Liberals on CC can't make decent arguments

[radiojake]

Aaaannnddd, I think this is where the 2 stereotypes of both liberal (radio) and conservative (bradley) face off in a "discussion" that essentially leads no where.


Enjoy!

pretty much

[suggs]

No, it will end in humiliation for Baldy, sice this is not a discission based on subjective moral judgements.
Most "conservative" arguments normally fall down on untrue/flawed economic premises.
E.g the old classic "Cut taxes for the rich, and there will be a TRICKLE down effect" has i fact no basis in reality.
Baldy, I salute your courage if not your brain cell.

[comic boy]

Conclusion:

Bradley is in a dead end job that pays bugger all and thinks everybody else is getting a better deal......bitter and twisted

[Dancing Mustard]

what you don't seem to understand is that no matter what a non-liberal person posts you will ridicule it. If they made a good point you will ridicule it. If they didn't make a good point you will make fun of it. This is what liberal people do - make fun of people who aren't like them

What a hideous sweeping, unevidenced, generalisation.

Bradley the reason 'those goddam liberals' keep making fun of you is because you make threads like this. It's because at least 75% of your posts seem to consist of near-identical judgmental insults, and nothing more than petty aspersions about 'liberals'. Perhaps if you actually tried to make some 'good points' instead of just shouting abuse then people would take you a little more seriously? Just saying "Liberals are evil!!!1 AND GAY!!!ONE!!!" isn't exactly the best way to discourage flames y'know.
Trust me, if you're determined to set up your shop in the gutter, then CC liberals will be quite happy to come and join you.

If you gave a little respect, then you'd get a little respect. Simple as. Try it out some time.

[Snorri1234]

Well, you generally ask for studies to prove a point. Which, when one is debating say, the ontological argument, is kind of tricky.

Why the hell would I ask for studies when discussing the ontological argument? I ask for studies when you talk about homosexuality being a choice or shit like that.

Then again snorri, I do make a point of only insulting goons like you who proclaim absurdities of the sort that "there is no absolutely no evidence for God at all".

Oh yeah, I forgot you live in a world where philosophical arguments are the same as evidence.

Or again, your classic "anyone who thinks gays can't adopt is a bigot".

But....they are.
It's prejudice and discrimination against a group of people with a different lifestyle, it's basically the definition of bigotry.

Also, I don't live in Amsterdam.

[luns101]

Go read your damn Bible and preach yourself a sermon. I hear from sickos like you during my lunch break. Keep your thou shalt nots to yourself. Why you would take their side is proof that you're spineless.

I think you give me way too much credit...I'm no preacher. I just try to live my life according to the Bible and maybe someone will be attracted to that. I came to faith in Christ around the age of 21 as I was convinced that I was a sinner in need of forgiveness. But I digress...if you're uncomfortable with me being a Christian there are plenty of good people here you can have a "rational" conversation with. I do understand there are some here who are just ridiculous so I don't even respond to them anymore. But here's a list of people I've found to be pleasant debaters:

Iz Man, Colossus, Guiscard, MeDeFe, Mr. Nate, CrazyAnglican, Dancing Mustard, Frigidus, Nobonuga (sp?), and OnlyAmbrose. There are probably others that I left out but that's a good place to start discussing things. Maybe you'll learn something about yourself in the process! As always, you've got to give some respect if you want respect yourself though.

Good luck

P.S. For a good time, pm Suggs (I hear he likes to wear puffy shirts)

[Guiscard]

Go read your damn Bible and preach yourself a sermon. I hear from sickos like you during my lunch break. Keep your thou shalt nots to yourself. Why you would take their side is proof that you're spineless.

I think you give me way too much credit...I'm no preacher. I just try to live my life according to the Bible and maybe someone will be attracted to that. I came to faith in Christ around the age of 21 as I was convinced that I was a sinner in need of forgiveness. But I digress...if you're uncomfortable with me being a Christian there are plenty of good people here you can have a "rational" conversation with. I do understand there are some here who are just ridiculous so I don't even respond to them anymore. But here's a list of people I've found to be pleasant debaters:

Iz Man, Colossus, Guiscard, MeDeFe, Mr. Nate, CrazyAnglican, Dancing Mustard, Frigidus, Nobonuga (sp?), and OnlyAmbrose. There are probably others that I left out but that's a good place to start discussing things. Maybe you'll learn something about yourself in the process! As always, you've got to give some respect if you want respect yourself though.

