Liberals are Smart

[InkL0sed]

Ah yes. Quite the objective analysis there.

Care to elaborate?

Well quite obviously you were being sarcastic, as it was obvious which party you agree with. No doubt you think the Democrats' stances are completely invalid.

Party?
You mean democrat ? Or republican?

I belong to no party.

Sarcasm? Hardly.
I was comparing & contrasting some of the basic philosophies between conservatism & liberalism.

Would you care to dispute any analogy I've brought forth; as to the core differences between these two ideological philosophies?

You're right, excuse me, you were talking about conservatism and liberalism. Let me rephrase: it's obvious which philosophy you agree with. You obviously think very little of liberalism.

That is all. I'd rather not get into a debate about it at the moment, since that could go on forever and I'm tired.

[Hologram]

I find it funny that so many people hate liberals (except liberals of course) yet when you look back, all the advances we've made in just about everything are due to that age's liberals, and as the generations progress, the liberals of the previous age become the conservatives of the new age.

what aboue when andrew jackson sent the indians on the trail of tears? how did that 'advance' our nation? only seperated the groups living there further!

And I ask you what was liberal about the Trail of Tears, hmm?

[Hologram]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

A liberal believes the gov't knows how to spend your $$ better than you do (see Bill Clinton quotes, he actually said this).
A conservative believes you know how to spend your money better than the gov't does.

A liberal would "bail out" someone who jumped into a home loan that he/she obviously could not afford (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would allow those who jumped into a home loan they could not afford to fail, thereby learning from their mistakes, so as to not make the same mistake again. (this also applies to the morons who provided the loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back as well).

A liberal would hand out beer (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would teach people how to brew beer (and then let them brew).

That's an inflammatory post if I ever read one. Not that I agree with them, but the liberal viewpoint of "hand-outs" stems from the belief that government should cater to the welfare of the people, which in most people's views would be a noble thing.


There was nothing wrong with your analogies douchebag, just the way that you phrased them, which lent itself that you don't think very highly of liberals at all and that the only valid viewpoints are completely conservative.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Iz Man]

You're right, excuse me, you were talking about conservatism and liberalism. Let me rephrase: it's obvious which philosophy you agree with. You obviously think very little of liberalism.
That is all. I'd rather not get into a debate about it at the moment, since that could go on forever and I'm tired.

Your choice; however, that seems to be the topic of this thread (albeit the original post had a tad bit of sarcasm).

What's to think of liberalism? Or conservatism for that matter.
One looks to a big, controlling gov't for guidance, the other looks to the individual.

I was pointing out the differences between the two philosophies.

So if you choose not to reply, so be it.

[GabonX]

The late and great William F. Buckley Jr. of Blessed Memory. Now he was really smart.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

A baseless, sweeping and downright foolish comment.

Your response does nothing but prove his point

Why don't you go out and win some games before you start calling everyone here who doesn't agree with you ignorant and stupid?

[Iz Man]

That's an inflammatory post if I ever read one. Not that I agree with them, but the liberal viewpoint of "hand-outs" stems from the belief that government should cater to the welfare of the people, which in most people's views would be a noble thing.

There was nothing wrong with your analogies douchebag, just the way that you phrased them, which lent itself that you don't think very highly of liberals at all and that the only valid viewpoints are completely conservative.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ahhhh..... Resorting to name calling in your first retort....
Excellent.
USMC? Don't think so.

Be that as it may.... There was nothing inflammatory at all.
Maybe you take offense to the "liberal ideology" being called out for what it is; government control.
Of course there should be "safety nets" installed in an economy to assist the down trodden in getting a foothold so as to eventually provide for themselves. However, these safety nets should be kept at a minimum. That's the key.
Government should not "cater" to anyone.

[tzor]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

With the exception of the first point, I would probably nit pick on the points you raised. There are a significant number of bad morgages out there that were a result of people being swindled by con men mis-representing information about loans to customers. This is less of a liberal/conservative thing than a regulatory / free market debate and how to handle those who cross the line into the con artist realm.

Finally there is the question of beer, which I would slightly disagree on.

