Why are liberals so emotional and irrational?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#251 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Ok well lets look at Scandinavia, a place that is considering to be more 'liberal' than the US. Has higher standards of living and life expectancy. Seems like misery to me. Does that suffice, or are you going to keep clinging to your hollow meaningless slogans? HoolaHoopMan

Awesome oranges to apples comparison.

Yes, because my example doesn't fit in with your outdated rhetoric. Anything else to add tw@t waffle?

True. I bet their military is as strong as ours, and every other facet in culture and economics is similiar.

The problem with this forum is people don't know how to debate. They use pop logic and make themselves look bad.

#252 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7723 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

Awesome oranges to apples comparison.

0rbs

Yes, because my example doesn't fit in with your outdated rhetoric. Anything else to add tw@t waffle?

True. I bet their military is as strong as ours, and every other facet in culture and economics is similiar.

The problem with this forum is people don't know how to debate. They use pop logic and make themselves look bad.

Ok so nothing then. K thanx bye.
#253 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
Wonder how steamed lai and mingmao will be if the supreme court mandates that states legalizes gay marriage
#254 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Yes, because my example doesn't fit in with your outdated rhetoric. Anything else to add tw@t waffle? HoolaHoopMan

True. I bet their military is as strong as ours, and every other facet in culture and economics is similiar.

The problem with this forum is people don't know how to debate. They use pop logic and make themselves look bad.

Ok so nothing then. K thanx bye.

Taking a few college classes doesn't make you smart brah. You're stupid, now go lay down.

#255 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

True. I bet their military is as strong as ours, and every other facet in culture and economics is similiar.

The problem with this forum is people don't know how to debate. They use pop logic and make themselves look bad.

0rbs

Ok so nothing then. K thanx bye.

Take a few college classes doesn't make you smart brah. You're stupid, now go lay down.

goosfraba goosfraba
#256 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7723 posts) -

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

True. I bet their military is as strong as ours, and every other facet in culture and economics is similiar.

The problem with this forum is people don't know how to debate. They use pop logic and make themselves look bad.

0rbs

Ok so nothing then. K thanx bye.

Take a few college classes doesn't make you smart brah. You're stupid, now go lay down.

Haha calling me kid. I've been out of grad school for years.
#257 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

Wonder how steamed lai and mingmao will be if the supreme court mandates that states legalizes gay marriageDroidPhysX

I wish they would just get it over with already. Nobody honestly cares anymore. Let people be happy already.

#258 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Ok so nothing then. K thanx bye. DroidPhysX

Take a few college classes doesn't make you smart brah. You're stupid, now go lay down.

goosfraba goosfraba

Now all we need are a couple of hot lesbian porn stars and we're set.
#259 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="0rbs"]

Take a few college classes doesn't make you smart brah. You're stupid, now go lay down.

nocoolnamejim

goosfraba goosfraba

Now all we need are a couple of hot lesbian porn stars and we're set.

lol

#260 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -
Because abortions and weed.
#261 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
I'd like to point out that the pigeon quote was originally about creationists. Reading the rest of the topic after that I really got to say: Practice what you preach ming, lasor and orbs. Lai sucks at debating but at least he's trying. You guys aren't even saying anything.
#262 Posted by mattbbpl (10559 posts) -
I know I'm late to the party, but lol
#263 Posted by fueled-system (6249 posts) -
Guessing you never heard of Mark Levin..
#264 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] That isn't what you asked for. You asked how Social Security could be sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered. But since I used a lot of words, I'll try a second time and speak slower. 1. Social Security has been running a surplus for decades. Therefore it can afford to pay full benefits WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL until 2033. (20 years from now.) 2. After that, it could still pay out 75% of the benefits it presently pays with it's regular annual income revenues WITH NO CHANGES AT ALL indefinitely. 3. Simply letting the tax rates on individuals earning more than 250K per year return back to the Clinton levels would fully fund Social Security with all the benefits that it was paying before for SEVENTY FIVE YEARS. In other words, if we do literally nothing at all, Social Security will be just fine for the next twenty years, and be able to give 3/4ths of the benefits from then onwards forever. If we simply let the tax rates on the top-1% of earners in our society go back to the Clinton rates, which coincided with the longest uninterrupted period of economic expansion in U.S. history, then it is solvent for the foreseeable future. You asked. I answered.