Good luck

P.S. For a good time, pm Suggs (I hear he likes to wear puffy shirts)

Get in... I'm getting name-dropped all over the place at the minute! Valentine's must have got to you all! Cheers for the forum love...

[Neoteny]

Go read your damn Bible and preach yourself a sermon. I hear from sickos like you during my lunch break. Keep your thou shalt nots to yourself. Why you would take their side is proof that you're spineless.

I think you give me way too much credit...I'm no preacher. I just try to live my life according to the Bible and maybe someone will be attracted to that. I came to faith in Christ around the age of 21 as I was convinced that I was a sinner in need of forgiveness. But I digress...if you're uncomfortable with me being a Christian there are plenty of good people here you can have a "rational" conversation with. I do understand there are some here who are just ridiculous so I don't even respond to them anymore. But here's a list of people I've found to be pleasant debaters:

Iz Man, Colossus, Guiscard, MeDeFe, Mr. Nate, CrazyAnglican, Dancing Mustard, Frigidus, Nobonuga (sp?), and OnlyAmbrose. There are probably others that I left out but that's a good place to start discussing things. Maybe you'll learn something about yourself in the process! As always, you've got to give some respect if you want respect yourself though.

Good luck

P.S. For a good time, pm Suggs (I hear he likes to wear puffy shirts)

Something tells me a "rational" conversation is not what Bradley is after, however.

[kalishnikov]

Wow, this a ludicrously over-broad generalization. So you've spoke to a few 'liberals' here who can't carry an argument, so NONE of them can?

With that logic, OP, I noticed a few grammatical errors in your posts so you CANNOT spell properly or punctuate correctly.

Do you see the flaws in this sort of logic? Stereotyping/labeling will eventually lead to the demise of Western civilization as unfounded generalizations lead to misunderstanding, which leads to resentment, which breeds contempt and contempt leads to action.

I can think of about 30 'liberals' here that could argue a point so well they'd make you walk from your own thread...

[unriggable]

RANT ALERT

I'm not saying liberals are cowards I'm saying that because their ideas are crazy they don't like to be challenged. Instead of making points that will back up their beliefs they ridicule conservatives.

This guy is clearly a total tool, and is unable to go one post without insulting himself.

then why don't you prove that you liberals can go 5 minutes without judging other people? Especially people who just want to keep their money so they can take care of their families!! Don't know why I even try explaining this to a teenager who doesn't have any experience caring for other people. Maybe, just maybe one day you will know what it's like to actually work for a living and have that money taken from you by people who did absolutely nothing to earn it in the first place.

Okay, here's your five minutes. Liberals want more power invested in the government to do jobs conservatives want business to do, and liberals want more rights for people whereas conservatives want less. Yes, liberals believe in more government. But here's the problem. Conservatives are advocates of lower taxes because they trust businesses to do things like distribute energy, healthcare, a lot of things people need in this day and age.

Now here's the problem. The reason I am liberal is because the people that run these companies have wages affected by how much money is made every year. Insurance companies, especially health insurance companies, will go to whatever ends to make a profit, because the people that decide who lives and who dies are the people getting the six and seven figure incomes every year. So really, you're just paying money you would normally pay the government to businesses who are more willing to look out for their paycheck more than they'd look out for you.

So yes, under the system liberals like, you would pay the government. You would pay the government a sum of money, depending on your paycheck, and get that back in health benefits, shit like that. The fire department is, believe it or not, a step in a socialist direction. You pay taxes to people who wait for a fire, then they drive and stop the fire. That's it. A libertarian system would not save you from the fire unless you were under insurance from that business, the same way a medical company would do in the U.S. today. Of course, that would be immoral, inhumane, and outright wrong, to watch as a house burns and nobody comes to save them. But how is that any different from the health system today for the uninsured?

Here's the other problem. Low taxes. You want them, we don't. There is a reason we want high taxes. This is why. I am assuming, based on your fingerpointing, that you are against drugs, especially marijuana (since thats the controversial one). It costs tens of thousands of dollars per year per prisoner, and at any given time, about half the people in prison are in there for drug offenses. Here's the deal. Imagine prohibition since 1933 - that's what its been for marijuana. People don't stop smoking it, and the government loses money, hundreds of millions of dollars a year, because of it. Meanwhile you want to jail these people for even more money, even though more people die through roller coasters (very legal) every year than marijuana (very illegal). The position you are taking is that if anything is remotely dangerous, no matter how fun it is, it should be illegalized. Of course you are very consistent with this idea, with hundreds of thousands dying of tobacco-related cases of lung cancer every year, and millions of alcoholics crawling across the country.

