BF2S Forums Typical liberal hypocrisy

Varegg wrote:

Grey=Compromise ... most often a good mix of our and your views

And on what grounds do liberals fail in life lowing? ... most people I know are liberals and they have excelled in their lives, good jobs and steady families ... on the other hand most die hard conservatives I know have poor jobs, are usually single and reap the welfare system more than average ... then again I do know some very decent cons and some bad apple libs ...

Hm ... guess that means your political views doesn't really reflect failure or success does it?

No grey does not equal compromise. Like I said it equals indecisiveness and inconsistency which leads to inequality on rules and laws, and you know this. One standard for all. THAT is equality.

I never said liberalism equals failure or success. I maintain leeches benefit from liberal ideology. I say liberal ideology rewards failure and punishes success. I also maintain that on average liberals are less giving of their own money while more than willing than share other peoples money.

and I never said my political views are a gauge to success or failure. My political views are a gauge of acceptance of personal responsibility for the decisions one makes with their lives. I am not rich, far from it, however I do not endorse taxing the rich more to cover my short falls, in order to make things more "fair" for me. It is my life and I will continue to endorse self control over it rather than govt. dictation. thanks anyway.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-22 04:20:48)

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Grey=Compromise ... most often a good mix of our and your views

And on what grounds do liberals fail in life lowing? ... most people I know are liberals and they have excelled in their lives, good jobs and steady families ... on the other hand most die hard conservatives I know have poor jobs, are usually single and reap the welfare system more than average ... then again I do know some very decent cons and some bad apple libs ...

Hm ... guess that means your political views doesn't really reflect failure or success does it?

No grey does not equal compomise. Like I said it equals indecsisiveness aand inconsistency which leads to inequality on rules and laws, and you know this. One standard for all. THAT is equality.

I never said liberalism equals failure or success. I maintain leeches benefit from liberal ideology. I say liberal ideology rewards failure and punishes success. I also maintain that on average liberals are less giving of their own money while more than willing than share other peoples money.

Grey does equals compromise lowing, it's a mix of black and white ... or conservatism and liberalism if you like ... indecisiveness and inconsistency has nothing to do with it, those two term frequents both cons and libs tbh ...

One standard for all is not equality, and funny you should mention that because that very sentence was the flagship of communistic ideology

Cons and libs are both giving their fair share of money both to charity and government welfare, political leanings have nothing to do with neither giving nor sharing.

Us liberals does not like "leeches" any more than you do lowing so stop using that as an excuse cause it simply isn't true ...

And btw ... you failed to answer my questions ...

One standard of law?

Now where did that enter the discussion? ... we were talking about cons,libs and hypocrisy no?

We could of course discuss certain issues where black meets white but we really have all the other threads for the specific issues ...

And finally ... the political system in Norway(and similar) does not breed leeches lowing, where did you dig up that "fact"?

And for your links I seriously don't trust a anti-Gore article or a google-study as a credible source, I can tell you this though lowing, as a liberal I don't believe in short sighted charity as both articles describes ...

Varegg wrote:

And finally ... the political system in Norway(and similar) does not breed leeches lowing, where did you dig up that "fact"?

and you do not live in the entitlement country of the USA.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-22 04:38:24)

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

And finally ... the political system in Norway(and similar) does not breed leeches lowing, where did you dig up that "fact"?

and you do not live in the entitlement country of the USA.

And for that I am thankful towards my parents, I could have been a US citizen today if my dad had accepted one of the various offers he got from General Electric in the 70s and 80s ...

fantastic, now back to the discussion?

( at least you know what I am talking about then)

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-22 04:44:26)

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

One standard of law?

Now where did that enter the discussion? ... we were talking about cons,libs and hypocrisy no?

We could of course discuss certain issues where black meets white but we really have all the other threads for the specific issues ...

No, we were talking about your beloved "grey areas". and your deep hatred of my black and white regarding issues facing society. You want everything wrapped up in grey area in a society which are governed by black and white laws. I want to know how you are supposed to maintain one standard in society with grey area law to cover your grey area issues nad still maintain an equal playing field.