LIberals would insist on giving everyone Bud Light whether they wanted it or not.

Conservatives would give people coupons which they could redeem at their local brew pub.

[Hologram]

That's an inflammatory post if I ever read one. Not that I agree with them, but the liberal viewpoint of "hand-outs" stems from the belief that government should cater to the welfare of the people, which in most people's views would be a noble thing.

There was nothing wrong with your analogies douchebag, just the way that you phrased them, which lent itself that you don't think very highly of liberals at all and that the only valid viewpoints are completely conservative.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ahhhh..... Resorting to name calling in your first retort....
Excellent.
USMC? Don't think so.

Be that as it may.... There was nothing inflammatory at all.
Maybe you take offense to the "liberal ideology" being called out for what it is; government control.
Of course there should be "safety nets" installed in an economy to assist the down trodden in getting a foothold so as to eventually provide for themselves. However, these safety nets should be kept at a minimum. That's the key.
Government should not "cater" to anyone.

Well like I said, I don't agree with handing out help left and right. But I know an inflammatory remark when I see it, and you, sir, made three.

[Iz Man]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

With the exception of the first point, I would probably nit pick on the points you raised. There are a significant number of bad morgages out there that were a result of people being swindled by con men mis-representing information about loans to customers. This is less of a liberal/conservative thing than a regulatory / free market debate and how to handle those who cross the line into the con artist realm.

Well we'll agree to disagree then. The fine print is on all mortgages. I read mine before I bought my house.

Finally there is the question of beer, which I would slightly disagree on.

LIberals would insist on giving everyone Bud Light whether they wanted it or not.

Conservatives would give people coupons which they could redeem at their local brew pub.

Kind of like vouchers, eh?

[Iz Man]

Well like I said, I don't agree with handing out help left and right. But I know an inflammatory remark when I see it, and you, sir, made three.

What's so inflammatory about them?
If you disagree with my analogies, then dispute them.

[Hologram]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

A liberal believes the gov't knows how to spend your $$ better than you do (see Bill Clinton quotes, he actually said this).
A conservative believes you know how to spend your money better than the gov't does.

A liberal would "bail out" someone who jumped into a home loan that he/she obviously could not afford (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would allow those who jumped into a home loan they could not afford to fail, thereby learning from their mistakes, so as to not make the same mistake again. (this also applies to the morons who provided the loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back as well).

A liberal would hand out beer (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would teach people how to brew beer (and then let them brew).

Your first analogy is fine. It still comes across as a little high and mighty with the Bill Clinton reference, but we'll let it slide. The third is also fine, though, again, the parenthetical phrase makes it seem like your way is the only way. Your second analogy, however, is inflammatory because it takes a specific current event and makes those involved look like complete idiots (you say so yourself). The key words being "obviously" and, again, "taxpayers".

[Iz Man]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

A liberal believes the gov't knows how to spend your $$ better than you do (see Bill Clinton quotes, he actually said this).
A conservative believes you know how to spend your money better than the gov't does.

A liberal would "bail out" someone who jumped into a home loan that he/she obviously could not afford (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would allow those who jumped into a home loan they could not afford to fail, thereby learning from their mistakes, so as to not make the same mistake again. (this also applies to the morons who provided the loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back as well).

A liberal would hand out beer (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would teach people how to brew beer (and then let them brew).

Your first analogy is fine. It still comes across as a little high and mighty with the Bill Clinton reference, but we'll let it slide. The third is also fine, though, again, the parenthetical phrase makes it seem like your way is the only way. Your second analogy, however, is inflammatory because it takes a specific current event and makes those involved look like complete idiots (you say so yourself). The key words being "obviously" and, again, "taxpayers".

High & mighty? Bill Clinton said that himself. Go ahead and "let it slide", but one of the premises of liberalism is that the government knows how to spend your money (through high taxes) than you do. If you find that inflammatory, then perhaps you're more conservative than you realize.

My third analogy (obviously taken from "teach a man to fish") is a basic analogy of a difference between conservative & liberal philosophies. My parenthetic simply states how this liberal philosophy will pay for teaching someone to brew. How else but to raise taxes? Once again, not inflammatory. Will the gov't ask people to give to its program to hand out beer? Certainly not, it will raise taxes on everyone so as to supply beer to the populace.

