$45,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You haven't given ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that I'm wrong. You want me to say I'm wrong? PROVE ME WRONG. Prove to me that conservatism is good for people, instead of just calling me a radical, which you seem to think is all you need to do to make me say I'm wrong.

First off, why should I allow you to attempt to alter the discussion by claiming you are going to ignore all my points (see your above reply to my long post) because you are butthurt, and then you make a point you demand I disprove. You're nuts if you think I dont see how you try to manipulate the discussion to avoid my points, while only discussing yours. You are a tenacious debater, that's for sure. But you try to use disingenuous tactics to control the debate, which when (easily) seen through only serves to undermine your sincerity.

But since I can answer your question so easily, I will anyway. As Ive told you before, conservatism is suppose to be the balancing force to liberalism. Neither side has complete or lasting control, to keep our political agenda from veering too far in either direction radically. You can argue conservatives haven't acted very conservatively, such as their part to increase the national debt, and I would agree with you. *gasp* One of he reasons Im as upset with republicans as I am with democrats.

Now that Ive addressed your point, I expect you to return to my previous (long) reply and address my points. *makes a clucking noise*

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

...one side isn't better than the other, but the taking of ideas from both sides would prove beneficial, imo.

That is exactly the balancing force our two-party system is suppose to maintain. But it doesn't. Both sides expect too radical of shifts in policy one direction or the other. People like Prox make this happen, because they begin to believe the 'other side' is either all idiots, or evil. Instead of our two parties compromising into a balanced position, they polarize themselves, and polarize their voter base to follow right along behind them like good little serfs. I am not so naive as to believe this isn't being done intentionally.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Don't point out Republicans because the Democrats are just as guilty (for this problem).

I agree, to an extent. Obviously isn't not like Republicans have had 100% control for the past 30 years. Democrats have voted for the very policies I loathe and blame for our problems. But again, it's about about D vs R, it's about liberal policies versus conservative policies. Conservative policies have gotten us in the ****** position we're in and liberal policies will get us out. That's a little over simplified, but in a nutshell, that is the truth.

Democrat hands aren't clean by any means, and not all Democrats are perfect, but overall (

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

We need to clean house, one way or another.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I agree, to an extent. Obviously isn't not like Republicans have had 100% control for the past 30 years. Democrats have voted for the very policies I loathe and blame for our problems. But again, it's about about D vs R, it's about liberal policies versus conservative policies. Conservative policies have gotten us in the ****** position we're in and liberal policies will get us out. That's a little over simplified, but in a nutshell, that is the truth.
Democrat hands aren't clean by any means, and not all Democrats are perfect, but overall (

This thread was made to discuss the topic of the national debt, and the debt ceiling. If the definition of conservatism is about the past (which by that you mean that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo) and liberalism is about the future (which by that you mean change, increasing the debt ceiling and increasing federal spending), I choose 'the past' on this particular issue.

See Prox, you try to make conservatism sound awful, its about 'the past', while making liberalism sound awesome, its about 'the future'... but the reality is that's just ideological bullshit like you always spew. Its not about the future or the past, its about 'conserving' your money, or being 'liberal' with it (in this financially based discussion). When someone says you are being liberal with your money, what do they mean prox? When someone says you are being conservative with your money, what do they mean prox? You work so hard to avoid that point, by altering the discussion to medicare or the promise act, but ultimately our differences come down to the fact that you fail to see the obvious nature of each political side.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I agree, to an extent. Obviously isn't not like Republicans have had 100% control for the past 30 years. Democrats have voted for the very policies I loathe and blame for our problems. But again, it's about about D vs R, it's about liberal policies versus conservative policies. Conservative policies have gotten us in the ****** position we're in and liberal policies will get us out. That's a little over simplified, but in a nutshell, that is the truth.
Democrat hands aren't clean by any means, and not all Democrats are perfect, but overall (

I don't really think that's what is going on.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

But since I can answer your question so easily, I will anyway. As Ive told you before, conservatism is suppose to be the balancing force to liberalism. Neither side has complete or lasting control, to keep our political agenda from veering too far in either direction radically.

Conservatism versus liberalism isn't like a brakes versus a car, it's a tug of war. Both sides want to pull society in their direction. For the past 30 years, the conservatives have been winning that battle. The debt is largely there because of tax cuts for the rich, and that is supremely conservative.

The fact is one side is good for the average person and one isn't. Democrats reflect one side and Republicans reflect the other. Just because my conclusions have led me to the Democrats doesn't make me a sheep.

And I have zero desire to respond to your insults, only to incite even more insults, because that is all you have. You want to play the chicken game? Who is scared to admit that Democrats, during this debt ceiling debate, have been fighting for the average person and Republicans have been fighting only for the rich? Who is scared to admit that this was a same situation back in December with the Bush tax cuts? The Republicans would have rather increased taxes on everyone instead of only on the richest 1.5% of people. Characterize that any other way than the Republicans don't give a **** about the average person and only care about the rich. These prove Republicans only care about the rich, sorry to say. Now let's see if you can prove what you claim, that the Democrats are the same way.

If the Democrats didn't care about the average person, why were they fighting to not put ALL of the debt burden on the average person? Why were they fighting to responsibly end the Bush takes cuts and only end them for the top 1.5%? If they didn't care about the average person, why not just let all the Bush tax cuts expire to prove that Republicans ****? Wouldn't that be better for their "narrative"? Why did Democrats decrease the payroll taxes for workers? ****, that is something the Republicans had to GIVE UP.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Conservatism versus liberalism isn't like a brakes versus a car, it's a tug of war. Both sides want to pull society in their direction. For the past 30 years, the conservatives have been winning that battle. The debt is largely there because of tax cuts for the rich, and that is supremely conservative.
The fact is one side is good for the average person and one isn't. Democrats reflect one side and Republicans reflect the other. Just because my conclusions have led me to the Democrats doesn't make me a sheep.

