The rightwing is driven by emotion, not critical thinking

[Billy000]

Right-wingers are so driven by emotion and philosophy that they refuse to accept factual information.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure. They continue to endorse it because St. Reagan said it works. Any idiot with a basic education in economics knows it is a sham. Businesses don't do better because they have more to sell. They do better because people buy their shit. This is a consumer driven economy. If you want to stimulate growth, you need to shift the tax burden away from the middle class and poor and allow them to spend money on these businesses. Just because it sounds like a good idea on the surface to give tax breaks to these "job creators", it doesn't mean it actually is. Look where we are because of Reagan economics. The US has the widest income gap in the world and the worst child poverty rate among developed countries. How the **** could the US be best country in the world if our poverty is the worst among developed nations? It's pathetic.

Like it or not, Obama understands economics. His stimulus created 3 million private jobs. How? Giving the biggest tax cut to the middle class in decades and extending unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will allowing them to spend money they wouldn't of otherwise had.

They also choose to see the government as "evil" and corporations as "victims of evil". Doesn't it bother you people that the prosecution of corporate crime is extremely low? Do you not see that as evil? No. You're Fox News brainwashed zombies.

The only time the gap grew or when jobs started to come back was when the goo took moved the congress. A very similar thing happen under Clinton. We are going to have 6 percent unemployment for many years. Have fun

Um no. Job growth was occurring well before the GOP took over. We had consistent job growth from June 2009 on. It hasn't stopped.

 

[ScienceRocks]

On economic issues your right,,,On some others, I believe the right has a solid point.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Do you really believe the US has the worst poverty among "developed nations"? How are you defining poverty? Show US an example of another nation where the income gap is closer and compare that Nation's Middle Class to ours?

The numbers are staggering US is world leader in child poverty

There's a middle class in Latvia and The Netherlands? How does that compare to US? If the US poverty rates are the worst in the world, compare immigration to Netherlands vs. US? You and your article are telling us that closing the income gap will reduce poverty, particularly child hunger and you site the Netherlands and Latvia by way of an article.

Any other reader on this board want US to be more like these Nations?

Being poor sucks in any nation. Closing income gaps at the price of opportunity is not going to reduce poverty. It is simply going to kill the middle class and actually widen the wealth gap to lock in a true 1 percent.

Ok I never said the middle class was better in those countries. I was just referring to the poverty and income gap. There's a wide gap between the middle class and poor in this country.

Arbitrary mandates to close an income gap only weakens or eliminates a middle class. Here is critical thinking: you site an arrival that says it is best to be poor in Netherlands and Latvia, implying US should be more like these nations. How come immigrants are not flocking to those nations?

Lol closing the income gap between the poor and middle class would not weaken the middle class. Higher wages in the poor class strengthens the middle class through consumer spending. Consumer spending helps all the classes. I also never said we should be like those nations. We just need to strengthen our poor and middle class. That's it.

Again, arbitrary mandates do not close the gap without diminishing or eliminating the middle class.

 

[ninja007]

hey op- stop projecting- im 100000000% sure its da libs who use emotion....

 

[Billy000]

The numbers are staggering US is world leader in child poverty

There's a middle class in Latvia and The Netherlands? How does that compare to US? If the US poverty rates are the worst in the world, compare immigration to Netherlands vs. US? You and your article are telling us that closing the income gap will reduce poverty, particularly child hunger and you site the Netherlands and Latvia by way of an article.

Any other reader on this board want US to be more like these Nations?

Being poor sucks in any nation. Closing income gaps at the price of opportunity is not going to reduce poverty. It is simply going to kill the middle class and actually widen the wealth gap to lock in a true 1 percent.

Ok I never said the middle class was better in those countries. I was just referring to the poverty and income gap. There's a wide gap between the middle class and poor in this country.

Arbitrary mandates to close an income gap only weakens or eliminates a middle class. Here is critical thinking: you site an arrival that says it is best to be poor in Netherlands and Latvia, implying US should be more like these nations. How come immigrants are not flocking to those nations?