So how do you expect to fund a system which demands billions of dollars a year if you get very little money through taxes? That's what liberals are asking. And you, because we know how much you love change, you just redirect the fire to us. You are clearly a total tool, and are unable to go one post without insulting yourself.

Satisfied?

[Frigidus]

Not trying to be the devil's advocate here, as conservatives aren't exactly devils per say, but you do give them a pretty bad rap.

Okay, here's your five minutes. Liberals want more power invested in the government to do jobs conservatives want business to do, and liberals want more rights for people whereas conservatives want less. Yes, liberals believe in more government. But here's the problem. Conservatives are advocates of lower taxes because they trust businesses to do things like distribute energy, healthcare, a lot of things people need in this day and age.

You have what liberals are generally in favor of pretty much down. I suppose you'd hope so, considering you are, in fact, a liberal. But conservatives don't really want less rights for people, nor do they inherently trust businesses. On the notion of rights, only recently have the restrictions of rights (the PATRIOT Act being an example) been dealt with by either side of the political spectrum, and the restrictions of rights have taken heat from both sides. One of the big reasons George Bush is so despised (aside from the "he is dumb-stupid" line of reasoning) is that his foreign and national policies on security encroach so much on the rights of others. He's lost his most of his once strong conservative backing for a reason after all. On the flip side, Conservatives often try to spin the Liberals support of big government as a restriction of rights, something like 1984. They make a mistake quite similar to that of the left, namely that somehow the views of how much the government should be a part of peoples lives ties in with how much of the people's rights should be encroached by the government.

As for the economy, as I said earlier the government doesn't really trust corporations with raising our standards of living as much as they trust them with making our economy strong. The way Conservatives see socialism, the more the government cares for it's people the less necessities that people spend money on and the more they save. This is generally a good thing for the individual, but simply storing money away essentially takes it out of circulation. This makes for a poor economy.

I guess that the difference between Conservatives and Liberals economically is that the former are more interested in keeping the general country running smoothly and the latter are more interested in ensuring the well-being of the individuals.

Now here's the problem. The reason I am liberal is because the people that run these companies have wages affected by how much money is made every year. Insurance companies, especially health insurance companies, will go to whatever ends to make a profit, because the people that decide who lives and who dies are the people getting the six and seven figure incomes every year. So really, you're just paying money you would normally pay the government to businesses who are more willing to look out for their paycheck more than they'd look out for you.

Yup. This pretty much fits in with what I said above.

So yes, under the system liberals like, you would pay the government. You would pay the government a sum of money, depending on your paycheck, and get that back in health benefits, shit like that. The fire department is, believe it or not, a step in a socialist direction. You pay taxes to people who wait for a fire, then they drive and stop the fire. That's it. A libertarian system would not save you from the fire unless you were under insurance from that business, the same way a medical company would do in the U.S. today. Of course, that would be immoral, inhumane, and outright wrong, to watch as a house burns and nobody comes to save them. But how is that any different from the health system today for the uninsured?

Naturally. However, a line must be drawn somewhere. As would be expected Conversatives have a more...er...conservative view of where it should be and Liberals have a more liberal one. After all, it isn't so much whether the government watches the house burn as whether they leave the individual's safety in their own hands. Personally I'm on your side in this one, but I can at least see where they're coming from.

Here's the other problem. Low taxes. You want them, we don't. There is a reason we want high taxes. This is why. I am assuming, based on your fingerpointing, that you are against drugs, especially marijuana (since thats the controversial one). It costs tens of thousands of dollars per year per prisoner, and at any given time, about half the people in prison are in there for drug offenses. Here's the deal. Imagine prohibition since 1933 - that's what its been for marijuana. People don't stop smoking it, and the government loses money, hundreds of millions of dollars a year, because of it. Meanwhile you want to jail these people for even more money, even though more people die through roller coasters (very legal) every year than marijuana (very illegal). The position you are taking is that if anything is remotely dangerous, no matter how fun it is, it should be illegalized. Of course you are very consistent with this idea, with hundreds of thousands dying of tobacco-related cases of lung cancer every year, and millions of alcoholics crawling across the country.

