Comments for There's No Arguing With Conservatives ... No, Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It »
Posted By Wil 1 year, 2 months ago in Political NewsA new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 120
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is hilarious. A very liberal institution finds that hardcore liberals can't change a conservatives mind about core beliefs. What news. How about the reverse. Do the hard core liberals take seriously anything that Conservatives try to present. Somehow I don't think so.
Reply
The one subject that was covered was a study that shows there were no WMD found. The only problem is that as of 2006 there were over 600 found and many Conservatives know this. So why would they believe a report like that. How many liberals will admit that there were over 600 WMD's found? They will stonewall with that report and others like it. Why does neither side look at ALL of the evidence.
Another subject had a paper that said that there no increase in Revenues when taxes are cut. The problem is that most conservatives have heard about the fact that a 19% increase in revenues happened after the tax cuts. A paper saying something that many know to be false against the fact that the Bush administration said that it happened and there is an actual amount of increase. The Bush tax cut brought a 19% revenue increase. A fact of life is that since Kennedy every time the tax is raised the revenue goes down and every time the tax is lowered the revenue goes up. Kennedy knew it but liberals today don't believe it. Again the study tries to make believe these people operate in a vacuum.
Here is a problem that the people doing this don't even realize how they are biased.
--------------------
The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?
--------------------
Why is it that the left believes they are the only holders of truth? I have seen so many in the media and here on Propeller tell lies and believe it is the truth. Gore won, Supreme Court gave the election to Bush, Bush lied, then there is the big list of lies about Palin.
The real study should have been whether or not either side can change the mind of the other side. Let ALL of the evidence be presented to a group of half conservatives and half liberals and see what each side ends up believing. The real problem is making sure that the information is not slanted towards one side or the other or if it is then a balance of half going one way and half going the other way.-
100%
ADAGUY1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you fail to address is the fact that so many of these claims you say are facts, are indeed not facts, but are mere Limbaugh bull$hit! Even your own pres says that there were no WMD's, but you are more intelligent than he is, as you know that there were 600.
Reply
Perhaps you should let him in on this!
You say that revenue went up after the tax cuts, yet that is only if you use the REAGAN MATH!
You know, it's kind of like saying that flipping burgers is a manufacturing job!
I would love to take you on one point at a time, but you know you don't have the facts to back up this silly claims.
Therefore, you continue to make such allegations as posted above!-
EndoscopyComment removed: Spam
-
EndoscopyComment removed: Spam
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I put several links into a post and they remove it as spam. Look them up yourself. Google Iraq "WMD found" and get a suprise. Yout saying that some of them being corroded means they don't count is garbage. They found barrels of gas, Depleted Uranium munitions, Uranium stockpiled, etc. Now go stick your head in the sand.
Reply
One story tells of a place in Syria that has some stockpiles of Iraq WMD for use with their missile program.
Keep dreaming and it will all be a bad dream instead of real weapons.-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
Reply
- George W. Bush, October 2004
I googled "wmd found."
the only pages that said WMDs were found were from worldnetdaily, foxnews and the washington times. the axis of non-integrity.
now you google: NO WMD IN IRAQ
boo
yah
-
-
-
100%
NoWayMan1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
endo wrote: "This is hilarious. A very liberal institution finds that hardcore liberals can't change a conservatives mind about core beliefs."
Reply
You're right. it is hilarious. especially since George W. Bush attended this "very liberal" institution.
very funny. I knew it was all downhill from there so I stopped reading.
-
-
altruisms-enemyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
88%
epiphannyy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe this should serve as a lesson to those of us who try to fight this fight with facts and figures, because we are met with the closed mind of those unwilling to face any fact that doesn't fit their own agenda. Maybe this explains why, despite the facts out there that McCain fully intends to continue down the same road as Bush, there is still little difference in the polls between him and Obama. Maybe we should change our tactics and ignore the conservative base because the more we try to make them understand, the more they dig in their heels. Maybe we should instead focus on the fence sitters who aren't so entrenched in stupidity that facts and figures will make sense to them and perhaps they'll see what is most obvious to the rest of us. I certainly don't want to lose this election because we forced the ignorant to dig their heels in because they felt threatened by facts that intimidated them. I'd rather let them live in ignorance and sway the uncommitted instead.
