How Can You Ever Trust a Republican With the Economy?

[quote name='level1online']Wow, you have absolutely no clue why I threw my support to Ron Paul. And all those reasons you just listed were NOT any of them.

All it took were three simple quotes from him:

"Let's bring the troops home.... NOW!!!"

"I do support a new investigation into 9/11"

"Let's abolish the Federal Reserve, and the Dept of Education."[/quote]

I agree with #1. So far so good.

We did investigate 9/11. What's left to look into, other than your hackneyed "9/11 was done by the government" crap? My issue is not with the investigation into 9/11, my issue with the government and 9/11 is the "WHAT? SAUDI ARABIANS FLEW INTO BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK? LET'S GO TO IRAQ AND STOP THEM!" response we got.

Lastly, whether a racist or not, I fundamentally disagree with the abolition of the IRS, Reserve, and Dept. of Education. Those are shortsighted solutions to complex problems that will increase the problems and decrease the solutions. They're radically absurd ideas.

Now, I have heard these quotes before, but never from 1 current singular candidate. And frankly, it doesn't matter to me if at the end of the day he just happens to put a "R" next to his name. I'm not voting for him because of that, It's not a f*cking clique or social club I'm trying to join. And if you can find more politicians, who will say those exact 3 quotes, then they'll get my support too.

But you won't find anyone else.... know why?

Because you'll have smear jobs written about you calling you an anti-semite, homo-hating, interwebz-hackerz, racist, tin-foil conspiracy kook. And the gullibles will eat up the "tripe" written by New Republic. What about McCain's "g00k" comments? Where's the New Republic article on that???
Click to expand...

Well, the New Republic is a left-wing pub, so that's why. Of course. You can defend this stuff all you want, but it is on Ron Paul's newsletter and thus, his resume. HE is the one whose newsletter made pro-confederacy, antiblack, antigay, anti-Israeli comments. So let's not get belligerent about people pointing it out, and act as if it's not a larger pattern of the way Paul thinks.

So... did you like the Psy-op they ran on you? Because many like yourself sure did fall for it. That hit piece, along w/ the electronic ballot box fraud got him exactly where he is today.... nowhere. You and all the others who said "Where's the revolution now??? har-dee-har-har, lolz!!!" sure got conned.

And btw, speaking of Obama, most of you guys continue to get conned; Even though, I don't support Obama, it's so obvious the election is being stolen from him. Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is actually working.... **shudders**

familiar with the original Op-CHAOS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS

Never mind me, go back to sleep, you're government loves, Obama loves you, Limbaugh loves you, and..... (gasp) I LOVE YOU!!!!
Click to expand...

See, the major difference between you and I is that we both shudder at the majority of politicians, yet I shudder because they are inept and self-serving; you shudder because you believe they are part of a larger intentional attempt to enslave us into stupidity and compliance - not to mention that you're of the "the less proof there is for something such as 9/11 being an inside job, the Amero, and the "NAFTA Superhighway," the more plausible it is" school of thought, while I pride myself on empiricism.

And btw, no offense but

The word "Tripe" is such a faygetty sounding word. Everytime I hear that word I picture two prissy elitist asshole dudes, sitting outside a South Beach cafe, saying "This Skim-milk, Sugar-free, Mocha-Latte Frappacino is soooo f*cking TRIPE!!! waiter!!! hel-loooooo!!!"
Click to expand...

Well, you're doing a very good job espousing the antigay side of Paul. Kudos.

Thrust, I can kinda see what you're getting at with the indirect association. I do not believe that Jeremiah Wright and Ron Paul's situations are at all similar - I think if you think of Wright's polemics showing up as op-eds in the hypothetical "Obama Newsletter," then the outrage and guilt-by-association would be that much clearer and that much greater now. Wright said things to his parish as himself, irrespective of Obama; the racist and bigoted comments appeared in Ron Paul's own newsletter. You have to make some leaps of logical faith to assume that Obama approves of Wright's message, while it's much harder in Paul's case.
 
Look at this RADIKKKAL in action!!!!!

SO EVIL!!! SO HATEFUL!!!! Quick, someone call Obama, Hillary, or McCain to save the day! More gov't regulation! More Big Brother! Pass the gruel!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EQ1sg6GhZE[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldETRlhiXk[/media]
Bow down before the Federal Reserve & IRS! Fill out those forms and file your yearly Extortion Tax with glee!!! Watch those decimal points, and extra zeros or else we'll send SWAT teams to your door w/ LOVE BULLETS! Be a good citizen, and shut up!!! Because freedom is about your freedom to shut up!
 
