I didn't vote for Obama, but I have to believe more positive will come from his being president than from McCain. McCain would not have done anything drastically different than what Obama is doing, but he would have driven the Republican party further into the ground. He was probably less conservative than Bush, who is left of center and what this country needs is an actual conservative Republican president and if it means we have endure a radical administration for another 3 years to wake up and see that, then so be it.
bush was LEFT of center? the guy that mobilized congress for terry schaivo becos of his religion? the guy that told africa they couldnt have condoms becos it's against the bible? the guy that halted cutting edge medical research becos it's against the bible? the guy that, when a report found abstinence only sex ed didnt work and was a waste of our tax money... chose to cut funding to the study rather than re-evaluate the program, becos of the bible?
he was a right wing evangelical moron. mccain is definitely more moderate, but no way is bush left of center.
fiscally he was left of center... he, like pretty much all republican politicians in recent times, spent more than they taken in.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I didn't vote for Obama, but I have to believe more positive will come from his being president than from McCain. McCain would not have done anything drastically different than what Obama is doing, but he would have driven the Republican party further into the ground. He was probably less conservative than Bush, who is left of center and what this country needs is an actual conservative Republican president and if it means we have endure a radical administration for another 3 years to wake up and see that, then so be it.
bush was LEFT of center? the guy that mobilized congress for terry schaivo becos of his religion? the guy that told africa they couldnt have condoms becos it's against the bible? the guy that halted cutting edge medical research becos it's against the bible? the guy that, when a report found abstinence only sex ed didnt work and was a waste of our tax money... chose to cut funding to the study rather than re-evaluate the program, becos of the bible?
he was a right wing evangelical moron. mccain is definitely more moderate, but no way is bush left of center.
fiscally he was left of center... he, like pretty much all republican politicians in recent times, spent more than they taken in.
i dont even know if that's true. left of center would imply some sort of downward wealth distribution. yeah, he increased spending, but like every other dumbass republican, he paired it with tax cuts for the wealthy to protect the wealthy rather than redistribute. sure, they're hypocrites, but i don't think it makes them left of center.
if mccain was elected things would be the same as they are now. You are right, no one will ever accuse him of socialist leanings, but his and obama's stances on war and the economy are virtually the same thing. Both Obama and Mccain believe the war on terror, despite all evidence, is worth it, and can be won. Both seem to believe that to eradicate terrorism, the solution is to use military force. And both view places like Iran and North Korea as threats.
Second, Mccain would have given bailouts to the major corporations just like obama did. He would have been hands off in terms of individuals who are losing their jobs.
Obama was and still is portrayed as some sort of radical revolutionary. As someone who considers himself a radical, I find that insulting to say the least. Being a democrat, a centrist and or conservative democrat is not revolutionary or radical in the least.
Obama is just like clinton. He doesnt have a radical bone in his body.
"gimmiesometruth"
so that is her opinion. she deserves to be bashed for her opinion but you deserve to be spared bashing for yours???? interesting... i do not have a problem with what she said. have you walked in her shoes? absolutely not. neither have i and i can understand her point. if you can't understand why she would feel that way then you have your head in the sand.
Um let's see
1. She grew up in what she described as a conventional home, Her mom was a stay at home mom
2. She attended Whitney Young Chicago's first magnet high school and was enrolled in gifted classes
3. Member of the national honors society
4. Princeton Grad 1985 and then Harvard Law in 1988
I could keep going but I think you get my point. She has not had a hard life by any means. And you said you can understand her point yet you have not walked in her shoes :?
I'm sorry gimmiesometruth.......I must have misunderstood when cosmo called me an idiot twice in one post.....all you got to do is read between the lines man.
if you would read your initial 2 posts in this thread, see if you can figure out where and why people are coming at you so hard. you posted with that typical right wing condecending know it all tone bashing obama and his wife. that is why i jumped in. you obviously wanted people to stroke your ego and tell you how different things would be, but if mccain had won, things would be far far worse on a global scale.
Obamas wife diserves to be bashed. Our first lady says that for the first time in her life she is proud of the u.s and that was last year and none of you have a problem with that. That's more scarey than her actually saying it. And it's not "know it all tone bashing". There opinions, everybody has a right to have them, although if you're a republican I am starting to wonder.
I don't know about pride in her country, but she certainly honors your language, unlike you.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
"gimmiesometruth"
so that is her opinion. she deserves to be bashed for her opinion but you deserve to be spared bashing for yours???? interesting... i do not have a problem with what she said. have you walked in her shoes? absolutely not. neither have i and i can understand her point. if you can't understand why she would feel that way then you have your head in the sand.