How do you plan on dealing with your "grey area" if not through law?

The grey area I'm talking about is where politicians, people, the community etc etc achive a compromise by talking together seeking a common ground ... yes I have my views and you have yours, most normal people are willing to sacrifice a little to reach an agreement and a society that benefits the masses ...

Law and law-making is only a minor part of it ...

Really? and again I am forced to ask how you plan on enforcing that compromise, if not through the rule of law?

Also my taxes going toward social services is that compromise. I suppose now you endorse me "compromising: even more of my money rather than those social services compromising by at least efficient running of their programs.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-22 04:49:55)

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The grey area I'm talking about is where politicians, people, the community etc etc achive a compromise by talking together seeking a common ground ... yes I have my views and you have yours, most normal people are willing to sacrifice a little to reach an agreement and a society that benefits the masses ...

Law and law-making is only a minor part of it ...

Really? and again I am forced to ask how you plan on enforcing that compromise, if not through the rule of law?

What the fekk are you talking about? ... is this too philosophical for you or?

pretty simple question really

You want every issue wrapped up in grey area and compromise, ya know, because nothing is black and white. I want to know how you plan on governing your grey area issues? Or did you just plan on talking about them consistently with no action toward them?


I kinda figured you would know what I am talking about since grea area is one of the typical liberal arguments for all occations.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-22 04:55:52)

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

What the fekk are you talking about? ... is this too philosophical for you or?

pretty simple question really

You want every issue wrapped up in grey area and compromise, ya know, because nothing is black and white. I want to know how you plan on governing your grey area issues? Or did you just plan on talking about them consistently with no action toward them?


I kinda figured you would know what I am talking about since grea area is one of the typical liberal arguments for all occations.

What you just posted here is a good example actually ... you take a statement I made, then you toss the letters around and comes up with something I didn't say or mean ...

I never said EVERY issue should be wrapped up in a grey area or be a compromise, I never said that nothing is ever black or white neither ... your poor asumptions only tbh ...

How to I plan to govern grey area issues? ... the socalled compromise we sometimes seek is what leads to say a new law, it's part of the process making new laws to compromise, sometimes there is no need for compromise seeing as the issue have much support in both camps ...

And you use the phrase "typical liberal argument" lowing but making compromise is not a liberal phenomenon only ... it's widely used in may setting even outside politics and with great success ...

Bullshit. Everytime there is an argument one of can not defend against you toss out a sseries of blankets to dismiss the issue, a few are
racism, generalizing, and  of course "not everything is black and white, lowing". It is the foundation of a string of bullshit arguments and excuses this forum leans on for most every thread that covers social issues. So please don't tell me all of a sudden that you don't know what I mean or where I came up with with this. This oly became relevant in this thread because one of your own tried to use this bullshit "grey area" argument in this thread.

I do not agree grey areas equal compromise. and even it did, compromise is not black and white as laws should be. Compromise is does not cover all citizens equally. It considered certain aspects for some and refuses them for others. There can be no "grey area" regarding social issues. Because as I said before you cna not have compromise and consistency at the same time.

lowing wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I was speaking in general terms with the cover your failure comment, and you know it.

What makes me so far right? Because I preach personal responsibility and freedom, equal opportunity over equal results? Why do you consider me so far right winged? What is it about my posts regarding these issues that you find so offensive?

Get back with me when you have a mortgage, a wife and children you are trying to raise and all of your efforts are being politicized in an attempt to re-distribute it to those that have not worked. By the way, 25 hours is not a full time job.

Anyway, care to dispute what I posted? Start with how all decisions and laws must be "grey" in order to cover the "grey" issues, thus creating laws not equal to all citizens, but laws tailored made depending on who you are and what your situation is. By all means, argue your endrosement of this system. then we can talk about the "fairness" of such a "grey area" legal system

Again, if you actually read my posts, you wouldve read :

destruktion_6143 wrote:

I work25hrs part time on top of a 60+hr school week.

