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 heard an interesting young female calling into Medved recently. Her point was essentially that while conservatives tend to rely on logic, liberals tend to 'think' via emotion. Hence in order to win over liberals, conservatives need to learn how to deploy emotion in debates instead of depending so much on logic.
In my opinion it's the opposite. Uber conservatives are more fearful, emotionally reactive, and black and white. (Note, I am not referring to ALL conservatives)
My opinion is also backed up by recent brain scan studies.
They don't seem to be able to cope with complexity or logic.
If they don't understand it: shoot it, make laws against it, or deny it.
It is the truth. All one has to do is open your eyes. Too much poop to see through for many of the counterclockwisers.
You've just shown that you see poop everywhere. Perhaps that's because you have your head up your behind, so when you open your eyes all you see is poop.
"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.
Did you follow the link and read the comments by the ******* posters?
Not a one of them asked when the hoodie was initially offered for sale.
The librag that made the accusation lied and was never once called on it, so save the self-adulatory rhetoric.
The real difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are those that are too liberal for their own good; while conservatives are those that are only liberal for their own good. Either way you want to look at it, neither come out looking very good.
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?
Can you actually address the issues I raised instead of sidestepping them?
Well run social programs are extremely beneficial, as I said. The issue is that any program does not continue to run well, which is why government run programs are a poor answer. Can you please address the organizational atrophy issues that I raised in context of a government organization?
You seem to think everything is this perfect, textbook scenario. You (with all due respect) sound like the idealistic college student who is ignorant of how things work in a realistic setting. Hell, you sound like I did seven years ago.
Can you actually address the issues I raised instead of sidestepping them?
What issue? That social programs don't push people into unnecessary debt?
Quote:
Well run social programs are extremely beneficial, as I said. The issue is that any program does not continue to run well, which is why government run programs are a poor answer.
Contradiction.
Anything can be run well, or not. The answer is not to shift around the responsibilities, but to ensure responsibility and accountability. That is fundamental to the foundation of the nation. My point: social programs can be run well and we, as a people, should take upon the responsibility that they do.
Quote:
Can you please address the organizational atrophy issues that I raised in context of a government organization?
They exist everywhere, government and non-government. The difference being, dysfunctional private organizations disappear.
Quote:
You seem to think everything is this perfect, textbook scenario. You (with all due respect) sound like the idealistic college student who is ignorant of how things work in a realistic setting. Hell, you sound like I did seven years ago.
No, that appears to be a lifeline of your argument, and strawman at its best. If I sound "idealistic college student", then it can only be because you've not experienced what it is like to be debt free for someone just out of college. It speaks highly of the kind of "logic" you trumpet.
What issue? That social programs don't push people into unnecessary debt?
Contradiction.
Anything can be run well, or not. The answer is not to shift around the responsibilities, but to ensure responsibility and accountability. That is fundamental to the foundation of the nation. My point: social programs can be run well and we, as a people, should take upon the responsibility that they do.
Please address how you plan to combat social atrophy in government run organizations. You completely ignored that issue, and you are talking as it it does not happen. Please re-read my previous post and address the concerns about social atrophy in organizations. Private companies can go out of business when they run out of money. That fear of failure drive them to innovate, and when they fail to do so, they close their doors and another company opens. That is impossible with government.
I do, however, agree we as a people should take responsibility for helping those in need. So stop pawning that responsibility off on the government and start actually doing something yourself. Tell me Einstein, how much do you personally do to help others?
Quote:
They exist everywhere, government and non-government. The difference being, dysfunctional private organizations disappear.
So you admit that dysfunctional government organizations continue to be supported by taxpayers? How the hell are you OK with that?
Quote:
No, that appears to be a lifeline of your argument, and strawman at its best. If I sound "idealistic college student", then it can only be because you've not experienced what it is like to be debt free for someone just out of college. It speaks highly of the kind of "logic" you trumpet.
Tell me yes or no: Are you currently a college student at a liberal arts school?
Please address how you plan to combat social atrophy in government run organizations. You completely ignored that issue, and you are talking as it it does not happen.
Give me an example. We will work with it.
Quote:
I do, however, agree we as a people should take responsibility for helping those in need. So stop pawning that responsibility off on the government and start actually doing something yourself. Tell me Einstein, how much do you personally do to help others?
"Should", as a word, has a very specific meaning. There are no guarantees. Implications, however, are guaranteed.
Quote:
So you admit that dysfunctional government organizations continue to be supported by taxpayers? How the hell are you OK with that?
Based on your idea of logic, it sounds like it, doesn't it? Because you couldn't think far enough. You can hold government accountable, and change it. You can't hold accountable a company that disappears or one that you have no control beyond being a "consumer". It is why protections are put in place.
Quote:
Tell me yes or no: Are you currently a college student at a liberal arts school?
According to your idea of logic, I'm. This is a logical conclusion based on your irrational argument presented earlier. This is merely an extension of that.
Again, actually READ the post in which I explained the problem. I am not going to repeat myself to save you the trouble of click back a few pages.
Quote:
"Should", as a word, has a very specific meaning. There are no guarantees. Implications, however, are guaranteed.
So how much do you personally help others? You didn't answer the question.
Quote:
Based on your idea of logic, it sounds like it, doesn't it? Because you couldn't think far enough. You can hold government accountable, and change it. You can't hold accountable a company that disappears or one that you have no control beyond being a "consumer". It is why protections are put in place.
Give me a single example of an inefficient government run organization that was reformed to the point where it was performing better than a private counterpart. Just one. Any country, any government, any time period.
Quote:
According to your idea of logic, I'm. This is a logical conclusion based on your irrational argument presented earlier. This is merely an extension of that.
It was a yes or no question. Right now, are you a college student at a liberal arts school?
The way you dodge questions, you could be a politician.
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.