Um let's see
1. She grew up in what she described as a conventional home, Her mom was a stay at home mom
2. She attended Whitney Young Chicago's first magnet high school and was enrolled in gifted classes
3. Member of the national honors society
4. Princeton Grad 1985 and then Harvard Law in 1988
I could keep going but I think you get my point. She has not had a hard life by any means. And you said you can understand her point yet you have not walked in her shoes :?
I didn't vote for Obama, but I have to believe more positive will come from his being president than from McCain. McCain would not have done anything drastically different than what Obama is doing, but he would have driven the Republican party further into the ground. He was probably less conservative than Bush, who is left of center and what this country needs is an actual conservative Republican president and if it means we have endure a radical administration for another 3 years to wake up and see that, then so be it.
i think an acutal conservative republican as president in this day and age would be the most devestating thing to happen to this country, especially the middle and lower classes, in the history of this country. for way too many reasons to list right now.
well than you have no clue what it means to be an actual conservative. Not a Repukelikin. Your party does nothing but hurt the lower class by convincing them that it's a good thing to rely on the gov. let gov take care of you. :roll:
I didn't vote for Obama, but I have to believe more positive will come from his being president than from McCain. McCain would not have done anything drastically different than what Obama is doing, but he would have driven the Republican party further into the ground. He was probably less conservative than Bush, who is left of center and what this country needs is an actual conservative Republican president and if it means we have endure a radical administration for another 3 years to wake up and see that, then so be it.
i think an acutal conservative republican as president in this day and age would be the most devestating thing to happen to this country, especially the middle and lower classes, in the history of this country. for way too many reasons to list right now.
well than you have no clue what it means to be an actual conservative. Not a Repukelikin. Your party does nothing but hurt the lower class by convincing them that it's a good thing to rely on the gov. let gov take care of you. :roll:
i'd rather a government that takes care of me (which is what i pay taxes for) than a government that turns a blind eye while the wealthy and powerful rape and exploit those lower classes. dependence is better than oppression.
If thats the way you want to live then the more power to you. I don't want any part of the Gov. telling me how I should live my life.
neither do i. but if i'm starving and homeless, i'd not say no to a food stamp.
are you saying we should return to the days when the titans of industry could hire small children to work in dangerous factories for long hours with no protection and then toss them out if they got crippled? becos, i mean, the government should never be able to tell that factory owner how he should live his life or run his factory... right? if he wants to hire a 12 year old boy to climb into small, unstable mine shafts, that's his business... right?
...The banks are not going to pay "us" back. They robbed us of 23 trillion dollars! I've been seeing the term Banksters in use all over the internet media. It's perfectly apt. And catchier than 'Big Pharma' or 'Obamacare.'
...
You need to either correct this statement or provide some sort of proof.
23 Trillion Dollars is a LOT... considering the United States' GDP for 3rd Qtr, 2009 was 14 Trillion Dollars.
I am pretty sure the bailout (including taking on the responsibiliy of the Toxic assets) was $700 Billion.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
seems ironic though how SO MANY people wanted Obama for president knowing full well what his plans were, yet SO MANY turned on him within this first year. It doesn't seem to me like he has strayed too much from his original plans. Everybody knew it was going to take money for everything he preached about. I don't pay attention to everything that has gone on in his first year, but it just seems very strange to me how so many people could turn on him so quickly. I didn't vote. I wasn't sure what to make of all the chaos this time around. I just sat back and watched everyone become hypocrits for turning on a president that THEY wanted so badly. It really doesn't make any sense at all.
"gimmiesometruth"
so that is her opinion. she deserves to be bashed for her opinion but you deserve to be spared bashing for yours???? interesting... i do not have a problem with what she said. have you walked in her shoes? absolutely not. neither have i and i can understand her point. if you can't understand why she would feel that way then you have your head in the sand.
Um let's see
1. She grew up in what she described as a conventional home, Her mom was a stay at home mom
2. She attended Whitney Young Chicago's first magnet high school and was enrolled in gifted classes
3. Member of the national honors society
4. Princeton Grad 1985 and then Harvard Law in 1988
I could keep going but I think you get my point. She has not had a hard life by any means. And you said you can understand her point yet you have not walked in her shoes :?
thank you for the refresher course, but i was referring to crazy mary not being a black woman in america. she is a big girl and does not need a perfectleft to speak for her. i can see michelle's point because i studied sociology some in grad school and i have the ability to read articles and books and interviews and study context and empathize with people, which is a skill that most conservatives are sorely lacking.