Social security is running a surplus while the country is 16 trillion dollars in debt and counting. The government has no money to give back. The fact that people are only going to get 75% of the benefits despite paying 100% into it is just proof of what I'm saying. And funding social security by taxing the rich even more than they already are taxed turns social security from a bad ponzi scheme into just another welfare program.

Again, not what you asked. For the third time, you asked how Social Security could be made sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered your question. It's solvent for a minimum of 20 years at full benefits with no changes whatsoever since it ran a surplus for decades, and with minor tweaks to the very richest among us going back up VERY SLIGHTLY to the Clinton era levels (where the economy was quite good) would be solvent indefinitely. You can now acknowledge I answered, and THEN maybe we can move onto talking about whether or not Social Security is a good thing or not. Concede the point that Social Security is already solvent for the next two decades and with very minor changes can be solvent indefinitely. In other words, it IS sustainable pretty much indefinitely.

You yourself proved it's not sustainable by pointing out that in the future people will only receive 75% (and this will only drop as birth rates drop and the numbers of people withdrawing it continue to increase), unless the government fundamentally changes how the program works and makes it a welfare program funded by the rich rather than a ponzi scheme as it is now. At that point it's not even social security anymore, it's just a new program with the same old name. No, being solvent for 20 years does not make it sustainable indefinitely. It is just coasting on surpluses made from the baby boomer generation. As more baby boomers are drawing social security now while the birth rate here continues to drop we are going to burn through that surplus until there's nothing left, and it will only get worse after that.
#265 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
Wonder how steamed lai and mingmao will be if the supreme court mandates that states legalizes gay marriageDroidPhysX
Marriage should not be regulated at all by the government, but as long as it is it should be open to all consenting individuals. I am fine with such a mandate.
#266 Posted by mahlasor (1278 posts) -

And ladies and gentlemen, this thread is so ironic because it basically this thread is proving the OTs point. So everyone before that was like "bu but, you are GENERALISING!" So we are talking about why liberals are emotional, liberals come into the thread and prove they are emotional and irrational. What they do is derail a topic in the form of spamming by making lots of accusations, etc. Why do they do this? I think its more of their perception, believes growing up, and attitudes. The best way to put it is they do not care to be respectful. Their first thing to do is label you as an "bigot, idiot, fundementalist, something something, evil person," and then from there they use ad hominems left and rigtht because "who cares, that person is a *insert derogatory word*. I dont know why, but it all makes sense when you just observe their style of thinking.

I am just trying to get the topic back on the rails, I am not sayying all liberals are like this, but definately the "louder ones" who are the ones who are pretty much the leaders for their side. I would love to see a topic about why conservatives are such and such, but the only problem is it would be filled with liberals once again labelling conservatives as "the above," and it gets annoying.

The real question is why do liberals turn everything into a social conflict, the "us versus them."

#267 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

And ladies and gentlemen, this thread is so ironic because it basically this thread is proving the OTs point. So everyone before that was like "bu but, you are GENERALISING!" So we are talking about why liberals are emotional, liberals come into the thread and prove they are emotional and irrational. What they do is derail a topic in the form of spamming by making lots of accusations, etc. Why do they do this? I think its more of their perception, believes growing up, and attitudes. The best way to put it is they do not care to be respectful. Their first thing to do is label you as an "bigot, idiot, fundementalist, something something, evil person," and then from there they use ad hominems left and rigtht because "who cares, that person is a *insert derogatory word*. I dont know why, but it all makes sense when you just observe their style of thinking.

I am just trying to get the topic back on the rails, I am not sayying all liberals are like this, but definately the "louder ones" who are the ones who are pretty much the leaders for their side. I would love to see a topic about why conservatives are such and such, but the only problem is it would be filled with liberals once again labelling conservatives as "the above," and it gets annoying.

The real question is why do liberals turn everything into a social conflict, the "us versus them."

mahlasor
Meanwhile you've done nothing but use ad hominems, call liberals bigots, act disrespectful, provide no argument except that from emotion and posted things like "Actually, THAT WAS HILARIOUSLY TRUE! XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXD" Humans are emotional and irrational. By nature. So who here is really the one turning this into an us versus them? The TC and yourself.
#268 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

I think Lai is the new kraychik. Attack, attack, attack, never admit a wrong comment, also dismiss any contrary arguments derisively, blame it on leftism and liberism.

Only he hasn't used the word leftist, yet.

#269 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Social security is running a surplus while the country is 16 trillion dollars in debt and counting. The government has no money to give back. The fact that people are only going to get 75% of the benefits despite paying 100% into it is just proof of what I'm saying. And funding social security by taxing the rich even more than they already are taxed turns social security from a bad ponzi scheme into just another welfare program.

Again, not what you asked. For the third time, you asked how Social Security could be made sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered your question. It's solvent for a minimum of 20 years at full benefits with no changes whatsoever since it ran a surplus for decades, and with minor tweaks to the very richest among us going back up VERY SLIGHTLY to the Clinton era levels (where the economy was quite good) would be solvent indefinitely. You can now acknowledge I answered, and THEN maybe we can move onto talking about whether or not Social Security is a good thing or not. Concede the point that Social Security is already solvent for the next two decades and with very minor changes can be solvent indefinitely. In other words, it IS sustainable pretty much indefinitely.

You yourself proved it's not sustainable by pointing out that in the future people will only receive 75% (and this will only drop as birth rates drop and the numbers of people withdrawing it continue to increase), unless the government fundamentally changes how the program works and makes it a welfare program funded by the rich rather than a ponzi scheme as it is now. At that point it's not even social security anymore, it's just a new program with the same old name. No, being solvent for 20 years does not make it sustainable indefinitely. It is just coasting on surpluses made from the baby boomer generation. As more baby boomers are drawing social security now while the birth rate here continues to drop we are going to burn through that surplus until there's nothing left, and it will only get worse after that.

20 years from now will basically mark the HUNDRED YEAR anniversary of the program. By most measures, that's an insanely successful program. Nothing goes 100 years without some maintenance. Most private companies don't remain in existence that long. The fact that you utterly fail to concede the point that with minor tweaks the program can be made sustainable for another century or so proves, yet again, why any actually meaningful replies to you are a complete waste of time. Any program that does it's intended purpose for 100 years is a success. A program that has been successful for 100 years and can be made sustainable for another 100 with only small changes? HUGE success. You don't want to admit it because it goes against your Randian worldview. But if you can't acknowledge a point when one has been conclusively made and rubbed in your face several times, don't be surprised if most people continue to just decide to not even bother responding to you but instead just point and laugh.
#270 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17379 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The private sector is an inanimate abstraction - it never "says" anything.You're just talking out of your ass as usual.

Yes, obviously it wasn't literally speaking words, just as a book doesn't literally talk to people and tell them things. There is still a clear message to be gained from it. You are floundering right now.

So how do I access this "clear message" from the omniscient private sector? If it's not going to talk to me what am I suppose to do?

Lai I'm still waiting to learn how you do this. Don't leave me in the dark.
#271 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

I think Lai is the new kraychik. Attack, attack, attack, never admit a wrong comment, also dismiss any contrary arguments derisively, blame it on leftism and liberism.

Only he hasn't used the word leftist, yet.

jimkabrhel
Sucks to say but I feel that's basically how the more conservative members have been the last few months in general. It's almost always conservative members who start the political topics here and then the liberal members respond then the conservative members complain about liberal circlejerks.
#272 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes, obviously it wasn't literally speaking words, just as a book doesn't literally talk to people and tell them things. There is still a clear message to be gained from it. You are floundering right now.

So how do I access this "clear message" from the omniscient private sector? If it's not going to talk to me what am I suppose to do?

Lai I'm still waiting to learn how you do this. Don't leave me in the dark.

look, man, it's not something you can teach. you either have the ability or you don't.
#273 Posted by Kickinurass (3357 posts) -

If you have a problem with Boy Scouts then find a different organization to join or make your own. The Boy Scouts weren't harming anyone but themselves by not letting homosexuals join.Laihendi

There was nothing to fix. They didn't want homosexuals in their organization and there isn't anything wrong with that. Who they let in is their choice to make.Laihendi

Just to be clear, you are for Boy Scouts (or anyone else) being able to discriminate, as it's their private business. If that's the case, I assume you also support the public outcry that such discrimination inevititably produced. The first sentence of the first quote misses out on the third, and most obvious option, of peaceful protest to get the Boy Scouts to change their policies. As a Libertarian, and a rather extreme one at that, I cannot fathom how you missed that reasoning - seeing as how it's enshrined in the First Amendment.