As far as my second analogy; have you ever purchased a house, or financed the purchase of a car?
There is a contract involved to which both parties are beholden to; the lender & the borrower.
If you enter into a contract and you cannot hold up to your end of the bargain, it is not my (a taxpayer) responsibility to bail you out of said contract; and that goes for the lender as well. If you lend money to someone whose credit is suspect, and that person defaults, you lose. Not me (the taxpayer). So are those that are involved with the current "mortgage crisis" idiots?
Perhaps. They either didn't read the entire contract (stupid), or read it and didn't understand it. In the case of the latter, they should have sought advice from someone who knows something about what they were getting into. Just because they screwed up doesn't mean I (the taxpayer) have to pay for their personal mistake.

Liberalism vs. Conservatism 101........

[Ntetos]

So a conservative believes that the individual knows how to spend money better than the government. Yet your second analogy proves otherwise.

[Hologram]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

A liberal believes the gov't knows how to spend your $$ better than you do (see Bill Clinton quotes, he actually said this).
A conservative believes you know how to spend your money better than the gov't does.

A liberal would "bail out" someone who jumped into a home loan that he/she obviously could not afford (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would allow those who jumped into a home loan they could not afford to fail, thereby learning from their mistakes, so as to not make the same mistake again. (this also applies to the morons who provided the loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back as well).

A liberal would hand out beer (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would teach people how to brew beer (and then let them brew).

Your first analogy is fine. It still comes across as a little high and mighty with the Bill Clinton reference, but we'll let it slide. The third is also fine, though, again, the parenthetical phrase makes it seem like your way is the only way. Your second analogy, however, is inflammatory because it takes a specific current event and makes those involved look like complete idiots (you say so yourself). The key words being "obviously" and, again, "taxpayers".

High & mighty? Bill Clinton said that himself. Go ahead and "let it slide", but one of the premises of liberalism is that the government knows how to spend your money (through high taxes) than you do. If you find that inflammatory, then perhaps you're more conservative than you realize.

My third analogy (obviously taken from "teach a man to fish") is a basic analogy of a difference between conservative & liberal philosophies. My parenthetic simply states how this liberal philosophy will pay for teaching someone to brew. How else but to raise taxes? Once again, not inflammatory. Will the gov't ask people to give to its program to hand out beer? Certainly not, it will raise taxes on everyone so as to supply beer to the populace.

As far as my second analogy; have you ever purchased a house, or financed the purchase of a car?
There is a contract involved to which both parties are beholden to; the lender & the borrower.
If you enter into a contract and you cannot hold up to your end of the bargain, it is not my (a taxpayer) responsibility to bail you out of said contract; and that goes for the lender as well. If you lend money to someone whose credit is suspect, and that person defaults, you lose. Not me (the taxpayer). So are those that are involved with the current "mortgage crisis" idiots?
Perhaps. They either didn't read the entire contract (stupid), or read it and didn't understand it. In the case of the latter, they should have sought advice from someone who knows something about what they were getting into. Just because they screwed up doesn't mean I (the taxpayer) have to pay for their personal mistake.

Liberalism vs. Conservatism 101........

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm just saying it was inflammatory. Just like my calling you a douchebag was inflammatory.

[Iz Man]

So a conservative believes that the individual knows how to spend money better than the government. Yet your second analogy proves otherwise.

You missed one key word in your statement: "their".
As in the individual knows how to spend their money, rather than the gov't spending it for them.
In the second analogy, the borrower is spending money he/she does not have.

Are you actually implying the gov't knows how to be frugal? $600 toilet seats and $2,000 hammers come to mind....

People have the right to spend their money as they see fit. Whether on commercial goods or investments. If some of those spending choices turn out to be non-profitable or result in a loss, so be it. One must learn from one's mistakes.

Having the gov't come in and control the means by which wealth is spent is a recipe for disaster.

Would you trust George Bush, Obama, McCain, or any politician with your paycheck?

