Questions For a Liberal From a conservative

spidergoat said:
That's total bull, prove it.
Click to expand...

I wanted to highlight this quote to emphasize it. Demands like this are so often ignored, and the discussion really can't move forward until such demands are satisfied.

spidergoat said:
That's total bull, prove it.
Click to expand...

What this challenge means, David2, is that if you want to stand by your statement that 75% of people on welfare are middle-aged female crack addicts, you now have to locate statistics from credible sources and challenge spidergoat to refute them. If he cannot, then you win. If you cannot produce such statistics, he wins.

I have to say, I'm not optimistic, I don't think that David2 is actually here to discuss. I don't think he is up to the challenge that spidergoat has posed, but the sciforums holds its breath.
 
liberals are all about spending money
Click to expand...

Republican Presidents have increased spending more than Democrat Presidents have since 1960....it's also true if you measure since 1980.

Bush has proposed, and gotten, massive spending increases.

Republicans are the party of borrow and spend. Our debt is 7.6 trillion dollars and we're paying some 321 billion/year in interest on the debt. Anybody who thinks our borrowing is sustainable needs to have their head examined.
 
Throckmorton said:
Republicans are the party of borrow and spend. Our debt is 7.6 trillion dollars and we're paying some 321 billion/year in interest on the debt. Anybody who thinks our borrowing is sustainable needs to have their head examined.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Throckmorton, but if you look back to the 80s, you'll clearly see that Reagan proved that there's nothing wrong with ungodly deficit spending, and massive borrowing. . . you know so long as we don't think about it so much. . . and don't consider impending recessions and depressions, inflation and the complete depreciation of the dollar. . . eer. . . wait, what was my point again? Would you like some Jelly Beans?
 
David2 said:
second i do find it odd that michael got his money from male practise law suites because what really happened was up intill 1 year ago he was getting the money from his own pocket and he ran out then her family and a bunch of other people set up a 1.5 million dollar trust fund. suddenly out of nowhere Quote "i thinks that she might have said that if i am on life support i want you to pull the plug" now if you look it sais that she might have said that. and i wonder gets that money. and about that Quote you should know about stem cell research.however i do thank you for stating your opinion
Click to expand...
This isn’t true. Michael Schiavo first petitioned the courts to have the feeding tube removed in May of 1998, on the grounds that Teri had told him that she wouldn’t want to live on life support if anything debilitating ever happened to her.
 
David2 said:
to thersites weather or not she was just a sack of bones and organs is your opinion and do believe that there was more than just that. there to have been because she was able to recognise the other people in the room. also there was times that she would slightly comunicate with people.
Click to expand...
My opinion? The opinion of the many neurologists that had examined her. What did she communicate?
 
Reagan proved that there's nothing wrong with ungodly deficit spending, and massive borrowing.
Click to expand...

That's funny until one considers that there are a whole lot of people who are actually stupid enough to believe that. I've had that "logic" used on me by educated people.

Our 7.6 trillion dollar debt is going to go a long way in sinking our economy as oil prices continue to rise.

HOW CAN PEOPLE BE SO FUCKING STUPID...sorry.....How can "economic experts" (I'm talking people with Phd's) not notice that our economy is completely dependent on cheap oil when they bring up their ridiculous economic theories? THE MOST OBVIOUS THING ABOUT ARE ECONOMY IS THAT IT'S COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON CHEAP OIL.....sorry I just felt the need to yell out what should be obvious to all and, sadly, isn't.
 
If there is nothin g wrong with deficit spending and borrowing why is there such a panic to make the US social security system balance financially? If it goes into deficit surely it'd be operating on good Republican principles?
 
If it goes into deficit surely it'd be operating on good Republican principles
Click to expand...

You are right about the Republican principles. They believe in huge debt as a good thing although there are of course exceptions.

I read an article by Milton Friedman in which he said that cutting taxes would increase government revenues and he thought that was a good thing. In the same article he said that cutting taxes would decrease government revenues and he thought that was a good thing too ("starve the beast" and all that).

Doesn't that sort of stupidity disqualify someone from being a worthy economist? I mean to say: 'shouldn't the opinions of someone who is so obviously a moron be called into question?'

This is what passes for economic "thinking" among Republicans.
 
I used to play in a band with my bank manager. Sometimes, when he used to drink, he could be easily persuaded but generally he's pretty hardnosed about things like spending 17% more than you're taking in every year after you've piled up masssive debt.

Maybe Milton Friedman was drunk when he wrote the article......although most people I know who drink aren't anywhere near to being that stupid.
 
David2 said:
now to top mosker if you dont give a rats ass then go the fuck away. atleast these other guys have the decincy to give there opinion. weather they agree or not i would rather here someone slaying my thread instead of hearing i dont care.
Click to expand...

Maybe you misundertood me - I don't care about Terri Schiavo because people who were in her position die every week. It's common to have feeding tubes removed. Schiavo was exploited by the media so they would have something better to report on the the lies and deaths resulting from the American political system. It was a distraction, not a moral dillema.
 
Okay, liberals(most) are not against life support. Her husband(although rather late) came forward and said that she would want the plug pulled in such a situation. That leads the opinion that conservatives are fighting against one's right to die by choice(We have a right to die, considering we have a right to life). Also, it is because of conservatives that we couldn't have used lethal injection and prevented the starving.
 
I'm not going to bother editing the post, they're a pain.

Her rational facility(the reasoning part of her brain)HAD CEASED. It was not going to be revived, unless by some miracle of stem cells(and that would be a very, very long shot even if it were legal). Now, the rational faculty, the part of her brain that put more together than her random surroundings, is what brings about a "soul". The persons personality, essence, whatnot. It is gone. Living body, dead spirit. Living Death. She was no longer alive. If she had explicitly stated, or someone had come forth with this statement(more than her parents constant blathering), that she would want to live no matter what, let her do so. But, if she wished it pulled, LET IT HAPPEN.

I am just angered by two things -Democrats/liberals saying this is merely a family matter and republicans/conservatives saying that it was the judges that killed her. This, in the smallest essence, would be a fight over murder/a right to life, which the judges probably should have accepted, and which needed more dealings than that of the family. The statement that the judges killed her is so subjective it shouldn't need argument on a scientific forum.
 
Throckmorton said:
THE MOST OBVIOUS THING ABOUT ARE ECONOMY IS THAT IT'S COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON CHEAP OIL.....sorry I just felt the need to yell out what should be obvious to all and, sadly, isn't.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, calm down, Throckmorton. The experts are only predicting a spike of up to 100 dollars a barrel, that's not so bad, and it's only a spike that means it goes down very quickly afterward, ok? Uuum I mean sure that that's going to be because industry the world over will cease, and civilization as we know it will dissolve into total anarchy and we'll all live out the rest of our days in a bleak mad-max like future with no hope of survival through any means other than the ruthless and merciless destruction of our fellow man and wrongfully taking his belongings through whatever gruesome ways our cunning and desperate minds can devise. But when you think about it, that's not really so different than capitalism, is it? Aside from having to eat our own family members to ward off starvation I don’t think we’ll even notice much of a transition!
 
Last edited:
Jesus Christ, calm down, Throckmorton.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Blatant mass stupidity about extremely obvious and important matters (our civilization as we know it) gets me all wound up some days. This tendency I have has been a bit of a problem during the Bush administration. It's not as if the Bush guys are the only stupid people ever to get into power but they are dumb. (Rumsfeld and his "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", Wolfowitz and his "there is no history of ethnic conflict in Iraq" are two major examples)

The experts are only predicting a spike of up to 100 dollars a barrel, that's not so bad, and it's only a spike that means it goes down very quickly afterward, ok?
Click to expand...

I recently heard an "expert" talk about the current price increases being a "spike". After he explained about limited supplies, limited production capacities, and a sharp increase in demand, he explained that the current "spike" was going to be "self limited". WHAT THE HELL DOES HE THINK IS GOING TO LIMIT THE INCREASE??.....Sorry,...it's my blatant stupidity on the part of "experts" alarm system just went off again.

I'm going to go out in my kayak, drink a few beers, and try to recalibrate my blatant stupidity alarm parameters.
 
There's something wrong. 100 dollar spikes per barrel should mean about, an extra dollar a barrel. Barrels are 50 dollars to the gallon, am I not correct? So, I guess that's 2 dollars to the gallon. Guess what(I realize this is common sense to some, newsflash to others)-If you carpool, then it costs less. If EVERYONE(or close to it) carpools, gas businesses can no longer sell gas at whatever ridiculous amount they'll think of next. It will go down! I mean, this free trade stuff and supply and demand are AMAZING!!!

Why don't we mine more out of Alaska? Every day one of my teachers gets angry at the fact that we might drill somewhere else. I'm angry because lots of people have her opinion, and we don't drill. Hey, it's all right that we pay 10$ a gallon for gas in the future, as long as the caribou and lemmings can still live unaffected,and the eskimos(I'm sorry, inuits)don't have to be so brutally forced to live a life other than(better than) that of hunting seal! If you haven't caught on to some of my other posts, I despise environmentalism(most anyways).
 
We're going to drill in Alaska, I think. Didn't that just pass?

Of course, are we still paying people to keep wells in Texas capped?
 
I do not understand this at all. If we are to drill in Alaska, I shall be very, very happy. If we are to keep Texas capped off, I shall be very very angry.

I do not understand environmentalism. They claim to be protecting the environment, but they will protect it to the extent that man will have to go back and live in his cave. Also, they are viciously fighting off oil drilled in our own country, because apparently that's harmful to the environment, but if the Middle-Easterners are going to drill it and ruin THEIR environment, let them do so and sell it to us. Blows my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top