|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No you're not. If you're not anti-Trump, you're no moderate. And I'm a political moderate...I'm neither pro nor anti-Trump."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Liar. Nobody but you has said anything about getting the government involved.
But I'm not gonna follow your path of personal responsibility simply because the rest of the left leaning crowd does. They make it mandatory and would make the way of 52% the law for everyone. Phat writes:
He didn't "suggest" it. He said it's a requirement for salvation.
And I don't care if you all argue that the Jesus of the book also suggested mandatory compliance. Phat writes:
They've already been married for 2000 years.
You will never marry Jesus and empathetic liberalism. Phat writes:
Yes, you've made it clear that you will never accept Jesus. Call me a Nazi, but I will resist..."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And that's a good thing? It seems to me that you guys have entirely too much ire-rankling.
I DO like Ben Shapiro. He is articulate and he rankles the ire of the trans genders who claim they get to define their gender. Phat writes:
Have you ever studied any foreign languages? Specifically, languages where gender is significant? In French, for example, the word for "cat" is always feminine and the word for "dog" is always masculine. The gender has nothing to do with the actual sex of the beast. Ben argues that basic biology determines that rather than inner feelings. So Ben Shapiro doesn't know what he's talking about.
Phat writes:
So if your father died without paying off the mortgage on the house, the bank should just write it off? That's not much of a capitalist attitude. Even I would say that if the children get the benefits of their fathers' deeds, they should pay the price. Dont punish a particular race for the sins of their forefathers...."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why not?
It certainly could never be calculated nor applied to large people groups... Phat writes:
You seem awfully eager to start a war. ... in any way that wouldnt start a war."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What's the difference? Yes, the house should be paid off by the children if they hoped to keep it. What should never happen is that the bank sends the children a letter saying that my father got an unfairly good deal and that in order to keep the house we pay more than the original terms. If the children inherited an unfair advantage, why shouldn't they pay for it? You're using Trump mathematics: "I got ahead somehow, so stop counting and let me keep my lead.""I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's not the issue at all. The issue is that the bank is in no position to judge. The issue is whether or not society "should" pay. Even when nobody can force society to pay, "should" society do the right thing?
Phat writes:
See above.
Banks are not judges. They make contracts and collect interest. Period. Phat writes:
If not, it's because society wants to weasel out of its debts. Nor is the government. Thats why issues such as this will never become law. The question is: Why do you advocate weaseling? Why are you so dead-set against doing the right thing?
Phat writes:
Jesus told you to give up your stack. I'm sure those listening appreciate you warning them against Jesus.
Im just warning those listening that one never touches another mans stack. Phat writes:
I don't know why you keep bringing up the government.
The government is not nor ever will be Jesus. Phat writes:
Clearly not. You have repeatedly refused to give them up for Him. And He is the ONLY One who can touch my assets."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Of course. Who suggested otherwise? Only if society can agree on who it should pay and whether such a value amount can even be determined. But you seem to suggest that the very idea is outrageous and that you will fight it tooth and nail.
Phat writes:
We're not talking about "special interest groups". We're talking about one group of people that was grotesquely mistreated by another group and you're violently opposed to the idea that that mistreatment should be redressed in some way.
I say just leave things in the past as they were, fair or unfair...quit catering to special interest groups who whine about being treated unfair... Phat writes:
It isn't out of our way at all. The Caucasian was responsible for the situation and the descendents of the Caucasian have reaped the benefits of the situation. It seems perfectly appropriate for the Caucasian to pay.
...work to address and redress these issues but dont go out of your way to fine the Caucasian. Phat writes:
But the fire is you. If you can't be part of the solution, at least stop being part of the problem.
You will be throwing gasoline on the fire. Phat writes:
There's your Trump-thinking again: "I'm ahead, so stop counting." The goal should be to treat everyone equal from today forward. No. The goal should be to do what's right, even if it means paying past debts.
Phat writes:
Of course we have (society has) that exact right.
You have no right to interfere with my family personally in order to achieve your social justice goals... Phat writes:
Don't try to pull that crap with me. YOU are the one who has an imaginary Jesus who tells you it's okay to be a selfish right-wing prick.
... which please the Jesus of your imagination. Phat writes:
You should. You're morality as it stands is pretty sickly. Remember the saying about trees producing fruit. I'll not let some liberal feel good committee become my morality police."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
They already do. It's April 15th in the US, isn't it?
But you don't just send a bill to some households. Phat writes:
How can you know it's impossible if you reject it out of hand with no discussion? There is no way to accurately measure any compensation that is fair across all cultural definitions."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
There are some unfortunate "rights" in your Constitution. The "right" to own slaves used to be there and the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs is still there.
Catholic Foster Care Agency May Turn Away Gay Couples. Phat writes:
How can you call yourself a "moderate" when you always side with the right-wing nuts? And I know that the liberals will disagree with this, but I side with the Court on this one."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And AGAIN, you don't reply to waht you quoted. Not all of the right-wing is nuts. No more than all of the left-wing. Try again. I said, "How can you call yourself a "moderate" when you always side with the right-wing nuts?""I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
You wouldn't know a "leftist narrative" if it sat down beside you in church. You're getting everything you think you know about the "left" from right-wing nuts like Jordan Peterson. There are more ways to discuss/debate an issue than the popular leftist narrative."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
He contradicts himself between 01 and 05. How is that rational? Jordan has a perfectly rational argument. Nobody is talking about any "collective crime". Recognizing that white privilege exists is just that - recognizing a fact. If you recognize that the black guy has had a tougher time of it than you and if you maybe cut him a break once in a while, that's nice too. And recognizing racism is not racism. In a 14-line transcript of a 28-second clip you've shown quite well what an idiot Peterson is. And it isn't even because he's a "conservative nut". He's a wannabe "conservative thinker"."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
As I have said before, conservatism isn't necessarily evil. It depends on what you want to conserve. I suppose that our next step is to showcase what a true conservative thinker would think. If you want to conserve "family values", that's a good thing - as long as you don't consider persecuting homosexuals a family value. If you want to conserve the "good old days" of slavery - or even the good old days when black people "knew their place" - that's a bad thing.
Phat writes:
I have also said before, conservatives tend to think of the nation as a business - the less-productive members have to fall by the wayside; liberals tend to think of the nation as a family - you feed your children whether you can afford it or not. And while we are at it, let us compare and contrast what a true liberal thinker might say."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
There were never any "low prices" that didn't come with low wages. When I finished high school, the minimum wage was about $1.75 an hour. So what if prices were "lower"? You couldn't buy more.
I want to conserve low prices. Phat writes:
There have always been periods of inflation. There's nothing there to conserve.
I want to conserve the US Lifestyle in the early 70's before inflation took off and made us just like any other country. Phat writes:
Good.
...and soon the global reserve status will be lost... Phat writes:
How is that a "thus"? What are you going to do with your military? Got out and grab more lebensraum? How will throwing away money on military adventures like Afghanistan reduce inflation?
We thus need to conserve our powerful military. Phat writes:
As somebody else has been trying to tell you, it is not a zero-sum game. When the bottom of the totem-pole benefits, you will benefit too.
...but can it be done while still preserving our quality of life? Phat writes:
No. You definitely have not.
If not, we have identified the inevitable problem that Americans must confront. Phat writes:
Yes.
Liberals go a step farther. They think of the world as a family. Phat writes:
So why do rich people tend to be conservative?
Which is easy if they are rich like the majority of EvC is. Phat writes:
Again, how? How is an expensive military going to preserve your lifestyle? Plunder and pillage?
It's not easy for the blue-collar uneducated working class, however. They would turn to the military and the Politicians for help preserving their diminishing lifestyle. Phat writes:
You have it backwards. You should be asking yourself why the rest of the world has to perpetually be your hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Why must they get paid less and become the butlers and servents of a rising global middle class that has advantages over them? Phat writes:
Please do. All you've done so far is regurgitate the same old same old. Let me think about this one."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 662 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No, no, no, no, no. We have a member of the family who is grabbing more than his share of privileges. I am NOT going to help him do that. I want him to lose his privileges for the benefit of the underprivileged.
You just agreed that we are all family. Think about the hardships you would place on your American family if we were to lose that status. Phat writes:
But you've never done that with them before. You've used them to throw your weight around, and often made the situation worse instead of better.
ringo writes:
Keep everybody honest. What are you going to do with your military? Phat writes:
Well, of course not. Your military is one of the biggest threats to your quality of life.
Not letting them dogpile on the US if we end up suffering....but can it be done while still preserving our quality of life? Phat writes:
I'm definitely not "upper-middle-class". I would call YOU lower middle class and I'm below you on the totem pole.
What you upper-middle-class liberals do.... Phat writes:
Of course. Why should I favor somebody who is less qualified just because we accidentally happened to be born close to each other?
You support the educated foreigners taking their spot before helping you own countrymen. Phat writes:
If the reasons are obvious, why are you denying that the rich tend to be conservative?
Only the wealthiest of the wealthy tend to lean that way for obvious reasons. Phat writes:
I really wish you would read what I post instead of making it up in your head. I have said more than once that I am NOT in favor of taxing the rich. I'm in favor of the poor paying for the services they use and to hell with the rich. And we can accomplish that, for a start, by raising the minimum wage so the working poor can afford to pay taxes. That doesn't deprive you of your precious ivory backscratcher.
They don't want you and your ilk taxing away all their money to raise the tide. Phat writes:
I asked you to think. Why didn't you? ringo writes:
Protect me from other rising bullies who want to strip me of my entitlements. How is an expensive military going to preserve your lifestyle? It's the cost of your military that endangers your entitlements. The only "bullies" who threaten your entitlements are the poor who are trying to rise to your level. Are you going to sic the military on them?
Phat writes:
That's the same argument that was used to keep the negroes picking cotton. And it was out of date then. ringo writes:
in the end, someone has to do it. You should be asking yourself why the rest of the world has to perpetually be your hewers of wood and drawers of water. But again, all you're doing is trotting out your selfish complaints. You're not discussing Liberals or Conservatives at all."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024