[quote name='Msut77']BigT, So who was the last golden god of conservatism then?[/quote]

No man is a "god."

True conservatives tend not to be electable in the present day. I mostly care about conservatism in the fiscal sphere...

So, to address your question, perhaps we have to go back to Thomas Jefferson:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

"Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us."

"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
 
Therein lies the problem.

Most of our founders wouldn't like our country, but most of the people from any time period would like and use the services offered by the government (paid by taxes).
 
[quote name='BigT']No man is a "god."

True conservatives tend not to be electable in the present day. I mostly care about conservatism in the fiscal sphere...

So, to address your question, perhaps we have to go back to Thomas Jefferson:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

"Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us."

"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."[/QUOTE]

These kinds of statements seem to be far much more liberal than conservative, IMO. At least inasmuch as they seem to warn against allowing too much wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the few.

Which, for the record, is the current state of affairs in the US, in my opinion, and the very thing that conservatives want to rail against being against ("socialist wealth redistribution" and all that blather).

I'm not seeing how this is really a conservative philosophy. Perhaps you could clear it up for me?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']These kinds of statements seem to be far much more liberal than conservative, IMO. At least inasmuch as they seem to warn against allowing too much wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the few.

Which, for the record, is the current state of affairs in the US, in my opinion, and the very thing that conservatives want to rail against being against ("socialist wealth redistribution" and all that blather).

I'm not seeing how this is really a conservative philosophy. Perhaps you could clear it up for me?[/QUOTE]

First of all, I think both conservatives and liberals agree that they hate letting the few have power over the many, whether that be through money or otherwise.

The differences, as I see it, are this:

Conservatives don't get behind LAWS that FORCE paying money to fund things they don't agree with. Liberals tend to be fine with that, as long as you do a semi-convincing job that at least some of the money goes to "compassionate" endeavors.

That leads into, Conservatives generally don't trust their government with their money. They generally don't believe their government will spend the money frugal, like the common citizen has to. Nor do they believe that what the government says they will take our money and spend, will actually get spent. For example, most conservatives would be fine in paying higher taxes to give the Military raises, but they don't believe the government when they say that's the reason for higher taxes. Liberals on the other hand, seem to have far more trust in their government. Or at least take on the belief that they have no other choice to "help" people but trust government to distribute our wealth wisely.

I think the biggest difference, however, is that given a choice under the realization that it has to be one or the other, conservatives would rather have wealth concentrated in private company's and individuals than concentrated into the government. Liberals are are pretty much opposite.

I see nothing in Thomas Jerfersons quotes that would suggest government driven wealth distribution being the answer to his warnings.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']First of all, I think both conservatives and liberals agree that they hate letting the few have power over the many, whether that be through money or otherwise.

The differences, as I see it, are this:

Conservatives don't get behind LAWS that FORCE paying money to fund things they don't agree with. Liberals tend to be fine with that, as long as you do a semi-convincing job that at least some of the money goes to "compassionate" endeavors.

That leads into, Conservatives generally don't trust their government with their money. They generally don't believe their government will spend the money frugal, like the common citizen has to. Nor do they believe that what the government says they will take our money and spend, will actually get spent. For example, most conservatives would be fine in paying higher taxes to give the Military raises, but they don't believe the government when they say that's the reason for higher taxes. Liberals on the other hand, seem to have far more trust in their government. Or at least take on the belief that they have no other choice to "help" people but trust government to distribute our wealth wisely.

I think the biggest difference, however, is that given a choice under the realization that it has to be one or the other, conservatives would rather have wealth concentrated in private company's and individuals than concentrated into the government. Liberals are are pretty much opposite.

I see nothing in Thomas Jerfersons quotes that would suggest government driven wealth distribution being the answer to his warnings.[/quote]

Meh, that makes sense. I'll buy that some of the differences lie with a differing answer to the lesser of two evils question you pose.

Still, generally speaking, I do think that conservatives are far more comfortable with financial oligarcharian (
 
[quote name='BigT']No man is a "god."

True conservatives tend not to be electable in the present day. I mostly care about conservatism in the fiscal sphere...[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I should have made clear that "none of the above" is not an acceptable answer.

Care to make a response that does not involve time travel?

In all honesty I expected the standard Ronald Reagan response.
 
You asked me to name an ideal conservative god; no such person exists. I do have some politicians I like, but do not agree 100% with them. Locally, there is Tom McClintock in California and on a more national scale there are Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul.

