Liberals Vs. Conservatives

Having grown up in Georgia and having family there, I know about the 1% sales tax thing. It is supposedly being used for public transportation, which I think Atlanta desperately needs, but if you read the fine print it says that the tax will come now, and the infrastructure will come at some, undefined point in the future. There is no specific proposal for what to do with the money.

It's another example of stealing your money by lying to you about what it will be used for.

Building a road a $1 at a time isn't very cost effective.

Slarti's argument makes no sense. Conservatives are less intelligent because they are rich and lack empathy for the poor. Setting aside the obvious problems with this logic (what does empathy have to do with intelligence?) there's the fact that MOST RICH PEOPLE ARE LIBERAL! Ted Turner, George Soros, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Kerry, the Kennedys for crying out loud. Movie Stars, musicians, authors and heiresses all have a huge majority of liberals in their number. How then, does the argument that conservatives are richness leads to lack of empathy make any sense whatsoever? I would appreciate a serious response.

I suspect that empathy is a sign of intelligence.  It is one of the things that distinguishes us from animals.  I think if you had no empathy you would be less intelligent

Intelligence is a sign of intelligence.

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: Building a road a $1 at a time isn't very cost effective. And if you believe that they will actually use the money for what they say they will despite there being no provision in the bills that requires this, then I have a bridge to sell you in Florida.

I don't believe anything, I just state that tax money cannot be spent on what it is earmarked for until you've collected enough to pay for what you intend to use it on. Calling people liars before they commit the offense is not something I'm prone to.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: Building a road a $1 at a time isn't very cost effective. And if you believe that they will actually use the money for what they say they will despite there being no provision in the bills that requires this, then I have a bridge to sell you in Florida. I don't believe anything, I just state that tax money cannot be spent on what it is earmarked for until you've collected enough to pay for what you intend to use it on. Calling people liars before they commit the offense is not something I'm prone to.   We sell useless bridges to you (and I think you'll find it in Arizona)

tszirmay wrote: Liberal is almost synonym with open-minded, looking constantly for new ways to improve.

One of my favorite writers, G. K. Chesterton has a fun quote about open mindedness: "Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded."

tszirmay wrote: CPicard wrote: tszirmay wrote: That being said, recent history has shown the blur between the lines, fascist left (Putin) vs socialist right (most of Europe) Uh, I... I'm not very sure it works that way... I could understand categorizations such as "authoritarian post-communist with nationalist tendencies" for Putin. I could understand "conservative governments accepting social assistance". But "socialist right" or "fascist left", I'm not sure politologues would agree with these "definitions". I am not a politologue , so frankly, I don't really worry about what they may think, as they are often even more warped that the polticians !   I think you are too polite (or politically incorrect) as the list of examples go beyond the norm. You are just playing with words, preferring more acceptable and modern  terms for the same form of social control we have had since the Industrial revolution!   Is Chavez not a left-wing fascist? Is China not a socialist/capitalist state paradise? Aren't most Euro governments a left/center/right mishmash? Aren't most ex-Warsaw pact governments led by former left-wing politicians? We call them "shirt-changers" in Hungary . It goes on and on and you try to explain to me that politologues find my comments too simplistic?  I find it appalling that we are offered 2 choices that really vary only in words or colors. It has worked this way for a very long time and the end is not in sight. As long as these silly definitions exist, the truth will not change. When will there be a new way?

Okay, I will try not to be polite:
 - Chavez is a populist;
 - China is a totalitarian government;
 - Europe is a mess;
 - Eastern Europe is a backyard.
 - Your comments are too complicated.
Satisfied?

Chavez is a former military man, hence a juntist , inspired by the "pink revolution" and anti-American. I guess that's what you mean by the camouflage term "populist". So was Lenin! 

Edited by tszirmay - July 31 2012 at 14:04