Reply-
90%
not2needy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We can't fight them with facts.. When we tell them something and back it up with proof, they won't even look at the proof..
Reply
They're happy in their dreamstate, and to disrupt it only angers instead of enlightens them.
FTA:
Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder.
Also FTA:
The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?
There's nothing we can do to get them to understand.. I know MANY conservatives that still maintain that there were WMD in Iraq, even though Bush has admitted that there was none. They can't be wrong about anything, EVER!-
33%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only the true liberals have the truth right? What a crock. You people put on your blinders just like the very liberal Yale University who did this study.
Reply
Look at your post. You still believe that there were no WMD. What did those Kurds die of. Drinking too much Kool Aid? A few months after the invasion was done there were discovered 200 WMD's. They were ridiculed as being in bad shape. Then the MSM ignores that as of 2006 there were over 500 found. But there were no WMD's. Why do you people tell your lies over and over again in the face of contrary evidence.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?i...
-
-
-
88%
crespi1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have seen this a thousand times on propeller, where Neocon Republicans push 2 or 3 bald-faced lies.
Reply
Then, when reasonable people take the time to factually disprove the lies, the Cons don't admit being wrong but instead throw in 2 or 3 MORE bald-faced lies that need to be disproven, and again and again and again until they wear down the best intentioned logical person.-
89%
not2needy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
crespi, i have said this a thousand times and i will say it again and again.. conservatives will defend another conservative's right to flush this country down the toilet, and curse a Liberal for trying to save it.
Reply
They hate paying a taxes, they think that only Liberals should pay taxes, but they should have all the money. No logic to the way they think.. They scream about this being the greatest nation in the world, but don't want to pay their share to keep it running. They will go back decades in an effort to find some liberal they can blame for the woes we are suffering today.
The cons on prop all try to act like they are all in the 1 or 2 percent of the most wealthy, when in fact,,, I know for a fact that some of the most outspoken ones are living on the govt dime.. WELFARE! The majority of the cons on Propeller are no better off than the libbies are, in fact there are many of them that aren't as well off financially.
When i was a social worker, one thing i was required to do was register people to vote, if they wanted to... The majority of them registered republican! I know many republicans who are out of work, don't want to work, and they count on the republicans to keep them out of work.. Bottom line.-
Neutral
ADAGUY1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know exactly what you are saying. I have a house I sold a guy, and he makes payments to me on a deed of trust. He worked for three years trying to get disability. (Bad back ya know!)
Reply
He weighs no more than 170 lbs, and is around 5'8" tall. around 45 yrs old.
Now that he has the disability, he sits around all day and tells the rest of us about how bad the US needs to cut entitlements!
But his is just one guy, I can show you several just like him.
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about the multitudinous lies that the liberals tell.
Reply
Gore won
The Supreme court gave the election to Bush
Bush lied
Kerry won
Bush is a criminal
Bush has destroyed the constitution
Republicans are responsible for the cost of Gas
Republicans are responsible for the sub prime mess
Palin has less experience than Obama
Lies galore about Palin
Her son is her grand son
She banned books
etc.-
-
Neutral
epiphannyy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gore won - Gore did win the popular vote, and would have won the presidency if the Supreme court hadn't pulled the plug on the Florida recount before they could say so. Don't believe it? Look it up. That fact is NOT in dispute, even by the republicans in the Beltway.
Reply
The Supreme court gave the election to Bush - Again, they did. Look it up. Lying about it by denying it happened doesn't change documented history, sorry.
Bush lied - This one is too laughable to even try and defend. If you honestly believe he hasn't, then I dare say you're lost to all reason.
Kerry won - I never heard this one, but I would agree that he didn't win......although I think he SHOULD have, but that's a different story. The only way that election was stolen was through swiftboat lies against him, but that doesn't equal him winning, because I don't believe he did.-
Neutral
epiphannyy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush is a criminal - He is. He's broken more laws while in office than any President in history. From orchestrating a war on faulty intelligence that he knew wasn't reliable to his overstepping the bounds of his office and attempting to influence the judicial branch through illegal firings over political issues....he's broken MANY laws. And I won't even get into the whole issue of torture and violation of the Magna Carta through the suspension of habeas corpus.
Reply
Bush has destroyed the constitution - What part of the Bill of Rights would you like to address first?
Republicans are responsible for the cost of Gas - Through their support of the oil lobby and failure to address the record profits of the oil industry while the American citizen had to pay record prices, they are. They were in control of Congress until just a couple years ago, and all reform legislation attempted by the Democrats since taking over has been scuttled through a record number of filibusters and Bush's veto pen.
Republicans are responsible for the sub prime mess - Yes, they are. It was the republicans who insisted on deregulation and this is where it has led. Cry about it all you wish, but that is the simple truth of the matter.-
Neutral
epiphannyy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Palin has less experience than Obama - Although I realize this is debatable because people weigh different experience differently, but I believe he is, and I'll tell you why. His years in the legislative body, not only at the federal level but the state level as well, gives him insight and experience that Palin only pretends to understand. I think being governor does offer a unique perspective, but not when your entire state population isn't even close to the size of any American major city. The budget doesn't compare, the issues don't compare. Its not the same as, let's say, a former governor of a state like California (like Reagan was) whose budget rivals many countries. Simply being "governor" doesn't equal experience on the full scale, because of the variables involved.
Reply
Lies galore about Palin - I agree, Palin has been the victim of some lies......but no more so than Obama has (i.e. he's really an undercover Muslim, he wasn't born in the US, etc)
Her son is her grand son - You're repeating yourself...lol
She banned books - Actually, she didn't succeed, but she DID try. Not as governor, but as Mayor when she tried to have My Two Daddies banned from the local library. She didn't succeed because her contemporaries didn't agree with her saying they had read the book and it didn't seem to be out of line. When asked about it, she said she "didn't need to read it, that the title told her enough" to make her mind up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
50%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You never seem to want to tell the truth. Only the very biased liberal mantras that many times have no foundation in fact. A major problem is that liberals want to argue from emotion while conservative want to argue from logic.
Reply
We ignore the emotional appeals that are not supported by logic.
You ignore the basic logic leaving the emotions out.
Therefore we seem to talk past each other.
-
-
73%
Will13131 year, 2 months ago
-
75%
crespi1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When a dirty, rotten, vicious owlhoot gunslinger says "Draw" I blast 'im.
Reply
I leave the petting of rattlers to liberals...
Backing down from bullies has cost this country many of the freedoms the Founding Fathers worked their lives for.
You won't fight for those ORIGINAL PATRIOTS, or the Constitution?
Don't worry, I WILL...-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who does the most using of the ad hominem attacks. Liberals.
Reply
Then you say that Conservatives use hateful dishonest techniques.
Things like facts are hateful and dishonest I guess.
Like this about WMD.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?i...
-
-
100%
Will13131 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Backing down from bullies has cost this country many of the freedoms the Founding Fathers worked their lives for.
Reply
You won't fight for those ORIGINAL PATRIOTS, or the Constitution?
--
i don't back down from much.. fighting with IDIOTS on these boards really accomplishes NOTHING
don't get your panties in a wad..-
71%
crespi1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then don't criticize my style.
Reply
And don't feed me defeatism like "accomplishes nothing."
I have seen anti-Con lines lifted from propeller and used on Colbert and even making it into the mainstream media.
The Neocons have well documented, and VERY well funded "think tanks" of disinformation and anti-Democracy lies.
They MUST be countered to the best of our abilities.
You do it your way, I'll do it mine...-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
100%
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Will and crespi: hate to see you two agrueing about methods in combating the entrenched stupidity of CONS. Both of you agree that CONS are the problem. Focus on them and not each other. This is a social forum and nothing more. But I agree with cerspi, you have to confront evil and or stupidity or you'll give them a free ride. Make them pay for every lie they propagate. And remember other independent readers with intelligence are lurking and observing what we say.