And I have zero desire to respond to your insults, only to incite even more insults, because that is all you have. You want to play the chicken game? Who is scared to admit that Democrats, during this debt ceiling debate, have been fighting for the average person and Republicans have been fighting only for the rich? Who is scared to admit that this was a same situation back in December with the Bush tax cuts? The Republicans would have rather increased taxes on everyone instead of only on the richest 1.5% of people. Characterize that any other way than the Republicans don't give a **** about the average person and only care about the rich. These prove Republicans only care about the rich, sorry to say. Now let's see if you can prove what you claim, that the Democrats are the same way.

If the Democrats didn't care about the average person, why were they fighting to not put ALL of the debt burden on the average person? Why were they fighting to responsibly end the Bush takes cuts and only end them for the top 1.5%? If they didn't care about the average person, why not just let all the Bush tax cuts expire to prove that Republicans ****? Wouldn't that be better for their "narrative"? Why did Democrats decrease the payroll taxes for workers? ****, that is something the Republicans had to GIVE UP.

First of all, I still do not fail to miss the fact you are still avoiding my above points, while tossing more of yours at me to address. Again, this is a tactic used by an insincere party in a debate.

Second, I never said "brakes versus a car". Pretty pathetic diversionary point prox.

"Who is scared to admit that Democrats, during this debt ceiling debate, have been fighting for the average person and Republicans have been fighting only for the rich?"

Ive already explained, in this thread, how raising the debt limit hurts all of us. Think this debt wont transfer to blue collar workers? Think again. Think this debt wont transfer to their middle class blue collar children? Think again.

Both parties waited until the last minute to address the debt ceiling issue, creating this 'crisis' themselves. Think only the Republicans did that? Think again.

I still expect you to go back and address my previous post. Saying its only filled with insults is a **** out.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

its about 'conserving' your money, or being 'liberal' with it (in this financially based discussion).

No, lol, it's really not. You're complete ignorance of this most basic concept of political science is hysterical. You claim I need to take an economics class, you need to go back to school and take a Pol Sci class. Do conservatives tend to be against spending? Yes. Do Democrats mind spending money on public programs? No. But these are entirely incidental. Conservatism and Liberalism are defined by against and for change, respectively. This is the most basic definition. Stepping it up a notch in complication, a more than accurate paraphrase and conclusion is that Conservatism is about the past and Liberalism is about the future. Go to your nearest university, find a few Pol Sci teachers and ask them.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

If the Democrats didn't care about the average person, why were they fighting to not put ALL of the debt burden on the average person? Why were they fighting to responsibly end the Bush takes cuts and only end them for the top 1.5%? If they didn't care about the average person, why not just let all the Bush tax cuts expire to prove that Republicans ****?

Forgot to address this one. Wouldn't want people to think Im scared to address your points by avoiding them.

You are the extremist here prox, not me. I have never said Democrats are all to blame, are evil, never have a motive to be responsible or pro-middle class. That's your gig bro. Ive told you before I was for ending the tax cuts, but not for going back to the 90% rates we use to have and that you said we needed.

Still waiting for the reply to my previous long post. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

No, lol, it's really not. You're complete ignorance of this most basic concept of political science is hysterical. You claim I need to take an economics class, you need to go back to school and take a Pol Sci class. Do conservatives tend to be against spending? Yes. Do Democrats mind spending money on public programs? No. But these are entirely incidental. Conservatism and Liberalism are defined by against and for change, respectively. This is the most basic definition. Stepping it up a notch in complication, a more than accurate paraphrase and conclusion is that Conservatism is about the past and Liberalism is about the future. Go to your nearest university, find a few Pol Sci teachers and ask them.

You are falling behind bro.

...If the definition of conservatism is about the past (which by that you mean that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo) and liberalism is about the future (which by that you mean change...

Do I need to talk slower for you?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Second, I never said "brakes versus a car". Pretty pathetic diversionary point prox.

You've previously defined conservatism as a resistive force to liberalism, keeping society from going too far toward socialism. The brakes/car analogy should be pretty obvious.

Ive already explained, in this thread, how raising the debt limit hurts all of us. Think this debt wont transfer to blue collar workers? Think again. Think this debt wont transfer to their middle class blue collar children? Think again.

Yes, increasing the debt is bad. But it's not nearly as bad as defaulting on it, causing a global economic crisis. The necessity to raise it is concrete.

Both parties waited until the last minute to address the debt ceiling issue, creating this 'crisis' themselves. Think only the Republicans did that? Think again.

They dealt with the issue as it came up. Both parties took it to the last minute, but that isn't what is important. What is important is why. Democrats wanted a balanced approach, both cutting spending and raising taxes on the people for whose tax cuts created all this debt in the first place. Republican weren't willing to raise taxes on the richest people one penny. They want to put ALL the debt burden on the people who can afford it least. Characterize this any other way than the republicans only care about the rich. The fact is you can't, and this is ever more evidence that if you care about the average person, and our economy by extension, vote Democrat.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Forgot to address this one. Wouldn't want people to think Im scared to address your points by avoiding them.

Bro, even if not in this thread, you've been afraid to respond to my points since the fu republicans thread. Too bad someone deleted it, huh?

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

You are falling behind bro.


Do I need to talk slower for you?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

What is it you were talking about diversionary points?