Liberals are CHEAP!

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government over the last 6 years seems bigger than it ever has been in my short life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that. I was able to help elect many Republicans but no conservatives. I'm unsure how to change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vote Libertarian. Or vote Constitution if you really want conservatives. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

...or don't vote. Same difference.

No, I'll continue to vote for the only viable non-Democrat alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which has the same effect as not voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

If his goal is fiscal conservatives in government, it's actually worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I value social conservatism much more than fiscal, anybody but Democrats suits me just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Voting for the only viable non-Democrat is the correct choice. Even when spending goes up under the GOP, it goes up less than it would under Democrats.

It is the big government programs that become non-discretionary that kill the budget, even though they may take a number of years to ramp up into spending montrosities. If you track who saddled us with these big programs and who want to create more in the future, it is clearly the Democrats.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]


link

Cliffs notes: conservatives give more money to charity than liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]There is at least one major statistical flaw in the argument constructed by the article in the link.

See if you can spot any of 'em. (Hint : They have nothing to do with who's best at giving, liberals or conervatoves.)

Mickey Brausch

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government over the last 6 years seems bigger than it ever has been in my short life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that. I was able to help elect many Republicans but no conservatives. I'm unsure how to change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vote Libertarian. Or vote Constitution if you really want conservatives. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

...or don't vote. Same difference.

No, I'll continue to vote for the only viable non-Democrat alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which has the same effect as not voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Parsed it twice, still makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Voting makes no sense.

[Smasharoo]

Voting for the only viable non-Democrat is the correct choice. Even when spending goes up under the GOP, it goes up less than it would under Democrats.


Patently false. Hasn't been true since FDR.


It is the big government programs that become non-discretionary that kill the budget, even though they may take a number of years to ramp up into spending montrosities. If you track who saddled us with these big programs and who want to create more in the future, it is clearly the Democrats

Like a Medicare Perscription Drug program that gurantees drug company profits because it expressly forbids negoiatiing for the lowest costs?

Maybe just post "GOP RULEZZZ!!" next time to save time.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

Voting for the only viable non-Democrat is the correct choice. Even when spending goes up under the GOP, it goes up less than it would under Democrats.


Patently false. Hasn't been true since FDR.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmm... more like since Nixon.

[Smasharoo]

Mmmm... more like since Nixon.

Mabye. LBJ is a good point.

I'll take the last 40 years instead of since FDR.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe just post "GOP RULEZZZ!!" next time to save time.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH sir. Ain't it cute that federal spending as a % of GDP declines in 1992, then rises again in 2000? And that it rises from 1988-1992 and 2000-Present. Damn Democrats, it's all a "lag" that precisely follows presidential inaugural years! Surely the unchecked back scratching of the last All-Republican 6 years will start reaping benefits in 2008, when a Dem takes the white house and takes all the credit for new spending decreases!

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, liberals look to the state to solve problems. Conservatives, most of whom are religious, look to God for answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous -- almost as ridiculous as "liberals worship liberalism, the state is God for them".

I have a leak in my late stage SnG game. I got into an argument with my wife last night. I can't get my hands on a Wii.

Here are three problems that a liberal like me (and I'd suggest I'm pretty representative of other liberals in this regard) doesn't bother going to the state with. Adding the caveat "in general" doesn't excuse crude meaningless nonsense and turn it into something less vapid. Yeah, I get what you're trying to say, but it's just nonsense. "Liberals worship liberalism" is just some meaningless tautology, and "liberals look to the state to solve problems" is just some gross overgeneralization that doesn't have any resembalance to the empirical reality.

What you mean to say is "liberals look to the state to solve *some* problems", which might sound like an impressive realization, until we consider that conservatives also look to the state to solve *some* problems, which means we're left with the obvious: some people look to the state to solve problems.


[ QUOTE ]
You see no correlation between the secularization of Europe and the massive, core belief of most of its populace that the government will take care of everything? Did people feel that way when religion was predominant?


I think there's a connection there (obviously not true in every case).

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got the correlation backwards, or at the very least are confusing the correlates.

http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_...hp?article=54:

"The varied decline and persistence of religion in the world today is most strongly correlated with differing levels of “existential security.” Essentially, religion persists where people bear high levels of risk due to inequality, poverty, and inadequate social provision by the state. Conversely, more equal, less impoverished societies, especially those with comprehensive welfare provisions, have become increasingly secular by every relevant measure. The authors’ complex regression analyses show these correlations to be very robust across more than seventy countries."

So the correlation is: prosperous people support and enact welfare states --> welfare states provide existential security for most of its populace --> most of populace becomes secular because they no longer lack existential security.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]

Nature: Global warming?
Nature: uh..."The Sun"....http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
Liberal: No..."Bush"

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice article. 1998. However it is quite wrong

the center that produced this piece of crap is an Exxon funded think tank, which is full of people who try to deny the lung cancer/smoking link