Reply-
crespiComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Will1313Comment removed: Spam
-
MurphyStoutComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
100%
not2needy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know.. they're not true Republicans Will, whatever happened to the GOP!?
Reply
These people on prop don't even read our posts, they just randomly neg our comments based on who made the comment. I have had cons on here admit that to me. AND, they don't even read the posts of fellow cons, just pos them based on who they are. That's the way they do business.-
60%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
right back at you, n2n.
Reply
Several months ago, someone posted an article about "scientific proof" that liberals were mentally disturbed or some such nonsense. That was ridiculous (although it was some fun for us) and this is also ridiculous.
I look at who's here crowing about this "proof" and what a surprise! It is mostly the most intractable (yeah, that's probably spelled wrong), most stubborn and most hateful (toward conservatives) of the libs that post here.
What a surprise.
When you going to realize, that, although we don't agree on the methods, our end goals are pretty close to the same?
Until both sides let go of their hate and realize that we are ALL Americans and the majority of us mean well, there can be NO real discussion, NO real compromise and NO real progress on any of the major issues that are plaguing this country.
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is also proof positive that it is impossible to reason with a liberal.
Reply
"They don't care if this country sinks into the depths of hell, as long as it's a republican who takes us there, it's all good."
This is an example of the open minded view of liberals.-
Neutral
ADAGUY1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ENDO, if you really believe that the republican party is so good for America, shut up the bull$hit, and ty responding to the questions and facts that are posted, instead of changing the subject.
Reply
It doesn't matter what is being discussed, once the blame looks as if it may fall on the GOP, people like you change the subject, to blow jobs!
Let me ask you something. For 8 years we heard Limbaugh reflect on Clinton as causing "the moral decay of our nation"
But when all the republicans were caught with pages, and tapping their foot in the bathroom stall, and dating wh ores, did you ever hear this remark one time?
Try answering the question with a simple YES or NO, rather than changing the subject.-
100%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The basic difference between Liberals that get caught and the Conservative one is the conservative are told to leave by the conservatives. While the liberals tell the liberal caught that he is someone to be admired.
Reply
Case in point from both sides.
Mark Foley was conned into sending an instant message that was somewhat homosexual in nature. The Democrats howled and ranted about it. They had the information and waited until the elections were close to use it. The message wasn't that bad but the Democrats went into a full court press. Foley ws told to resign by Republicans.
A 12-term congressman from Massachusetts, Mr. Studds was a ranking member of the House Democratic leadership and popular in his 10th Congressional District in 1983 when he was censured for sexual misconduct with a 17-year-old male page that had occurred 10 years earlier. Mr. Studds told the House that his affair with the page was "a very serious error in judgment" but that it was "a mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults." He was praised for his forward thinking by many Democrats as this censure was done. He has been praised many times for many items. Not once was he asked to resign. Everybody ignored the fact that a 17 year old is not an adult and interns are to be protected.
Now tell me how bad Republicans are and how good the Democrats are. Hypocrites.
-
-
-
-
100%
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening."
Reply
This is at least a sane reason to argue with insane people. Other independent minded spectators may be able to discern the difference between facts and fiction and then make up their own minds on who to believe.-
100%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What liberals usually use is emotional appeals. Help the "needy" etc. Never counting the cost and defining who is really needy. Statistics are usually to prove how heartless conservatives are for ignoring the "needy" people. The argument for liberals goes at an upper plane. Conservatives want definitions about who is really needy and how much this will cost. We have found over the years that the bleeding heart liberals want to help everybody at a huge cost. They never look at what their programs will do to people.
Reply
Poor Blacks were very family oriented in the 60's. Then came ADC. Girls with a child could move out and get an apartment of their own etc. If they needed more money then just have another kid. A trickle in the poor black areas turned into a flood. They finally put on a brake about how many kids they could get extra money for. Today in the poor black area the guys go around bragging about how many kids they have and the girls get apartments and money for having kids out of wedlock. Remember that a man can't live there and the girl get money.
