washington had the competence to destabilize - THEN - rebuild entire Arab cultures in our image. We were told that once Hussein was removed, the result would be democracy and freedom springing from the rubble.

Even after it became apparent that Bush had created an omnivorous power vacuum and unleashed an ungovernable civil conflict, you kept promising that we were one more surge from glorious freedom, as it became apparent that this region was never going to accept a modern version of American Freedom, and that all we could hope for was perpetual waves of radicalism followed by endless surges . . . ultimately consigning future generations of Americans to an endless and bankrupting game of whack-a-mole.

(Psst: what if government can't do big things? What if it can't rebuild whole foreign nations? What if once entrusted with the power to rebuild whole Arab cultures, our government starts unnecessary wars and fucks up an entire continent for generations? What if you can't see any of this because YOU are the one who trusts big government to do big things, and YOU are the one who should listen to your tired lectures about big government?)

Of course there is a Silver Lining to all the power we gave Bush's Big Government. With the Patriot Act we built the most concentrated, technologically advanced surveillance system of any nation in history. What could go wrong?

(Turn off talk radio and take a long look in the mirror before enlightening the rest of us)

 

[browsing deer]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

DEAR BARUCH,
You keep telling us that government is incompetent and tends to make big problems worse. Fair enough big guy.

But your side has been saying this every day for 36 years.

Problem is: every time you seize power, you run up the debt like drunken sailors and create terrible messes for future generations.

From Reagan's War on Drugs to Bush's War on Terrorism and Patriot Act, you have proved your thesis that Big Government can't Save the world - yet you never admit of your folly because your news sources only report Liberal failures (in welfare, taxation and regulation). Your job is not to be a mouthpiece for republican bumperstickers but to actually apply your concepts critically and intelligently (otherwise you sound like a repetitive drone).

Consider this Dear Baruch,

The Bush administration's theoretical construction of the War on Terror places more faith in Government competence than anything ever dreamed by FDR or LBJ. Not only did Bush claim that Washington could stop aggression, but he said Washington had the competence to destabilize - THEN - rebuild entire Arab cultures in our image. We were told that once Hussein was removed, the result would be democracy and freedom springing from the rubble.

Even after it became apparent that Bush had created an omnivorous power vacuum and unleashed an ungovernable civil conflict, you kept promising that we were one more surge from glorious freedom, as it became apparent that this region was never going to accept a modern version of American Freedom, and that all we could hope for was perpetual waves of radicalism followed by endless surges . . . ultimately consigning future generations of Americans to an endless and bankrupting game of whack-a-mole.

(Psst: what if government can't do big things? What if it can't rebuild whole foreign nations? What if once entrusted with the power to rebuild whole Arab cultures, our government starts unnecessary wars and fucks up an entire continent for generations? What if you can't see any of this because YOU are the one who trusts big government to do big things, and YOU are the one who should listen to your tired lectures about big government?)

Of course there is a Silver Lining to all the power we gave Bush's Big Government. With the Patriot Act we built the most concentrated, technologically advanced surveillance system of any nation in history. What could go wrong?

(Turn off talk radio and take a long look in the mirror before enlightening the rest of us)

You are pointing out areas where the government is incompetent , tyrannical, or counterproductive, IE the war on drugs, Bush's nation building and saying because these area show government being foolish this proves the OP is wrong? How do you make that out?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

It's all those pesky facts, isn't it?

The ones they ignore? Yeah, that's a big factor.

 

[depotoo]

Student loans? I've never heard the gop being totally against all student loans. Nor have I ever seen them advocatte for no temporary emergency food stamps. Don't know who you are listening to, but it isn't the gop.

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I think for the most part all liberals and conservatives do agree on those items you mentioned. Clearly there are fringe on both sides, but for the most part, we are in agreement.

The problem comes when we talk about how the government can be a useful servant to the people's needs. For example, as a liberal, I am in favour of temporary food stamps and student loans for college. Many "conservatives" are against both of those, claiming it leads to big government.

So what do we do then?

 

[depotoo]

Did you purposely pull up a thread from 2012, 4 years ago?

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

DEAR BARUCH,
You keep telling us that government is incompetent and tends to make big problems worse. Fair enough big guy.

But your side has been saying this every day for 36 years.

Problem is: every time you seize power, you run up the debt like drunken sailors and create terrible messes for future generations.

From Reagan's War on Drugs to Bush's War on Terrorism and Patriot Act, you have proved your thesis that Big Government can't Save the world - yet you never admit of your folly because your news sources only report Liberal failures (in welfare, taxation and regulation). Your job is not to be a mouthpiece for republican bumperstickers but to actually apply your concepts critically and intelligently (otherwise you sound like a repetitive drone).

Consider this Dear Baruch,

The Bush administration's theoretical construction of the War on Terror places more faith in Government competence than anything ever dreamed by FDR or LBJ. Not only did Bush claim that Washington could stop aggression, but he said Washington had the competence to destabilize - THEN - rebuild entire Arab cultures in our image. We were told that once Hussein was removed, the result would be democracy and freedom springing from the rubble.

Even after it became apparent that Bush had created an omnivorous power vacuum and unleashed an ungovernable civil conflict, you kept promising that we were one more surge from glorious freedom, as it became apparent that this region was never going to accept a modern version of American Freedom, and that all we could hope for was perpetual waves of radicalism followed by endless surges . . . ultimately consigning future generations of Americans to an endless and bankrupting game of whack-a-mole.

