Politics and Religion

Equal time? "Why do Liberals..?"
sappybullfighter 470 reads
posted


have such a viscious reaction to the most innocous things?  

Why do liberals insist on avoiding direct answers and, instead employ a variety of fallacious techniques to justify their non-responce (homonym attack, strawman argument, etc. & etc, ad nausatorium)?  Why do liberals "keep going on" about how their nanny, statist approach is the grandest end-all, be-all best invention since bees knees in spite of the statistic showing that each government job created by them destroys (according to various estimates) between 3 to 10 private-sector jobs?

(Screw 'equal time'-I'm just winding-up, here!)

Why do liberals:

1. Snipe and whine about the evils of capitalism?  Capitalism created the greatest level of prosperity and freedom ever seen in the world and it continues to out-perform their socialist alternatives in any and every place where they haven't completely destroyed it.

2. Hide their wealth behind a maze of blind trusts and other tax-immune legal structures and then insist that everybody else should be forced at IRS gunpoint to pay "their fair share?" (Think Ted kennedy or Warren Buffett)

3.  Enrich themselves through the politics of opposites?  Why are they so fond of playing one group against the other?  For them, it's always rich vs. poor (class warfare), white vs. everybody else (race warfare), or male vs. female (sex warfare) which they employ to keep all of us at each-other's throats so nobody takes a long look at their real antagonists.

4.  Pretend to be such populist "men of the common people" kind of cocksuckers and sell themselves out to the highest bidder?

-for some reason, liberals keep going on about how their systems and proposals are so efficient.

Lanforce1641 reads

Why My Liberal Neighbors Aren’t Speaking To Me Anymore

I recently asked my neighbors’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, are liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?’

She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’

Her parents beamed with pride.

’Wow…what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.‘

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ’ Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? ‘

I said, ‘Welcome to Conservatism.’

Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.

....copy and paste their simple minded drivel that they post around the internet? Google "Why My Liberal Neighbors Aren't Speaking To Me Anymore". Tons of hits.

Ooooh, now that you mention it, here's an amazing statistic. 11.4% of homes in America are sitting vacant right now. Vacant homes now outnumber the homeless.

...for some reason, conservatives keep going on about how capitalism and the private sector is efficient.

sappybullfighter471 reads


have such a viscious reaction to the most innocous things?  

Why do liberals insist on avoiding direct answers and, instead employ a variety of fallacious techniques to justify their non-responce (homonym attack, strawman argument, etc. & etc, ad nausatorium)?  Why do liberals "keep going on" about how their nanny, statist approach is the grandest end-all, be-all best invention since bees knees in spite of the statistic showing that each government job created by them destroys (according to various estimates) between 3 to 10 private-sector jobs?

(Screw 'equal time'-I'm just winding-up, here!)

Why do liberals:

1. Snipe and whine about the evils of capitalism?  Capitalism created the greatest level of prosperity and freedom ever seen in the world and it continues to out-perform their socialist alternatives in any and every place where they haven't completely destroyed it.

2. Hide their wealth behind a maze of blind trusts and other tax-immune legal structures and then insist that everybody else should be forced at IRS gunpoint to pay "their fair share?" (Think Ted kennedy or Warren Buffett)

3.  Enrich themselves through the politics of opposites?  Why are they so fond of playing one group against the other?  For them, it's always rich vs. poor (class warfare), white vs. everybody else (race warfare), or male vs. female (sex warfare) which they employ to keep all of us at each-other's throats so nobody takes a long look at their real antagonists.

4.  Pretend to be such populist "men of the common people" kind of cocksuckers and sell themselves out to the highest bidder?

-for some reason, liberals keep going on about how their systems and proposals are so efficient.

anonymousfun373 reads

Tells everyone to close their eyes and believe it is night!

-- Modified on 5/31/2012 8:31:50 PM

First off, I noticed you didn't respond to the point I brought up. It is an incredible waste to have 11.4% of every home in America sit vacant while we also have homeless people. It is an incredible waste that as much as 50% of the food this country produces on an annual basis is toss in the trash. It is an incredible waste of resources and labor to have an economy with endless product duplication. Coke, Pepsi, RC Cola, and store brands are all the same.

Capitalists make things with the intention that their products will become obsolete in the future, and will break over time. This is done to increase future sales. What this ultimately means is that everything that is produced will eventually end up at the dump. Capitalism is based upon a linear production model, when everything in nature operates in an endless cycle. When you behave in a finite world in a manner that assumes the world is an endless resource as well as an endless trashcan, what can we reasonably assume will result?

Capitalism has a fatal flaw. It is designed to facilitate profit, not fulfill human need. An economy isn't a force of nature. It is created by man. If it's sole purpose isn't to fulfill human need, then why should it exist?

Does a capitalist book publisher care if you read their books or if you use it as a door stop, so long as you buy it? Does this not mean that those who sell books will focus on making them sell, instead of providing people with information that will improve their lives?

What social good is accomplished when we sell hundreds of different automobile models, when it's purpose is simply to get you from point A to point B?