So how do you expect to fund a system which demands billions of dollars a year if you get very little money through taxes? That's what liberals are asking. And you, because we know how much you love change, you just redirect the fire to us. You are clearly a total tool, and are unable to go one post without insulting yourself.

I guess I don't really need to mention it, but the high tax/low tax bit goes back to the heart of Conservative/Liberal economic goals. Stronger economy or better living conditions?

Again I'm not disagreeing with you, but just trying to clarify my views as a Centrist.

[Dekloren]

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

[the_fatty]

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Why arent you banned yet!!!!!!!!!!!

[got tonkaed]

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Why arent you banned yet!!!!!!!!!!!

you dont see any irony in following him around from thread to thread and your current avatar selection?

[Dekloren]

People are stupid.

Alot of them are here, coincidentally.

[Frigidus]

People are stupid.

Alot of them are here, coincidentally.

You're a fine example actually.

[suggs]

People are stupid.

Alot of them are here, coincidentally.

First sensible thing you've said

[Dekloren]

I was waiting for it.

[suggs]

Mate, when you come back stick your principles-if you believe 9/11 was an inside job,then thats your view, and you are not alone in thinking that.
But keep it one thread per conspiracy, and out of flame wars-otherwise you are just BEGGING to get perma banned.

And life would be a lost less fun without you around.
Rock on.

[the_fatty]

Mate, when you come back stick your principles-if you believe 9/11 was an inside job,then thats your view, and you are not alone in thinking that.
But keep it one thread per conspiracy, and out of flame wars-otherwise you are just BEGGING to get perma banned.

And life would be a lost less fun without you around.
Rock on.

This is what i meen in the think about good posters. You really are nice to anyone (except darv, but hes asking for it).

GOOOOOOO SUGGS!!

[Dekloren]

Vote Yes for the Comspiracy forum.
Then those who do not wish to see any of that "crap" don't have to!

[Jenos Ridan]

No, it will end in humiliation for Baldy, sice this is not a discission based on subjective moral judgements.
Most "conservative" arguments normally fall down on untrue/flawed economic premises.
E.g the old classic "Cut taxes for the rich, and there will be a TRICKLE down effect" has i fact no basis in reality.
Baldy, I salute your courage if not your brain cell.

Giving tax cuts to the middle class would be a better fit, but no one I've met really wants to give them a break. Not very clear on why, since they could use it to get out of debt. Then again, the government needs to end this stupid deficit spending, it has essentually been going on since the 1940's and it must stop; Keysian Economics only work when the economy is in a big slump, not when things are nominal.

What does stimulate economies are public works projects, especially ones that pay people to do the work (but the money has to come from taxes at some point). The Trickle Down effect is an iffy proposition, because there is no reason that the person(s) benefiting will use the extra funds to help the workers with better wages, more benefits or even more places to work, which helps the unemployed by offering them jobs.[/i]

[Napoleon Ier]

No, it will end in humiliation for Baldy, sice this is not a discission based on subjective moral judgements.
Most "conservative" arguments normally fall down on untrue/flawed economic premises.
E.g the old classic "Cut taxes for the rich, and there will be a TRICKLE down effect" has i fact no basis in reality.
Baldy, I salute your courage if not your brain cell.

Come on suggs...I know you're better than that! No, no....you've just succumbed to basic Maxist propaganda. World GDP per capita grew by $200 from 0 AD to 1700 AD (where it was at roughly $1000), before reachng $10.000 today.

The wonders of capitalism...

[unriggable]

Wait, you think the trickle down theory works? There's a very simple reason, people keep money. You can see how well the trickle down system works for the sweatshop labourers, or the walmart greeters. Yeah, get money to the people by giving it to those who already have money. Nice. Maybe if we lower the minimum wage they'll get money.

[Napoleon Ier]

Wait, you think the trickle down theory works? There's a very simple reason, people keep money. You can see how well the trickle down system works for the sweatshop labourers, or the walmart greeters. Yeah, get money to the people by giving it to those who already have money. Nice. Maybe if we lower the minimum wage they'll get money.

How many people do you know that keep money under a mattress?