Liberal Forum

Misty » 14 Jan 2016 2:37 pm » wrote:OIC. So you're saying that if a Republican wins the WH, we will have full employment and everyone will be be rich and successful?
What's it like living in La-La Land?
How many jobs were we hemorrhaging a month when Bush left the WH? I believe it was 800,000.

FYI, many of the people who post here already have jobs. I guess you're not one of them.
Don't blame Obama for your lack of ambition. He has overseen 70 straight months of private sector job growth.
If you can't find a job, it's on you.

Cannonpointer » 15 Jan 2016 11:30 pm » wrote:No one wants to work, is the problem - they got used to the tax cuts and new entitlements and buying SUVs with gross dollars and free checks in the mail under Bush.

Cannonpointer » 15 Jan 2016 11:26 pm » wrote: You're not worried they might cut your dole, gimp?

Misty » 15 Jan 2016 11:33 pm » wrote:That's right, we got free checks in the mail under Bush. I had forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me. Now when someone asks me to say one nice thing about Bush, I have something that I can say.

Misty » 15 Jan 2016 7:22 pm » wrote: Just as I suspected. You seem to live in some kind of an alternate universe.
The economy was 'on it's way down' when Bush left office?
It wasn't just 'on it's way down', it crashed like the freakin' Hindenburg.

And good job trying to twist yourself into a pretzel and blame 9/11 which was seven years earlier for the crash.
WTF did 9/11 have to do with the mortgage crisis?

As for Obama making it worse, the numbers simply do not bear that out. There's a pesky little thing called facts that you right wing flying monkeys seem to ignore.
If you can prove that job numbers got even worse than 800,000 job losses a month under Obama, then do it.
I won't hold my breath.

Cannonpointer » 15 Jan 2016 11:26 pm » wrote:
You're not worried they might cut your dole, gimp?

PoliticalPopUp » 16 Jan 2016 12:16 pm » wrote:Idiot…

Cannonpointer » 16 Jan 2016 6:26 pm » wrote:
That doesn't answer the question, taker. You're not worrieed the republicans will cut your dole.?

Of COURSE you're not. You've been around long enough to know that the welfare does nothing but increase when republicans are in office. That's why you love them - they give you free stuff.

Stuff they take from producers and give to you. I'd love that too, if I were a taker and not a maker.

PoliticalPopUp » 18 Jan 2016 4:19 pm » wrote:You are an idiot. You don't know the difference between welfare and disability. That proves what a Moron it you are

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2016 4:25 pm » wrote:
I know the difference between a producer and a taker, welfare case.

PoliticalPopUp » 18 Jan 2016 4:35 pm » wrote:I don't have to defend quadriplegia to a **** like you…

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2016 5:04 pm » wrote:
I can't put myself in your shoes.

Silverfox » 18 Jan 2016 5:09 pm » wrote:
Not sure a quadriplegic needs shoes.

Well, maybe to look smart.

But they can't walk a mile in 'em anyway. So, why not put yourself in them and keep them?

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2016 5:04 pm » wrote:
You would have my sympathy, if I were also quadraplegic. That's how my compassion wors - I "get" it when I get it. Until then, I have zero empathy. I can't put myself in your shoes.

You see, I am a closet conservative, MASQUERADING as a liberal. I'm like you: I have empathy for the things which I, personally, have experienced.

I've never been quadraplegic, taker, so I just assume you're riding the gravy train - the way you feel about schizoid street people who talk to men from outerspace and car antennas.

PoliticalPopUp » 18 Jan 2016 5:17 pm » wrote: Your implication that conservatives cannot sympathize is ludicrous. I will however adhere to your logic and say that I cannot empathize with you because I've have never been as stupid as you are.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2016 5:22 pm » wrote:
Oh we can sympathize - we just can't empathize. Look at megan kelly. ENORMOUS opponent of FMLA - til she got preggers from a black guy. All of a sudden, she gets it. BAM! Enormous PROponent of FMLA.

That's how we are, gimp. It's how we roll.

PoliticalPopUp » 18 Jan 2016 5:27 pm » wrote:idiot – no one can empathize without sharing the experience…

Empathy vs. Sympathy Diffen › English Language › Grammar › Words
Empathy is the ability to experience the feelings of another person. It goes beyond sympathy, which is caring and understanding for the suffering of others. Both words are used similarly and often interchangeably (incorrectly so) but differ subtly in their emotional meaning.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy
Empathy:

noun
1.
the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another. 2.
the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathy

Sympathy
Noun.
1, harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another. 2.
the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions. 3.
the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2016 5:34 pm » wrote:
Moron. Your comparison chart was off toipc.


Clearly, sympathy implies direct knowledge and empathy means figuring out their circumstances WITHLOUT sharing them, cripple - and I can't do that because i am a conjob like you, McWantstolimp.

PoliticalPopUp » 18 Jan 2016 6:10 pm » wrote: no it wasn't:

empathy
/
sympathy


Empathy is heartbreaking — you experience other people's pain and joy. Sympathy is easier because you just have to feel sorry for someone. Send a sympathy card if someone's cat died; feel empathy if your cat died, too.