Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find that conservatives evoke emotion just as much. Calling Obama a nazi or a communist is an emotional response that has no logical backing. Yet this is the type of response I see from conservatives all the time on this forum.
Thats the totality of the republican party attitude,all torque no traction,lots of emotionally charged hate, venom and vitriol thrown at basically anything or anyone interspersed with inane conspiracy theories,i guess it works to stir up their emotions as they seem to really enjoy laying it on.
In the meantime us Liberals are sitting back watching with amusement at the creative ways the righties can come up with to have a hatefest on a variety of useless and irrelevant topics,
Keep it up righties its hilarious,akin to watching a 3 Stooges Movie..
Thats the totality of the republican party attitude,all torque no traction,lots of emotionally charged hate, venom and vitriol thrown at basically anything or anyone interspersed with inane conspiracy theories,i guess it works to stir up their emotions as they seem to really enjoy laying it on.
In the meantime us Liberals are sitting back watching with amusement at the creative ways the righties can come up with to have a hatefest on a variety of useless and irrelevant topics,
Keep it up righties its hilarious,akin to watching a 3 Stooges Movie..
What a crock! Don't even get me started on the lib/lefties bizarrre way of thinking.
"HER" has it completely bass ackward. Liberals tend to logically anaylize a question until it is too late for a solution while emotional Konservatives alread have every answer already in place because god told then what to do.
LOL LOL
Yup, liberals always sit back and take the cerebral approach to discuss the issues, never jumping to knee-jerk reactions of calling people names or viciously accusing people of committing crimes before the facts are in. Duke/LaCrosse, Martin/Zimmerman, and the "stupidly" comments before the beer summit.... yup all fine examples of thoughtful, logical analysis by libs.
The math behind calculated ROI's for social programs vs. private counterparts disagrees with you.
Not everything has to be about ROIs. Name ONE developed country that doesn't believe in social programs and I will name TWO undeveloped/third world countries that leaves it populace "alone". There's a reason to that.
Quote:
You are relying on your own opinion over hard numbers and fiscal realities. Thank you for proving my point that liberals are just as illogical and irrational as conservatives.
Hard numbers and fiscal realities require analysis beyond promises. Your overly emotional approach to money doesn't work in real world for everybody. When working with portfolio, I'm sure you consider your age, your earnings and manage risks accordingly? No? Let us even pick a hot topic program: Health care. What would be an ideal approach, complete with logical steps to achieve it. Lay it down, so we can go further.
Your repetitive take on concluding that progressives and conservatives (I think it is logical they should be compared with appropriate nomenclature, if they must be seen as opposites), and a holier than thou stance is proof of irrationality. Stay out of jumping to conclusions, the way you want it to. Leave your arguments to do that.
Not everything has to be about ROIs. Name ONE developed country that doesn't believe in social programs and I will name TWO undeveloped/third world countries that leaves it populace "alone". There's a reason to that.
Hard numbers and fiscal realities require analysis beyond promises. Your overly emotional approach to money doesn't work in real world for everybody. When working with portfolio, I'm sure you consider your age, your earnings and manage risks accordingly? No? Let us even pick a hot topic program: Health care. What would be an ideal approach, complete with logical steps to achieve it. Lay it down, so we can go further.
Your repetitive take on concluding that progressives and conservatives (I think it is logical they should be compared with appropriate nomenclature, if they must be seen as opposites), and a holier than thou stance is proof of irrationality. Stay out of jumping to conclusions, the way you want it to. Leave your arguments to do that.
Believing in social programs and giving someone an environment in which they have the best chance of succeeding are two different things.
Let me give you an example: Suppose your brother needs surgery on his knee. You already have $20k in student loans, $130k in a mortgage, $50k in credit card debt and you are struggling to feed your family on a daily basis. No matter how much you want to help your brother, is it a rational decision for you to do so?
I don't have an 'emotional approach' to money. I have a mathematical one. I know the typical conservative or liberal wants to argue from gut feeling rather than numbers, but math IS helpful (believe it or not). Regarding health care: Organizational atrophy is a proven characteristic in large groups. Company life cycles grow from innovation to change to steady state to decline. As organizations become older, they must innovate or decline, and inevitably, all organizations eventually become less efficient than new groups. People become complacent. Things are done simply because 'that is the way we do things'. Government run organizations fall into this trap just as much as corporations, schools, baseball teams and families. Continual change is simply an uncomfortable feeling, and one which people do not want. any health care plan will inevitably decline into a state of atrophy. In a deregulated environment a privately health care company will become complacent to the point in which customers complain, protest, and eventually start looking elsewhere for heath care coverage. Upon that event, a group of people will determine a new way to run a health care company that is efficient and effective. They will start a company and draw business from the first. This competitive environment reduces system wide waste. A government run health care plan, however, cannot be replaced. Innovative thinking can not draw customers away. When a legally mandated program becomes inefficient and apathetic (which, due to the nature of organizational life cycles WILL happen), it is not challenged by something new. Additional funding is given, more money is pumped into what will become a poor program and the net effect on the system is a loss. From the macroeconomic point of view, that is the problem with government run health care.