In terms of your none of the above comment, I believe that it is an entirely appropriate answer to a silly question.
In fact, I believe that a "none of the above" choice should be present on the ballot... if that gets the plurality then the position should be left vacant... let's expose the elections for the farces that they really are.
 
[quote name='BigT']You asked me to name an ideal conservative god; no such person exists. I do have some politicians I like, but do not agree 100% with them. Locally, there is Tom McClintock in California and on a more national scale there are Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul.

In terms of your none of the above comment, I believe that it is an entirely appropriate answer to a silly question.
In fact, I believe that a "none of the above" choice should be present on the ballot... if that gets the plurality then the position should be left vacant... let's expose the elections for the farces that they really are.[/QUOTE]

So you would vote for Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan if they were running for President instead of McCain?

These are not silly questions BTW.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Most of our founders wouldn't like our country, but most of the people from any time period would like and use the services offered by the government (paid by taxes).[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself. I don't require much in the way of government "services." "Government services" is a synonym for waste in most cases. I certainly don't need the government taxing the hell out of me when I earn money, when I invest it, when I spend it, even when I die. I certainly don't need the government controlling my retirement or health care. And it is quite enraging to realize that not only is my money being taken like this, but it's being used to fund 80% bullshit.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you would vote for Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan if they were running for President instead of McCain?
[/quote]

Yes.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Conservatives don't get behind LAWS that FORCE paying money to fund things they don't agree with. Liberals tend to be fine with that, as long as you do a semi-convincing job that at least some of the money goes to "compassionate" endeavors.[/QUOTE]

Last I checked, I couldn't withhold my taxes from funding faith-based charities, corporate welfare, or war-funding, so no, you're wrong.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']And I would say that liberals are more like..... "Oh you are that rich? Well then you should be forced to help out all of us that aren't. There is no reason for you to have that much money."[/QUOTE]

Oh, stuff it; you're framing things in such a lousy way. Allow me to proffer the converse.

In valley girl speak.

Conservatives are all like, "ohmigod, I totally earned everything I inherited from my rich folks, and I have so many more chances to, like, succeed because I was born with advantages that run contrary to like - idon'tknow - a meritocracy, I think? That, like, it totally overthrows the concept of a meritocracy and allows unfettered capitalism to turn itself into a multinational corporate oligarchy, where the state serves the interests of the corporate class, in tax breaks, in ignoring tax shelters, ignoring price gouging, allowing corporate bankruptcy to be forgiven at the same time that individual bankruptcy laws were severely restricted. You know, like, gag me with a spoon."

And liberals are all like, "cha! I know! All this, like, hegemony and stuff has got to stop, because, like, the wealth gap between the rich and poor is growing larger at the same time that, like, the tax burden shouldered by the rich is getting smaller. And, you know, stuff like racism and sexism and homophobia continue to exist in this world. Isn't that just totally grody? Well, the conservatives want you to believe in this "colorblind" nonsense, which is just a new form of, like, racism itself. Fer shure! So, like, we have to make sure that, ironically, the US marketplace is more meritocratic than it currently is, since, like, racism and sexism pervade the market."

Fer shure, dude. Fer shure.

EDIT: trq, don't sweat thrust. He's just latched onto 090-level bmulligan "they're forcibly wresting the wealth we earned from our hands" school of thought. He's yet to realize that the growing economy is a social event, and by no means an individual one. Of course, not everyone is equally responsible, but once he realizes this, then it will necessarily follow that his concept of stratification is a biased and absurd one that starts with the premise that the already wealthy are entitled to every penny they have earned, while the working and lower classes' earnings are always to be suspect and considered benevolent offerings from the wealthy to the undeserving and lazy. It's schadenfreude, but it's kinda funny.

EDIT2: BigT, I continually forget that you espouse Alan Keyes as an ideal of conservatism. I need to remind myself of that in order to see where you're coming from. Because I can't think of Keyes as anything other than a maniacal zealous religious whackjob carpetbagger.
 
[quote name='trq']Last I checked, I couldn't withhold my taxes from funding faith-based charities, corporate welfare, or war-funding, so no, you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

I know. And it's wrong.

[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, stuff it; you're framing things in such a lousy way. Allow me to proffer the converse.

In valley girl speak.

[/QUOTE]

myke, I guess you got a pretty good deal on whatever you put in that bong tonight. Good thing the government allowed you to afford that much.

None of what you said is worth quoting because it makes almost no sense.

