Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The liberals are out of their minds

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 9:08:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This country hasn't been "America" for 90 years. But until today, there was hope that we would heed the failures of socialism-- mostly its unsustainable economic costs. Unfortunately, what our founding fathers could not foresee was our ability to borrow on the scale necessary to impose and even develop these bad ideas. Borrowing will allow any bad idea to live for decades before it's damage is realized. And the founders certainly could not predict that even when the failure of bad ideas is realized (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) our leaders would continue to defend them, and fund them with money we don't have.

I was so excited when the country began to fall apart financially over the last 5 years, thinking we would now finally realize liberalism (whether ideal or not) is simply unsustainable. It just figured Obama and his gang would be able to see that our country was already in financial ruin due to the last 90 years of unaffordable entitlement startups. Guess not. Now what?

Here's a question to liberals here: When will we stop voting ourselves things we can't afford? You know we can't afford it, yet you continue? What gives? Are you expecting some sort of epic financial winfall to make up for all this bad behavior?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 9:34:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, I see what you are saying but this may not be the best way to go about saying it.

Should liberals be to blame or the democratic party?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 9:35:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is spending more than we have your way of caring about post-birth people? Aren't your children and grand children going be post-birth humans?

Brit-- seriously, why do liberals not give a sh**t about avoiding financial ruin. how long can a bankrupt country do good things for its people? i need to understand this mentality.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 9:37:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:34:06 AM, comoncents wrote:
Yeah, I see what you are saying but this may not be the best way to go about saying it.

Should liberals be to blame or the democratic party?

You tell me. Liberals support democratic candidates, apparently none of whom own a calculator.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 9:43:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

exactly. but do you realize how well humans live in 3rd-world countries that either have no wealth or have mismanaged it?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 9:44:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

and i know you're not that simple. so really, what do you expect to happen to save us from this bad fiscal behavior?
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 10:06:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, some amendments, like ending the exclusion from antitrust laws that insurance companies enjoy, selling across state lines, and tort reform would help lower the cost of healthcare.

A reduction in defense spending could free up some money as well, but I don't foresee that. A crackdown on entitlement abuses (vague but large, I know.) Letting the Bush tax cuts end.

To name a few.
Don't I take care of them all?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 10:17:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 10:06:08 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Well, some amendments, like ending the exclusion from antitrust laws that insurance companies enjoy, selling across state lines, and tort reform would help lower the cost of healthcare.

A reduction in defense spending could free up some money as well, but I don't foresee that. A crackdown on entitlement abuses (vague but large, I know.) Letting the Bush tax cuts end.

To name a few.

Now I know why Obama ran on "hope." According to your response, you simply hope we will do the things necessary to pay for this-- just ike each and every major liberal entitlement that came before it. I'm curious if you know what our track record is on anticipating the costs of and paying for large entitlements.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 10:18:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
btw, britt, good to see you again man. i've been on the site a few times recently and i guess you haven't been logged on.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 10:34:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 10:18:53 AM, HandsOff wrote:
btw, britt, good to see you again man. i've been on the site a few times recently and i guess you haven't been logged on.

glad to see that both of you are finally back.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 11:54:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I brought up the money issue when the U.S. invaded Iraq, but conservatives were fine with it. Examine the cost of the Iraq War and tell us if your calculator is selective. Why would conservatives support such a costly venture? Out of their minds?
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 12:32:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:43:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

exactly. but do you realize how well humans live in 3rd-world countries that either have no wealth or have mismanaged it?

You realize that it has been within the past 90 years (your quoted time period) that the U.S. has ascended to its primacy? This is why your argument is useless.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 1:55:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:08:24 AM, HandsOff wrote:
This country hasn't been "America" for 90 years. But until today, there was hope that we would heed the failures of socialism-- mostly its unsustainable economic costs. Unfortunately, what our founding fathers could not foresee was our ability to borrow on the scale necessary to impose and even develop these bad ideas. Borrowing will allow any bad idea to live for decades before it's damage is realized. And the founders certainly could not predict that even when the failure of bad ideas is realized (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) our leaders would continue to defend them, and fund them with money we don't have.

This is a very callous statement. Although alot of conservatives say they disagree with socialism, they benefit just as much as the people who have Medicaid, and Social Security. Without Social security your grandparents would not have survived the Great Depression, unless they were filthy rich. The past five years we have been under Republican rule, and what have they done?...Expanded government, invaded two nations, and were the first to start with the Stimulus package. Obama is chiselening away at a mess that was started before he got here. It's typical to hear people who could careless about their fellow Americans, whom they say they care about to raise objections when there secure, and sheltered livelihoods are threatened.

