A real American campaign: Never vote Liberal

reply to post by ybab hsur

The forclosure rates are a massive swelling in one sector of the housing market. That sector is the "risky lending" sector and it goes like this

Where are you getting your data? Not saying you are wrong just would like to see the data. From what I have seen it is not a problem with just the subprime sectors.

...but the government says i have to give you a home) - which as i recall it, was democratic legislation that paved way for this disaster

What legislation was this?

And a declining dollar is only a temporary thing. The world at large that is controlled by liberal media is creating this "scare tactic" to encourage investments in currencies other than the dollar

I do agree with you that there seems to be a propganda campaign to devalue the dollar. The same campaign that we gather our prospective regarding Iran and China. Maybe we should rethink all that we have been told from the media...

I feel that ultimately it is pointless in perpetuating the idea that there is indeed a "liberal" and "conservative" side. We're all just people. People make good and bad decisions. There has yet to be one politician with whom I completely and utterly agree or disagree. They're just people trying to make decisions that they feel are right. Their biases get in the way just like the rest of us. Pidgeon-holing people into their "parties", however, ends up just causing more damage. They all, after all, are most likely friends. When it comes down to it, they're coworkers. Look at Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton being all buddy buddy after they're out of office.

I can see the world through both perspectives, but neither is right. As with most things in life, a middle ground is more realistic. Going to the extremes shuts you off from compromising. Ultimately, we should focus providing choices for everyone, you know freedom. Whether those choices be about drugs, abortion, marriage, religion, etc. As long as consent is present in all situations, the result of that situation will not be abuse, and that, in my opinion, is all that matters. I don't care if you're pro-choice, pro-life, against drugs, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, black, white, whatever. None of those matter, because they're all predicted by geographical location and societal organization. Just as long as people have the choice to be/do what they want, and understand that everyone has that choice. We should live in a world where we teach people about everything, and once given the information allow that individual to make the decision for themselves.

Blanket statements like this topic do more damage than good for both sides. It makes "liberals" come out to bash "conservatives" and vice versa. Regardless of the label you try to prescribe, we're all just humans. These political affiliations are just illusions, which further divide and conquer us, so that we don't try to promote peace, as we are too busy fighting amongst each other. Just my opinion of course.

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib

 

If your question is a serious one, and not rhetorical

then you'll enjoy reading This

i believe that you'll see that it is unbiased, as it points out the good with the bad.

But it does answer your question fo "What have we done"

Well it was a little rhetorical but I appreciate the link all the same. It is a good example of media contributions that provide statements with no data that the public uses as a data in and of it self as baseless achievments.

reply to post by dragonfire2159


Exactly when did "facts" become illusions?

if you'd actually read my post, im pointing out the hypocrisies in the very people who claim they want what is best for you.

But...thats an illusion?

Oh.......ok
And i suppose 9/11 was an inside job.......twice...

reply to post by dragonfire2159


I agree is not such thing as a liberal or conservative agenda, because our system of government is ruled by the same powers, that power rest now with corporate America.

This entities careless about the citizens of this nation, they care about expansion, profit margins and outsourcing while leaving the US clean and bankrupt, so wars can become profitable for their pockets and all those in the political ranks that benefits from being cooperative toward them.

reply to post by harvib


i feel dumb
can you re-explain this post to me? The one about the link

i just can't follow you on it, i think i knwo what yer saying, but...the more i read it the more i dont knwo (not a flame!! i serioulsy just dont know what yer saying)

Are you agreeing that the article is good, or is it a spiteful post that says my article is rubish?

reply to post by marg6043


Im so glad you finally brought this up

You would not have a job
i would not have a job

this website would not exist
if it werent for big business and corporations.


To call corp. evil because they're big and sucessfull is to say you despise the very air you breath.

Other countries around the world share your same belief, the rest of us call them "third world" for ease of referal

Originally posted by dragonfire2159
I feel that ultimately it is pointless in perpetuating the idea that there is indeed a "liberal" and "conservative" side. We're all just people. People make good and bad decisions.

I couldn't disagree more with your position. There is wrong and right. I'm getting tired of the entire "there's no such thing as right vs. wrong, it's all right vs. right" mentality.

Instead of looking at right vs. wrong, try looking at results. Just look at the results produced by liberal policies in just about every major city in the United States. Almost every major city in the U.S. has been run by Democrats for years, and almost every major city in the country is in deep financial trouble, has higher crime, and provides a lower quality of life than suburban neighborhoods.

Why?

It's in large part due to the liberal policies forced upon the city residents. Higher taxes. Total capitulation to unions. Terrible schools. Higher crime.

If anybody can name a city where liberal policies have generated wealth let me know.

reply to post by jamie83


It cant be done. Excellent Post Jamie83


Liberal policies cater to the weak and lazy. "I dont want to work, because my ancestors were persecuted"
"I dont want to work for a promotion, because im a woman and i lie about being persecuted"

"I dont want to come to the United states legally, because i'd have to pay taxes"

The weak and Lazy.

If a politician caters to these people, that politician caters to ignorance and poverty. Which ultimately leads to crime and despair.

Cant' argue the facts, libs, and you know it.

reply to post by harvib


i think i now understand your point, harvi

and if i understand it correctly, you seem to be denying anything that anyone would call an achievment since 9/11

What would be a realistic achievment in your mind?

You asked "what have we done?"

And i provided unbiased documents from a global entity that produced results that you're looking for. It comes with the good and bad. Nothing in there is refutable, only subject to biased partisan beliefs.

