How Conservatives Are Viewed By The Left

[ieatcrayonz]

so you're not arguing that things really aren't gray and that things are black and white? you're saying that recognizing that things are gray doesn't fit your political beliefs.

 

I think that is a quintuple negative but I will try to answer what I think may or may not be your question definitely possibly.

 

When something is black liberals see gray.

 

When something is gray liberals see gray.

 

When something is white, liberals see gray.

 

When liberals see gray they look for reasons that someone else should do all the work and that any benefits of the work should be split evenly.

 

This applies to most, not all, liberals.

 

When something is black conservatives see black.

 

When something is gray conservatives see gray.

 

When something is white conservatives see white.

 

When something is black, gray or white conservatives look for ways to produce something from the black, gray or white and extract profit from it. Let's say their work and investment create 50% of the output. They want 100% of the profit if at all possible. If they need to allow others to profit so the others keep working and the gravy train keeps rolling, they will, but they will never ever ever settle for less than 51% of the profit created from their 50% of the input. The closer to 100% the better.

 

This is true of most conservatives, not all.

 

When commies see black, gray or white they don't really care what color they see. They want to trick people into thinking it is whatever color gets them the most power and allows them to work only at flapping their gums and showing off how smart they are and demonstrating why they should make decisions for everyone else. This is true for all commies.

 

When capitalists see black, gray or white they don't really care what color they see. They try to maximize the output from the black, gray and white resources realizing they are operating in an environment that should be controlled by supply, demand and the rule of law. They do not try to change the rule of law so they can produce 51% of profit from 50% of the work. They realize that ultimately supply, demand and truth will trump even the rule of law so they work within confines they do not control. This is true for all capitalists.

 

Unfortunately there are far far far more conservatives, liberals and commies than there are capitalists.

[3rdnlng]

I think that is a quintuple negative but I will try to answer what I think may or may not be your question definitely possibly.

 

When something is black liberals see gray.

 

When something is gray liberals see gray.

 

When something is white, liberals see gray.

 

When liberals see gray they look for reasons that someone else should do all the work and that any benefits of the work should be split evenly.

 

This applies to most, not all, liberals.

 

When something is black conservatives see black.

 

When something is gray conservatives see gray.

 

When something is white conservatives see white.

 

When something is black, gray or white conservatives look for ways to produce something from the black, gray or white and extract profit from it. Let's say their work and investment create 50% of the output. They want 100% of the profit if at all possible. If they need to allow others to profit so the others keep working and the gravy train keeps rolling, they will, but they will never ever ever settle for less than 51% of the profit created from their 50% of the input. The closer to 100% the better.

 

This is true of most conservatives, not all.

 

When commies see black, gray or white they don't really care what color they see. They want to trick people into thinking it is whatever color gets them the most power and allows them to work only at flapping their gums and showing off how smart they are and demonstrating why they should make decisions for everyone else. This is true for all commies.

 

When capitalists see black, gray or white they don't really care what color they see. They try to maximize the output from the black, gray and white resources realizing they are operating in an environment that should be controlled by supply, demand and the rule of law. They do not try to change the rule of law so they can produce 51% of profit from 50% of the work. They realize that ultimately supply, demand and truth will trump even the rule of law so they work within confines they do not control. This is true for all capitalists.

 

Unfortunately there are far far far more conservatives, liberals and commies than there are capitalists.

 

 

You seem to have such an understanding that transcends the normal thinking, are you willing to call it as you see it?

[dayman]

Wow, you are one f'd up person. There's this whole bunch of us that are fiscally conservative people that aren't bible thumpers clinging to our guns and whatever. Well, it's close by for those of you that care. Regardless, it is a false premise to lump in the fiscally conservative with the social nuts. Just to make that clear, the social nuts from both ends of the spectrum.

 

Of course, and I know. The problem is leadership regarding the politics of the party.

Edited May 2, 2012 by TheNewBills

[ieatcrayonz]

You seem to have such an understanding that transcends the normal thinking, are you willing to call it as you see it?

I thought I just did.

[birdog1960]

All I've said is we could be energy independent if we choose to be. You make up schit that has nothing to do with what I have stated.

you accuse me of making stuff up and write a post where the only thing you say to advance your argument is a restatement of a previous post (insults don't count). where are your citations on your assertion that we can be energy independent? do you refute bush' timetable? how are his remarks not salient to the discussion? how is the economy not intimately related to energy policy? and why is pointing out that your argument, if true and provable, would radically change the american political landscape overnight not applicable to the argument? these are not strawmen. these are valid points advancing my argument and lessening yours.

 

Based on the random musings of an anonymous left-wing nutjob like yourself, sure...

ah, a particularly vivid example of insult as argument (3rd's don't really compare)...what, in his description of fascism do you disagree with specifically?