I was so excited when the country began to fall apart financially over the last 5 years, thinking we would now finally realize liberalism (whether ideal or not) is simply unsustainable. It just figured Obama and his gang would be able to see that our country was already in financial ruin due to the last 90 years of unaffordable entitlement startups. Guess not. Now what?

How can you be excited at the demise of the country you live in?...This seems to me the height of insanity, as if this won't affect you as well. The Bush regimen knew how unsustainable their destructive policies were, yet it's supporters stood by and let them rob the country blind,traded their freedom for protectiop, destroy the SURPULUS that was left from the Clinton era, and further isolate us from the world. All great dynasties have to fall sometime, and if you want to be excited, be excited that you were alive during the demise of the American empire.

Here's a question to liberals here: When will we stop voting ourselves things we can't afford? You know we can't afford it, yet you continue? What gives? Are you expecting some sort of epic financial winfall to make up for all this bad behavior?

This isn't a liberal question, this is a question that all Americans should ask themselves. Stop spending money you don't have, live within your means, shrink your over inflated, arrogant ego's.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 1:57:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:35:18 AM, HandsOff wrote:
Is spending more than we have your way of caring about post-birth people? Aren't your children and grand children going be post-birth humans?

Brit-- seriously, why do liberals not give a sh**t about avoiding financial ruin. how long can a bankrupt country do good things for its people? i need to understand this mentality.

I'm pretty sure that people care about financial ruin, but the question is do we simply allow the country to fail in order to prove some point?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 1:58:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:43:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

exactly. but do you realize how well humans live in 3rd-world countries that either have no wealth or have mismanaged it?

They live better? No drinking water, you call this living better, and if they do have drinking water they have to walk miles, no indoor plumbing, no food to eat at night?..They survive because that is the only way they know. Humans adapt to their enviornment.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 1:59:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:44:57 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

and i know you're not that simple. so really, what do you expect to happen to save us from this bad fiscal behavior?

accountability, and stop passing the blame to each successive administration. take those who are corrupt to taks for their greed.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 2:00:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 10:17:22 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/23/2010 10:06:08 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Well, some amendments, like ending the exclusion from antitrust laws that insurance companies enjoy, selling across state lines, and tort reform would help lower the cost of healthcare.

A reduction in defense spending could free up some money as well, but I don't foresee that. A crackdown on entitlement abuses (vague but large, I know.) Letting the Bush tax cuts end.

To name a few.

Now I know why Obama ran on "hope." According to your response, you simply hope we will do the things necessary to pay for this-- just ike each and every major liberal entitlement that came before it. I'm curious if you know what our track record is on anticipating the costs of and paying for large entitlements.

If you are going to debate, than stop using soundbites from Fox news.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 2:02:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 11:54:58 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I brought up the money issue when the U.S. invaded Iraq, but conservatives were fine with it. Examine the cost of the Iraq War and tell us if your calculator is selective. Why would conservatives support such a costly venture? Out of their minds?

thank you. No one raises the point that the wars costs us billions a day. perfect perfect smoke screen is dragging the healthcare debate on past it's logical time to be in the spotlight.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 2:03:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 12:32:34 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:43:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

exactly. but do you realize how well humans live in 3rd-world countries that either have no wealth or have mismanaged it?

You realize that it has been within the past 90 years (your quoted time period) that the U.S. has ascended to its primacy? This is why your argument is useless.

bravo!
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 4:27:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:31:14 AM, brittwaller wrote:
We'll stop when conservatives start giving a sh*t about people post-birth.

So, laws that protect your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are worth less than feces to you? Say what?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 4:28:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

That's because almost anything is worth more than shiny metals and cotton bills. However, a little bit of extra relief for the people of today is not worth the financial devastation of tomorrow.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 5:14:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 9:08:24 AM, HandsOff wrote:

This country hasn't been "America" for 90 years.

America's values are as such that policy isn't consistent. We designed our government specifically to be subject to change. If that were not true, those changes wouldn't have taken place. Just because some old white guys 200 years ago had ideas about how THEY thought America should be doesn't mean that it's set in stone or forever. I'm sorry YOUR values haven't always been consistent, but do not think for one second that the entire country should run on how you and only you think things should be. For better or worse, this country is a democracy (er, democratic republic) and just because you don't like the way things have turned out doesn't give you the right or reason to say that it's not America anymore. Ha.

But until today, there was hope that we would heed the failures of socialism-- mostly its unsustainable economic costs.

True, socialism sucks. Good thing we're not a socialist country...

Unfortunately, what our founding fathers could not foresee was our ability to borrow on the scale necessary to impose and even develop these bad ideas.