Lol closing the income gap between the poor and middle class would not weaken the middle class. Higher wages in the poor class strengthens the middle class through consumer spending. Consumer spending helps all the classes. I also never said we should be like those nations. We just need to strengthen our poor and middle class. That's it.

Again, arbitrary mandates do not close the gap without diminishing or eliminating the middle class.

Without an explanation as to why, you are just noise.

 

[ninja007]

if its feel good, just do it is the lib motto.

 

[hortysir]

To hell with the long winded replies.

The title, itself, is too ironic to warrant meaningful discussion.

 

[Billy000]

To hell with the long winded replies.

The title, itself, is too ironic to warrant meaningful discussion.

So not even will you address the information in my post, you won't even explain how you perceive any irony?

 

[hortysir]

To hell with the long winded replies.

The title, itself, is too ironic to warrant meaningful discussion.

So not even will you address the information in my post, you won't even explain how you perceive any irony?

The entire democratic platform is based on emotion.
Why else terms like "War on ______ "?
The divisiveness, the wealth envy.
Its what liberals live off of.....raw emotion

 

[AntiParty]

Right-wingers are so driven by emotion and philosophy that they refuse to accept factual information.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure. They continue to endorse it because St. Reagan said it works. Any idiot with a basic education in economics knows it is a sham. Businesses don't do better because they have more to sell. They do better because people buy their shit. This is a consumer driven economy. If you want to stimulate growth, you need to shift the tax burden away from the middle class and poor and allow them to spend money on these businesses. Just because it sounds like a good idea on the surface to give tax breaks to these "job creators", it doesn't mean it actually is. Look where we are because of Reagan economics. The US has the widest income gap in the world and the worst child poverty rate among developed countries. How the **** could the US be best country in the world if our poverty is the worst among developed nations? It's pathetic.

Like it or not, Obama understands economics. His stimulus created 3 million private jobs. How? Giving the biggest tax cut to the middle class in decades and extending unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will allowing them to spend money they wouldn't of otherwise had.

They also choose to see the government as "evil" and corporations as "victims of evil". Doesn't it bother you people that the prosecution of corporate crime is extremely low? Do you not see that as evil? No. You're Fox News brainwashed zombies.

It's because of their media. And their media covers their Honey Boo Boo style agenda by Countering their failures. They are a Corporate party and try to sell their failures as strengths. Note when a bunch of kids got shot they openly notated, "Obama is putting the surviving children on stage only to create emotion" ~Fox News. They played their own weak card in hopes to project it as a strength.

The Left today seems to be about information. The Right seems to be about Drama. Rupert Merdoch turned a bunch of good hearted Americans into a bunch of WWF Americans. He doesn't even live here.

 

[Wyatt earp]

To hell with the long winded replies.

The title, itself, is too ironic to warrant meaningful discussion.

So not even will you address the information in my post, you won't even explain how you perceive any irony?

Why Billy this is like your 500th thread on the topic? You know damn well liberals like you just go with emotion and no logic, but you love to spin....

Like a little girl


Like a child


Don't know or care to address sells men/credit cards and the like.



Only a child would think it is a consumer based, you buy what we tell you to buy.

That's a fact and you will sell your left nut to buy our next shiny new thing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Right-wingers are so driven by emotion and philosophy that they refuse to accept factual information.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure. They continue to endorse it because St. Reagan said it works. Any idiot with a basic education in economics knows it is a sham. Businesses don't do better because they have more to sell. They do better because people buy their shit. This is a consumer driven economy. If you want to stimulate growth, you need to shift the tax burden away from the middle class and poor and allow them to spend money on these businesses. Just because it sounds like a good idea on the surface to give tax breaks to these "job creators", it doesn't mean it actually is. Look where we are because of Reagan economics. The US has the widest income gap in the world and the worst child poverty rate among developed countries. How the **** could the US be best country in the world if our poverty is the worst among developed nations? It's pathetic.

Like it or not, Obama understands economics. His stimulus created 3 million private jobs. How? Giving the biggest tax cut to the middle class in decades and extending unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will allowing them to spend money they wouldn't of otherwise had.

They also choose to see the government as "evil" and corporations as "victims of evil". Doesn't it bother you people that the prosecution of corporate crime is extremely low? Do you not see that as evil? No. You're Fox News brainwashed zombies.

