What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Uncensored2008]

You keep making this same false argument. If there is one constant in this universe, it is human nature. You are confusing political beliefs with personality traits. Modern science is discovering that there are even physical differences in the brains of liberal and conservatives. If you are going to try to hijack liberalism, then you need to describe what conservatives were before they became liberals. And did they just evaporate?

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Yet, isn't it you who makes the claim that leftists are superior (you claim this can be scientifically proven) to rational people?

LOL

Once again we prove, there is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy....

 

[koshergrl]

You keep making this same false argument. If there is one constant in this universe, it is human nature. You are confusing political beliefs with personality traits. Modern science is discovering that there are even physical differences in the brains of liberal and conservatives. If you are going to try to hijack liberalism, then you need to describe what conservatives were before they became liberals. And did they just evaporate?

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

I am hijacking nothing. I am using definitions as I understand them and can defend them. Buchanan, apparently a student of Hayek, is using the classical deifnition of conservative rather than agreeing (with me) that modern American conservatism and classical liberalism are virtually indistinguishable. Classical liberalism bears no resemblance to the ideology of modern day liberal Americans. It would be interesting to debate him on the terms. In this CATO book report, there are elements of a debate that are interesting:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-13.pdf

I haven't read Buchanan's book but my curiosity is peaked. I will check it out.

Read Wikipedia's definition of Classical liberalism. For a wiki article, they do a pretty good job with this topic.

You can have any opinion you wish, but it doesn't make it true. I hear what modern conservatives believe every day. It is the philosophy of social Darwinism; the scourge of mankind.

The Rebirth of Social Darwinism

The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism

Bullshit. This is another of the battle cries of the liberal mob.

Social darwinism is a PROGRESSIVE calling card, not a conservative one. Conservatives take their responsibility to less fortunate people very, very seriously. Unlike liberals, who think they should be killed, aborted into extinction, or pawned off on the state.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am hijacking nothing. I am using definitions as I understand them and can defend them. Buchanan, apparently a student of Hayek, is using the classical deifnition of conservative rather than agreeing (with me) that modern American conservatism and classical liberalism are virtually indistinguishable. Classical liberalism bears no resemblance to the ideology of modern day liberal Americans. It would be interesting to debate him on the terms. In this CATO book report, there are elements of a debate that are interesting:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-13.pdf

I haven't read Buchanan's book but my curiosity is peaked. I will check it out.

Read Wikipedia's definition of Classical liberalism. For a wiki article, they do a pretty good job with this topic.

You can have any opinion you wish, but it doesn't make it true. I hear what modern conservatives believe every day. It is the philosophy of social Darwinism; the scourge of mankind.

The Rebirth of Social Darwinism

The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism

Bullshit. This is another of the battle cries of the liberal mob.

Social darwinism is a PROGRESSIVE calling card, not a conservative one. Conservatives take their responsibility to less fortunate people very, very seriously. Unlike liberals, who think they should be killed, aborted into extinction, or pawned off on the state.

Look out your window...are pigs flying?

Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.

But don't let the truth disrupt your dogmatic doctrinaire.


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[editec]

Who was the first and probably most famous of all PROGRESSIVES?

Teddy Roosevelt.

And what party put him into office?

The GOP.

 

[koshergrl]

Who was the first and probably most famous of all PROGRESSIVES?

Teddy Roosevelt.

And what party put him into office?

The GOP.

Is GOP synonymous with Conservative? Doesn't seem as if it could be...then Progressive = Conservative...

Wait, that makes perfect sense to a leftard.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Can't agree with what? All I did was say it's based on logic, and explained the logic. You responded with a long paragraph describing why you disagree with that logic.

But you do agree that it constitutes logic nonetheless?

Yes and no. It is logical as a means of making yourself feel better. That same action is not logical in terms of it's effectiveness in actually helping people.

You're trying to square a circle and make it fit your preconcieved notion of what a liberal is. You've got it wrong and it doesn't fit. But that's cool. Carry on.

Since you are one of the chosen 20%, explain to us what a liberal is.
GO!

 

[thereisnospoon]

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

-Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.

So instead of your wisdom, you hide behind your lack of knowledge and post quotes from others.
Why is is this? Easy. You people are libs because you are easily led. Hence the reason for your side's insistence on group think.
Umm. Social Security did what?....Look genius, SS is a SUPPLEMENT. SS was never intended as an income on which recipients are supposed to live.
SS is a TAX. That's all it is. The government removes it's cut, while telling us it is for our retirement, meanwhile the money is taken and used for purposes other than retirement supplement. That is why the system is broken and soon to be insolvent.
SS is a money grab.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You mean like the way anyone receiving public assistance is a welfare cheat and all union workers are lazy, overpaid slobs?

This response will be the basis for the thread "what makes liberals annoying #2" But for now, all I can say is this is not a response to the thread and it is typical of the way Liberals try and turn the discussion away from the real issue into a matter of loaded rhetoric that totally ignores the topic at hand. which will be "What makes liberals annoying #3"

So... in essence, you create a thread called "what makes liberals annoying #1" and then when some of us try to explain our point of view and the hard core attitudes that make Conservatives annoying to us, you simply say... "stay on topic" instead of rationally discussing those ideological divides.

