Why Can't Liberals and Conservatives Shut Their Mouths?
Katherine the Renaissance Woman
2012/05/09 04:25:34
|
|
|||||
|
175 votes
|
|
81% | ||
|
41 votes
|
|
19% | ||
I am so sick and tired of different groups of people claiming that they have higher moral ground than others do based on politics. You're not cool. You're not smarter than everyone else. You look like a moron.
"Conservatism is a mental illness, but can it be treated?"
"Do you repeatedly use the Word D_ _ chebag and think of your self as an intelligent person? (and then have answer choices as: "No, I think I have a higher intellect then most liberals." and "I can't help it, Im liberal".
Do not sit here and try to tell me one side is worse than the other, because these two examples are just from today. I'm sick and tired of hearing polls like "Oh my god, Racism is ALL OBAMA'S FAULT. Obama is trying to KEEP RACISM AROUND for his political agenda." Or "Aren't Conservatives Just Pussies Who Don't Realize that the WORLD DOESN'T REVOLVE AROUND THEM Anymore?" Conservatives suck. Liberals suck. Conservatives are rad. Liberals are rad.
Are you people stupid? Do you really think that a person's political affiliation really makes them a good or a bad person? Do you really think that just because a person is Liberal or Conservative that their IQ must be lower than your party's choice because you're so much damn experienced and refined than everyone else is? Do you really think that your political party has all of the answers? Because I'll tell you what:
Obama has done a shitty job at his job.
Bush did a shitty job at his job.
I do not CARE who did WORSE of a job. The fact is, both Presidents (have) failed to satisfy the general, overall public. So Conservatives, laugh all you want at "Obama's incompetence and his "ghetto mentality", and Liberals, continue to point out how Bush was a moron who didn't know his ass from his mouth. Neither one of your party's leaders has done an overall satisfactory job.
I don't care if a person is a Conservative or a Liberal. If I think a person has something respectable to say, I will listen to them. If I think this person is talented in some form of the arts, I'm going to appreciate them and their talents they have. I look at a person based on their morals and integrity and despite what many of you...INDIVIDUALS (and ooo, I wish I could put another word here) believe, a person's moral integrity is not defined by who they vote for. I don't care if you're a Liberal or a Conservative. I look for things I have in common with people. I look at how a person treats another human being. That has nothing to do with their political affiliations.
Sure, I may get along better with those whom I agree with politically, but I have plenty of friends who do not share the same priorities and political ideals as I do. And I am okay with this. Trust me, I dislike a LOT of people who share similar ideologies as I do. Does this make me a hypocrite? NO. It does not. Why? Because I pay attention to how a person carries themselves, whether or not a person strives to become a better human being, a better addition to society. I do not think your different opinion is wrong--unless your opinion is backed up by faulty logic (and POLITICS is FULL OF IT. It's called rhetoric and logical fallacies). Or if your opinion is backed up by facts that have been disproved, I will not take your opinion into consideration until you have an educated opinion.
An educated opinion does not necessarily mean that it has to reflect my own opinion. An educated opinion means that you've lived, you've experienced, and you've actually done research. You've actually taken the time to look at any and all modes of bias to get the full story and idea. An educated opinion means that someone isn't closed minded. And most of you people on this website. Are. Closed-Minded.
Your opinion cannot be "right". It is an opinion. You may have facts that support your opinion, but that still does not mean your opinion is a fact (ergo, right). You have facts that support your opinion. Think of it as an hypothesis. You can have facts to back it up, but it is your personal opinion that makes you incapable of being right or wrong.
Political affiliations have become a medium for stereotyping. And stereotyping, children, is in fact, not morally right. It wrongly puts an entire group or populace into a very strict set of parameters that does not have to define them. But you people take it upon yourselves to say that this is true. "Oh, you're a Liberal. You're brainwashed anyway, so you have no idea what you're talking about." Are you kidding? "Oh, you're a Conservative. You've grown up with an easy and privileged life and don't understand what it really means to work for your money because you're spoiled and bigoted." Are you kidding? Statements like these do not help anyone.
Please, Sodahead users. Get out of my face. Liberals and Conservatives are all people too. Suck it up. Shake hands. Disagree. But do not question the moral integrity, the intellectual ability, or the "any other factor that has nothing to do with political ideals only characteristic" of your opposing party member. You don't look right. You don't look cool. You look like an asshat. You look condescending, and you look disagreeable.