You've made it clear that your concept of an ideal country is one with one single class that 100% of all people belong to that all make the exact same amount of money and can't pursue more. And now we know you are also disgusted by the thought of an inheritance for one's children (which we just discovered from the above eloquence). I suppose you feel all one's bank accounts should be relinquished to the gov upon death? Wouldn't surprise me.

You'll never change this country into that. So as soon as you tire of crunching the numbers on all the ways bringing a child into this world would make the world worse, you should probably find a country that makes you feel more comfortable by not only embracing and nurturing racial, sexual, and economic divisiveness but is also closer to your idealistic, forced equality-land.

I'm sure there is someone out there that also believes hard work should reward nothing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']bmulligan lite: half the calories, none of the substance.[/QUOTE]

And I guess this rather substantive calorie-filled "response" to all my points would, then, make you quite a hypocrite?
 
Not in the slightest. Your previous, more verbose post shows that you spent a lot of time to stretch my points to try to paint me as something I'm not, and it's done so in the vein of aspiring to a bmulligan-like level of understanding and vocabulary. You succeed at neither.

It's, in other words, name-calling in a prettier package. Why should I try to respond to that?

Your lack of awareness as to how your previous summaries of conservatives and liberals are absurd on the surface are indicative enough of the depth of your thinking, so why don't we call it a night? I'm a goin' to sleep anyway, so you have fun regardless.
 
So that's the best you can do tonight? Accuse me of trying to be like another forum member?

Myke, myke, myke.... I really hope you are intoxicated tonight, as your big-worded PhD responses are sagging further than usual.

Your handicap is your common tendency to judge others based on your self-perceived vernacular superiority, which unfortunately, obscures your ability to rationally or intelligently dismantle an argument.

Oh and it was clear for any clear-headed person that my "depth of thinking" on the difference between conservatives and liberals far outweighed yours in this thread. Don't be sore about it.

[quote name='mykevermin']It's, in other words, name-calling in a prettier package. Why should I try to respond to that?[/quote]
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, stuff it[/quote]:applause:
 
Allow me to repeat myself, since you've ignored my larger point and simply gone down trying to drag this into name-calling Sean Hannity territory. I'll stay on topic:

[quote name='mykevermin']Your lack of awareness as to how your previous summaries of conservatives and liberals are absurd on the surface are indicative enough of the depth of your thinking.[/QUOTE]

You can try to turn this into a big ninny name-calling flame fest, but it doesn't change the fact that you made absurd and biased generalizations about who 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are, I called you on it, and you ignored that fact and decided to have another argument with me instead of standing up and accepting that, whether conservatives or liberals are right in the larger scheme of things, your generalizations were untrue, biased, stupid, and absurd on the surface.

Like a Jack Chick tract, but without the ironic humor.
 
[quote name='BigT']Yes.[/QUOTE]

Let us put this into perspective, those three represent different parts of the Conservative movement. None of the three have a chance of becoming President (Alan Keyes just recently lost the nomination of the Constitution party fer jeezuz sakes). However Keyes and Buchanan worked for the Reagan administration while Ron Paul was one of his biggest early supporters in Texas.

Basically Republicans love them some Reagan, they may not always have seen eye to eye ideologically but they don't mind basking in the reflected glory. Now Bush (and McCain) follow the Reagan playbook, mostly with the same results except W is less of a deft hand with the purdy words
and Iraq was never the Soviet Union. So now after years of failure resulting from conservative dogma taken to its logical conclusion we are where we are at right now with the bunk well and truly humped.

Now the Conservative movement and the Republican party it owns entirely is attempting to disavow W calling him a RINO, not-a-true-conservative or even a liberal bringing up the fact that they do not agree with him 100% or something they theoretically might have done at some point down the road but did not.

This board used to be crawling with Bush supporters oddly enough until W reached the worst poll numbers in American history and the Democrats took back Congress.

Now the infestation consists of people who do not wish to defend anything but merely shit on everyone else for being commies and not being Xtreme Conservatives who nevertheless are probably going to vote for McCain anyway.
 
The problem with most modern conservatives is that they all point to a Reagan that didn't exist. The Reagan that cut taxes, cut spending, starred down the Soviets, and pushed for social conservative issues didn't exist. The real Reagan was a mixed bag, a man who saw tax increases, defecit spending, some spending cuts, and a few SCOTUS changes in a right-ward direction. All in all, he was more middle-right than the hard right would want to admit.

