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.
With these disorders, there is a sense of guilt and poor personal sense of net worth that contributes to reinforcing these problems. Liberalism is essentially a reflection of these same sentiments from a personal level to the world around them.
This thread is a perfect illustration of this point. When presented with a hypothetical situation (which in the current state of affairs would be nearly impossible to achieve) which would markedly benefit the nation, and essentially everyone in the nation, a liberal would choose an option directly opposed to their own benefit. To be economically secure and prosperous is something that everyone desires, yet a liberal would actively and consciously choose NOT TO DO THIS. It is essentially a macro reflecton of thier own personal self doubt and contempt.
PS- our total gold reserves are peanuts and a return of the draft would be a good thing.
You could get about $280 billion if we liquidated all of the US gold reserves. Obama would burn through that in two months.
You're original question could have easily been, "If there was pie in the sky, would you eat it?"
The election of Barak Obama is a perfect example of your question. He sold the nation on "Hope and Change". After 8 years of Bush every one was ready for his message. Many Republicans cast their vote for him or stayed home on election day rather than vote for McCain. I see no logical reason why a liberal wouldn't vote for a republican candidate if one came along and moved the country with his message and a lot of Democrats and liberals would vote for him or her over the party line.
The problem I have with this thread is that in every one of your posts you use the opportunity to bash liberals and stereotype them as some sort of illness or mental retardation. This leads me to believe that your initial agenda was to brand liberals with your own bias rather than engage in a meaningful discussion. Why in the world would you invite liberals to participate in your thread only to bash them unmercifully for doing so?
With these disorders, there is a sense of guilt and poor personal sense of net worth that contributes to reinforcing these problems. Liberalism is essentially a reflection of these same sentiments from a personal level to the world around them.
This thread is a perfect illustration of this point. When presented with a hypothetical situation (which in the current state of affairs would be nearly impossible to achieve) which would markedly benefit the nation, and essentially everyone in the nation, a liberal would choose an option directly opposed to their own benefit. To be economically secure and prosperous is something that everyone desires, yet a liberal would actively and consciously choose NOT TO DO THIS. It is essentially a macro reflecton of thier own personal self doubt and contempt.
PS- our total gold reserves are peanuts and a return of the draft would be a good thing.
You're original question could have easily been, "If there was pie in the sky, would you eat it?"
The election of Barak Obama is a perfect example of your question. He sold the nation on "Hope and Change". After 8 years of Bush every one was ready for his message. Many Republicans cast their vote for him or stayed home on election day rather than vote for McCain. I see no logical reason why a liberal wouldn't vote for a republican candidate if one came along and moved the country with his message and a lot of Democrats and liberals would vote for him or her over the party line.
The problem I have with this thread is that in every one of your posts you use the opportunity to bash liberals and stereotype them as some sort of illness or mental retardation. This leads me to believe that your initial agenda was to brand liberals with your own bias rather than engage in a meaningful discussion. Why in the world would you invite liberals to participate in your thread only to bash them unmercifully for doing so?
The "opportunity to bash liberals" was simply revealed by the responses of most of the liberals to the original question. The liberals could have chosen to respond in a rational manner, but they did not. It was thier choice.
A scenario was created in which essentially and economic messiah, who came and delivered the US from all of its economic problems, would be shunned by most liberals if he was a republican. Did you not find this information informative, entertaining, and shocking? I certainly did. I can say with 100% certainty that if such a democrat came around, he would have my vote forever.
Now that being said, I really think that there is a link between the higher incidence of mental illness among liberals and thier irrational views. Obviously, anyone who said they would not support such a president is clearly opposing policy that would benefit them quite markedly as well as the nation. One would certainly offer that such a decision would not only be irrational, but would border on the insane. Self destructive actions are contrary to human nature of self preservation and when one views this, it certainly raises some intersting questions. This is not to say that all liberals suffer from mental illness. However, a significant number certainly do, which is a partial explanation for many of thier current views (which are self destructive) and thier inability to vote for the "perfect politician", simply because he is a republican. That is entertaining and disturbing at the same time, yet calls to question the judgement of many liberals in any decision making process in which they will shun such an option.
Liberals are more principled than Republicans- FACT
We are not talking about "principles" here. We are talking about mental illness and irrational decisions. Liberals appear to own those attributes quite clearly.
The data shows that this is true, and the responses of liberals were entirely consistent with what we would expect of one who engages in self destructive behavior which is contrary to inate tendencies toward self preservation and attainment of personal stability.
We are not talking about "principles" here. We are talking about mental illness and irrational decisions. Liberals appear to own those attributes quite clearly.
The data shows that this is true, and the responses of liberals were entirely consistent with what we would expect of one who engages in self destructive behavior which is contrary to inate tendencies toward self preservation and attainment of personal stability.
Is there some reason that you chose a study that was based on an internet survey? Hawkeye........that is an unreliable study. And don't you find this current path for those who attempt to castigate liberals on mental illnes along the same lines as the ones that equate conservatism with mental illness? Pathologizing Conservatism - Reason Magazine
If you want to get technical there is enough "studies" that have been done to prove that conservatism is a mental illness. I could ha ha ha all over you.
BUT.....