EDIT: Because some of you believe me to be un-American and wishing to repress the rights of the American people, let me clarify. My "Why Can't Liberals and Conservatives Shut Their Mouths" question was not meant to be translated as: "Can I Make the People Silence Themselves" I have read the Constitution and the Amendments and I occasionally look them over to re-familiarize myself with it. My point in asking this was not to suggest that I wish to take away anyone's Freedom of Speech. My point was to get people to realize the idiotic things they say when they base their opinions about someone solely upon the fact that they belong to this or that political party. If people want to talk with their foot in their mouths and look ignorant by saying "Oh, you're a Liberal, you're a dunce and a twat", then do it. My point in writing this was to POINT OUT this problem, that people are so ignorant in their thought processes that they make statements such as these. Who does this? Truly.
"Conservatism is a mental illness, but can it be treated?"
"Do you repeatedly use the Word D_ _ chebag and think of your self as an intelligent person? (and then have answer choices as: "No, I think I have a higher intellect then most liberals." and "I can't help it, Im liberal".
Do not sit here and try to tell me one side is worse than the other, because these two examples are just from today. I'm sick and tired of hearing polls like "Oh my god, Racism is ALL OBAMA'S FAULT. Obama is trying to KEEP RACISM AROUND for his political agenda." Or "Aren't Conservatives Just Pussies Who Don't Realize that the WORLD DOESN'T REVOLVE AROUND THEM Anymore?" Conservatives suck. Liberals suck. Conservatives are rad. Liberals are rad.
Are you people stupid? Do you really think that a person's political affiliation really makes them a good or a bad person? Do you really think that just because a person is Liberal or Conservative that their IQ must be lower than your party's choice because you're so much damn experienced and refined than everyone else is? Do you really think that your political party has all of the answers? Because I'll tell you what:
Obama has done a shitty job at his job.
Bush did a shitty job at his job.
I do not CARE who did WORSE of a job. The fact is, both Presidents (have) failed to satisfy the general, overall public. So Conservatives, laugh all you want at "Obama's incompetence and his "ghetto mentality", and Liberals, continue to point out how Bush was a moron who didn't know his ass from his mouth. Neither one of your party's leaders has done an overall satisfactory job.
I don't care if a person is a Conservative or a Liberal. If I think a person has something respectable to say, I will listen to them. If I think this person is talented in some form of the arts, I'm going to appreciate them and their talents they have. I look at a person based on their morals and integrity and despite what many of you...INDIVIDUALS (and ooo, I wish I could put another word here) believe, a person's moral integrity is not defined by who they vote for. I don't care if you're a Liberal or a Conservative. I look for things I have in common with people. I look at how a person treats another human being. That has nothing to do with their political affiliations.
Sure, I may get along better with those whom I agree with politically, but I have plenty of friends who do not share the same priorities and political ideals as I do. And I am okay with this. Trust me, I dislike a LOT of people who share similar ideologies as I do. Does this make me a hypocrite? NO. It does not. Why? Because I pay attention to how a person carries themselves, whether or not a person strives to become a better human being, a better addition to society. I do not think your different opinion is wrong--unless your opinion is backed up by faulty logic (and POLITICS is FULL OF IT. It's called rhetoric and logical fallacies). Or if your opinion is backed up by facts that have been disproved, I will not take your opinion into consideration until you have an educated opinion.
An educated opinion does not necessarily mean that it has to reflect my own opinion. An educated opinion means that you've lived, you've experienced, and you've actually done research. You've actually taken the time to look at any and all modes of bias to get the full story and idea. An educated opinion means that someone isn't closed minded. And most of you people on this website. Are. Closed-Minded.
Your opinion cannot be "right". It is an opinion. You may have facts that support your opinion, but that still does not mean your opinion is a fact (ergo, right). You have facts that support your opinion. Think of it as an hypothesis. You can have facts to back it up, but it is your personal opinion that makes you incapable of being right or wrong.
Political affiliations have become a medium for stereotyping. And stereotyping, children, is in fact, not morally right. It wrongly puts an entire group or populace into a very strict set of parameters that does not have to define them. But you people take it upon yourselves to say that this is true. "Oh, you're a Liberal. You're brainwashed anyway, so you have no idea what you're talking about." Are you kidding? "Oh, you're a Conservative. You've grown up with an easy and privileged life and don't understand what it really means to work for your money because you're spoiled and bigoted." Are you kidding? Statements like these do not help anyone.