I worked fulltime for 2 yrs before school (44+ hr a week)

Also: my analogy you keep misunderstanding about black and white was, and still is, the term liberal and conservative.

Liberals as well as conservatives have varying degrees of ideologies within them. But you see it as ALL LIBERALS ARE FAR LEFT SOCIALIST THIEVES.

maybe some liberals you know, or that are in power are like that. But not ALL liberals are, which is where you fail to see the point.

Eg: http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

you highlight my argument about grey areas, yet do not address it? Again, explain how your endorsement on grey area laws for grey area issues.

lowing...like i have said before, i am not advocating grey area law. I am referring to the terms liberal and conservative, which, are not black and white. there are a lot of varying degrees in between!!!

Do you not fucking read anything i write? And I would like you to acknowledge your mis-reading of my posts, as i cleared up above

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Why is wealth distribution a good idea?
Well thr bottom line is, it's good for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

Why is universal Healthcare good?
Because its cheaper the any private option and keeps everyone is the workforce relatively healthy which is good for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

Why is free/subsidised education good?
Because a highly educated workforce is better for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

1. Fine, suppose most of us decide to be on the recieving end of that wealth redistribution instead of the working end? What then. Wealth redistribution punsishes achievement and rewards failure. Period.

2.It is not cheaper, medicare, ( govt. insurance) is plagued with fraud easte and abuse. Therre is nothing that indictated govt. health care would not be the same.


3. No such thing as "free" education. Just because you ain't paying for it does not make it free. Besides I am assuming that most people that work would want THEIR money going toward THEIR family and not yours.

It's called an investment... you get more in return than what you put in, but it may not be immediately obvious. And your first argument is, again, nonsensical, as no wealth distribution system as you call it will ever make not working more profitable than working. Why would anyone choose to voluntarily lower their standard of life?

Last edited by Spark (2009-10-22 18:38:15)

destruktion_6143 wrote:

lowing wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I was speaking in general terms with the cover your failure comment, and you know it.

What makes me so far right? Because I preach personal responsibility and freedom, equal opportunity over equal results? Why do you consider me so far right winged? What is it about my posts regarding these issues that you find so offensive?

Get back with me when you have a mortgage, a wife and children you are trying to raise and all of your efforts are being politicized in an attempt to re-distribute it to those that have not worked. By the way, 25 hours is not a full time job.

Anyway, care to dispute what I posted? Start with how all decisions and laws must be "grey" in order to cover the "grey" issues, thus creating laws not equal to all citizens, but laws tailored made depending on who you are and what your situation is. By all means, argue your endrosement of this system. then we can talk about the "fairness" of such a "grey area" legal system

Again, if you actually read my posts, you wouldve read :
I worked fulltime for 2 yrs before school (44+ hr a week)

Also: my analogy you keep misunderstanding about black and white was, and still is, the term liberal and conservative.

Liberals as well as conservatives have varying degrees of ideologies within them. But you see it as ALL LIBERALS ARE FAR LEFT SOCIALIST THIEVES.

maybe some liberals you know, or that are in power are like that. But not ALL liberals are, which is where you fail to see the point.

Eg: http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

you highlight my argument about grey areas, yet do not address it? Again, explain how your endorsement on grey area laws for grey area issues.

lowing...like i have said before, i am not advocating grey area law. I am referring to the terms liberal and conservative, which, are not black and white. there are a lot of varying degrees in between!!!

Do you not fucking read anything i write? And I would like you to acknowledge your mis-reading of my posts, as i cleared up above

If you believe in forced govt. dependency then there is no grey area you are liberal. Period.

and no I did not mis-read what you said. and 25 hours a week STILL is not a fulltime job. By the way, where do you live? Own a home? a car? When you do, you will start leaning more toward wanting to keep what you work for.