It's because of their media. And their media covers their Honey Boo Boo style agenda by Countering their failures. They are a Corporate party and try to sell their failures as strengths. Note when a bunch of kids got shot they openly notated, "Obama is putting the surviving children on stage only to create emotion" ~Fox News. They played their own weak card in hopes to project it as a strength.

The Left today seems to be about information. The Right seems to be about Drama. Rupert Merdoch turned a bunch of good hearted Americans into a bunch of WWF Americans. He doesn't even live here.

Lmao the left is about drama, the right is about information.

Look at all the ******* movies, video games, music, television shows, reality television ......that's not coming from conservatives prick.


******* moron

 

[AntiParty]

Right-wingers are so driven by emotion and philosophy that they refuse to accept factual information.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure. They continue to endorse it because St. Reagan said it works. Any idiot with a basic education in economics knows it is a sham. Businesses don't do better because they have more to sell. They do better because people buy their shit. This is a consumer driven economy. If you want to stimulate growth, you need to shift the tax burden away from the middle class and poor and allow them to spend money on these businesses. Just because it sounds like a good idea on the surface to give tax breaks to these "job creators", it doesn't mean it actually is. Look where we are because of Reagan economics. The US has the widest income gap in the world and the worst child poverty rate among developed countries. How the **** could the US be best country in the world if our poverty is the worst among developed nations? It's pathetic.

Like it or not, Obama understands economics. His stimulus created 3 million private jobs. How? Giving the biggest tax cut to the middle class in decades and extending unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will allowing them to spend money they wouldn't of otherwise had.

They also choose to see the government as "evil" and corporations as "victims of evil". Doesn't it bother you people that the prosecution of corporate crime is extremely low? Do you not see that as evil? No. You're Fox News brainwashed zombies.

It's because of their media. And their media covers their Honey Boo Boo style agenda by Countering their failures. They are a Corporate party and try to sell their failures as strengths. Note when a bunch of kids got shot they openly notated, "Obama is putting the surviving children on stage only to create emotion" ~Fox News. They played their own weak card in hopes to project it as a strength.

The Left today seems to be about information. The Right seems to be about Drama. Rupert Merdoch turned a bunch of good hearted Americans into a bunch of WWF Americans. He doesn't even live here.

Lmao the left is about drama, the right is about information.

Look at all the ******* movies, video games, music, television shows, reality television ......that's not coming from conservatives prick.


******* moron

I live to see the day a Right Winger debates me with INFORMATION instead of "******* moron" style type.

Yes. Society is changing. Sorry you call that drama, while calling me "stupid" LMAO

 

[LeftofLeft]

There's a middle class in Latvia and The Netherlands? How does that compare to US? If the US poverty rates are the worst in the world, compare immigration to Netherlands vs. US? You and your article are telling us that closing the income gap will reduce poverty, particularly child hunger and you site the Netherlands and Latvia by way of an article.

Any other reader on this board want US to be more like these Nations?

Being poor sucks in any nation. Closing income gaps at the price of opportunity is not going to reduce poverty. It is simply going to kill the middle class and actually widen the wealth gap to lock in a true 1 percent.

Ok I never said the middle class was better in those countries. I was just referring to the poverty and income gap. There's a wide gap between the middle class and poor in this country.

Arbitrary mandates to close an income gap only weakens or eliminates a middle class. Here is critical thinking: you site an arrival that says it is best to be poor in Netherlands and Latvia, implying US should be more like these nations. How come immigrants are not flocking to those nations?

Lol closing the income gap between the poor and middle class would not weaken the middle class. Higher wages in the poor class strengthens the middle class through consumer spending. Consumer spending helps all the classes. I also never said we should be like those nations. We just need to strengthen our poor and middle class. That's it.

Again, arbitrary mandates do not close the gap without diminishing or eliminating the middle class.

Without an explanation as to why, you are just noise.

So, you want to strengthen the poor and middle class? Are you going to that through redistribution of income and more regulation? How's that working out?

 

[eagle1462010]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.

A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.