I should hope not.

[Iz Man]

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm just saying it was inflammatory. Just like my calling you a douchebag was inflammatory.

I still don't see what was inflammatory. Perhaps calling someone a moron for diving into an ill-advised investment....I guess......

Well......stupid is as stupid does......

[tzor]

As far as my second analogy; have you ever purchased a house, or financed the purchase of a car?

I have not purchased a home (financing a car is, tehcnically speaking, child's play) but a very long time ago (the very late 80's) I was responsible for maintianing Century 21's laptop based loan pre-qualification routines. Let me tell you determining if you qualify for a mortrgage at the time WAS rocket science. There is far more things involved than the fine print.

Back in the 1960's when my parents first applied for a mortgage, my Mother's income could not be counted in the affordbility calculations. They simply assumed (at that time) that there was a good probability that she might stop working to take care of the kids full time at some point in the mortgage. Back then you needed a good percentage for the down payment. There were a lot of checks and balances at the time because the banks could not just shunt off a risky mortgage to an unsuspecting investor.

Just consider these simple conservative factors. The more you pay down on a house the less the mortgage is and thus the more the price of the house can decline before the mortgage is greater than the price of the house. The less percentage of your income that goes into your payments the more you can afford then the rates go up and your income doesn't. And the old joke about "you can outgrow your payments in terms of income" only works on fixed rates, not on anything tied to (duh) inflation.

None of this matters when you are facing P.T. Barnum. I've heard tales of insurance hacks telling people to give up insurance that is effectively paid for (because a disability clause was involked during the life of the policy) for lesser coverage that they would have to pay for. Yes a sucker is born every minute, and since you can fool all of the people some of the time both you and I are potential suckers. I've had people who were experts in reverse mortgages (for example) and insurance agents mutter under their breath about these con artists.

These were the same bastards who were milking the stock market back in the 90's, sneaking in special trades in mutual funds on advance knowledge of market moves in order to get maximum comissions.

[Iz Man]

As far as my second analogy; have you ever purchased a house, or financed the purchase of a car?

I have not purchased a home (financing a car is, tehcnically speaking, child's play) but a very long time ago (the very late 80's) I was responsible for maintianing Century 21's laptop based loan pre-qualification routines. Let me tell you determining if you qualify for a mortrgage at the time WAS rocket science. There is far more things involved than the fine print........

I am not saying buying a house is an easy investment.
My bottom line is (so as to keep with the topic of lib vs. con) that a conservative philosophy would dictate that John Q. Taxpayer is not liable to bail out a borrower or a lender because an investment failed. Whether it was an honest or dishonest mistake.

Otherwise why not subsidize every snakeoil salesman?

[Neoteny]

The late and great William F. Buckley Jr. of Blessed Memory. Now he was really smart.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

A baseless, sweeping and downright foolish comment.

Your response does nothing but prove his point

Why don't you go out and win some games before you start calling everyone here who doesn't agree with you ignorant and stupid?

Wow. Now that's impressive.

[Neoteny]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

A liberal believes the gov't knows how to spend your $$ better than you do (see Bill Clinton quotes, he actually said this).
A conservative believes you know how to spend your money better than the gov't does.

A liberal would "bail out" someone who jumped into a home loan that he/she obviously could not afford (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would allow those who jumped into a home loan they could not afford to fail, thereby learning from their mistakes, so as to not make the same mistake again. (this also applies to the morons who provided the loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back as well).

A liberal would hand out beer (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would teach people how to brew beer (and then let them brew).

So... liberals care about their fellow man and are capable of forgiving and helping others while conservatives impress themselves by leaving less fortunate people out to dry?

[comic boy]

As far as my second analogy; have you ever purchased a house, or financed the purchase of a car?

I have not purchased a home (financing a car is, tehcnically speaking, child's play) but a very long time ago (the very late 80's) I was responsible for maintianing Century 21's laptop based loan pre-qualification routines. Let me tell you determining if you qualify for a mortrgage at the time WAS rocket science. There is far more things involved than the fine print........