Liberals never stop to think how people will change how they do things because of money. Why not. This program was mashed in my face while I was a foster parent in the Detroit Metro area. I went from liberal to conservative over that program. Liberals never think about unintended consequences. They happen and "Oh well!"-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush.
Reply
He let too many of the Democrats write too much of the bills. The House revolted a couple of times but Bush kept them in line. If they had held out maybe they would still be a majority. Then look at the do nothing congress we have now. Congress has NEVER had such low ratings.
-
-
-
-
100%
cleare1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i don't expect to change the fixated minds of the neocon apologists on propeller. but i do hope to reach some of the readers and lurkers who may not post much, but are there in great numbers.
Reply
i'm hoping the same is true in the real world, that non-combatants (independents) are paying attention to the truth and not letting themselves be spun hither and yon. -
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
kobzikov1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only if you're trying to change someone's mind.
Reply
If on the other hand, you want to demonstrate that the opposing argument is specious or fallacious for those who aren't familiar with the argument or for those who have an open mind, then countering someone's argument is an extremely worthy cause.
And if whoever you are debating with is open to the possibility of being wrong, then even if you might not change their mind by debating them you might make them think and question their erroneous positions and long-held preconceptions. And I think that's a good thing.
In the process you might also realize that your positions aren't sufficiently strong or might find even more evidence for them and learn something new in the process of reinforcing your argument with additional research. So often debates not only aren't a total loss, but are a net gain if not for the opposing side, then for those unfamiliar with the positions and yourself if you learn something in the process. -
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everytime you speak, babble comes out. Liberals, liberals, liberals. You've got that mantra on your puny brain and it's imprinted in cement. Liberals didn't start a war based on lies. Liberals didn't deregulate our financial institutions and cause the economic crisis we are in now. Liberals didn't deregulate all the other government agencies that help protect the environment and citizens by wiping out safe guards that reduced pollution and carbon emissions, nor protect us from hazardous products from other countries. Liberals didn't politicize our judiciary so that those who commit crimes in the Bush administration will never be held accountable. Liberals didn't dismantle some of our Constitutional rights like habeas corpus and allowed unwarranted wire taps or torture as a national policy. Liberals haven't had control over our country the last seven years. It's all on you CONS.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
50%
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain claims that America’s best days are ahead of them. The only way that would be true is if by some miracle, all the ultra right-wing republicans and the religious right, dropped dead right on the spot.
Reply
I don’t say this lightly. It has become apparent that it will be either us or them. It seems that the only thing they understand is brute force. Maybe it’s time someone gave them some.-
100%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain warned about the Fannie Mae nd Freddy Mac mess coming that would cost the tax payers a bunch of money. But Obama, Clinton, Dodd, Frank, and other Democrats would not vote for the reform needed. It was "HANDS OFF" of those institutions. Those Democrats had received very large donations form those organizations. Dodd got the biggest chunk with Clinton and Obama coming in second and third. They took their money and did what was asked. Great leaders.
Reply
Your candidate. Who was correct in this case?-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McBush was clueless then and even more so now. Show me where he warned us about Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. Wasn't he the deregulation maverick? He was one of those who wanted to dismantle regulations that would have checked in this greed and abuse of financial institutions.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hey, Charlson, here is a link that spells it out. Bush even mentioned the need for more oversight over Fannie and Freddie in his State of the Union address.
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/member/amazed/submissions...
-
-
-
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
50%
pc251 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we tend to look at it this way
Reply
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/modern_l...
Modern Liberalism Is A Form Of Mental Illness
In case you need a book to tell you what you already know, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr., M.D., wrote a book about modern liberalism's irrationality being the product of psychopathology: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty:
"So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.
This makes complete sense and explains the Liberal thinking and behavior that defies any other explanation.-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The CONS have got us to where we are now, not liberals. You can keep on blaming liberals when most people know it's you CONS who have been in power the last seven years. And you've managed to mess up our country in that time and now want four more years of the same. What kind of hallucinogens are you taking?