Please, Sodahead users. Get out of my face. Liberals and Conservatives are all people too. Suck it up. Shake hands. Disagree. But do not question the moral integrity, the intellectual ability, or the "any other factor that has nothing to do with political ideals only characteristic" of your opposing party member. You don't look right. You don't look cool. You look like an asshat. You look condescending, and you look disagreeable.
EDIT: Because some of you believe me to be un-American and wishing to repress the rights of the American people, let me clarify. My "Why Can't Liberals and Conservatives Shut Their Mouths" question was not meant to be translated as: "Can I Make the People Silence Themselves" I have read the Constitution and the Amendments and I occasionally look them over to re-familiarize myself with it. My point in asking this was not to suggest that I wish to take away anyone's Freedom of Speech. My point was to get people to realize the idiotic things they say when they base their opinions about someone solely upon the fact that they belong to this or that political party. If people want to talk with their foot in their mouths and look ignorant by saying "Oh, you're a Liberal, you're a dunce and a twat", then do it. My point in writing this was to POINT OUT this problem, that people are so ignorant in their thought processes that they make statements such as these. Who does this? Truly.
And apparently you missed the reply below. Where I said:
"The Wall Street bailout, who do you think wrote the legislation? Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. Who benefited the most from the Wall Street bailout? Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. See if any of them are on the list of Obama's corporate donors in 2008.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
Interesting, every single one of them is in the top 20. It seems your lens has a blind spot, you see the corporations donating to Obama, but you can't see that the big union bosses have also benefited from Obama's corporatism."
Again, you put the focus on the unions by being ignorant about Obama's crony and corporatist ties to big labor......not me!!!
Below is the empirical data. This is comparing the UAW hourly labor costs (including health care and other expenses) with non-UAW labor costs. As you can see, the UAW is nearly double. I've also included a link to a document that breaks down the costs.
Please wake up and stop listening to the corporate owned news.....you should know better!
Competitive Labor Cost Comparison
2006 Average Labor Costs — UAW represented (per hour worked)
DaimlerChrysler $75.86
Ford $70.51
General Motors $73.26
U.S. Japanese Transplants Labor Cost Comparison
2005 Average Labor Costs
*Honda $42.95
*Nissan $41.97
*Toyota $47.60
*Memo: DaimlerChrysler estimates
http://www.google.com/url?sa=...
How convenient since Japanese auto manufacturers have health care provided from the socialized system. Thereby removing that cost from the equation. How convenient. Even US transplants are covered by Japans socialized health care system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
[..]The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government
committee.
Pension
Moving on .. [..]The Japanese pension system is mainly composed of national pension insurance (kokumin nenkin) and employees' pension insurance (kosei nenkin). All residents of Japan who are between 20 and 60 years of age, including foreign residents, are required to enroll in the national pension plan.
https://docs.google.com/viewe...
[..]About 78% of the elderly Japanese income comes from social security and pensions.
[..]mutual aid pensions apply to publ...
How convenient since Japanese auto manufacturers have health care provided from the socialized system. Thereby removing that cost from the equation. How convenient. Even US transplants are covered by Japans socialized health care system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
[..]The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government
committee.
Pension
Moving on .. [..]The Japanese pension system is mainly composed of national pension insurance (kokumin nenkin) and employees' pension insurance (kosei nenkin). All residents of Japan who are between 20 and 60 years of age, including foreign residents, are required to enroll in the national pension plan.
https://docs.google.com/viewe...
[..]About 78% of the elderly Japanese income comes from social security and pensions.
[..]mutual aid pensions apply to public service employees. The second tier operates largely like a pay-as-you-go (PAYG) defined benefit program. Both employers and employees contribute 8.675% of the employees’ salary to the KNH. All workers are subject to the same contribution rate, with no discount given for low-income workers. Contribution to KNH is subject to a monthly salary ceiling of 590,000 yen.
Benefits payments are related to the employees’ salary, at an accrual rate of 0.5481% for each year of contribution. Thus a subscriber who starts contributing to KNH at age 20 and is fully retired at age 60 would expect to receive 28.5% of the career average monthly earnings after 40 years of contribution.
