Why republicans suck

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Phil Ayesho, Oct 5, 2008.

  1. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Because they are all about money.

    No matter what the topic it always comes back to THEIR money...

    And now- there is scientific proof that the more people think about money the less helpful they are to others.

    Take a read

    Thinking about money makes people selfish.
     
  2. Jovial

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,404
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    That article made it sound like a good thing. "Money is cognitively and mentally linked to personal goals. It allows people to do things efficiently and not need other people.

    It didn't mention republicans at all! Why do you have to put a spin on it? Just posting "content whose primary purpose is to disrupt or inflame"?
     
  3. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Phil, this is a load of shit.
     
  4. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    ITs not a load of shit- it is proven...


    And, understand... I am all for people being self reliant...

    But there is more to society than that.


    I single out republicans because their entire agenda is founded in their concern about money. PRo- free markets- Against any social programs... why? Because they cost money and the poor should be self reliant. Because they "shouldn't have to pay for other people".



    As I have said before, I think conservatism has an important role to play--

    But not the ONLY role to play.


    And the facts are the facts... the people who are actually politically OPPOSED to 'helping' their fellow citizens, are the very ones who are so eager to dre-regualte the flow of what?

    Money.


    Evade it all you please... but the science is clear...
    EVEN for republicans, the LESS they think about money, the more likely they are to be of service to their fellow man.


    Ask a republican about their problem with "liberal" issues and they come down to TWO motivations.
    Religious fascism ( law should reflect MY personal religious beliefs)

    And Money. ( I should get to keep as much as I possibly can )
     
  5. Domisoldo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,079
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Are you the new, "improved" Trinity?
     
  6. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not proven.

    You've tried to make this syllogism, which falls flat:


    • All Republicans love money ("they are all about money")
    • Loving money makes one less helpful. (your cited argument)
    • Therefore Republicans suck (...because they're less helpful.)

    The first premise is false: Republicans are a loose coalition of disparately-interested parties: some of them are Republicans out of a love of money; some of them want to repress sexual expression; some of them think brown people are scary. But it's overly simplistic to pretend that they're all about money.

    The second premise is at best unproven: a single study provides evidence towards a hypothesis, but scientific proof requires that a theory stand up to repeated testing.

    Too late to make a long story short here, but I stand by my belief that your argument here is a load of shit.

    Oh, and paragraphs: they're a good thing.
     
  7. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I made no such syllogism.

    The title of the thread does not appear in my argument.

    I state that republicans suck because they are all about money.

    That is an opinion.

    I then go on to make the well supported argument that scientific studies demonstrate that people thinking about money are less likely to be helpful to other people and more likely to act selfishly.

    This is proven.. the study clearly showed unambiguous results. Thinking money...less helpful.

    Unless and until you can cite a contradictory scientific finding, that constitutes proof.
    I.E. Proof, in science, is VALID EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT...

    ( "theory" is not shown to be "true" by evidence... it is shown to be proven. THis means the evidence supports the theory. IT does not mean a better theory won't come along later... nor does it mean that proof in refutation can not be found... in science Proof = evidence in support. )


    I THEN point out that republican policy and positions boil down to two primary concerns... Religion and Money.


    And that the republican platform, against "social" programs for reasons of disliking spending money HELPING the disadvantaged... and FOR Free markets, for the reasons of rewarding a focus on money with more money...
    are perfectly in keeping with the findings of this study.


    Now- I don't know where YOU were schooled, but that is an argument that is well supported and AGREES with the findings of independent, non-political ( therefore not biased ) scientific investigations.

    You can not CLAIM its false... you can not just pull a denial out of your ass...

    You want to BEAT an evidentiary argument... you gotta show EVIDENCE in refutation.


    You can claim that Some republicans are scared of brown people or sex, but that is immaterial... WHile I agree with the observation... it is NOT stated in their platform. You are INFERRING their motives.

    Their monetary policies and their reasons for opposing "liberal' agendas ARE stated in their literature. I am CITING their stated motives.

    Ergo, I have made a supported argument based entirely in fact, and you have failed to refute it.


    That I feel their pre-occupation with money, explaining their lack of support for programs that help others, makes them SUCK...as citizens in a society...

    Well, that is simply my opinion of people with these traits...

    But the traits themselves are proven because the Republicans , themselves, espouse them.
    And now, the contributory causal relationship between preoccupation with money, and a lack of compassion and helpfulness toward others is also proven and amply illustrates why we always see Love of money go hand in hand with disregard for others.
     
  8. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    ooo
    that hurt..

    I don't cite opinion pieces from politically biased rags...
    I cite science.


    I cite the republicans OWN talking points about the glory of the free market and the evil of Liberal social agendas...
     