If these ridiculous conservatives want to point to a President that actually governed in the way that Ron Paul wants...look to Calvin Coolidge, who effectively...did nothing as President and got us involved in nearly nothing internationally. But, they won't...because everyone loves Reagan. Why? Reagan was an awesome speaker and had a great way of making all walks of people proud to be American. That's a good thing...but that's also something that Barack Obama has an uncanny ability to do as well for all walks of people. With modern politics the way it is, this ability isn't the only thing you need to win the White House...it was for Reagan. Looking at his views pre-Presidency, he supported some of the most liberal legislation for same-sex couples in the nation in California and may have been more of a fis-con than most, but he was BARELY there socially.

I want people to make certain that Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul never become the faces of conservatism. Buchanan who honestly thinks we shouldn't have intervened in WWII; Alan Keyes who threw out his daughter after she came public with her sexuality; or Ron Paul who's an ignorant old fool. To be quite honest, John McCain is a better face for conservatism. He espouses limited government, he actually tries to push for it, and he's not unwilling to work with people on the other side to accomplish things...but, that's just my opinion.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Allow me to repeat myself, since you've ignored my larger point and simply gone down trying to drag this into name-calling Sean Hannity territory. I'll stay on topic:



You can try to turn this into a big ninny name-calling flame fest, but it doesn't change the fact that you made absurd and biased generalizations about who 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are, I called you on it, and you ignored that fact and decided to have another argument with me instead of standing up and accepting that, whether conservatives or liberals are right in the larger scheme of things, your generalizations were untrue, biased, stupid, and absurd on the surface.

Like a Jack Chick tract, but without the ironic humor.[/QUOTE]

As far as I know, there is no all-encompassing representative organization for Conservatives and Liberals. Republicans and Democrats are far from that.

That being said, as much as you hate it, I shared what I have learned based on people I personally know that define themselves as Liberals or Conservatives.

The truth is, there is no dictionary based, or study based, definition for either Liberal or Conservative, because it's all relative. Combined with the fact that the definitions change almost daily.

The liberals of 30 years ago are the conservatives of today. In general, that's how society seems to have progressed. Every 20-30 years the liberals turn into conservatives relative modern issues.

Your perception of the difference between conservatives and liberals is going to be different from mine. Not more valid, different. This was clear where you called the Thomas Jefferson quotes liberal/progressive.

See myke, this is why these types of discussions are interesting... Because everyone has a different definition. There are no studies, or statistics, or national sources to list differences for you. So you discuss, and learn from each other. It's called a forum of discussion, not a court of law.

The defined difference between liberal and conservative could never be argued in a court of law, because it's too relative, so you look a tad foolish when you try to define someone's opinion on a relative subject as "absurd".
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Allow me to repeat myself, since you've ignored my larger point and simply gone down trying to drag this into name-calling Sean Hannity territory. I'll stay on topic:[/quote]

See, it’s funny that you always like to compare me with people like Sean Hannity, because as I’ve mentioned before – arguing with you is like what I’d imagine arguing with Bill O’Rielly would be. You seem to have a very similar pattern of logic (not same opinions, obviously) and addiction to statistical studies even in opinion based discussions.



You can try to turn this into a big ninny name-calling flame fest, but it doesn't change the fact that you made absurd and biased generalizations about who 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are, I called you on it, and you ignored that fact and decided to have another argument with me instead of standing up and accepting that, whether conservatives or liberals are right in the larger scheme of things,
Click to expand...
As far as I know, there is no all-encompassing representative organization for Conservatives and Liberals. Republicans and Democrats are far from that.

That being said, as much as you hate it, I shared what I have learned based on people I personally know that define themselves as Liberals or Conservatives.

The truth is, there is no dictionary based, or study based, definition for either Liberal or Conservative, because it's all relative. Combined with the fact that the definitions change almost daily.

The liberals of 30 years ago are usually the conservatives of today. In general, that's how society seems to have progressed. Every 20-30 years the liberals turn into conservatives relative modern issues. And yes, that's just opinion, but a popular one.

Your perception of the difference between conservatives and liberals is going to be different from mine or many others, that's how it's suppose to be. Not more valid, just different. It's actually possible to have these discussions, sharing opinions, without trying to show why the way you feel is more valid. But you consistently seem incapable of understanding that.

This was obvious where you called the Thomas Jefferson quotes liberal/progressive.

See myke, this is why these types of discussions are interesting... Because everyone has a different definition. There are no studies, or statistics, or national sources to list differences for you. So you discuss, and learn from each other. It's called a forum of discussion, not a court of law.

