Types of Liberals

[MoralLibertarian]

Many right-wing pundits would have you believe that all liberals are all the same: a mass of brainless individuals who want to get in control and raise your taxes. While it's true that liberals are by and large bad people, there are multiple different breeds of them and it's important to note the distinctions between them. I'm classifying these breeds, listing them in no particular order because as I've said before, all liberals are bad.

The ignoramous - Knows little about the world and how it works, but heard from someone (usually a teacher or a friend) that the people in charge are idiots and parrots the sentiment. Thankfully, the majority of liberals in this category don't vote because they're too young or too ignorant to register. They are common on internet forums.

The leech - This liberal has no money and relies on the government-created social safety hammock for his income and benefits.

The bureaucrat - similar to the leech, except actually works a meaningless job for the government for his income and benefits. Does about the same amount of work as the leech.

The protectionist - pisses and moans about our trade deficit and calls for "fair" trade as an alternative to our current free trade system ie. Byron Dorgan. They also come in less sophisticated packages. The less sophisticated protectionists only care because someone in China is doing the job he used to do for less money.

The social liberal - The social liberal doesn't care about the economic field at all. Instead, he or she favors individual liberty on a purely social level. Many times they are one issue voters. For example, a variation of the social liberal is the woman who is adamant about the right to an abortion.

The limousine liberal - This liberal knows firsthand that liberalism is a lousy system: he sends his children to private school, he benefits from the multitude of tax-loopholes in the code, and he has benefitted from the private sector immensely. Nonetheless, he advocates liberalism for everyone else. Chances are, if there is a liberal in Congress, he or she is a limousine liberal.

The educated liberal - The educated liberal is depressed, because he knows that the American brand of liberalism is an abysmal failure. Even though he knows that the ideology as a whole is economically infeasible, he values individual liberties and values a coherent foreign policy. He therefore attacks Republicans for pervasiveness, corruption, or war while benefitting immensely from the private sector. This type of liberal is particularly irritating because he picks his arguments well and refuses to debate seriously about economic issues.

The clingers - These would be libertarians/conservatives still vote for democrats because "the democrats look out for the little guy" or because they're "looking out for the common good." This meaningless drivel can translate in a variety of ways, from "I vote how my spouse tells me" to "I've been conditioned to vote this way, lay off."

The power-hungry liberal - Advocates increasing government power/revenues, for any reason, under any circumstances (unless it was a Republican's idea and it could potentially be unpopular).

The attack dog - liberals who shamelessly attack their opposition for whatever reason, no matter how childish or benign. They happen to be ashamed of their own ideology so they stick to bashing Republicans. Suffers from selective criticism, moral relativism, and hypocrisy.

The Dean - A combination of all of the above except the leech and the clinger. Embodies all of these types of liberal into one disgusting, unbearable package. Called the Dean because Howard Dean happens to be the only kind of liberal awful enough to be considered one.

Why is this important? Well, it's important to be able to identify the type of liberal you're debating so you can discredit him (The first three generally don't need to be discredited because they discredit themselves). Have fun.

[TheShrike]

Thanks! It's so hard to tell liberals apart. It's sooooooooooo much easier with conservatives, they just have one classification, one group, one description...

The Know-It-All

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

Don't forget the Bleeding-heart-pinko-commie-hippie-punk-anarc hist-tree-hugging-goth-rebel-eco-terrorist Liberal.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

Someone is still smarting over JHMX's thread.

[Bolo]

At 11/25/06 11:13 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: Don't forget the Bleeding-heart-pinko-commie-hippie-punk-anarc hist-tree-hugging-goth-rebel-eco-terrorist Liberal.

Hope you aren't forgetting about the the flip side:

The War-mongering-seal-killing-oil-drilling-money -laundering-pedophile-sympathizing-gay-bashin g-NASCAR-loving-deadbeat-dad Conservative, and their pet monkey DUBYA.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 11/25/06 11:40 PM, Talcum wrote:

The War-mongering-seal-killing-oil-drilling-money -laundering-pedophile-sympathizing-gay-bashin g-NASCAR-loving-deadbeat-dad Conservative, and their pet monkey DUBYA.

This thread is for talking about Liberals.

[Begoner]

You really dislike an economic system in which the poor are cared for instead of being mercilessly exploited; that seems to be the unifying theme of every thread you've created. Well, get over it; many people aren't solely concerned with the fancies of the rich and want a high quality of life to be attainable to all people. Anyone who is as rabidly capitalist as you must either be very rich or very arrogant.