What social good is accomplished by creating a global monoculture? 600 years ago there were 20,000 verities of apples in the UK alone. Today there are only 7,500 world wide, and only 100 are grown commercially. Capitalists call this the "freedom of choice".

What social good is accomplished by spending billions on advertising? It is entire industry that produces nothing of value, and is used solely to manipulate people into consuming things they would otherwise not want, and things that they don't need.

What social good is accomplished in innovation is directed to achieve the goal of profit? We have really cool Ipads and Ipods, Facebook and Twitter, HD TVs and Bluerays, but we don't have flying cars or robots that mine coal or can mop a floor.

An economic system that fulfils profit instead of human need creates a society in which the richest men in America, if they stacked their income into a stack of 100 dollar bills, it would reach into space, they can own homes that dining rooms that look like Saddam Hussein's palaces, while in the same nation 1 in 5 children are going to bed hungry.

There are 195 nations in the world, only 5 which are officially communist, yet only 25 are first world nations. 1 in 7 people in the world are starving and homeless, and capitalists say this is a success.

sappybullfighter386 reads



Sometimes you sound like someone's grumpy old uncle when you jump in with both feet to put the squelch on someone else's moment.  I'm not sure how one should go aout responding to your point about the housing vacancies.  Would you be happier about the situation if those houses were confiscated by some ham-fisted bureaucrat so that they could all, in turn be given away to the homeless?  The old, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," routine.  Is that your idea of an equitable solution?  Is the idea of ""private property" repugnant to you?

Your glowing admiration of a centrally-planned economy has the usual trappings of someone who has lived in Eastern Establishment comfort for a significant portion of their life. You take a  lot for granted. You speak ill of the profit motive with no experience of what it is like to live in a place where "profit" is a shameful stigma.  

You haven't travelled much, have you?

You've never had to submit your name and wait an average of 10 years in order to proudly own the worst piece of shit ever to call itself an automobile (Trabant/East Germany), have you?  You've probably never had to endure the rude, daily grind of listening to the 5:00am hacking lunger festivals coming from a strange and rheumy, turbercular bum that you were forced by the Housing Commision to sublet the "wasted" room in your house/apartment to, have you?  Or, have you ever had to stand in seeminly endless lines, outside in the cold to buy 4 ounces of rationed, grayish meat or 2 rolls of grey, scratchy toilet paper-or mover furtively around the center of town to procure a "luxury" (contraband="ganz verboten!") item like 20 grams of black pepper, have you?  These are the usual and customary features of the sort of economies you are so quick to suggest.

"The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want."  Mark 14:7

I imagine that you suppose the society you suggest would be a little bit of heaven on earth, but it sounds like dystopic tyranny to me.



The Automotive Triumph of East German State Central Planning:  THE TRABANT!

Snowman39514 reads

It is true and delivers a strong message.

I noticed like many liberals, while you criticize the message, you have no REAL counter to it.

In regards to the number of empty houses, sounds like the system is working great to me. No where is there anything that says you need to put people in homes who have done nothing to deserve them.

If you want to put your heart on your sleeve, explain to me why the conservative politicians you rail against give so much more to charity then the politicians you support?

...that they deserve a human need of shelter?

I think my post was a great counter to it. Why do we live with an economy whose purpose is profit? Shouldn't any institution be constructed to fulfill human need? Was government created to make a profit? Or give people representation? Was the church created to make a profit? Or was it created to give them spiritual guidance? Was the military created to make a profit? Or was it created to protect people from foreign invasion?

No economy is legitimate unless it facilitates human need. If it doesn't house people, if it doesn't clothe people, if it doesn't feed people. We can argue on what is the best way to do that, but that should be the aim of an economy: to facilitate the economic needs of people.

I noticed you have no real counter to the fact that we have more vacant houses than we have homeless people. That is NOT effecient. It is an incredible waste.

I'm not suggesting that we just put homeless people in vacant houses. I'm saying the means by which homes are created and how they are allocated is inefficient and immoral.

Conservatives give to charity because giving to the Mormon church is a tax write off. It seems if you have the money, you can dictate where your tax dollars go. Other tax payers have to make up for that loss.

And somehow, I don't think giving money to this building counts as "charity".

Snowman39682 reads

So Willy, since you seem so determined that others should share what they have, here is a simple question for you?

How many homeless people have you taken in and are living in your home right now? Be honest.

You seem to think it should be expected by others in society, so what about you? Or is this more liberal do as I say, not as I do.

And before you start crying about "bank owned", let me remind you, they are PEOPLE owned. They are owned PEOPLE. Corporations are simply paper entities, it is PEOPLE who own them. In fact, some of the largest retirement funds in the country hold major shares in banks.

So, curious to see what YOU are doing to shelter the homeless.

I can't include myself in today's version of conservatives dominated by teabagger nut jobs, but this is funny!

Posted By: Lanforce
Why My Liberal Neighbors Aren’t Speaking To Me Anymore

I recently asked my neighbors’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, are liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?’

She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’

Her parents beamed with pride.

’Wow…what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.‘

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ’ Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? ‘

I said, ‘Welcome to Conservatism.’

Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.

Register Now!