The defined difference between liberal and conservative could never be argued in a court of law, because it's too relative, so you look a tad obtuse when you try to label someone's opinion on a relative subject as "absurd".
your generalizations were untrue, biased, stupid, and absurd on the surface.
Click to expand...
To you, I'm sure they were. And that's fine.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']The problem with most modern conservatives is that they all point to a Reagan that didn't exist. The Reagan that cut taxes, cut spending, starred down the Soviets, and pushed for social conservative issues didn't exist. The real Reagan was a mixed bag, a man who saw tax increases, defecit spending, some spending cuts, and a few SCOTUS changes in a right-ward direction.[/QUOTE]

I do not think all that many Conservatives (specifically guys like LowOil) know that Reagan signed an illegal immigrant amnesty bill and a gun control law among other things like the tax increase you mentioned.
 
I found this on another forum today, thought it might lighten the mood.

RATS

A tourist walks into a curio shop in San Francisco. Looking around at the exotica, he notices a very lifelike life-sized bronze statue of a rat. It has no price tag, but is so striking he decides he must have it. He takes it to the owner: "How much for the bronze rat?" "$12 for the rat, $100 for the story," says the owner. The tourist gives the man $12. "I'll just take the rat, you can keep the story." As he walks down the street carrying his bronze rat, he notices that a few real rats have crawled out of the alleys and sewers and begun following him down the street. This is disconcerting, and he begins walking faster. But within a couple of blocks, the herd of rats behind him has grown to hundreds, and they begin squealing. He begins to trot toward the Bay, looking around to see that the rats now number in the MILLIONS, and are squealing and coming toward him faster and faster. Concerned, even scared, he runs to the edge of the Bay, and throws the bronze rat as far out into the water as he can. Amazingly, the millions of rats all jump into the Bay after it, and are all drowned. The man walks back to the curio shop. "Ah ha," says the owner, "you have come back for the story?" "No," says the man, "I came back to see if you have a bronze Republican."

:D:D:D:D:D
 
They say that Christopher Columbus was the first Democrat. When he left to discover America, he didn't know where he was going. When he got there he didn't know where he was. And it was all done on a government grant.


*******


A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

The republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, He decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republicans pocket and gave him fifty dollars.
 
Thrust you're like the energizer bunny, regardless of the facts and arguments refuting you, you just keep going and going and going. I love it.

One thing though thrust, your "deomocracy = pseudo communism" argument is sooo fuckin' played out. If, in a democracy, the government (elected by the people) decide to spend tax money on something that benefits it's citizens, then in your mind that is communism. Again, schools, national defense, police, DOT's, utilities, etc... are all relics of communism in your opinion aren't they?

Do you feel there should be NO taxes at all? Then the government would be powerless and isn't this anarchy?

Your problem seems to be with the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to make laws (and TAX). By following your logic, which is that government funds used to help it's citizens are STOLEN from those that don't need the help, you have a problem with democracy in general, since every democracy in the world has some social welfare.

What services exactly do you think a democracy could justly provide to it's citizens?

I'd be happy if I could make you understand that if the people pass a law giving their government representatives the right to tax, then all of those that are taxed, even the ones who don't agree with it, are JUSTLY bound by it. You purposefully avail yourselves of all of the benefits of society, but don't want to have to pay the bill when the check is laid down on the table.

You bitch and moan about how they're stealing your money and how social welfare programs (which, by definition, are any program paid for by the government that provides a service to the people e.g. roads, schools, hospitals, police, armies, sewage, etc.) yet I doubt you say to yourself "Dammit thrustbucket, I wish there were more potholes in this street and kids runnign around instead of in school so I could pay less taxes!"

So lets move the argument foward into "I think those services shoudl exist, but be privatized, because as everybody knows, the government can't do things as good as private businesses could." OH yeah!?? Go tell that to Great Britain's National Health Service (which is better than ours), or go tell that to the families slaughtered by Blackwater, go tell that to the people who couldn't afford half the cost of sending thier kids to a private school, or who would have to pay a toll to simply pull out of their driveway.

Is ther ANYTHING that in your opinion ought not to be privatized? And if so, why isn't THAT communist?

BTW, it's sooooo fuckin McCarthyist. Do you and BMull even know who Sen. Joe McCarthy is? Can't you see that your doing the EXACT same fucking thing he is by throwing labels and intended insults around? You're calling democracy communism, and impeaching no one save yourself.


"schadenfreude" what does this mean? I'm educated, but don't know everything so I have no problem asking what a word means when I don't know. I remember hearing it used in discussions about Elliot Spitzer. Is it some idea implying "just desserts" or "they got what's comin' to em?"