Reply
-
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
100%
bigurn1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article declares a cause and effect relationship between the belief and the refutation. It assumes that the refutation is the truth and is inarguable.
Reply
The problem lies in the potential that the refutation is not the truth, or is arguable. In either of these cases, the refutation would only prove to bolster the original claim and would improve the argument for the cause and not against it.
Case 1: 552 cylinders of Sarin gas and VX were indeed found in Iraq. They lacked a dispersant, but are both considered weapons of mass distruction.
Case 2: 2007 tax receipts set a record. The previous record was 2006 tax receipts. These receipts came on the heels of the tax rebate checks, thus relating the cause and effect relationship of lowering taxes to tax receipts.
Also the JFK years proved this as well. JFK lowered taxes in his short Presidency, and tax receipts rose.-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry Bigurn:
Reply
I have been doing a biit of reading.
I could find the sources if pressed.
Taxes where not cut while Kennedy was a living President.
There have been very few exceptions to an increase in Government Reciepts.
The years between 2000 and 2005 are dramatic exceptions.
As are the years directly followig the Reagan Tax cuts.-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did a test: and it is true that 2006 receipts where greater than 2000 reciepts.
Reply
even after adjusting for chained dollars and acounting for "Net" reciepts.
(I can not find tax refunds in the budget, there is some stuff but the number do not jive with the IRS,.It is worth looking at, the numbers we are given represent gross colections.)
Even with these adjustments the number is admitabbly bigger, but by nowhere near as much.
I have not played with GDP, don;t trust it as a metric.
None the less government recipts rarely shrink.
And you do not me to start talking about spending.
-
-
-
67%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My brother and I got into it last night over Palin and the bridge to nowhere. He said she never advocated for it. I emailed the proof (from her mouth) that she did. So he called back and said "well, she gave the money back." I said no she didn't. He said she did. So, I emailed him a link to show she kept it. He called me back and said "well so what, she used it for their infrastructure anyway." Amazing.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you ignore is that for a while she was for it but then changed her mind. The money was then not dedicated to any project and at that point it was not an earmark. An earmark is money that has to be spent on a particular project. She then took the money and used it for infrastructure use. By doing that she sunk the Bridge to Nowhere. Why would she give money not an earmark back?
Reply -
-
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
0%
Tcaros1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is an absolutely true statement. I have a cousin who supports McCain. When I bring up some of the important issues he cannot even name any of McCain's positions, but he's "gonna vote for him." This type of conservative voter is not going to be swayed by a debate or knowledge of an issue. Basically, they are the "stupid vote" that look to believe in the candidate of their party. They latch onto phrases like "Obama's a muslim" or "Obama will raise your taxes" until it becomes obviously false. Then they miraculously believe that somehow it will be proven true. These people are dangerous and should be put on the terror watch list.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Go to Obama's web site and explain how he is going to get the money for all of those programs. Then tell me how the upper 5% will be able to be taxed that much money. You live in a dream world if you think that he would not have to raise taxes on everyone. Even then there would be a revenue shortfall and you think we have a deficit now.If we have a Democrat tax and spend president and congress then there will be spending galore with taxes raised to try and meet half of the money spent.
Reply -
-
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
flyonthewallzzComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
Neutral
Tcaros1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Democrats typically want the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. They are against giving tax relief to people who are rich. Bush and McCain are for helping their rich buddies out. If the rich pay their fair share than then lower income earners pay less. The way it get's distributed to the middle and lower income earners is through them pay less taxes since the wealthy are paying their fair share. That's it in a nutshell.
Reply
Now I'll answer your question about giving aways one's own money to help the poor. That is called philanthropy and is a personal decision. The democrats are actually supporting the average worker, but the way the republicans make stuff up it doesn't sound that way.
The Republicans know that there are "stupid people" who don't look for a balanced news source or actually think about what they are being told.-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Swill for the pigs.