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I didn't vote for Obama, but I have to believe more positive will come from his being president than from McCain. McCain would not have done anything drastically different than what Obama is doing, but he would have driven the Republican party further into the ground. He was probably less conservative than Bush, who is left of center and what this country needs is an actual conservative Republican president and if it means we have endure a radical administration for another 3 years to wake up and see that, then so be it.
i think an acutal conservative republican as president in this day and age would be the most devestating thing to happen to this country, especially the middle and lower classes, in the history of this country. for way too many reasons to list right now.
well than you have no clue what it means to be an actual conservative. Not a Repukelikin. Your party does nothing but hurt the lower class by convincing them that it's a good thing to rely on the gov. let gov take care of you. :roll:
why don't you please educate the rest of us what it is like to be an "actual conservative", because as it is there is none out there, and if there were they would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, let alone passing sweeping reform with a democratic congress. it is a moot argument. this whole thread is a moot argument because it is all hypothetical and can not be proven.
you party does nothing but hurt the lower class because you would ignore them and let them starve while you let the market that is free falling sort itself out. a true conservative would let these people starve and say "they should have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and made something of themselves instead of sponging off the system" when you know that the only way to escape squalor is to win the lottery or lead a life of crime and end up in jail, which is a better option than dying of exposure and hungry with no home.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
If thats the way you want to live then the more power to you. I don't want any part of the Gov. telling me how I should live my life.
i have no problem with government.
if you want a government-free utopia i can recommend the hills on the pakistan-afghanistan border. see how long you will like living without any government there. i would say less than a week.
or here is an idea, why don't you run for office then you can tell others how to run their lives.....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
If Ralph Nader had won the election in 2000 (and if like-minded people had been elected to Congress)........
#1 Socialism and Marxism would noted as out-dated concepts, but not completely wrong either.
#2 The government would be spending less and doing more.
#3 Unemployment and underemployment would be less, because spending money on public works projects improves the economy for all. Also, all of our bridges and roads and shit wouldn't be crumbling.
#4 We wouldn't have a first lady, because the dude is some kind of asexual freak and a political monk. Exactly who we want as President.
we would have...
#5 A commander in chief that knows that there is no current need for war (and I doubt 9/11 would have even happened, because our foreign policy would have drastically changed, thus giving pyscho muslims nothing to be psycho about).
why don't you please educate the rest of us what it is like to be an "actual conservative", because as it is there is none out there, and if there
were they would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, let alone passing sweeping reform with a democratic congress. it is a
moot argument. this whole thread is a moot argument because it is all hypothetical and can not be proven.
you party does nothing but hurt the lower class because you would ignore them and let them starve while you let the market that is free falling
sort itself out. a true conservative would let these people starve and say "they should have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and made
something of themselves instead of sponging off the system" when you know that the only way to escape squalor is to win the lottery or lead a
life of crime and end up in jail, which is a better option than dying of exposure and hungry with no home.
I don't know who the other guy considers to be a Conservative, but I'll tell you who I know to be actual Conservatives. See: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and Adam Kokesh, who will run and WIN their seats in 2010. Ron Paul would be the only incumbent. I hope Judge Andrew Napolitano runs for office as well. These guys best fit the classical, original gangsta definition of "Conservative." Listen to these people, and tell me how, under their system of governance (yes, actual government-- but limited... All rules that protect one's life, liberty, and property, are the only rules that need apply) leaves out the poor and disenfranchised? The little guy always is given the fighting chance to make whatever he wants of himself, because the playing fied is leveled across the board. The big guys are not rewarded when they become so big that they cannot manage themselves effectively, or treat their employees like shit. Yes, believe it or not unions are permissible, and even encouraged in the Free Market,--under a system where the government can't legislate against workers at the behest of their bosses, because such laws infringe on the private property--the wages of the employee, or his life or liberty. In this system the workers realize the power THEY HAVE is equal to that of their employer. Unions and non-unions alike keep each other honest by choosing or not choosing to compete against each other. These ideas are basically natural law-- if we had to all start at square 1 again, this is exactly how it would begin... Everyone would scramble, find the best item to trade, or hone their best craft, and things would be in motion-- wouldn't you take care of your own familly and friends the best you could if you were doing a little beter than them? Wouldn't everyone? All this system does is require people to at least TRY to pull their weight. Everyone knows someone who's TRYING and struggling. Isn't it easier to lend the helping hand to someone who is making an attempt to help themselves? Who would get behind in that world except the people who were just so obstinate that they can't make a baby step towards pitching in? If you got to keep more of what you earn, you'd have more to give VOLUNTARILY, out of compassion and necessity. Imagine charitable organizations doing their absolute best to help people, and thus convince people to donate more to help more people?