Do you understand? Once we are on the same page with this very real problem, then we can move into potential strategies to improving health care.
Believing in social programs and giving someone an environment in which they have the best chance of succeeding are two different things.
Let me give you an example: Suppose your brother needs surgery on his knee. You already have $20k in student loans, $130k in a mortgage, $50k in credit card debt and you are struggling to feed your family on a daily basis. No matter how much you want to help your brother, is it a rational decision for you to do so?
I don't have an 'emotional approach' to money. I have a mathematical one. I know the typical conservative or liberal wants to argue from gut feeling rather than numbers, but math IS helpful (believe it or not). Regarding health care: Organizational atrophy is a proven characteristic in large groups. Company life cycles grow from innovation to change to steady state to decline. As organizations become older, they must innovate or decline, and inevitably, all organizations eventually become less efficient than new groups. People become complacent. Things are done simply because 'that is the way we do things'. Government run organizations fall into this trap just as much as corporations, schools, baseball teams and families. Continual change is simply an uncomfortable feeling, and one which people do not want. any health care plan will inevitably decline into a state of atrophy. In a deregulated environment a privately health care company will become complacent to the point in which customers complain, protest, and eventually start looking elsewhere for heath care coverage. Upon that event, a group of people will determine a new way to run a health care company that is efficient and effective. They will start a company and draw business from the first. This competitive environment reduces system wide waste. A government run health care plan, however, cannot be replaced. Innovative thinking can not draw customers away. When a legally mandated program becomes inefficient and apathetic (which, due to the nature of organizational life cycles WILL happen), it is not challenged by something new. Additional funding is given, more money is pumped into what will become a poor program and the net effect on the system is a loss. From the macroeconomic point of view, that is the problem with government run health care.
Do you understand? Once we are on the same page with this very real problem, then we can move into potential strategies to improving health care.
The two things start with one: Believing in it. Do you? It doesn't sound like it. Your idea, that works for an individual, can be applied to be a society is an illogical one.
To begin with, a country with social programs that work for the people doesn't start with the idea that people be burdened with debt due to necessities. It is where the role of society versus the individual comes into play. Its a good thing that I have $0 in credit card debt (well, I do have an outstanding balance of $236 which is due in two weeks but that is already scheduled to be paid off in entirety, as it always is). It is a good thing I will have paid off my first home in couple of years. It will be a proud moment for this person in his 30s to have done so, and while residing in a second home which is also being paid off (from rent of the first). It is a good thing that this guy doesn't have a $1K in student loans, much less $20K, because he graduated in a country with functioning social programs that works for the people, and the ability to get employer sponsored MBA instead of $50K in loans?
That is what well run social programs can do. No? Or, do you not believe in it?
My wife runs a subsidized daycare in our home. All of her customers are single working moms. Now, It costs the region a pretty penny to pay for daycare for these kids but let's look at the benefits for the government and the society for having such a progressive system. First of all these ladies are not on welfare. If they were not working they would be. If they had to pay for their own daycare they would be on welfare because they could not afford it and so therefore they would stay at home. In most cases these are young ladies with about 30 or more working years ahead of them. Because they are working now and will continue to work through these years of having children under the the age of 5 they will still be working and PAYING TAXES when their kids no longer need care.
This type of system prevents the type of lifelong and multi generational welfare that we see so often in the USA. It's a case of spending a buck to save thousands. It's a fact that most of your American right wing idiots would spend millions and complain the entire time about it rather than invest smart in programmes that pay. Just take a look at the welfare stats for your very conservative states and you will see I'm correct.
Yup, liberals always sit back and take the cerebral approach to discuss the issues, never jumping to knee-jerk reactions of calling people names or viciously accusing people of committing crimes before the facts are in. Duke/LaCrosse, Martin/Zimmerman, and the "stupidly" comments before the beer summit.... yup all fine examples of thoughtful, logical analysis by libs.
Jumping the gun on trials is not liberal or conservative. Everyone who presumed OJ or Michael Jackson to be guilty before their trial is a liberal? Conservatives literally invented lynch mobs, anyone remember McCartyism? Conservatives never use logic, half of them will divorce in their lifetime, which is against the Bible but they want gay marriage banned because it's against the Bible. Conservatives have little to no logical faculties, allowing them to be comfortable with their own hypocrisy.
What a crock! Don't even get me started on the lib/lefties bizarrre way of thinking.
Get started we need more amusement and you guys are getting kinda stale lately just not seeing the usual hard core emotion that most Americans have come to expect from the righties..,more names and things to hate pleaseTell us more about President Santorum ..
Wow this forum is a just a circle jerk hate fest fest for the left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL
Tell us more about President Santorum ..