[JakeHero]

What about the Holier-than-thou liberal? An example of this is that arch-bitch Jane Smiley.

[Politics]

At 11/25/06 10:10 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: The attack dog - liberals who shamelessly attack their opposition for whatever reason, no matter how childish or benign. They happen to be ashamed of their own ideology so they stick to bashing Republicans. Suffers from selective criticism, moral relativism, and hypocrisy.

Is this the one you classify yourself as?

I appreciate irony with the best of them, and I definitely appreciate this thread. Kudos.

[Memorize]

At 11/25/06 11:15 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Someone is still smarting over JHMX's thread.

And it's funny... like you.

[Demosthenez]

At 11/25/06 11:53 PM, Begoner wrote: Anyone who is as rabidly capitalist as you must either be very rich or very arrogant.

You are living in the Northeast, you seem to have enough time to care about politics as much as you do at 15, you seem well educated, I highly doubt you are poor. It wouldnt suprise me at all if one of your parents commute to New York to work or something. Maybe your commuter parent is a lawyer or something.

The one group I will 100% agree with is the Limousine Liberal. You probably do classify here just from what I have gathered about you. Its easy to preach equality when chances are you grow up in money, you can keep your moral high ground while benefiting from everything that capitalism brings, like innovation, luxury goods, and commodities (all catagories of which fit the internet and computer you are using).

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/06 11:53 PM, Begoner wrote: You really dislike an economic system in which the poor are cared for instead of being mercilessly exploited;

No I think he dislikes an economic system in which the Federal government (driven by the liberal agenda) takes more power upon itself to moderate and meticulously manipulate the economy to how they see fit, and take away the rights and values of America in the process.

Well, get over it; many people aren't solely concerned with the fancies of the rich and want a high quality of life to be attainable to all people.

And everytime a liberal has been in power, their methods in which they attempt to attain some goal of creating a higher quality of life for poor people never bears fruit. In fact, all it does is give the government more money through taxes, which they blow on ridiculous programs that never work.

Anyone who is as rabidly capitalist as you must either be very rich or very arrogant.

Anyone who actually thinks its a good thing to give the federal government more money and power...well such a person is a misguided imbecile or a rabid socialist (same thing).

Anyone who does NOT believe in limited government, low taxes, and therefore original American values, well they are just Canadians by my book.

If you want your government to be all powerful and have the authority to dictate the economy and society in order to supposedly "help the poor", then just move to Canada. America was founded on different principles. This principles being: Small government, low taxes, individual responsibility, and independent free market.

[Camarohusky]

Ya for generalizations and complete ignorance! Woot! If only ALL Americans were as dumb and willing to calssify others in false, worthless catergories, this country would be the greatest center for equality and opportunity. Kind of like it is today... Get the point?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 11/25/06 10:10 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: The ignoramous - Knows little about the world and how it works, but heard from someone (usually a teacher or a friend) that the people in charge are idiots and parrots the sentiment. Thankfully, the majority of liberals in this category don't vote because they're too young or too ignorant to register. They are common on internet forums.

Oh snap! Does this include you then? 'Cause at the moment it seems you get all your opinions from being brainwashed by Fox News and Bill O'Reilly.

"The ignoramus" applies to conservatives as well.

The leech - This liberal has no money and relies on the government-created social safety hammock for his income and benefits.

Meh, they exist, not gonna deny it.

The bureaucrat - similar to the leech, except actually works a meaningless job for the government for his income and benefits. Does about the same amount of work as the leech.

Applies to Republcians and conservatives as well.

Not all conservatives are driven by a hatred of big government. Some are just after as much money as possible by doing as little work as possible so vote Republican for smaller taxes, yet do as much work as the liberal " Bureaucrats"

I like to call these people "Stock market players" who do nothing really worthwhile, yet make money anyway.

Oh and before you jump on me and spew forth statements about Stock players being integral to the countries economy, Bureaucrats ar eintegral to the countries infrastructure. They both do jack all really, but they have their uses.

The protectionist - pisses and moans about our trade deficit and calls for "fair" trade as an alternative to our current free trade system ie. Byron Dorgan. They also come in less sophisticated packages. The less sophisticated protectionists only care because someone in China is doing the job he used to do for less money.

I'm sure that conservatives endorse protectionism as well...

The social liberal - The social liberal doesn't care about the economic field at all. Instead, he or she favors individual liberty on a purely social level. Many times they are one issue voters. For example, a variation of the social liberal is the woman who is adamant about the right to an abortion.

There are also conservative single issue voters who voted for Bush on subjects such as abortion, so...yeah... applies to conservatives as well

The limousine liberal - This liberal knows firsthand that liberalism is a lousy system: he sends his children to private school, he benefits from the multitude of tax-loopholes in the code, and he has benefitted from the private sector immensely. Nonetheless, he advocates liberalism for everyone else. Chances are, if there is a liberal in Congress, he or she is a limousine liberal.

I am going to give you this one. 'Cause these guys are complete hypocrites.

However a blanket generlisation on all liberals in congress being "Limousine Liberals" without any evidence makes it just that, a blanket generlisation, and therefore, anyone with half a brain cell < insert ML, Cellador6 and techware's witty comment about Liberals not having a brain cell here> can make an assumption that your generilsation is complete crap untill you privde evidence.

The educated liberal - The educated liberal is depressed, because he knows that the American brand of liberalism is an abysmal failure.

I note an interesting use of the words " American brand of liberalism".

Why exactly did you choose those words?

Even though he knows that the ideology as a whole is economically infeasible,

Clinton= Liberal.

Clinton got rid of deficit.

That looks like sound economic policy to me. DOn't you think?

The clingers - These would be libertarians/conservatives still vote for democrats because "the democrats look out for the little guy" or because they're "looking out for the common good." This meaningless drivel can translate in a variety of ways, from "I vote how my spouse tells me" to "I've been conditioned to vote this way, lay off."

"I'v ebeen conditioned to vote this way"? What? Much like the vast majority of people who watch Fox and their brainwash worthy tripe that somehow passes for news and actually think it's unbiased?

The power-hungry liberal - Advocates increasing government power/revenues, for any reason, under any circumstances (unless it was a Republican's idea and it could potentially be unpopular).

I'm sure you'll find those sorts of people in the Republican party as well.

Power hungry idiots exist on both side sof the political spectrum.

The attack dog - liberals who shamelessly attack their opposition for whatever reason, no matter how childish or benign. They happen to be ashamed of their own ideology so they stick to bashing Republicans. Suffers from selective criticism, moral relativism, and hypocrisy.

Kind of like you, cellador6 and Techware then?

You all seem to shamelessly bash at liberals whenever you get the chance and never seem to actually provide a decent arguement other than " teh Liberals Are EVVVVVVIL!!!!!!!! Why? 'Cause Bill O reilly said so! ha! Reply to that ignorant liberal socialist hippy pig dog!"

The Dean - A combination of all of the above except the leech and the clinger. Embodies all of these types of liberal into one disgusting, unbearable package. Called the Dean because Howard Dean happens to be the only kind of liberal awful enough to be considered one.

And yet, the man masterminded the campaign that screwed over the republicans in the mid terms...

Bitter much?

[Slizor]

I find it funny how no-one has thought to mention that Capitalism is a liberal doctrine. Pretty much everyone in the US is a liberal, yet you all bitch at each other over small areas of policy.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/26/06 07:01 AM, Slizor wrote: I find it funny how no-one has thought to mention that Capitalism is a liberal doctrine. Pretty much everyone in the US is a liberal, yet you all bitch at each other over small areas of policy.

For those of you too stupid to figure it out, "liberals" in this thread refers to the American liberal, which is like the laissez faire liberal except 180 degrees in the other direction. Then again, I think everyone figured it out.

[cold-as-hell]

There-are-a-few-people-doing-this-sort-of-thi ng-and-it-seems-really-silly.

Why are people at both sides of the fence at each others throat.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/26/06 05:26 AM, Tri-nitro-toluene wrote: Oh snap! Does this include you then? 'Cause at the moment it seems you get all your opinions from being brainwashed by Fox News and Bill O'Reilly.

Silly ignorant liberal: conservatives didn't become conservative by watching Fox News. They became conservative because they started paying taxes and realized they were getting ripped off.

However a blanket generlisation on all liberals in congress being "Limousine Liberals" without any evidence makes it just that, a blanket generlisation, and therefore, anyone with half a brain cell < insert ML, Cellador6 and techware's witty comment about Liberals not having a brain cell here> can make an assumption that your generilsation is complete crap untill you privde evidence.

How about the fact that you can't be elected in this country without capital of more than 1,000,000? How many hobos do you know working in Congress? Riches don't come from the public sector, Einstein.

Even though he knows that the ideology as a whole is economically infeasible,

Clinton= Liberal.

Clinton got rid of deficit.

That looks like sound economic policy to me. DOn't you think?

First of all, liberal by definition means to tax more than the American people can handle and spend more than the federal government has. This is a fallacy. I can do it too, watch:

Al Gore = boring.

Al Gore made a documentary about global warming that got rave reviews.

Therefore, boring is a good quality to have, don't you think?

Clinton didn't get rid of the deficit by himself. It was more legislative gridlock than anything else (which illustrates the virtues of a divided government), and I'm tired of liberals pretending that they are fiscally conservative.

I'm sure you'll find those sorts of people in the Republican party as well.

Meh, only government pervasiveness, not government revenues.

The attack dog - liberals who shamelessly attack their opposition for whatever reason, no matter how childish or benign. They happen to be ashamed of their own ideology so they stick to bashing Republicans. Suffers from selective criticism, moral relativism, and hypocrisy.

Kind of like you, cellador6 and Techware then?

No, whenever I attack liberals I attack them on the substance of their ideas. It's really too easy, which is why I don't come here often.

You all seem to shamelessly bash at liberals whenever you get the chance and never seem to actually provide a decent arguement other than " teh Liberals Are EVVVVVVIL!!!!!!!! Why? 'Cause Bill O reilly said so! ha! Reply to that ignorant liberal socialist hippy pig dog!"

It's only possible for liberals to provide an intelligent argument when they're talking about the Iraq War, the increased pervasiveness of government powers, etc. And even when they're making an intelligent point I question their sincerity.

Bitter much?

Governor Ehrlich is my only regret. To be completely honest, I think that the next two years will be fine. Let's hope for a lot of gridlock, a lot of inaction, and a divided government in 2008 and beyond.

[Begoner]

Its easy to preach equality when chances are you grow up in money, you can keep your moral high ground while benefiting from everything that capitalism brings, like innovation, luxury goods, and commodities (all catagories of which fit the internet and computer you are using).

No, it's actually much harder to preach equality when chances are that you'll grow up in the money (although that doesn't apply to me). It demonstrates a will to improve the world instead of focusing solely on your own wants. It would be easy for Bill Gates to wish to decrease the minimum wage, to lower the taxes on the rich, to lower corporate taxes, etc., as all these actions would benefit him in some way, while hurting those under him. It would take much more willpower for him to advocate the opposite, as it would impact him negatively but aid the poor and middle class. And capitalism is not the sole bringer of innovation, luxury goods, and commodities. In fact, capitalism can be an impediment on the way to innovation, seeing as companies which are competing against each other are not sharing their advances with each other, thus slamming the brakes on the development of a new technology. And are copious luxury goods really such a good thing? Does the world really need a Rolls-Royce when some people don't even own a car? Wouldn't it be better if the country produced 100 cars for poor people instead of 1 car for a rich man? Wouldn't it be better if we could completely resolve the problem of homeless people at the meager expense of depriving some affluent businessmen sprawling mansions? Isn't a good idea to improve our educational system so that everyone gets a chance to succeed rather than allowing the rich to buy their way into great schools and collages (hell, do you really want idiots like Bush and Kerry getting into Yale based on their parents and their money)? Being able to see the best course of action despite the detrimental effects which it may have on you is not hypocritical in the least, and I congratulate anyone who is able to act in such an altruistic way. That said, I'm certainly not rich enough to be a limousine liberal -- if a more socialist system was implemented, that would help me.

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/26/06 09:44 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 11/26/06 07:01 AM, Slizor wrote: Pretty much everyone in the US is a liberal

I think everyone figured it out.

lol type 1.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 11/26/06 10:03 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Silly ignorant liberal: conservatives didn't become conservative by watching Fox News. They became conservative because they started paying taxes and realized they were getting ripped off.

And you say that you aren't the conservative version of the "Attack Liberal"?

That random unneeded insult of calling me ignorant shows otherwise as I see it.

How about the fact that you can't be elected in this country without capital of more than 1,000,000? How many hobos do you know working in Congress? Riches don't come from the public sector, Einstein.

See? Providing evidence isn't that hard is it? That's all I was asking for.

But, that doesn't really prove that much. It just shows that the liberals in congress are rich. You can be rich and still adhere to the principles of liberalism.

First of all, liberal by definition means to tax more than the American people can handle and spend more than the federal government has. This is a fallacy. I can do it too, watch:

Liberal, by definition, mentions nothing of economic policy. It only makes note of being progressive, and also believing in personal freedoms.

Liberal

And spending more than the Government has therefore creating a deficit? Kind of like what Bush has done?

But wait! How cna that be? how could a conservative politicain spend more money than is being brought in through taxes...or did he become a Liberal when I wasn't looking?

Therefore, boring is a good quality to have, don't you think?

If being boring means that you are able to push forward important issues such as global warming, then yes, it is.

However, being boring and the movie are in no way related. The fact that Clinton is a liberal and had a sound economic policy contradicts the point you made that the Liberal economic policy is unfeasible.

Clinton didn't get rid of the deficit by himself. It was more legislative gridlock than anything else (which illustrates the virtues of a divided government), and I'm tired of liberals pretending that they are fiscally conservative.

Gridlock? I'm sure that did play a part in removing the deficit, but not all of it.

Lets watch how Bush deals with the Dems in congress. If they start blocking all his plans, do you honestly think it's going to remove the deficit?

It takes more than just being blocked by the legislature to get a country out of debt. It needs proper thinking through and planning.

No, whenever I attack liberals I attack them on the substance of their ideas. It's really too easy, which is why I don't come here often.

Arrogant as well as close minded? You have a real winning set of characteristics there don't you?

It's only possible for liberals to provide an intelligent argument when they're talking about the Iraq War, the increased pervasiveness of government powers, etc. And even when they're making an intelligent point I question their sincerity.

Wow...just wow...I've met some close minded individuals before, but you really do take the ticket.

Tell me, were you abused by a liberal as a child or something? 'Cause you're deep seething hatred of them must stem from somewhere.

[JakeHero]

At 11/26/06 01:09 PM, Pro-American wrote: Which category is JoS in? His own?

Category: Asshole.

hopes he doesn't get banned.

[cold-as-hell]

whats the difference between a liberal and a conservative?

[Slizor]

I find it funny how no-one has thought to mention that Capitalism is a liberal doctrine. Pretty much everyone in the US is a liberal, yet you all bitch at each other over small areas of policy.

For those of you too stupid to figure it out, "liberals" in this thread refers to the American liberal, which is like the laissez faire liberal except 180 degrees in the other direction. Then again, I think everyone figured it out.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about types of liberals. Silly of me to assume that...with the topic name and all.

What I find funny with this post of yours is that you don't seem to actually know anything about liberalism - like how modern liberals are like classical liberals, but don't have crazy notions about the involvement of god in the economy and everything balancing out and so supports steps to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism. It's like 10 degrees away from Classical Liberalism, not 180. Fascism is 180 degrees away from Classical Liberalism.

[Shinpachi222]

At 11/25/06 10:17 PM, TheShrike wrote: Thanks! It's so hard to tell liberals apart. It's sooooooooooo much easier with conservatives, they just have one classification, one group, one description...

The Know-It-All

Thanks alot, dopey. We conservatives have our differences as well. Not all of us are know-it-alls.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

@Moral do Liberals in your country match the socialist-democrats in Holland?

Those pesky leftwingers get all the ignorants on their hand, with their fancy ideological ideas, that are hollow and impossible to carry out in the real world.
They want to taxe the rich with their jalousy-taxes.
They are a plague for this once so splendid country, worth to be proud of.
They are the onces that caused migration problems, and minority-issues.

They should never have given up Suriname, cause if they didn't, there wouldn't be 500 000 of them around here. They should never have stimulated familly-uniting of the so called guest-workers. And now, it is utter stupid to say something bad about muslims, cause then some feminist-leftwing bitch will stand up, and claim that all muslims have to be good.

This Femke Halsema wants to kill the Bio-Industry of the Netherlands.

I hate them so freaking much.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/26/06 01:04 PM, Tri-nitro-toluene wrote: And spending more than the Government has therefore creating a deficit? Kind of like what Bush has done?

Exactly what Bush has done. And what Clinton did six years before he "fixed" the deficit. Fixing the deficit isn't really hard. All you have to do is stop spending more money than you take in.

But wait! How cna that be? how could a conservative politicain spend more money than is being brought in through taxes...or did he become a Liberal when I wasn't looking?

He's a big government conservative, which is probably worse than a liberal unless he's for tax cuts.

However, being boring and the movie are in no way related.

Exactly. That's the point.

Lets watch how Bush deals with the Dems in congress. If they start blocking all his plans, do you honestly think it's going to remove the deficit?