Good joke level1online! Thrust your joke sucked!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Thrust you're like the energizer bunny, regardless of the facts and arguments refuting you, you just keep going and going and going. I love it. [/quote]
Huh? This is how you react to me posting two jokes in response to someone elses joke? This post is kind of an over-reaction, isn't it?

One thing though thrust, your "deomocracy = pseudo communism" argument is sooo fuckin' played out. If, in a democracy, the government (elected by the people) decide to spend tax money on something that benefits it's citizens, then in your mind that is communism. Again, schools, national defense, police, DOT's, utilities, etc... are all relics of communism in your opinion aren't they?
Click to expand...
First of all, I think you are getting me confused with someone else. I have clearly not said anything of the sort.

What you just describe is boarding on socialism, but I wouldn't call it communism. I'm not the one that throws the "C" word out everywhere.

Do you feel there should be NO taxes at all? Then the government would be powerless and isn't this anarchy?
Click to expand...

I spent nearly an hour and answered your long list of questions last week in another thread, in which I clearly pointed out that I in fact DID believe in some taxes. Is your memory bad or do you only read what you want to read?

Your problem seems to be with the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to make laws (and TAX). By following your logic, which is that government funds used to help it's citizens are STOLEN from those that don't need the help, you have a problem with democracy in general, since every democracy in the world has some social welfare.
Click to expand...
Which logic are you following? Where did I say any such thing?

First of all, you need to remember we don't live in a democracy, and never have. We live in a Republic.

It's time to defer to Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, 1787, commenting on the fall of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years earlier. It applies surprisingly well to us today:
[quote name='Alexander Tyler, 1787']A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith
2. From spiritual faith to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back into bondage'
[/quote]

Now you may have seen this before. Maybe not. But it's amazing how accurately he predicted our own country's course of history before it barely existed.

I ask you, which step do you think we are at?
Then I ask you to explain how that is good.

What services exactly do you think a democracy could justly provide to it's citizens?
Click to expand...
Again, I answered this question in great detail before, when you listed a bunch of questions for me to answer in another thread. Why are you asking it again? Go find the thread and read the answer, and respond there if you must. I'll answer it again if you have a good reason why you didn't/can't read it.

You bitch and moan about how they're stealing your money and how social welfare programs (which, by definition, are any program paid for by the government that provides a service to the people e.g. roads, schools, hospitals, police, armies, sewage, etc.) yet I doubt you say to yourself "Dammit thrustbucket, I wish there were more potholes in this street and kids runnign around instead of in school so I could pay less taxes!"
Click to expand...
You continue to make a fool of yourself, since in the response in the other post to all your questions, I listed all those things as appropriate to pay taxes for, yet you continue, over and over again, to tell me I said something else. Why?

So lets move the argument foward into "I think those services shoudl exist, but be privatized, because as everybody knows, the government can't do things as good as private businesses could." OH yeah!??
Click to expand...
Already addressed this in my other post, and you clearly misunderstood me.

Go tell that to Great Britain's National Health Service (which is better than ours)
Click to expand...
Six-nine month wait times for surgery is GOOD? Do you know how many people die waiting for health care there? Go look it up.

or go tell that to the families slaughtered by Blackwater
Click to expand...
You really should stop getting your news from mediamatters and dailykos, then you wouldn't spout off unverifiable propaganda and look so foolish.

go tell that to the people who couldn't afford half the cost of sending thier kids to a private school, or who would have to pay a toll to simply pull out of their driveway.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are talking about now.

Is ther ANYTHING that in your opinion ought not to be privatized?
Click to expand...
Yes. And once again, already answered in the other thread you clearly didn't read.

And if so, why isn't THAT communist?
Click to expand...
Basic infrastructure and protection have never been communist. They are the first and most important reasons you set up any government.

BTW, it's sooooo fuckin McCarthyist. Do you and BMull even know who Sen. Joe McCarthy is? Can't you see that your doing the EXACT same fucking thing he is by throwing labels and intended insults around?
Click to expand...
Umm, got a mirror handy?

You're calling democracy communism, and impeaching no one save yourself.
Click to expand...
I never called democracy communism.


Good joke level1online! Thrust your joke sucked!
Click to expand...
Actually, both jokes sucked. The purpose I posted mine was to evoke responses that would clearly weed out blind partisan kool-aid drinkers that are still limited to two-party bad/good logic. Congrats.