I am not saying buying a house is an easy investment.
My bottom line is (so as to keep with the topic of lib vs. con) that a conservative philosophy would dictate that John Q. Taxpayer is not liable to bail out a borrower or a lender because an investment failed. Whether it was an honest or dishonest mistake.

Otherwise why not subsidize every snakeoil salesman?

So by your reasoning if a bank collapses then everybody should lose their money,after all they were mugs for picking the wrong financial institution yes ?

[Neoteny]

As far as my second analogy; have you ever purchased a house, or financed the purchase of a car?

I have not purchased a home (financing a car is, tehcnically speaking, child's play) but a very long time ago (the very late 80's) I was responsible for maintianing Century 21's laptop based loan pre-qualification routines. Let me tell you determining if you qualify for a mortrgage at the time WAS rocket science. There is far more things involved than the fine print........

I am not saying buying a house is an easy investment.
My bottom line is (so as to keep with the topic of lib vs. con) that a conservative philosophy would dictate that John Q. Taxpayer is not liable to bail out a borrower or a lender because an investment failed. Whether it was an honest or dishonest mistake.

Otherwise why not subsidize every snakeoil salesman?

So by your reasoning if a bank collapses then everybody should lose their money,after all they were mugs for picking the wrong financial institution yes ?

Silly fuckers. They should have hidden it behind their bags of barley.

[tzor]

My bottom line is (so as to keep with the topic of lib vs. con) that a conservative philosophy would dictate that John Q. Taxpayer is not liable to bail out a borrower or a lender because an investment failed. Whether it was an honest or dishonest mistake.

I agree, although the government does have an obligation to keep the snake oil salesmen off of the market. When they fail to do that they have a responsibility to make amends. Ideally this should be by taking the money away from the snake oil salesmen.

It is sort of strange that when it comes to corporations the neo-cons are the first to bail them out.

As for the poor and the unfortunate, let me make what I think is a simple statement. Charity must come from the people. To rob Peter to pay Paul only makes Peter think he was robbed. Now it is through the power of the bully pulpit that the cause is great that true charity can be obtained through goverment. The fact is that if a person donates to a cause he doesn't think his sallary is diminished. If you raise takes so as to donate to a cause he will consider his salary diminished because people normally think of their incomes as "after taxes" not before.

True charity (in this case) would be to arrange a system so that it would be possible for the person to be able to handle the debt that he has acquired and so in the end be able to have the equity. Simply bailing him out is like rewarding people who broke the law. It makes those people who followed the law exceptionally pissed off. After all it's their money you are using to bail these people out!

[Ntetos]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

A liberal believes the gov't knows how to spend your $$ better than you do (see Bill Clinton quotes, he actually said this).
A conservative believes you know how to spend your money better than the gov't does.

A liberal would "bail out" someone who jumped into a home loan that he/she obviously could not afford (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would allow those who jumped into a home loan they could not afford to fail, thereby learning from their mistakes, so as to not make the same mistake again. (this also applies to the morons who provided the loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back as well).

A liberal would hand out beer (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would teach people how to brew beer (and then let them brew).

So... liberals care about their fellow man and are capable of forgiving and helping others while conservatives impress themselves by leaving less fortunate people out to dry?

And yet most liberals are atheist while most conservative are christians.

[Joodoo]

A few broad generalizations between the differences of liberal and conservative philosophies:

A liberal believes the gov't knows how to spend your $$ better than you do (see Bill Clinton quotes, he actually said this).
A conservative believes you know how to spend your money better than the gov't does.

A liberal would "bail out" someone who jumped into a home loan that he/she obviously could not afford (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would allow those who jumped into a home loan they could not afford to fail, thereby learning from their mistakes, so as to not make the same mistake again. (this also applies to the morons who provided the loans to people they knew couldn't pay it back as well).

A liberal would hand out beer (at taxpayers' expense, of course).
A conservative would teach people how to brew beer (and then let them brew).

So... liberals care about their fellow man and are capable of forgiving and helping others while conservatives impress themselves by leaving less fortunate people out to dry?

And yet most liberals are atheist while most conservative are christians.

Atheists are smarter than Christians???