  9. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    No. It's not proven. You cited a study. Studies are prone to various types of error, including sampling error -- the same type of error that political polling is prone to. It takes repeated sampling to confirm the results of a single study.

    Wow. You pulled that out of your ass without even grunting. I'll illustrate how colossally stupid that statement is:

    I just pulled two socks out of my drawer, and they were both white. Now, "unless and until you can cite a contradictory scientific finding", I've proven that all of my socks are white.

    It's obvious to anyone with the IQ of a potato that I haven't proven anything; I've just chosen a sample that's too small from which to draw a definitive conclusion. More samples are needed to constitute proof.

    Similarly, the lone study you've cited is only a single sample: a few socks out of the drawer of money-loving people.

    I completed my undergraduate degree at Guilford College; took graduate courses at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro; completed my master's degree at Virginia Tech; and am currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program also at Virginia Tech. But does that matter?

    False. Showing that the evidence is lacking is all that's required to refute. How do you reconcile

    with:

    Your premise that the Scientific American article has anything to do with Republicans is based on something that you've admitted is opinion, and not fact. Without that opinion, you have no connection at all with the link you've cited and the political argument that you're feebly trying to make.
     
  10. Domisoldo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,079
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    You're a monument of contradictions, Phil. You decry religion at every corner yet you exhibit that sort of manichean fanaticism so prevalent in the most intolerant religious groups.
     
  11. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Really--
    HOW?

    Come on- make an argument...

    I am intolerant of intolerance?


    Its kind of the same philosophical position as skepticism.
    How can you be a skeptic if you are not skeptical of skepticism?

    So to be a true skeptic you can not be totally skeptical, because even skepticism must be suspect.


    SHOW me where I contradict myself....

    I have made it abundantly clear that I am sick to death of what Republicanism has become.
    Sick to death of the lying and criminality. Sick to death of republicans excusing Republicans for ANYTHING and crucifying anyone else for less than nothing.

    And I take every opportunity to point it out because I am flabbergasted that ANYONE can support a party that has DONE the precise OPPOSITE of what it CLAIMS its actions to be.

    If I hired a guy to build an addition and he, instead, demolished my entire house... would I not be upset and want my money back?

    And then some?


    I began in the political vein with a thread, much like this one, showing how a scientific study had shown a link between fearfulness and inability to deal with new and unexpected experiences in 3 year olds, with their identifying as republicans at age 23.

    This just adds to a more complete understanding of WHY republicans take the positions they do, excuse themselves but not others, respond to Fear based arguments, and have an antipathy to helping others.
     
  12. uniqueusername

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ABC News: Who Gives and Who Doesn't?

    There. I just posted a study.

    Oh, and in case you wanted to insult religious people more:

     
  13. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Ever notice the one's with more are the first to be asking those with less to contribute or give more of themselves ? Anyone can ask another to give more of themselves or their material possessions. Give what you can and what you can live with ? Every 4 years we have a new President that runs on this platform, Americans are going to have to come together and do more. I still laugh, Bush has his Freedom Corp(se), that doesn't get any press at all for what it's done ?

    USA Freedom Corps - Make a Difference.  Volunteer.

    established after 9/11/2K1, does anyone know it still even exists, visits the website and so on ? Volunteer ? If you can volunteer why shouldn't you get paid for your time and efforts ? I'm not talking compensated with fabulous wealth, but reasonable and customary ? Not in the budget, yeah right, we have $ trillions for a bailout, but nothing for community service ? Not in the budget to me means the organization intends to do without it and shouldn't expect, require or even demand someone to provide a service or item.

    There's a phrase, "Charity begins at home."
     
  14. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Sorry, fella- Albert BROOK's OPINION is NOT a "study".

    SHow actual scientific results based upon INDIVIDUAL ACTION.... i.e.- Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both gave billions- AVERAGED over the whole upper class that brings up Mean considerably- but it does not indicate that those thinking more about money give more.

    In fact- it could be argued that Warren and Bill give more because- in their positions, they no longer need to even think about money.


    I can claim to have seen studies that show, AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME, the Rich give far less.... but saying so is not actually SHOWING you published results of actual science.

    However I CAN argue that, were it not for the tax deductibility, the rich would give even less.
    If your objective in writing a check is to have your remaining money taxed at a lower rate, or to shelter other income, or even to appear more palatable and therefore win a position you covet... none of those are really "giving" to others--- it's negotiating your own position in regards to money.



    As to the religious... the fact that I identify Republicans as ALSO being motivated by religious fascism does NOT imply that their Religious fascism has anything to do with their tendency to not be giving of themselves toward others.
    It just happens to be ANOTHER aspect of modern conservatism that is objectionable in its own right.