I have a problem with this. Once belief in whatever your ideology may be is classified as a mental illness..........what next? Shall we revert to a Stalin like approach and lock people up for their political preferences? You need to research authoritarianism and conservatives. By the 1950's there has been research that links authoritarianism/conservatives and the Nazi thought process. At some point, it would seem beneficial to our society as a whole to say.........hold up there....where are we going with this??
This tells me that you are either not aware of the history (all over the world) and repercussions or you have chosen to ignore it in an effort to spread propaganda and lies for your personal politics.
A scenario was created in which essentially and economic messiah, who came and delivered the US from all of its economic problems, would be shunned by most liberals if he was a republican. Did you not find this information informative, entertaining, and shocking? I certainly did.
I find your level of dishonesty to be informative, entertaining and shocking.
Not one person who responded to you responded with a "hell no!" Everyone, including myself, said "it depends." The only reasonable response, given the very truncated description you gave of this hypothetical Republican's career.
Quote:
I can say with 100% certainty that if such a democrat came around, he would have my vote forever.
Then I suppose you voted for Clinton in 1996, since he did everything on your list, aside from improve the balance of trade (although free-market economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell have consistently pooh-poohed the idea that trade deficits are intrinsically bad. Keynesian liberals are historically the ones in a froth over imbalances in trade.)
I find your level of dishonesty to be informative, entertaining and shocking.
Not one person who responded to you responded with a "hell no!" Everyone, including myself, said "it depends." The only reasonable response, given the very truncated description you gave of this hypothetical Republican's career.
Then I suppose you voted for Clinton in 1996, since he did everything on your list, aside from improve the balance of trade (although free-market economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell have consistently pooh-poohed the idea that trade deficits are intrinsically bad. Keynesian liberals are historically the ones in a froth over imbalances in trade.)
1. The economy was better in Clinton's second term due to the republican congress. One could not vote on "his" economic record, as he could not run for a third term.
2. Clinton is the author of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. How is that working out for our trade imbalance and unemployment?
3. Clinton raised taxes.
4. Clinton added to the debt and had annual deficits (the "surplus" was projected).
So if a republican delivered EVERYTHING that the nation needs from an economic standpoint, you still would not vote for him?
I am beginning to understand how Obama was elected. Liberals appear to really not care what happens to the nation's economy, as long as a liberal is in the White House. Amazing.
Now you're catching on. Many liberals, Obama among them, WANT to destroy the economy so that they can remake America into their idea of what it should be (Socialist, statist, radical left society). They'd probably prefer violetn revolution like the way must communists come to power but they know that wouldn't work in America where they ar only a small percent of the electorate. So, instead, they try to crash the system and then step in as its saviors after delcaring the death of capitalism. The media will go along with them and they just hope most Americans won't notice it ws they who caused the crash in the first place.
1. The economy was better in Clinton's second term due to the republican congress. One could not vote on "his" economic record, as he could not run for a third term.
You offered a prospect of reelecting a GOP president. I presumed you meant for a second term and not a third.
Quote:
2. Clinton is the author of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. How is that working out for our trade imbalance and unemployment?
Clinton is the "author of NAFTA"? That would be impressive, if true, since the final agreement was about 1,700 pages; he'd even have beaten the record of Leo Tolstoy, Ayn Rand and J. K. Rowling. But in fact, negotiations for the treaty began in 1986, when Clinton was a rather obscure governor, and the draft treaty was signed by George H.W. Bush on December 17, 1992.
As to how it is working out, the free market economists who influence Republican policies tend to think it is working out fine for the economy as a whole. I don't claim the expertise to know if they are right. I do know that unemployment dropped from 7.3% to 4.2% between January 1993 and January 2001. These facts are out there if you bother looking for them.
Quote:
3. Clinton raised taxes.
You never said anything about taxes. Your number 3 said "stop debt escalation", which he did if you consider debt relative to GDP.
[/quote]4. Clinton added to the debt and had annual deficits (the "surplus" was projected).[/quote]
No, there were in fact surpluses for three or four straight years--they just weren't enough to offset the crushing $300 million annual interest payments that he'd inherited from every president since Andrew Jackson, so the absolute amount of debt continued to rise, slightly. As a percent of GDP, however, the debt fell from 66.1% to 65.4% in his first term, and a jaw-dropping 65.4% to 56.4% in his second term.
The funny thing is, I didn't vote for Clinton in 1996 either. I thought at the time he was a lying bum and still do; and then, as now, I didn't make my decision based solely on the economic statistics because there is more to life. It's just ironic that he passes almost all your economic tests with flying colors.
[quote=hawkeye2009;16296855]The "opportunity to bash liberals" was simply revealed by the responses of most of the liberals to the original question. The liberals could have chosen to respond in a rational manner, but they did not. It was thier choice.
i went through this thread once again and re-read every post. NOT ONE Person made a comment that would seem as not rational. Not one person I could find who may identify themselves as a liberal stooped to the childish name calling and generalization that you've chosen to stoop too. If you find it difficult to having an accepting a difference of opinions then maybe having a adult discussion is not for you.
Not one President has been able to successfully complete any of the points that you've presented, so instead of accepting honest answers to your OP, you've chosen the typical uncoherent bias tersed responses.
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.