With that said, I’d like to restate the main point. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology. The only common bond that truly holds liberal ideas together is their straight-forward simplicity (pass a law, raise taxes, hand out money, talk it out, etc), which is solely a consequence of the fact that liberals are completely uninterested in real solutions to real problems.

It is the political activism itself that interests them, in that it makes them feel good about themselves for a number of reasons. The particular cause they fight for is relevant only insofar as different causes stroke different emotional needs (moral superiority, intellectual superiority, group acceptance, aversion to emotional trauma, etc).

Liberals also want to feel revered by the people they see as their peers (other well-to-do liberals usually). That’s what motivates many aspects of their politics, like foreign policy for example. If you listen for it, you’ll hear a trend in liberal speech, over and over again. That is, the most important aspect of American foreign policy should be maintaining and elevating America’s image (i.e., the American liberal’s image in the eyes of their foreign peers).

We all want the rest of the world to look highly upon us, but to the egotist, that concern overrides every other. America’s safety, our prosperity, and our ability to exercise power in the world, all take a back seat to our image (specifically to our image among certain groups of people, like the French). If certain people don’t like us, our foreign policy is a “disaster” in the minds of liberals. Why? Because it makes them feel bad that the people they see as their peers don’t look upon them with reverence, let alone that they look upon them with disdain, and avoidance of that is a massive part of their psychology, and therefore their politics.

No where is liberal egotism more evident than in the way they argue and debate though. To conservatives, debate is about the issues, which can make arguing with liberals quite frustrating, since to liberals, debate is about them. Liberals argue, not to show the value of an idea, but to show the value of themselves, either to the other person, or to some other observer. They either want to “prove” their superiority or the other person’s inferiority (or more often both). Rationality simply isn’t required as long as they can feel good about themselves in the end.

, attacks on the credibility of opposing sources, claims of bigotry, denial and evasion, and any number of other tacticsThat’s why debate with them so often devolves into personal attacks which do nothing to advance their argument. All of these are psychological defense mechanisms (“you’re being too simplistic” and “the world isn’t black and white” are two major defense mechanisms liberals use when an opposing position is straight-forwardly true).

Anything liberals can do to avoid facing damage to their ego, they will do, both consciously and unconsciously. But they rarely put real thought into the consequences of their positions, because those consequences simply don’t interest them. They engage in politics solely because it feeds their ego.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.

A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.

With that said, I’d like to restate the main point. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology. The only common bond that truly holds liberal ideas together is their straight-forward simplicity (pass a law, raise taxes, hand out money, talk it out, etc), which is solely a consequence of the fact that liberals are completely uninterested in real solutions to real problems.

It is the political activism itself that interests them, in that it makes them feel good about themselves for a number of reasons. The particular cause they fight for is relevant only insofar as different causes stroke different emotional needs (moral superiority, intellectual superiority, group acceptance, aversion to emotional trauma, etc).

Liberals also want to feel revered by the people they see as their peers (other well-to-do liberals usually). That’s what motivates many aspects of their politics, like foreign policy for example. If you listen for it, you’ll hear a trend in liberal speech, over and over again. That is, the most important aspect of American foreign policy should be maintaining and elevating America’s image (i.e., the American liberal’s image in the eyes of their foreign peers).

We all want the rest of the world to look highly upon us, but to the egotist, that concern overrides every other. America’s safety, our prosperity, and our ability to exercise power in the world, all take a back seat to our image (specifically to our image among certain groups of people, like the French). If certain people don’t like us, our foreign policy is a “disaster” in the minds of liberals. Why? Because it makes them feel bad that the people they see as their peers don’t look upon them with reverence, let alone that they look upon them with disdain, and avoidance of that is a massive part of their psychology, and therefore their politics.

No where is liberal egotism more evident than in the way they argue and debate though. To conservatives, debate is about the issues, which can make arguing with liberals quite frustrating, since to liberals, debate is about them. Liberals argue, not to show the value of an idea, but to show the value of themselves, either to the other person, or to some other observer. They either want to “prove” their superiority or the other person’s inferiority (or more often both). Rationality simply isn’t required as long as they can feel good about themselves in the end.