We have accomplished good, and we have made mistakes. But to say we failed simply because we made mistakes is to call for perfection. Perfection doesnt exist in politics. If it did
we'd all still be speaking Latin

[edit on 2-6-2008 by ybab hsur]

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib

 

i feel dumb
can you re-explain this post to me? The one about the link

i just can't follow you on it, i think i knwo what yer saying, but...the more i read it the more i dont knwo (not a flame!! i serioulsy just dont know what yer saying)

Are you agreeing that the article is good, or is it a spiteful post that says my article is rubish?

LOL, I guess my response was a little bit of a ramble. The point I was trying to make is that the article makes statements without any supporting data. Some statements are self evident but the others need data. I was also trying to infer that people in general have a habit of taking basless statements as fact when presented by the media.

reply to post by harvib


Well to each their own. I personally feel as though each of the "good" and "bad" things outlined in that article sort of speak for themselves.

I could see how you may think some things are objective and only can be proven in the eye of the beholder.

So really to give credit to the article by your standards would require hours and hours of googling on each topic...which i dont feel like doing

But if you would like to challange certain aspects of it, i'd be more than glad to support my stand

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib

 

And i provided unbiased documents from a global entity that produced results that you're looking for. It comes with the good and bad. Nothing in there is refutable, only subject to biased partisan beliefs.

I don't know if publications by the CSIS can be considered unbaised but that is a moot point. Without data most of what they say is refutable for example the first five achievments are all refutable:

- Deprived al Qaeda of sanctuary in Afghanistan
- No subsequent catastrophic attack on American territory
- Eliminated significant al Qaeda leadership
- Forged strong international intelligence cooperation
- Constrained terrorist financing

I am tired of people who label themselves as conservative labeling everyone else as liberals without understanding the position that they come from. Nobody has ALL THE ANSWERS because God did not make anyone infallible. We are all human together and every one of us makes mistakes. Even those of us with egos the size of an aircraft carrier. Anyone who informs themselves just from one philosophy is a philosophical bigot. Anyone else would call me a conservative, but the OP has chosen to call me a liberal simply because he could not be bothered to read my posts once he saw I was disagreeing with him. After all only liberals could possibly disagree with somebody so incredibly knowledgeable. If this is the ACME of conservativism, then the actual liberals have nothing to fear.

The only terrorist attack on American soil occurred under George Bush. That says it all.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by groingrinder]

reply to post by harvib


- Deprived al Qaeda of sanctuary in Afghanistan -- dont see how this is refutable. The Afghan govt denies them santuary. That does not say Al Qaeda doesnt exist there, it says they are denied santuary.


- No subsequent catastrophic attack on American territory. Name one if its happened.


- Eliminated significant al Qaeda leadership. Once again, massive amounts of googling, but there have been a lot of Al Qaeda leaders either killed or captured - the article doesnt say "all" although "significant" can be objective to the common pessimist

- Forged strong international intelligence cooperation -- Subjective, i agree. Depends on which nation you're talking about.

- Constrained terrorist financing. Does not say "eliminated" but we've been actively seeking and destroying attempts at funding terrorist movements.

double posted somehow....

[edit on 2-6-2008 by ybab hsur]

reply to post by groingrinder


Typical response when someone has been proven wrong

First you take a very anti-conservative stance (liberal)

then, after you're shown the light you say

"uh...uhhhhh.....why cant we all just get along!?"

We cant get along until those who are wrong, make the appropriate corrections.

Even in your own response you condone the seperation of ideals into "conservative" and "liberal"

You contradict your "plea" for "lets be humanitarians" in your own response.

Classic (takes screen shot before he can edit it)


and the only terrorist attack on american soil happened under george bush?
WOW -- see what liberals have turned the education system into? Public schools are a disgrace to this country, because of liberal based, and liberal biased, censorship of historical facts.


#1 reason you're wrong

#2 reason you're wrong

#3 reason you're wrong

#4 reason you're wrong

There is four VERY clear reasons that you, sir, are bathing in ignorance and blindly following the leader.

If you're so wrong, about so many things, then how can anyone take anything you say, seriously?


[edit on 2-6-2008 by ybab hsur]

[edit on 2-6-2008 by ybab hsur]

Originally posted by ybab hsur
There's few things more enjoyable than being SO RIGHT, that you invoke name calling from the radical left.

The conservatives have been called the right for so long that they've come to believe it.

Originally posted by jamie83


If anybody can name a city where liberal policies have generated wealth let me know.

Portland, Oregon, the city that works. I believe we had billions in leftover money this budget year? Learn about it, love it and deal with it. It's a liberal city that works and we havent even felt the bursting of the housing bubble too loudly. Houses are still selling, and prices are still going up.

I'm not here to debate anything other then the fact that portland is a liberal city that has made decisions which has generated weatlth.

We are the first city in the US with an openly gay mayor too. He starts his term next year.

oh and one last thing, we are so 'different' that the first George Bush calls the city 'Little Beiruit'.

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Telafree]

reply to post by ybab hsur

- Deprived al Qaeda of sanctuary in Afghanistan -- dont see how this is refutable. The Afghan govt denies them santuary. That does not say Al Qaeda doesnt exist there, it says they are denied santuary.

But you understand without data it is not possible to tell. I don't know if every square inch of Afghanistan is under U.S. control. Infact I would imagine quite the contrary. Which would indicate to me that there would have to be regions of sanctuary for Al Qaeda even if temporary or not sanctioned by the governments they are at war with.

- No subsequent catastrophic attack on American territory. Name one if its happened.

I think we discussed this in your previous thread when you posed the question what rights have been taken away. The destruction of the bill of rights is certainly a signifiacnt attack on American territory.

I would assume you see my point regarding the refutability of statements made without presenting data and definitions.