Really though, I don't know why I spend time responding to your posts when you've proven you have such an ability to read them, shown by your tendency to ask the same questions over and over and over, and put the same words in my mouth, over and over and over.

Edit: Actually I realize now why I do keep responding to you. Because I can tell you are a good person, that genuinely cares about people and his country. Just like me. The only real differences are that you love to trust government with as much as possible, and I don't. But once you can get past that, you'll realize we are pretty similar and want the same things.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']
BTW, it's sooooo fuckin McCarthyist. Do you and BMull even know who Sen. Joe McCarthy is? Can't you see that your doing the EXACT same fucking thing he is by throwing labels and intended insults around? You're calling democracy communism, and impeaching no one save yourself. [/QUOTE]


I love when I'm called a McCarthyist. The very act of doing this is McCarthyistic in and of itself. I don't think we're throwing labels around in a flippant or insulting manner, either. I can't speak for Mr. Thrust, but I'm simply trying to accurately label your philosophy because you and your brethren are steadfastly adherent to the "Liberal" moniker and you are nothing of the sort. Wanting to attach yourself to the "liberal-ness" of our founding elders is, while viscerally and emotionally effective, it is a clear misrepresentation of the truth.

If you don't believe in individual liberty, you are not a liberal.

If you don't believe in private property, you are not a liberal.

"From each his ability, to each his need." - If you agree with this statement, you probably don't know it, but you are NOT a liberal.

Today's Liberals are so in name only, not in principle. Their principles are communist in theory, in scope, and in practice. Changing their names to socialist, liberal, or any other feel-good title is a purposeful distortion of reality and practiced for the sole purpose of deceit.

The problem with McCarthy was that he'd call anyone a communist whether they were or not, just to punish his enemies and for political gain. I have nothing to gain politically, all I expect to expose is the truth about your philosophy.


And in addition, Pizza, the absence of government is not anarchy. Regardless of what they taught you in Lawyering school, we are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of Men. Because no matter how many laws you write, It's honest, individual men that keep the peace - not some words on a piece of paper.
 
Fair enough.

If you defend the rapid concentration of government powers to one individual, you are not a conservative.

If you willingly give up habeas corpus, you are not a conservative.

If you ignore extraordinary rendition, you are not a conservative.

If you allow the government to treat and torture any person it chooses to, and exist on a flexible definition of "torture," you are not a conservative.

The problem with modern conservatism is that they're do busy trying to define what they are not that they pay no attention to the sorts of things that the people they selected to run the government do to co-opt their freedoms on a daily basis.

Think of the irony: the government can now detain you and hold you for any reason for any period of time with no recourse whatsoever. The national debt has gone from 5.6T in 2000 to over 9T today. Because you elected a "low tax, small government, state's rights, freedom and liberty" conservative.

But let's talk about Jeremiah Wright and lapel pins instead; after all, that's much more important.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Fair enough.

If you defend the rapid concentration of government powers to one individual, you are not a conservative.

If you willingly give up habeas corpus, you are not a conservative.

If you ignore extraordinary rendition, you are not a conservative.

If you allow the government to treat and torture any person it chooses to, and exist on a flexible definition of "torture," you are not a conservative.

The problem with modern conservatism is that they're do busy trying to define what they are not that they pay no attention to the sorts of things that the people they selected to run the government do to co-opt their freedoms on a daily basis.

Think of the irony: the government can now detain you and hold you for any reason for any period of time with no recourse whatsoever. The national debt has gone from 5.6T in 2000 to over 9T today. Because you elected a "low tax, small government, state's rights, freedom and liberty" conservative.

But let's talk about Jeremiah Wright and lapel pins instead; after all, that's much more important.[/QUOTE]

For the record, Myke, I don't support any of the things you listed above. So I guess whatever I am, I'm not a conservative.

However, the whole torture issue is getting really sticky. I have a guy on my team, an artist, that was in the army during the first gulf war as an interrogator and a teacher of interrogation. He has since been offered several times what he currently makes to join private contractors by the guys he taught, but he claims he knows what type of guys they are and he doesn't want anything to do with them.

We've had long discussions, and he did convince me that water boarding is torture. But in our discussions, I realized, that anything that is remotely uncomfortable mentally or physical, even down to loud music or a mosquito bite, is considered torture by someone somewhere.

Oh and btw, last I checked, there were only 2 or 3 known cases of waterboarding since the Iraq war started. Which doesn't excuse it, but it also doesn't really give a lot of strength to the "we run around and torture our way through war now" argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top