Unlike benefit payment under the first tier KN which is independent of salary and wage earnings, under the second tier KHN, subscribers who continue to work after age 60 would have a 20% reduction in benefits. For earnings exceeding 370,000 yen (which is the average
salary of a male Japanese worker), the remaining 80% benefit is subject to a negative benefit tax at an effective rate of 50%, or at the rate of 10,000 yen for each 20,000 yen increase in earnings.
So what have we come up with? An unfair comparison since Japan has both socialized health care and pension system which is not factored into your equation. Until 2001 they didnt have a 401K type of system therefore THIS IS the typical retirement for Japanese workers. Lets me a little more forthcoming with quantitative comparisons next time. Double (please!)
"We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama -- $60.7 million to be exact -- and we're proud of it," boasted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, to the Las Vegas Sun in 2009.
Andy Stern was the most frequented visitor to the WH in 2009. Since inauguration day through Feb. of 2011, Stern visited the WH 53 times.
Within two weeks of moving into the White House, Obama signed a series of executive orders championed by union bosses. The new rules authorized sweeping powers for the labor secretary that essentially blackball nonunion contractors targeted by labor organizers and blacklist nonunion employees in the private sector from working on taxpayer-funded projects. Such regulatory favoritism limits freedom in the workplace and raises the cost of doing business.
Obama also slashed the Labor Department's funding to investigate union corruption, this will also help Stern continue his corruption and cronyism since the Labor Dept won't be investigating.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
Finance, Insurance an RE $141.2M Lawyers and Lobby $100.8M, Big Comm $49M, Misc Busi $86M. .... Labor $1.3M.
Top industry to candidates in 2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
Labor doesnt even register.
Seems to me your lens is just a little too focused on the working class while other sectors are going unnoticed by you.
I'm not focusing on a particular class, you said "no union was ever bailed out," I'm showing you two very large unions who did. And I'm sure it didn't stop there.
My lens is focused on the big picture. Corruption and cronyism is broad sweeping, across all industries, across all aspects of government - federal, state and local. It's corporatism, aka soft-fascism, and both the Democrats and the GOP have mastered the game. What do you think Obamacare is? That's corporatism! And it was written largely by the help of SEIU's Andy Stern, GE also helped write it. Both benefit greatly from Obamacare.
The Wall Street bailout, who do you think wrote the legislation? Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. Who benefited the most from the Wall Street bailout? Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. See if any of them are on the list of Obama's corporate donors in 2008.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
Interesting, every single one of them is in the top 20. It seems your lens has a blind spot, you see the corporations donating to Obama, but you can'...
I'm not focusing on a particular class, you said "no union was ever bailed out," I'm showing you two very large unions who did. And I'm sure it didn't stop there.
My lens is focused on the big picture. Corruption and cronyism is broad sweeping, across all industries, across all aspects of government - federal, state and local. It's corporatism, aka soft-fascism, and both the Democrats and the GOP have mastered the game. What do you think Obamacare is? That's corporatism! And it was written largely by the help of SEIU's Andy Stern, GE also helped write it. Both benefit greatly from Obamacare.
The Wall Street bailout, who do you think wrote the legislation? Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. Who benefited the most from the Wall Street bailout? Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. See if any of them are on the list of Obama's corporate donors in 2008.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
Interesting, every single one of them is in the top 20. It seems your lens has a blind spot, you see the corporations donating to Obama, but you can't see that the big union bosses have also benefited from Obama's corporatism.
I'm pretty much done with the conversation at this point, I'm beginning to think that I'm dealing with a partisan and not an independent thinker. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's a certain level of hostility when it comes to defending the big unions, they are corrupt as hell but yet there's a blind spot to that reality.
The implications of this are: Liberals are backwashed, liberals are not intelligent, and that liberals are immoral.
Do any of those facts sound even remotely conceivable if we're ONLY looking at political affiliation?
Regardless of political positions, most people want the same things. We may disagree on how to bring them to fruition, but we mostly want the same things for ourselves and our families. We could probably arrive at solutions much faster if we started by recognizing that first. Good post ;)
Democratic leaders said they want to work with Republicans to get things done. Obama said there are a “whole bunch” of areas where Democrats could work with the GOP.
voters want the democrats and conservatives to work together, not have constant deadlock. Conservatives know that the vAst majority of Americans lean left. So they try any and everything to try to make Obama and the democrats sound incompetent and become a one-term president. The conservatives think they can win the election in November with their big money, but I think America has already made up their minds after experiencing 2 years of a GOP house.
I get angry when people have info and proof and still only see what they want to see. Then I will call them what they are.