 

I think that is a quintuple negative but I will try to answer what I think may or may not be your question definitely possibly.

 

When something is black liberals see gray.

 

When something is gray liberals see gray.

 

When something is white, liberals see gray.

 

When liberals see gray they look for reasons that someone else should do all the work and that any benefits of the work should be split evenly.

 

This applies to most, not all, liberals.

 

When something is black conservatives see black.

 

When something is gray conservatives see gray.

 

When something is white conservatives see white.

 

When something is black, gray or white conservatives look for ways to produce something from the black, gray or white and extract profit from it. Let's say their work and investment create 50% of the output. They want 100% of the profit if at all possible. If they need to allow others to profit so the others keep working and the gravy train keeps rolling, they will, but they will never ever ever settle for less than 51% of the profit created from their 50% of the input. The closer to 100% the better.

 

This is true of most conservatives, not all.

 

When commies see black, gray or white they don't really care what color they see. They want to trick people into thinking it is whatever color gets them the most power and allows them to work only at flapping their gums and showing off how smart they are and demonstrating why they should make decisions for everyone else. This is true for all commies.

 

When capitalists see black, gray or white they don't really care what color they see. They try to maximize the output from the black, gray and white resources realizing they are operating in an environment that should be controlled by supply, demand and the rule of law. They do not try to change the rule of law so they can produce 51% of profit from 50% of the work. They realize that ultimately supply, demand and truth will trump even the rule of law so they work within confines they do not control. This is true for all capitalists.

 

Unfortunately there are far far far more conservatives, liberals and commies than there are capitalists.

yet, you were able to discern my meaning. i'm not sure i can say the same about your post.

[3rdnlng]

you accuse me of making stuff up and write a post where the only thing you say to advance your argument is a restatement of a previous post (insults don't count). where are your citations on your assertion that we can be energy independent? do you refute bush' timetable? how are his remarks not salient to the discussion? how is the economy not intimately related to energy policy? and why is pointing out that your argument, if true and provable, would radically change the american political landscape overnight not applicable to the argument? these are not strawmen. these are valid points advancing my argument and lessening yours.

 

 

ah, a particularly vivid example of insult as argument (3rd's don't really compare)...what, in his description of fascism do you disagree with specifically?

 

 

yet, you were able to discern my meaning. i'm not sure i can say the same about your post.

 

You speculated that Bush II wouldn't expand drilling because it wouldn't amount to much. I linked to articles showing that Bush wanted to drill and tried to get Congress to repeal a law preventing drilling. I also linked to an article that quoted studies that we had 50 times the amount of reserves that Obama was claiming. You tried to change the subject and claim that if what I said was true it would radically change the political landscape (and thus the economic spot we are in) so it couldn't be true. You are so partisan that you can't even deal with facts.

[birdog1960]

You speculated that Bush II wouldn't expand drilling because it wouldn't amount to much. I linked to articles showing that Bush wanted to drill and tried to get Congress to repeal a law preventing drilling. I also linked to an article that quoted studies that we had 50 times the amount of reserves that Obama was claiming. You tried to change the subject and claim that if what I said was true it would radically change the political landscape (and thus the economic spot we are in) so it couldn't be true. You are so partisan that you can't even deal with facts.

i never speculated that bush wouldn't expand drilling...i corrected you when you proposed that was my meaning the first time.

 

it's not "changing the subject" to add cogent points to a discussion.

[birdog1960]

 

 

Then the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate often promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

 

Basically I see people voting against their own interest in order to vote jesus, to vote anti-gay, etc.

 

 

insightful and well put. i can't claim that it doesn't happen on the dem side but in general, i think the motives (if not the ultimate actions) are more transparent. i can't think of an analagous example to west virginia going republican in a presidential election, on the dem side.

[3rdnlng]

i never speculated that bush wouldn't expand drilling...i corrected you when you proposed that was my meaning the first time.

 

it's not "changing the subject" to add cogent points to a discussion.

 

 

You are delusional. This a quote from you in Post #64 of this thread:

 

"we went to war while a very pro oil and domestic exploration man was in power. could it be that he didn't feel estimted domestic reserves were large enough for future domestic needs?"

 

0

[birdog1960]

You are delusional. This a quote from you in Post #64 of this thread:

 

"we went to war while a very pro oil and domestic exploration man was in power. could it be that he didn't feel estimted domestic reserves were large enough for future domestic needs?"

 

0

and where in that quote does it say anything about drilling or further exploration except to point out that he was pro oil exploration? it speculates that he might not have thought energy independence imminent and his "oil addiction" speech confirms it.

[ieatcrayonz]

 

yet, you were able to discern my meaning. i'm not sure i can say the same about your post.

It is probably all gray to you huh?

Edited May 2, 2012 by ieatcrayonz

[birdog1960]

It is probably all gray to you huh?

do you ever calibrate your tv? ever played with contrast and brightness? i have a pretty cutting edge projector and it gets no where near absolute black or absolute white. i keep waitng for the next change in technology to inch closer to that ideal but never expect them to actually achieve it. same goes for most things in life. there are very few absolutes.

[3rdnlng]

and where in that quote does it say anything about drilling or further exploration except to point out that he was pro oil exploration? it speculates that he might not have thought energy independence imminent and his "oil addiction" speech confirms it.

 

OK, Bush was an oil guy. Bush wanted to drill. He asked congress to repeal a law prohibiting drilling. The U.S. has vast reserves of oil, estimated as enough to keep us going for 140 years at the present rate of use. Can you argue any of this? What makes you think that if we choose to, we can't be energy independent? You might try to answer without making someone want to insult you.

[birdog1960]

OK, Bush was an oil guy. Bush wanted to drill. He asked congress to repeal a law prohibiting drilling. The U.S. has vast reserves of oil, estimated as enough to keep us going for 140 years at the present rate of use. Can you argue any of this? What makes you think that if we choose to, we can't be energy independent? You might try to answer without making someone want to insult you.

my answer: because we haven't and are no where near becoming independent despite the obvious multiple benefits to becoming independent. Because even our leaders who have much to gain in making such an announcement have not made it. because the stock market certainly doesn't reflect that imminent eventuality. because i've seen no prominent experts in the field make such a prediction, to the contrary most think we're far off. because one of the biggest cheerleaders and optimist for energy independence, bush, announced much more modest expectations. because our foreign policy vis a vis the middle east still reflects an expected long term future need for imported oil.

Edited May 2, 2012 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

my answer: because we haven't and are no where near becoming independent despite the obvious multiple benefits to becoming independent. Because even our leaders who have much to gain in making such an announcement have not made it. because the stock market certainly doesn't reflect that imminent eventuality. because i've seen no prominent experts in the field make such a prediction, to the contrary most think we're far off. because one of the biggest cheerleaders and optimist for energy independence, bush, announced much more modest expectations. because our foreign policy vis a vis the middle east still reflects an expected long term future need for imported oil.

 

Who is preventing the U.S. from becoming energy independent?

[birdog1960]

Who is preventing the U.S. from becoming energy independent?

you tell me. i have theories but this question is crucial to your argument not mine. if it's easily doable, why hasn't it been done or even sold as an option?

[3rdnlng]

you tell me. i have theories but this question is crucial to your argument not mine. if it's easily doable, why hasn't it been done or even sold as an option?

 

 

Just do a search:

 

 

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=oil+drilling+environmentalists&pc=Z005&form=ZGAIDF

[birdog1960]

Just do a search:

 

 

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=oil+drilling+environmentalists&pc=Z005&form=ZGAIDF

just take a look at t. bone pickens article linked to yahoo finance today.(can't get the lnky thingy to work today). he says the dems and repubs are equally to blame and doesn't even mention environmentalist. he does mention, the koch bros though. so we would be energy independent if it were not for the environmentalists? really?

 

edit: t. boone: freudian slip

Edited May 2, 2012 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

just take a look at t. bone pickens article linked to yahoo finance today.(can't get the lnky thingy to work today). he says the dems and repubs are equally to blame and doesn't even mention environmentalist. he does mention, the koch bros though. so we would be energy independent if it were not for the environmentalists? really?

 

edit: t. boone: freudian slip

 

If we have plenty of oil there are only two things that would hold oil producers back from producing. Regulations and selling price. Technically there could be some other short term restrictions such as lack of oil rigs, tankers, or storage facilities but if this country decided to make it their policy to became the largest supplier of oil to the world, it wouldn't take us long to accomplish that. At some point in time the market could become flooded and it might restrict production or new drilling, but the world markets couldn't be held hostage by some Iranian puke.

[birdog1960]

If we have plenty of oil there are only two things that would hold oil producers back from producing. Regulations and selling price. Technically there could be some other short term restrictions such as lack of oil rigs, tankers, or storage facilities but if this country decided to make it their policy to became the largest supplier of oil to the world, it wouldn't take us long to accomplish that. At some point in time the market could become flooded and it might restrict production or new drilling, but the world markets couldn't be held hostage by some Iranian puke.

or all the easy pickings are gone. it's cost prohibitive to get to the other stuff and they're not certain they can get it at all or if it's there in estimated quantities. either way, it's not an immediate or even near term answer to our dependence on foreign oil. if it were, we wouldn't care about iran except in regard to the israeli's(who would also become much less important). but you keep believing it's a question of our will to get at these resources. it serves your argument much better than the countless more plausible explanations.