This is how The Market provides solutions. It's so free, that it seems like a wild concept. It is. We've been trained to distrust Freedom. Brought to you by the people who told you that you had to give up freedom to be free. What sense does that make? Government is there to protect our rights through a central government with 3-branches each with VERY specific purposes that all check each other. States run things the way they want through the 10th amendment, meaning that if it isn't a power already dedicated to the Federal Government, it belongs to the states. These states could, if they chose to, delegate greater powers on down through the counties and cities. Believe it or not, a true conservative would even be in favor of a completely socialistic commune if 100% of the people who lived their voluntarily waved all of their property rights, and govern only themselves. What they have no right to, is the town next to them or anywhere else. These are the very clear, distinct lines that Conservatives draw that are consistent with the Natural World and The Market. It's The Market that will be there even when you or I won't be. Our interference with The Market is why we're always unaware of what crisis is going to hit us next. There are always unintended consequences when that necessary small amount of government decides it needs to be MORE NECESSARY in determining how IT THINKS the market should operate. And if some outside party or business tries to influence that power, because it can make that power THINK like them... Boom. It's corrupt. Hence, keep it small, and unattractive and ineffective if it gets co-opted by special interests. When companies aim to corrupt it, charge them and the government officials who allow it with FRAUD. It's one of the few "regulations" you need.
Here's something that might surprise you: Same-sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue if the guys I mentioned above had their way... Marriage in general would not be performed, or regulated by the state-- what right does the government have to define personal relationships and give benefits for simply having them? Especially when it's unequal? And to actually have to pay the state for PERMISSION THROUGH LICENSURE to do it? Personal freedom allows us to choose whoever we want to be with so long as both individuals are consenting. Married couples wouldn't get any more special benefits than anyone else through the state. No one would get special benefits from the state ever, actually, and they probably wouldn't be necessary. There would be no Income Tax advantages to be lost by not being married because there would be no Income Tax. Your money would also always be worth SOMETHING, because it would BE SOMETHING, or at least closely tied to it, and you would have actual choices as to what that money would be. Eventually, one currency will probably become more dominant than the others, thus earning itself its place as a standard, but others would still provide decent competition for it.
You may agree with none of this. And I think it's sad if people can't agree with at least part of what ACTUAL Conservatives stand for. I'll tell you that we believe in much of what the "socially-liberal" stand for, and that the best way to get social justice, you have to strictly adhere to the Constitution's provisions that protect everyone's rights. When it was written, sadly, it may have only meant 'White Men' to the authors, but framers did not even take the time to actually word it that way. Could they have? Sure. But they didn't. Thus the laws written hundreds of years ago say what everybody needs them to say. You are all equal. Real Conservatives try to maintain this natural law. And yes, this would even apply to TURRRRRORRR suspects. They are still entitled to a free trial and equal treatment under the law.If nothing else, at least you know the standard that you can hold them to. Their beliefs and mission are very clear-cut, and therefore it is easy to judge them on how hard they are trying to deliver. They promise to re-recognize what is already written, and should not be over-written by 1,200 page bills that enslave us without even being able to be read until after the votes pass. So next time someone claims to be a Conservative, you have to wonder if they believe in any of what I wrote above. It's just another label that's lost its meaning.
These ideas are basically natural law-- if we had to all start at square 1 again, this is exactly how it would begin... Everyone would scramble, find the best item to trade, or hone their best craft, and things would be in motion-- wouldn't you take care of your own familly and friends the best you could if you were doing a little beter than them? Wouldn't everyone? All this system does is require people to at least TRY to pull their weight. Everyone knows someone who's TRYING and struggling. Isn't it easier to lend the helping hand to someone who is making an attempt to help themselves? Who would get behind in that world except the people who were just so obstinate that they can't make a baby step towards pitching in? If you got to keep more of what you earn, you'd have more to give VOLUNTARILY, out of compassion and necessity. Imagine charitable organizations doing their absolute best to help people, and thus convince people to donate more to help more people?
this is where the conservative pipe dream comes crashing down though... we DON'T all start at square one, and the free market never protects that. to do so, you would have to take a 100% tax on inheritances, otherwise you will always have those with more and those with less. there is never a level playing field in any real sense, only in the abstract and meaningless theorietical sense. i am as FREE as my neighbor to buy a gulfstream jet, but there is no way i am as able as warren buffet. every american might be FREE to better themselves through education, but that's not true in any practical sense when one kid grows up in a ghetto with a crack-addicted mother and has to care for little brothers, work all through high school, and hope to get enough loans to cover the degree, on top of the disadvantage of failed schools due to wealth distribution. that kid is NEVER on a level playing field with the kid whose dad is a billionaire, went to the best schools, had private tutors, the luxury of volunteering to pad the resume, and never had to worry about taking on any loans or debt. there is no square one in the real world, and there is no level playing field. you can talk about fairness and freedom in the abstract, but they simply don't apply to real life.