Secondly, I'm still waiting a serious answer to Ron Paul 's (and yours?) idea of simply doing away with Medicare/Medicaid completely. Because this...

1. If someone can't afford his own expenses then he should find someone who will voluntarily help him. Again, not being able to afford something you need is not a justification for theft.Laihendi

Is not a realistic, plausible, or even serious solution to the current problems facing either program.

#274 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

So what's the tl;dr version of this thread?

#275 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

So what's the tl;dr version of this thread?

worlock77

Laihendi hates liberals.

#276 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -

So what's the tl;dr version of this thread?

worlock77
laihendi commits multitudes of logical errors in attempting to paint all liberals as irrational and then, after a lengthy diversion wherein he commits further logical errors in discussion of other subjects, gets mad when people laugh at him
#277 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -

Hey lai, your dream country just suffered another suicide bomb attack against the prime minister today.

What will you do about this?

In fact, this map displays a lot of issues going on in the Libertarian Utopia

_63181557_som_controlled_areas_30429sep.

#278 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I'd say conservatives use emotion way more. Have you watched FOX News and listened to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity? All of them use fear tactics to get people to believe them.

Laihendi

Have you heard FDR, JFK, or Obama speak? Their speeches are always just emotional fluff. There is never anything substantial or thought provoking about them. You can point out at some guy with a microphone and a camera saying stupid stuff, but these are presidents who are renowned for their oratory skills.

@Teenaged Elijah has never publicly endorsed a politician/candidate so there is no way of knowing his political orientation.

You lack critical thinking skills
#279 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]

@Teenaged Elijah has never publicly endorsed a politician/candidate so there is no way of knowing his political orientation.

Laihendi

There's always a way in this day and age

I have seen interviews where Elijah spoke about the Occupy movement and basically he just thinks it's good that people express their opinions. That doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with them, especially considering that he is one of the 1% himself.

What about his views on climate change and global warming?

and he has praised Obama on twitter.

For example

"Obama announces support for same-sex marriage. Well said, sir. Equality is the key word"

#280 Posted by dissonantblack (34002 posts) -

Good question. For years, i have had to endure them talking about how "accepting" they are. But when you don't agree with them, they do anything but accept you.

#281 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

Good question. For years, i have had to endure them talking about how "accepting" they are. But when you don't agree with them, they do anything but accept you.

dissonantblack
What exactly do you mean when you say they don't accept you.
#282 Posted by mattbbpl (10559 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Again, I have already answered that. FDR and JFK never had anything substantial or intelligent to say and even their defenders like you can't even explain what good they did and just resort to hazy appeals to authority. Despite this, liberals revere them. You have to be emotional and irrational to revere someone like that without any particular reason for why.Laihendi
FDR: 1. Ended the Great Depression 2. Passed the New Deal policies (which, whether you agree with them or not are historic achievements that changed the course of our nation and became permanent fixtures in our societies) 3. Won the most important war ever fought in human history Lai: "FDR never had anything substantive or intelligent to say."

FDR didn't win that war, the soldiers fighting it did.And Truman gave the order to bomb Japan to end it anyways. Again FDR had nothing to do with the great depression because his new deal policies of wealth redistribution did nothing to actually generate wealth, which is why the economy was horrible until world war 2 started. And the fact that some of FDR's policies have become permanent just makes him an even worse president because he is still screwing everyone over 68 years after he died. Social security is a disaster.

Wow, I did not expect that line, used to diminish the president's role in the Bin Laden strike, to be catapulted over half a century into the past to diminish the president's role in the ending of WW2.

Well played :P
#283 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dissonantblack"]

Good question. For years, i have had to endure them talking about how "accepting" they are. But when you don't agree with them, they do anything but accept you.

Ace6301

What exactly do you mean when you say they don't accept you.

things like that usually mean they don't accept gay/racial bashers.

#284 Posted by mingmao3046 (2474 posts) -
Wonder how steamed lai and mingmao will be if the supreme court mandates that states legalizes gay marriageDroidPhysX
umm i wouldnt be mad? i support gay marriage rights
#285 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

Why is america so divided?