    The idea that YOUR religious beliefs, from the idiocy of Creationism, to repressive attitudes towards sexuality, should be made into LAW affecting Everyone.... well, that is Christian totalitarianism.

    And I am sorry, but if you count yourself a Christian - and you voted FOR BUsh or Will vote for McCain, then you have no right to call yourself a Christian.

    Why? Because Jesus ALWAYS votes AGAINST war. That's why.


    Understand that I know full well that there are LOTS of Christians who are cool with real science and who would NOT vote to force their beliefs down other's throats.

    If they happen to also oppose the War and the death penalty... then they are probably REAL Christians...
    And I have no problem with them-
    Just as I have no problem with MOST Muslims who simply practice their faith and leave other people alone.


    But Fundamentalist Religious Extremism, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu or what have you, is nothing but Fascism- plain and simple.

    And Christian fascists are far more dangerous than muslim fascists, because they can vote.


    No doubt that people who have faith do a lot of giving. MOST democrats have faith, too.

    The mistake is to imagine that that willingness to give has ANYTHING to do with faith.

    People tend to mistake their natural sense of compassion as coming from God.

    The truth is, their delusional notions of God spring from their own innate compassion.

    You can keep the compassion... and lose the delusional sky daddy.
     
  15. B_faceking

    B_faceking New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,435
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL

    All Republicans are greedy. This article proves it.
     
  16. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,916
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Phil, I love you madly, but you're really stirring the pot with this one. :wink:
     
  17. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Well, I did not say that...
    I said that experiment shows that the more you think of money, the less helpful you are toward others.

    There are certainly parallels with published Republican Policies.

    I am sure there are a lot of republicans who are republicans because they are fearful of change and of others.

    I am also sure that there are a lot of folks who are republicans for no particular reason at all... they are TOLD a story and they fail to CHECK on how well the politician they support live up to the story they were sold.


    But republican policy centers around govenrment being bad because govenrment gets in the way of business and profit.

    That is a focus on money.

    And they "just so happen" to also oppose any form of social programs to improve the lot of the less fortunate?


    The findings suggest they oppose social programs BECAUSE of their focus on money.

    The research supports not merely the correlation, but demonstrates a CAUSAL factor.

    So, sorry, until you guys can show me evidence to the contrary... like, say , supporting national health care... or a study that shows thinking of money makes you a great guy...

    I gotta go where the EVIDENCE points.


    And all the evidence point to 1`0 years of republican rule being an irresponsible orgy of cash grabbing that has left this nation in a sorry state.

    Modern conservatism has FAILED the test of absolute power.

    Time for you guys to re-trench and re-think what constitutes conservatism in the Post neo-con era.

    Clearly, unregulated markets are a very bad idea.

    Here's a hint to get your meetings rolling...
    MAYBE Fiscal Conservatism is NOT spending more than you take in!
    Maybe its getting the taxpayer to PONY UP the money needed to wage a war?

    Maybe, fiscal conservatism does NOT mean having a sex party with the corporations you are supposed to be policing?


    And maybe, just maybe, claiming the moral high ground should INCLUDE demanding that your party members COMPLY WITH THE LAW?
     
  18. D_season 5

    D_season 5 Account Disabled

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    1

    WOL...whacked out libs....u guys..need to ramp up on why the USA was created...
    learn that people came here for pursuit of religious freedoms...

    and to enjoy the freedom of a monarchy that only took care of the royalty.. and the surfs and peasants subsided everything...and they were not allowed to keep much...

    how about this..i send u a one way ticket to a pure socialist country..Sweden, Norway, etc...work ur ass off...if u want...and ur reward at pay day is 70% is gone for taxes...for free medical, but try to use it...its all back logged...and free everything else...
    and when u have had enuf...lemme know..i will send u ticket home to the USA...min stay...2 yrs...it will take u that long to find a job...
     
  19. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
  20. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Wow-
    ignorant neocons


    Totally unaware that the Puritans and many other roundhead related sects were KICKED OUT of Britain because you would not stop persecuting others...


    Further ignorant of the fact that the Founders of this nation created a SECULAR government- which forbids religion from having any role in governance.


    Further ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is a LIBERAL document- defining the rights and freedoms of the people and that first among those rights is the right to be free FROM religion, as well as the right to freely practice it.


    Ignorant that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe and Adams did not believe in the divinity of Christ.



    And totally ignorant of the fact that YOUR republican representatives HAVE national healthcare. FOR LIFE. Paid by you. Even if they only serve ONE term.

    Totally ignorant of the fact that the greatest period of economic GROWTH in this country was when the government had the MOST liberal social agenda.


    That the parents of the baby boomers HAD the G.I. Bill to buy their first house. HAD vets hospitals to care for them.