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Why is wealth distribution a good idea?
Well thr bottom line is, it's good for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

Why is universal Healthcare good?
Because its cheaper the any private option and keeps everyone is the workforce relatively healthy which is good for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

Why is free/subsidised education good?
Because a highly educated workforce is better for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

1. Fine, suppose most of us decide to be on the recieving end of that wealth redistribution instead of the working end? What then. Wealth redistribution punsishes achievement and rewards failure. Period.

2.It is not cheaper, medicare, ( govt. insurance) is plagued with fraud easte and abuse. Therre is nothing that indictated govt. health care would not be the same.


3. No such thing as "free" education. Just because you ain't paying for it does not make it free. Besides I am assuming that most people that work would want THEIR money going toward THEIR family and not yours.

1. Not really. But what it does do is gives more people a disposable income with which to buy things. This increase in demand forces businesses to expand and take on more employees, reducing the unemployment rate and increasing business profits.

2. That's your opinion about your government. But it has been shown numerous times that other countries can offer a universal system with comparable or better care for anything from two thirds to half the cost of the US system.

3. My parents worked and paid taxes and their money went towards my education. Their Parents worked and paid taxes that went towards their education. Now I pay taxes which will go towards my childrens education. The kids born into poverty who would never be able to afford the costs can now get educated and become productive members of society. The children born into families with arsehole parents who would rather spend their money on booze and smokes still have a realistic chance of getting into the best universities and becoming as productive in society as they can be, instead of being forced into menial jobs because of lack of funds in order to buy their qualifications. It allows students the ability to spend more time devoted to their studies then having to worry about where their next meal or semesters tuition is coming from. I'm also not just talking about academic training, but also trade and technical skills in fields suck as mechanics, construction, electrical, plumbing, hospitality and the lists go on, which will all increase safety and efficiency in the workplace.

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Why is wealth distribution a good idea?
Well thr bottom line is, it's good for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

Why is universal Healthcare good?
Because its cheaper the any private option and keeps everyone is the workforce relatively healthy which is good for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

Why is free/subsidised education good?
Because a highly educated workforce is better for the economy; and what's good for the economy is good for everyone.

1. Fine, suppose most of us decide to be on the recieving end of that wealth redistribution instead of the working end? What then. Wealth redistribution punsishes achievement and rewards failure. Period.

2.It is not cheaper, medicare, ( govt. insurance) is plagued with fraud easte and abuse. Therre is nothing that indictated govt. health care would not be the same.


3. No such thing as "free" education. Just because you ain't paying for it does not make it free. Besides I am assuming that most people that work would want THEIR money going toward THEIR family and not yours.

1. Not really. But what it does do is gives more people a disposable income with which to buy things. This increase in demand forces businesses to expand and take on more employees, reducing the unemployment rate and increasing business profits.

2. That's your opinion about your government. But it has been shown numerous times that other countries can offer a universal system with comparable or better care for anything from two thirds to half the cost of the US system.

3. My parents worked and paid taxes and their money went towards my education. Their Parents worked and paid taxes that went towards their education. Now I pay taxes which will go towards my childrens education. The kids born into poverty who would never be able to afford the costs can now get educated and become productive members of society. The children born into families with arsehole parents who would rather spend their money on booze and smokes still have a realistic chance of getting into the best universities and becoming as productive in society as they can be, instead of being forced into menial jobs because of lack of funds in order to buy their qualifications. It allows students the ability to spend more time devoted to their studies then having to worry about where their next meal or semesters tuition is coming from. I'm also not just talking about academic training, but also trade and technical skills in fields suck as mechanics, construction, electrical, plumbing, hospitality and the lists go on, which will all increase safety and efficiency in the workplace.

1.Sorry pal, I work for MY disposable income, not yours, go try and earn your own disposable income.

2. Ummm not really, in fact countries like France are on the verge of bankruptcy due to all its social programs.

3. Not really again, all kinds of programs out their to assist anyone who is willing to put forth an effort of their own IE grants ( unless you are white) and tuition assistance, low interest loans.