(Psst: what if government can't do big things? What if it can't rebuild whole foreign nations? What if once entrusted with the power to rebuild whole Arab cultures, our government starts unnecessary wars and fucks up an entire continent for generations? What if you can't see any of this because YOU are the one who trusts big government to do big things, and YOU are the one who should listen to your tired lectures about big government?)

Of course there is a Silver Lining to all the power we gave Bush's Big Government. With the Patriot Act we built the most concentrated, technologically advanced surveillance system of any nation in history. What could go wrong?

(Turn off talk radio and take a long look in the mirror before enlightening the rest of us)

You are pointing out areas where the government is incompetent , tyrannical, or counterproductive, IE the war on drugs, Bush's nation building and saying because these area show government being foolish this proves the OP is wrong? How do you make that out?

 

[browsing deer]

Baruch Menachem hasn't posted in two years. It is a good way of the poster now of arguing with someone who isn't here Another piece of dishonesty

 

[bripat9643]

Student loans? I've never heard the gop being totally against all student loans. Nor have I ever seen them advocatte for no temporary emergency food stamps. Don't know who you are listening to, but it isn't the gop.

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I think for the most part all liberals and conservatives do agree on those items you mentioned. Clearly there are fringe on both sides, but for the most part, we are in agreement.

The problem comes when we talk about how the government can be a useful servant to the people's needs. For example, as a liberal, I am in favour of temporary food stamps and student loans for college. Many "conservatives" are against both of those, claiming it leads to big government.

So what do we do then?

The GOP doesn't, but libertarians do.

 

[francoHFW]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

DEAR BARUCH,
You keep telling us that government is incompetent and tends to make big problems worse. Fair enough big guy.

But your side has been saying this every day for 36 years.

Problem is: every time you seize power, you run up the debt like drunken sailors and create terrible messes for future generations.

From Reagan's War on Drugs to Bush's War on Terrorism and Patriot Act, you have proved your thesis that Big Government can't Save the world - yet you never admit of your folly because your news sources only report Liberal failures (in welfare, taxation and regulation). Your job is not to be a mouthpiece for republican bumperstickers but to actually apply your concepts critically and intelligently (otherwise you sound like a repetitive drone).

Consider this Dear Baruch,

The Bush administration's theoretical construction of the War on Terror places more faith in Government competence than anything ever dreamed by FDR or LBJ. Not only did Bush claim that Washington could stop aggression, but he said Washington had the competence to destabilize - THEN - rebuild entire Arab cultures in our image. We were told that once Hussein was removed, the result would be democracy and freedom springing from the rubble.

Even after it became apparent that Bush had created an omnivorous power vacuum and unleashed an ungovernable civil conflict, you kept promising that we were one more surge from glorious freedom, as it became apparent that this region was never going to accept a modern version of American Freedom, and that all we could hope for was perpetual waves of radicalism followed by endless surges . . . ultimately consigning future generations of Americans to an endless and bankrupting game of whack-a-mole.

(Psst: what if government can't do big things? What if it can't rebuild whole foreign nations? What if once entrusted with the power to rebuild whole Arab cultures, our government starts unnecessary wars and fucks up an entire continent for generations? What if you can't see any of this because YOU are the one who trusts big government to do big things, and YOU are the one who should listen to your tired lectures about big government?)

Of course there is a Silver Lining to all the power we gave Bush's Big Government. With the Patriot Act we built the most concentrated, technologically advanced surveillance system of any nation in history. What could go wrong?

(Turn off talk radio and take a long look in the mirror before enlightening the rest of us)

You are pointing out areas where the government is incompetent , tyrannical, or counterproductive, IE the war on drugs, Bush's nation building and saying because these area show government being foolish this proves the OP is wrong? How do you make that out?

Boooshies were incompetent and tyranical in ALL areas lol. 9/11 thru sheer incompetence, the stupidest wars ever, AND a corrupt world depression. Great job! Denial is not an answer, but the only one GOPers seem to have.

 

[Conservative65]

And they're all ignorant dupes of big money greedy idiot billionaires....see sig.

We don't argue with Liberals. We tell you how it is and you choose to be an idiot and not believe us.

You parrot bs propaganda and idiotic "common sense" and ignore facts, history, and science- the New BS GOP is a catastrophe and a disgrace. The world is aghast, hater dupe. See sig.

The fact is you're too stupid to do things on your own and have to be led by your hand. You prove that by voting Democrat. You're a disgrace to humanity.

Democrats and people who vote for Democrats seem to fail in recognizing the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is a state of being in which one has not been exposed to or made aware of something. Stupidity is a state of being in which one has been exposed to or made aware of something time and time again and they still doesn't get it. Socialism is a failed policy and will continue to be so. Liberals are stupid enough to think "it will work...this time." Democrats get votes from stupid people by promising them things that will be paid for "by others".

You already live with socialism, just a bad version of it. And it's not about utopia, it's about capitalism not being the answer to all things. Some things in life are not about making a buck, believe it or not.

Any version of socialism is bad. Hate to break it to you but it is about making a buck and keeping what you earned, believe it or not.