Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, I take issue with some of your comments and wonder how you arrived at your conclusions....

You used the wrong word. You should have said, "I fabricate issues with some of your comments...".

 

We all have been very even-handed with you. And you accuse us of being vicious, malicious and insulting.

 

You're definition of Liberals was a string of insults. Anyone reading it would have agreed. You refuse to address that issue. Yet you BEG us to point out where you have been insulting. I already have. It's a waste of time with you, questor. You have NO intention of addressing any of our issues with your posts.

 

I arrived at my conclusions because I strive for integrity in my reasoning.

So do most of us.

You do not.

 

KMSA

[pgrmdave]

I don't think I know people who would refuse shelter to a homeless person, but that doesn't change the fact that someone froze to death just a few miles from my house. That bothers me. The fact that years later people have already forgotten bothers me. As for tax dollars for higher education, I still fail to see your point. Student loans tend to be federally backed (so it's tax dollars anyway...). Yes, there are severe problems with our public education system, one of the biggest being that we are willing to let people move through the system without learning anything, and indeed graduate without a 12th grade education, but that doesn't really affect whether or not the government should help people go to college. You have presented theory, as have I - I challenge both of us to try to come up with actual sources and numbers to back what we say. I think that the cost of a government program to help financially strapped people go to school pays off economically, you seem to think otherwise. Perhaps we will find that there is a simple answer?

[Pyrotex]

Hey Dudes and Dudettes! :evil:

I hope you're all having a nice day. Since traffic here has slowed a little, I would like to share with all of you some things you may find useful.

 

Beware of "anecdotal evidence". In institutions as large as Congress, it will always be possible to find idiots, liars and thieves on both sides of any division. The mere fact that a liar has been exposed on one side, say, the Democrats, does NOT invalidate their goals or philosophy; nor does the fact that an idiot has been exposed among the Republicans invalidate their goals or philosophy. Anecdotal evidence is almost always a waste of bandwidth.

 

Beware of "newly minted blame stories". For example, a friend of mine yesterday told me that the Democrats are responsible for the current financial crisis because 15 years ago, in Clinton's administration, they forced the banks to sell mortgages to people who could not afford them. I asked him why didn't the banks complain about this 15 years ago? Why didn't Bush reverse this policy 8 years ago? How come in 15 years, this issue has never been in the news at all??? The answer is, this blame story was "invented" in just the last few days. It's probably bogus.

 

Beware of evasive and distractive arguements. If you make a good point, then it should be answered. If your opponent makes a good point, you should address it -- if only to say that you'll get back to him on that. Evading good, straight-forward points makes the entire thread pointless. It also makes you look like a troll.

[questor]

The situation described by your friend may be more than anecdotal if you're truly interested in understanding that issue. Information about this subject was thoroughly covered in Presidential Debate #2 thread. One report stated:

The US will have to set aside the racial privileges that federal bureaucrats pulled out of the Civil Rights Act and restore sound lending practices. It the US government itself wishes to subsidize at taxpayer expense home purchases by non-qualified buyers, that is a political decision subject to electoral ratification. But the US government must cease to force private lenders to breech the standards of prudence.

Anyone interested in non-anecdotal evidence on this subject can find it well covered in that thread.

[Michaelangelica]

According to a controversial new study, set to be published in The Journal of Political Psychology, the bedrooms and offices of liberals, who are generally thought of as open, tend to be colorful and awash in books about travel, ethnicity, feminism and music, along with music CDs covering folk, classic and modern rock, as well as art supplies, movie tickets and travel memorabilia.

 

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to surround themselves with calendars, postage stamps, laundry baskets, irons and sewing materials in their personal spaces, according to the study. Their bedrooms and offices are well-lighted and decorated with sports paraphernalia and flags—especially American ones.

Political Science: What Being Neat or Messy Says about Political Leanings: Scientific American

[Moontanman]

How about a little Conservative Native American humor?

 

 

[Michaelangelica]

I like it

but today's thanksgiving is I guess a bit different.?

OR

which results in: