Hate? Pretty strong assumption on your part.

Quote: 

What does a disrespect for freeloaders have to do with either of that? Were I a failure, I'd be right in with the freeloaders, I'd expect. But I think one's view of success or not has to do with what they view as being important, and what they had set out to do. Freeloaders choose to do nothing, and I have certainly never done nothing. That means I and many other Americans have to pay for them.

No, I was always taught that whatever one does, one always gives it their all, the best they have. I find it hard to believe that one's best is nothing, sans illness or infirmity; in either of those situations, that is totally different.

Failure? I hardly think so. Maybe you'd think so, but yours would be as unusual definition.

Thanks for proving my point.  ;)

The USA doesn't have any concern or criticism for the UK's politics because they are pretty much inconsequential, the reverse isn't true.

Now I get it. https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+freeloaders

I haven't touched your point and you won't convince a balanced court otherwise. :C

What evidence, pray tell, is that? I haven't seen any "evidence" that anyone here has proffered regarding anything, unless parroting stories from sources akin to the National Enquirer.
 

I can't believe I am arsed to discuss things with many of you. You have your heads so far up your ass I am surprised you haven't expired by now. Maybe you're just restin'.

 

What would you know about a balanced court? I'd suspect you haven't touched much of late, save your pecker.  (fail)

Brits are quite accomplished at snobbery.

G'day!

 

Yeah, again, exactly this. I assume you're just parodying yourself now?

You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe and any time a credible source offers facts which don't fit into them you dismiss the source in your usual pantomime way.

Which is fine, in and of itself, but is not conducive to an actual adult discussion. It's how children behave.
 

Well... you don't.

To be clear, I don't mind at all that you are generally to "the right" of me - I'm happy to discuss anything with anyone so long as they do so in good faith and with an open mind.

I have a lot of respect for many (relatively) right wing positions and often find that the right is more intellectually honest and cohesive than the left.

I do not believe that the right is evil and the left is saintly. There are just as many angels and devils, albeit of different character, on the left as there are on the right. I believe that those who approach politics with honesty, on both sides, do so with a desire to make the world better and improve lives.

I love discussing things with people with whom I have a fundamental disagreement when they have arrived at their position through intellectual rigour and honesty. People who, for example, believe that human dignity is fostered through individual sovereignty and that collectivism is an affront to that dignity. I disagree. Strongly. But I respect the position a great deal.

This doesn't, to my mind, describe you.

My impression of you is that you are one of those people who wants to sound tough and decisive without doing the hard work of actually thinking about anything.

When information runs contrary to your beliefs you, rather than thinking about it and discussing it in good faith, dismiss it out of hand.

When asked to explain how you arrived at a position you, instead, reiterate - without ever justifying - your position and resort to anecdote in lieu of evidence or thought.

And when it becomes clear -  even to you, I'm sure - that your position has no intellectual foundation whatsoever, rather than doing what I really firmly believe a rational being ought - have a bit of a think about it - you resort to impotent infantile baits and limp insults. Like:
 
You're a grown, adult human being for fucks sake. Act like one or fuck off.

(And, just to be absolutely clear, we are not a hive-mind; I do not speak for anyone but myself. That 'fuck off' is from me alone, not 'us')



 

Oddly enough, or perhaps coincidentally enough, this is pretty much how I feel about you lot. Once again, I will ask: what credible source did I dismiss out of hand? What facts did I dismiss in "usual pantomime way"?
 

I agree that extremes of either are not well-served in politics - although I am not sure that there are many, if any, who currently serve in U.S. politics who are interested in making the world better and want to improve lives. Our Congressional Approval Rating should bear that out.
 

Interesting. Although I'd have to say that rigorous beliefs are held quite widely here, and by you. So apparently we feel the same way about the other, except from opposite sides.
 

Sure. Yeah, I just became Republican because my daddy was a Democrat. Or something like that. No, I actually took the time to read about and study what Democrats traditionally believe against what Republicans believe and stand for. So, I believe in personal responsibility, am not afraid of hard work; we were taught to get the work done first and play later. One always does his best. That we accept a hand up, but not to settle for hand-outs, assuming we are capable of self-sufficiency.

Speaking about limp insults, I think you are one-way on that. It is OK to criticise the American, dismiss any statements out of hand and fail to indicate where the American has run afoul of facts or sources. Brits are quite accomplished at seemingly pleasant speech meant to injure, which has been done many times in the past.

I suspect the "rigour and honesty" bit is subject to your interpretation at all. Do you think you have a lock on that? Seriously?

Just so you know, I have a lifetime of rational thought on my positions. I have "had a think about it" more often then you might imagine. When it comes down to it, I think you are just annoyed that I don't come around to your way of thinking. Well, I likely won't. We are two different minds, yours tends to be left of centre, mine tends to be right of centre. We will possibly find common ground somewhere in the middle, but on what I am not sure.

I think you are basing most of your assertions on my not providing to you links for facts on obamacare. I explained why I did not, but of course in your haughty way you find fault. I did not want to appear to be cherry-picking results, and the data is a tough slog, being as there are so many angles. Obamacare is failing:

Earlier.

The way obamacare was set up, it seemed there was no way for insurance companies could lose, because there were built-in bailouts - that taxpayers would have to pay for - in case the exchanges failed. Well, we already experienced that in the financial and automotive sectors. Insurance is a business, and government has no place in business because it creates nothing, produces nothing except taxes. Our government is incredibly inefficient at doing anything at all - haven't you read the news? We waste, tax and pork-barrel ourselves to death, and you would wonder why I am Conservative in mindset?

Waste
 

I knew that would be in there, somewhere. Thanks, your sentiment is a shared one.












 

No.

I've got him ignored for those exact reasons. It's too much like reasoning with one of the arsey kids I have to deal with day in, day out.

There's a great article on Trump's Scottish golf course donnybrook in the Globe and Mail. Online unfortunately paywalled, I'll have to manually post some choice quotes later. Yeah, his reputation precedes him.

You have me on ignore because you can't take opposing points of view.

John teaches school kids, and thus regularly has to put up with unpolished turds who think they are always right and that calling someone a wanker is clever.

In the classroom he doesn't have the choice of pressing a button to making whining go away, though perhaps he does at least have the consolation there that some of them might learn.

Exactly PB and very clearly explained. Bet he still doesn't get it though.

Channeling Trump isn't the same as having a point of view.

Fixerman - I see the same exact thing that you are talking about on the forum here in CA.  People claim to be open minded, but really just want to convince you that they are right and their logic is more sound than yours.

Politics are not science or mathematics with real proofs, they are either:
- Personal opinion based on their own viewpoint and experiences
- Taking a position because you are paid to take that viewpoint

For the most part, arguing about politics is not that useful because hardly anyone changes their mind.  It is only slightly more useful than arguing about religion.

It is unfortunate though that it is difficult to post "political opinions" on this forum without being attacked in a personal way.

I can imagine that it is difficult for a people in a country with a monarchy and parliament approach to governance to understand the US system.  (nor the reverse) It is unlikely that they can really grasp which portions of what politicians "say" are likely to happen, vs just "ideas".  

Unlike some political systems, there is so much inertia built into the US system that no one person can really have all that much effect.  It is this inertia that pretty much allows anyone who can make it to an office and not mess things up too much during their tenure.

Obviously I have my own viewpoints, but I think many people are over reacting to what would happen if Trump were President.  In spite of the media fear mongering, the relationships with the UK and most countries would be quite good.

The only country that will potentially take a hit will be China, and that is their own fault for being reckless and being run like a mafia.