Reply
You never think about the fact that when you raise the taxes for the rich they will put their money where after taxes they will make more money. That means shielding it from the taxes. Guess what happens then. Money is taken out of the economy. Money is no longer taxed. Tax revenues go down. Economy goes in the tank. Just like under Carter. Stagflation was the word for the 12.5% inflation, 18% mortgages, and almost 8% unemployment. Obama has the exact same fiscal policies that Carter had. You want to live through that again? Not me.
Then some people here try to claim that we are almost as bad as the Great Depression. I lived under Carter. I had great raises then. That just kept putting me into higher tax brackets and I then had less effective money to spend. Looked good on paper but when you went to the store it was "OUCH."-
Neutral
ADAGUY1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Her we go again, another one of your mis statements, and half truths.
Reply
Are you really this misinformed, or do you just pretend not to know what caused the financial woes during the Carter administration?
I notice you fail to mention that when Carter was elected, we were experiencing our first oil crisis, and the cost of energy was going nuts, and industry was shutting down! You fail to mention that he was handed this mess from Nixon. You also fail to mention that the only thing that really cured this mess was the war between Iran and Iraq which resulted in Saddam cutting crude prices all the way down to $14.00 a bbl. Not Reaganomics as you would commonly lead one to believe.
This is the reason the most people don't take you seriously. When you lie repeatedly, they expect a lie everytime you post something.-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a crock. You are forgetting your history. Ford was after Nixon. Ford was getting the inflation to go down mainly by using the veto for deficit spending bills by the Democrats. Then along came Carter. So the rise in gas was not Carter's fault? Then why is it Bush's fault? Carter instituted price controls and some other fiscal policies. At that point things went from bad to worse. Johnny Carson caused a toilet paper shortage by saying we had one as a joke. The fiscal controls and policies ended up after the oil shortage went away causing the stagflation that I mentioned. Things just kept getting worse and worse. Then along comes Reagan and what happened. Different fiscal policies and things got better. Just dumb luck I guess.
Reply-
Neutral
ADAGUY1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, if Reagan's policies were so great, why did he go into office with an 8 bill national debt, and leave with a 5 trillion dollar debt? Why did he never once balance the budget?
Reply
And all this took place when he had the support of the dems. (You recall the Reagan democrats)
Never, not once did he veto a bill only to have the house and senate overide his veto. So don't bother trying to lay blame on them.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
33%
DreamofJeanies1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do agree with this article to an extant. I really CANT argue with conservatives. It usually goes like this:
Reply
Me: You like George Bush?
Idiot: Um....YES!
Me: Um...WHY?
Idiot: Um..because I think he's a good president.
Me: What about him makes him a good president?
Idiot: I don't know...I just think he is, okay? God! -
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
tadair9191 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i bet if you do the same study on liberals using evidence that shows co2 does not equal global warming then it would have a similar effect.
Reply
this study uses bush as the pretext, and therefore sets the stage on whether or not people will accept it before the study even begins.
read the article, people. -
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm..... indeed
Reply
I would not have bothered with this story:
But I noticed That Love had commented.
And then it was a response to Amazed.
I consider both "Ladies" with an open ear.
Sorry did not read the story or even any other comments.
I call B.S. blindly.
I seem unable to reply to comments this evening, so I hope this placement is not too confusing. -
-
100%
tadair9191 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All people behave this way. This study was set up to fail.
Reply
Take for example, evidence that Obama wants to continue the war on terrorism. By his own admission he says he wants to continue the war on terrorism. Yet, no Democrat will accept this, even if you send them links of Obama stating this very clearly several times. They keep justifying it over and over in their minds, that Obama is just pandering to the center. But the fact remains that Obama doesn't give us a choice between peace and war, he gives us a choice between which war. The war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan. But it's important to the Democrats to create a distinction between the two countries.
If Obama is right about Iraq then he is wrong about Afghanistan.
By what justification are we to leave Iraq and not Afghanistan? Are the people of Iraq capable of standing up on their own, but the people of Afghanistan are not?
No pro-peace voter could ever vote for McCain *or* Obama -- in less they fall under this "no arguing with" mind set.
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.