, attacks on the credibility of opposing sources, claims of bigotry, denial and evasion, and any number of other tacticsThat’s why debate with them so often devolves into personal attacks which do nothing to advance their argument. All of these are psychological defense mechanisms (“you’re being too simplistic” and “the world isn’t black and white” are two major defense mechanisms liberals use when an opposing position is straight-forwardly true).

Anything liberals can do to avoid facing damage to their ego, they will do, both consciously and unconsciously. But they rarely put real thought into the consequences of their positions, because those consequences simply don’t interest them. They engage in politics solely because it feeds their ego.

Liberals are just nuts, there is no other explanation

 

[eagle1462010]

Example....................

Liberal.............We need to fix the infrastructure.............we need a stimulus bill to fix our bridges, road and dams......

Conservative............How are we going to pay for it...................

Liberal.............You don't care about America..........you'll let it crumble to the ground around us......your obstructionism is killing us......

Conservative...........You miss spent money that was supposed to do that very thing.........

Liberal................We saved America from the evils of George Bush and now you prevent us from saving the infrastructure........

Conservative..........Again, how are we going to pay for it............................

Liberal..............Anarchist.....................


For liberals to say we rule by emotion and fear is the pot painting the kettle black.

 

[Billy000]

Ok I never said the middle class was better in those countries. I was just referring to the poverty and income gap. There's a wide gap between the middle class and poor in this country.

Arbitrary mandates to close an income gap only weakens or eliminates a middle class. Here is critical thinking: you site an arrival that says it is best to be poor in Netherlands and Latvia, implying US should be more like these nations. How come immigrants are not flocking to those nations?

Lol closing the income gap between the poor and middle class would not weaken the middle class. Higher wages in the poor class strengthens the middle class through consumer spending. Consumer spending helps all the classes. I also never said we should be like those nations. We just need to strengthen our poor and middle class. That's it.

Again, arbitrary mandates do not close the gap without diminishing or eliminating the middle class.

Without an explanation as to why, you are just noise.

So, you want to strengthen the poor and middle class? Are you going to that through redistribution of income and more regulation? How's that working out?

Regulation when it comes to fair income. That's it. That means raising the minimum wage and paying anyone working extra hours over time pay. I don't understand where this "redistribution of income" meme you guys spout out comes from. I don't believe we should take income from the rich and give it to the poor. I just want a minimum wage that is kept up with the current cost of living standards which would be $15 per hour,

 

[Billy000]

Example....................

Liberal.............We need to fix the infrastructure.............we need a stimulus bill to fix our bridges, road and dams......

Conservative............How are we going to pay for it...................

Liberal.............You don't care about America..........you'll let it crumble to the ground around us......your obstructionism is killing us......

Conservative...........You miss spent money that was supposed to do that very thing.........

Liberal................We saved America from the evils of George Bush and now you prevent us from saving the infrastructure........

Conservative..........Again, how are we going to pay for it............................

Liberal..............Anarchist.....................


For liberals to say we rule by emotion and fear is the pot painting the kettle black.

How do we pay for fixing our infrastructure? Raising taxes on the wealthy. That is the ONLY way to do it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Example....................

Liberal.............We need to fix the infrastructure.............we need a stimulus bill to fix our bridges, road and dams......

Conservative............How are we going to pay for it...................

Liberal.............You don't care about America..........you'll let it crumble to the ground around us......your obstructionism is killing us......

Conservative...........You miss spent money that was supposed to do that very thing.........

Liberal................We saved America from the evils of George Bush and now you prevent us from saving the infrastructure........

Conservative..........Again, how are we going to pay for it............................

Liberal..............Anarchist.....................


For liberals to say we rule by emotion and fear is the pot painting the kettle black.

How do we pay for fixing our infrastructure? Raising taxes on the wealthy. That is the ONLY way to do it.

787 BILLION reasons for not doing it.......................aka the Stimulus.................but they were too busy lining their buddy's pocket to fix the infrastructure................

And taxing the rich to see more offshore is just utter BS.............they are already leaving in droves and will do even more after they find a way to passage on the TPP, which in NAFTA ON STEROIDS..................