#286 Posted by DaBrainz (7623 posts) -
I can't believe you guys fed the troll for 6 pages.
#287 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

I can't believe you guys fed the troll for 6 pages. DaBrainz

This is nothing compared to some of ShadowMoses' threads.

#288 Posted by dave123321 (33626 posts) -
I got modded for thread hijacking. I am so ashamed
#289 Posted by Lonelynight (30039 posts) -
says the guy who gets mad when people criticize frodo
#290 Posted by Teenaged (31743 posts) -

@Teenaged Elijah has never publicly endorsed a politician/candidate so there is no way of knowing his political orientation.

Laihendi

Let the people who are "close" to him speak for him.

Dont be jelly you dont know a lot about him.

#291 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9206 posts) -

I love to read the comments on Huffingtonpost articles that entire website might as well be made up of closet authoritarians.

#292 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

Because they don't want to hear other viewpoints.

#293 Posted by sSubZerOo (43016 posts) -

Because they don't want to hear other viewpoints.

GOGOGOGURT

Agreed, their actions like stopping people from voting with voter registeration laws (and even saying their main goal was to stop people from voting for the opposing party), having record level of filibusters, and consistently using terms like communist, facist, tyrant to paint their opponents.. Oh wait..

#294 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Because they don't want to hear other viewpoints.

sSubZerOo

Agreed, their actions like stopping people from voting with voter registeration laws (and even saying their main goal was to stop people from voting for the opposing party), having record level of filibusters, and consistently using terms like communist, facist, tyrant to paint their opponents.. Oh wait..

Bring an ID. It's not hard. If you think making people have an ID to vote is bad you're simply an idiot.

#295 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Because they don't want to hear other viewpoints.

0rbs

Agreed, their actions like stopping people from voting with voter registeration laws (and even saying their main goal was to stop people from voting for the opposing party), having record level of filibusters, and consistently using terms like communist, facist, tyrant to paint their opponents.. Oh wait..

Bring an ID. It's not hard. If you think making people have an ID to vote is bad you're simply an idiot.

"Liberals are emotional and illogical because they don't want to hear other viewpoints. Now agree with me because if you don't you're an idiot!"

Not%2BSure%2Bif%2Bserious.jpg

#296 Posted by Necrifer (10629 posts) -

"Liberals are emotional and illogical because they don't want to hear other viewpoints. Now agree with me because if you don't you're an idiot!"

theone86

I think you just merged the posts of two completely different users.

#297 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Agreed, their actions like stopping people from voting with voter registeration laws (and even saying their main goal was to stop people from voting for the opposing party), having record level of filibusters, and consistently using terms like communist, facist, tyrant to paint their opponents.. Oh wait..

theone86

Bring an ID. It's not hard. If you think making people have an ID to vote is bad you're simply an idiot.

"Liberals are emotional and illogical because they don't want to hear other viewpoints. Now agree with me because if you don't you're an idiot!"

Not%2BSure%2Bif%2Bserious.jpg

I see the other viewpoint and it's stupid and childish. When the hell did we start catering to the stupid so much in this country?

#298 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -

I see the other viewpoint and it's stupid and childish. When the hell did we start catering to the stupid so much in this country?

0rbs
okay, i remember this phrase from somewhere whose alt is this?
#299 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

Bring an ID. It's not hard. If you think making people have an ID to vote is bad you're simply an idiot.

0rbs

"Liberals are emotional and illogical because they don't want to hear other viewpoints. Now agree with me because if you don't you're an idiot!"

Not%2BSure%2Bif%2Bserious.jpg

I see the other viewpoint and it's stupid and childish. When the hell did we start catering to the stupid so much in this country?

I wish I could learn to be as non-emotional as you. It's truly a skill.

#300 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

"Liberals are emotional and illogical because they don't want to hear other viewpoints. Now agree with me because if you don't you're an idiot!"

Not%2BSure%2Bif%2Bserious.jpg

theone86

 

I see the other viewpoint and it's stupid and childish. When the hell did we start catering to the stupid so much in this country?

I wish I could learn to be as non-emotional as you. It's truly a skill.

 

I simply do not like our country becoming the movie idiocracy is all.