Plenty has been said that is exactly what Mr. Clean described. You say the "real issue". What is the real issue? from the looks of it, the "real issue" is your disdain for liberals.

Our disdain is for your side's ideas.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look out your window...are pigs flying?

Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.

Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.

You're as informed as you are honest...

ROFL

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, that's why they were called PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES.

Sheesh. Atlas Shrugged time.

 

[editec]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Ah...not entirely sure but I'll venture a guess.

How about:

Facts are tenacious things that won't just go away no matter how many times one refutes them with partisan nonsense.

 

[koshergrl]

I have yet to see a liberal post a fact.

Care to link one?

 

[Bfgrn]

Look out your window...are pigs flying?

Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.

Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.

You're as informed as you are honest...

ROFL

The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

This is interesting to me because I have VERY strong opinions - some which coincide with Conservative values and some with Liberal Values. I find Liberals much better debaters, overall.
Why?
I recently disagreed with Liberals in a thread on Global Warming (one of the few issues in which my opinion is simply "I don't know but I'm not completely convinced". I'm not a scientist). They get furious on this issue! The provide links to 5,000 science mags, universities, wiki etc... Then when I still don't concede their point (which I don't) they say I'm an idiot.
When I disagree with a Conservative on an issue, they instantly label me a "Liberal" without knowing my overall political views or even caring. They don't care. Disagree with a ConservaRepubLitari (e.g. I believe we could completely get rid of 2 dozen Fed agencies - just not the same ones Conservatives want to start with) an on any single issue, and they have been trained to call yo a Liberal.
Also, they tend to post much more about the people they disagree with, than the issue.
Obviously, there are some highly intelligent and well-reasoned Conservatives here. But the majority seem to label, dodge the issue, use moral comparatives, label, insult, change the subject, label...

I wonder if a Conservative will prove my point in this thread?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism.

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.

Nothing you claim has any bearing on reality.

You post your prejudice and hatred. Meaningless twaddle.

You are but a hyperpartisan fool.

 

[koshergrl]

Look out your window...are pigs flying?

Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.

Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.

You're as informed as you are honest...

ROFL

The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.

Which must be why it's recognized as a PROGRESSIVE ideology.

 

[koshergrl]

The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism.

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.

Nothing you claim has any bearing on reality.

You post your prejudice and hatred. Meaningless twaddle.

You are but a hyperpartisan fool.

 

[Foxfyre]

Look out your window...are pigs flying?

Even a scant knowledge of American history would inform you that a bipartisan groundswell called the progressive movement, and the progressive era that followed was spawned by direct opposition to the social Darwinism of the Gilded age.

Yes; conservatives in the 19th century were renowned for their embrace of Darwinism.

You're as informed as you are honest...

ROFL

The history of conservatism IS social Darwinism. Conservatives believe in a hierarchy, and always try to build some form of it. In the 19th century it was a plutocracy. And it has returned in the modern era of authoritarian conservatism as a plutocracy.

They do? That's why those Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian classical liberals (i.e. modern day conservatives) of the late 18th century gave us three co-equal but separate parts of government as checks and balances on each other to remove us once and for all from any concept of a 'monarch' and to help ensure that no dictatorship or totalitarian government could develop? That's why they gave us a Constitution that assigned necessary functions to government so that our rights would be secured but otherwide prohibited it from interfering with whatever society we wished to have as we govern ourselves?

It is those holding modern American conservative values who have been trying to tear apart that concept for the last 100 years? Really? You really think you can make a case for that?

Good luck. Because if you can't, your comments sure sound like liberal partisanship (i.e. uninformed nonsense.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which must be why it's recognized as a PROGRESSIVE ideology.

Humpty believes the more outrageous the claim, the more likely it is to be believed.

Since he defines "conservative" to mean only what he chooses it to mean at any given second, he feels justified in pinning his bigotry on, unabashed.

That what he posts is unfettered bullshit, is of no consequence to him.

 

[Bern80]

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.

This is interesting to me because I have VERY strong opinions - some which coincide with Conservative values and some with Liberal Values. I find Liberals much better debaters, overall.
Why?
I recently disagreed with Liberals in a thread on Global Warming (one of the few issues in which my opinion is simply "I don't know but I'm not completely convinced". I'm not a scientist). They get furious on this issue! The provide links to 5,000 science mags, universities, wiki etc... Then when I still don't concede their point (which I don't) they say I'm an idiot.
When I disagree with a Conservative on an issue, they instantly label me a "Liberal" without knowing my overall political views or even caring. They don't care. Disagree with a ConservaRepubLitari (e.g. I believe we could completely get rid of 2 dozen Fed agencies - just not the same ones Conservatives want to start with) an on any single issue, and they have been trained to call yo a Liberal.
Also, they tend to post much more about the people they disagree with, than the issue.
Obviously, there are some highly intelligent and well-reasoned Conservatives here. But the majority seem to label, dodge the issue, use moral comparatives, label, insult, change the subject, label...

I wonder if a Conservative will prove my point in this thread?

And amazingly I have found exactly the opposite to be true. It is like pulling teeth for me at times to get a liberal to address my point.