No. 1) Because there's a war. 2) Because Democrats are going to reject President Bush's budget next year and Bush is going to sign the updated budget without increasing taxes. I would rather have Republicans in the House and Senate and a Democrat vetoing them rather than a weak willed big government type in the White House and an out of control Congress (they have yet to prove that they're out of control). Then again, I'd rather have Republicans who stick to their economic principles in both branches of government.

It takes more than just being blocked by the legislature to get a country out of debt. It needs proper thinking through and planning.

Debt and deficit are not the same thing. We'll always be in debt one way or the other because we continually run deficits every year, but getting out of a deficit is a piece of cake. All you have to do is stop spending more money than you have. The reasons that it never happens are primarily political ie. a bunch of liberals complain that the poor are being abandoned.

And you say that you aren't the conservative version of the "Attack Liberal"?

That random unneeded insult of calling me ignorant shows otherwise as I see it.

See? Providing evidence isn't that hard is it? That's all I was asking for.

Arrogant as well as close minded? You have a real winning set of characteristics there don't you?

Wow...just wow...I've met some close minded individuals before, but you really do take the ticket.

Tell me, were you abused by a liberal as a child or something? 'Cause you're deep seething hatred of them must stem from somewhere.

I called you ignorant once, as a joke, and then spoke about liberals in general. Why you feel the need to attack my character with meaningless drivel is beyond me but revealing. What does "close-minded" even mean? Not open to moronic liberal viewpoints? Then sue me. Does everyone who attacks liberals for their stupid ideas qualify as arrogant? Hahaha.

Face it, all liberals are pathetic losers who inherited their wealth, self loath themselves for being rich, or suck the teat of the government like a frat guy to a beer-bong. The rich ones justify the fact that they don't give to charity by voting for Democrats.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/26/06 03:40 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Debt and deficit are not the same thing. We'll always be in debt one way or the other because we continually run deficits every year, but getting out of a deficit is a piece of cake. All you have to do is stop spending more money than you have. The reasons that it never happens are primarily political ie. a bunch of liberals complain that the poor are being abandoned.

Hmm. I thought it was the Republican ideal of lower taxes and spending more... I love you Reagan!

Face it, all liberals are pathetic losers who inherited their wealth, self loath themselves for being rich, or suck the teat of the government like a frat guy to a beer-bong.

You think that conservatives aren't these also? I don't where you came up with this, but it sure isn't anywhere worth going back. Last time I checked it was the Republicans who doing all of the sucking in the government.

The rich ones justify the fact that they don't give to charity by voting for Democrats.

Accutally, it's the rich Republicans who give money to charities so they don't have to pay taxes. Thank god for the MTA!

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 11/26/06 03:40 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Debt and deficit are not the same thing. We'll always be in debt one way or the other because we continually run deficits every year, but getting out of a deficit is a piece of cake. All you have to do is stop spending more money than you have. The reasons that it never happens are primarily political ie. a bunch of liberals complain that the poor are being abandoned.

You're right, debt and deficit are different things. I mistakenly used the words interchangeably.

I'm afraid that my knowledge her eis a bit limited, but what exactly did CLinton cut spending on to get rid of the defecit? Surely Bsush could do the exact same thing and still, make at least decent progress to removing the deficit?

I called you ignorant once, as a joke, and then spoke about liberals in general. Why you feel the need to attack my character with meaningless drivel is beyond me but revealing.

When you call someone ignorant and then use the words " Silly" with it, it can be interpreted as patronising. Which is exactly as I interpreted it. If you didn't mean it like that then fair enough, but it's your own fault for wording it in such a way that could be interpreted as such.

What does "close-minded" even mean?

Close-minded:Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Now, I accept that you may very well be more open minded than you appear in this thread, but if this thread is anything to go by, then describing you as close-minded is a very accurate description of your character as I see it.

:: Not open to moronic liberal viewpoints? Then sue me. Does everyone who attacks liberals for their stupid ideas qualify as arrogant? Hahaha.

Not everyone no. If they attack liberal beliefs with some proper arguments and are willing to listen to the responses and have a proper debate, then they aren't arrogant.

If however, they make baseless generalizations, are unwilling to even listen to an argument like you are, then yes, I would say they are arrogant.

Face it, all liberals are pathetic losers who inherited their wealth, self loath themselves for being rich, or suck the teat of the government like a frat guy to a beer-bong. The rich ones justify the fact that they don't give to charity by voting for Democrats.

See, this is a prime example of why I called you close-minded.

[SirLebowski]

I consider myself a pussy liberal on at least 70 percent of the issues. All though I am all for beating children and the death sentence.