So because Thomas Jefferson and the gang lived 200 years earlier than us, their opinions are more important? Those guys are NOT infallible and I think it's laughable that they're glorified and people talk about the founding fathers as if we should accept their word as gospel simply because they massacred the natives and decided to implement their own ideals over others (well, not them, but you know what I mean). Are you saying that if liberals decided to kill everyone and write a new founding document (thus implying new founding MOTHERS and fathers) that their word would then become the gospel? Hmm. If not, then I don't really care what the founding fathers had to say. They're dead. We've moved on. Blacks are no longer considered 3/5 of a person and I can vote. Circumstances change. Laws change. Economies change...

Borrowing will allow any bad idea to live for decades before it's damage is realized.

Are you against all borrowing, credit and loans? Just out of curiosity...

And the founders certainly could not predict that even when the failure of bad ideas is realized (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) our leaders would continue to defend them, and fund them with money we don't have.

Lulz see above on how I feel about the FF and their opinions. If you agree with them (as I often do) then fine. But just because they 'founded' this country doesn't mean we have to do whatever they say.

I was so excited when the country began to fall apart financially over the last 5 years, thinking we would now finally realize liberalism (whether ideal or not) is simply unsustainable. It just figured Obama and his gang would be able to see that our country was already in financial ruin due to the last 90 years of unaffordable entitlement startups. Guess not. Now what?

Here's a question to liberals here: When will we stop voting ourselves things we can't afford? You know we can't afford it, yet you continue? What gives? Are you expecting some sort of epic financial winfall to make up for all this bad behavior?

Well I'm not a liberal, but I'll take a stab at it. First I'd like to point out that all of your liberal bashing is just retarded if you want to complain about bad economic policies since 1920. I'm pretty sure that nine out of the last sixteen presidents since then (so more than half for all of those dumb liberals who don't know math) were conservative. To blame liberals for all of the bad economic policies is ignorant and selective, because calling them stupid seems to be the new thing. Nevermind the fact that many of the wars cost us TRILLIONS and were completely ineffective, and conservatives have constantly implemented bad economic policy as well which goes completely overlooked. How convenient.

Furthermore, to think that the government is the only thing that has any bearing on the economy or the wealth and prosperity of our country is ignorant and taking the easy road of finger pointing and name calling rather than looking at the bigger issues as a whole. I think what liberals have been trying to do is promote a moral ideal of shrinking the disparity in wealth so that more people can receive an education and health care. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant, because the question was why they keep spending. Well that's the answer. They realize that gigantic tax cuts for the rich really don't do much to help the economy as a whole - just those individuals.

Finally, I ask the bigger question: Do conservatives have better ideas? More on that in another thread...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 5:21:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Another thing about the past 90 years - If you look at the prosperity of the U.S. in terms of wealth and who has been in office, the top 3 Presidents have all been Democrat (1. Clinton, 2. Johnson, 3. JFK). In fact, out of the top 10, it's been exactly a 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans with the Democrats rating higher. So yeah, let's keep talking about how it's the LIBERALS who ruin the economy. It's the LIBERALS who are responsible for all bad spending. We can never be economically successful with a LIBERAL President (lulz cuz Truman and Carter are on the top 10 list, outranking even Eisenhower and Nixon).
President of DDO
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 5:37:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 5:14:31 PM, theLwerd wrote:
For better or worse, this country is a democracy (er, democratic republic) and just because you don't like the way things have turned out doesn't give you the right or reason to say that it's not America anymore. Ha.

1st amendment: It still exists.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 5:38:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 5:14:31 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:08:24 AM, HandsOff wrote:

This country hasn't been "America" for 90 years.

America's values are as such that policy isn't consistent. We designed our government specifically to be subject to change. If that were not true, those changes wouldn't have taken place.

There was an amendment process set in place, but the government has kind of ignored it for the past century and decided to change the way government is run without consulting the people first.

Basically, you're saying that our government was designed to be subject to corruption.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 5:47:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
PSSST, theLwerd:
For the past 90 years,the Democratic Party has not always been the American liberal party. And no president has enacted free-market reform in the last 90 years.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 6:25:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Remember: not all Republicans are conservatives. Like G. W. B.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2010 10:39:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/23/2010 2:03:01 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 3/23/2010 12:32:34 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:43:39 AM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/23/2010 9:37:42 AM, brittwaller wrote:
Because humans are inherently worth more than shiny metals or cotton bills.

exactly. but do you realize how well humans live in 3rd-world countries that either have no wealth or have mismanaged it?

You realize that it has been within the past 90 years (your quoted time period) that the U.S. has ascended to its primacy? This is why your argument is useless.

bravo!

Primacy? Really. Try bankruptcy-- and not because spent too little, but too much. Thank you!!!!!!!!!