These ideas are basically natural law-- if we had to all start at square 1 again, this is exactly how it would begin... Everyone would scramble, find the best item to trade, or hone their best craft, and things would be in motion-- wouldn't you take care of your own familly and friends the best you could if you were doing a little beter than them? Wouldn't everyone? All this system does is require people to at least TRY to pull their weight. Everyone knows someone who's TRYING and struggling. Isn't it easier to lend the helping hand to someone who is making an attempt to help themselves? Who would get behind in that world except the people who were just so obstinate that they can't make a baby step towards pitching in? If you got to keep more of what you earn, you'd have more to give VOLUNTARILY, out of compassion and necessity. Imagine charitable organizations doing their absolute best to help people, and thus convince people to donate more to help more people?
this is where the conservative pipe dream comes crashing down though... we DON'T all start at square one, and the free market never protects that. to do so, you would have to take a 100% tax on inheritances, otherwise you will always have those with more and those with less. there is never a level playing field in any real sense, only in the abstract and meaningless theorietical sense. i am as FREE as my neighbor to buy a gulfstream jet, but there is no way i am as able as warren buffet. every american might be FREE to better themselves through education, but that's not true in any practical sense when one kid grows up in a ghetto with a crack-addicted mother and has to care for little brothers, work all through high school, and hope to get enough loans to cover the degree, on top of the disadvantage of failed schools due to wealth distribution. that kid is NEVER on a level playing field with the kid whose dad is a billionaire, went to the best schools, had private tutors, the luxury of volunteering to pad the resume, and never had to worry about taking on any loans or debt. there is no square one in the real world, and there is no level playing field. you can talk about fairness and freedom in the abstract, but they simply don't apply to real life.
I agree. Nothing short of a worldwide flood of Biblical proportions would ever set things back to square 1. Or, if you took everyone on this planet, and transported them to Earth #2, ass naked, and spread out randomly throughout the globe, this is exactly how things would function. I realize the pipe-dream aspect of it all, and so does everyone who believes in it.
However, leveling the playing field NOW might not bring about the equality we'd all like to see in our lifetimes, but it would get the ball rolling. There is always transition. The whole world could and would start with the uncompassionate rich ruling ruthlessly, but would approach (but probably never quite reach) true freedom for all. Does it mean we shouldn't try?
Warren Buffet should be FREE to lose his fortune, and if he made certain mistakes, he should. The crackhead's kid, with help from the government or not, has to make the conscious choice himself to try and escape the bad cards he's been dealt.
My question is, what better standard is there to rule by than these principles? Isn't it very easy to hold everyone accountable, and protect everyone equally when the laws are kept simple, close to nature, and well-defined?
These ideas are basically natural law-- if we had to all start at square 1 again, this is exactly how it would begin... Everyone would scramble, find the best item to trade, or hone their best craft, and things would be in motion-- wouldn't you take care of your own familly and friends the best you could if you were doing a little beter than them? Wouldn't everyone? All this system does is require people to at least TRY to pull their weight. Everyone knows someone who's TRYING and struggling. Isn't it easier to lend the helping hand to someone who is making an attempt to help themselves? Who would get behind in that world except the people who were just so obstinate that they can't make a baby step towards pitching in? If you got to keep more of what you earn, you'd have more to give VOLUNTARILY, out of compassion and necessity. Imagine charitable organizations doing their absolute best to help people, and thus convince people to donate more to help more people?
this is where the conservative pipe dream comes crashing down though... we DON'T all start at square one, and the free market never protects that. to do so, you would have to take a 100% tax on inheritances, otherwise you will always have those with more and those with less. there is never a level playing field in any real sense, only in the abstract and meaningless theorietical sense. i am as FREE as my neighbor to buy a gulfstream jet, but there is no way i am as able as warren buffet. every american might be FREE to better themselves through education, but that's not true in any practical sense when one kid grows up in a ghetto with a crack-addicted mother and has to care for little brothers, work all through high school, and hope to get enough loans to cover the degree, on top of the disadvantage of failed schools due to wealth distribution. that kid is NEVER on a level playing field with the kid whose dad is a billionaire, went to the best schools, had private tutors, the luxury of volunteering to pad the resume, and never had to worry about taking on any loans or debt. there is no square one in the real world, and there is no level playing field. you can talk about fairness and freedom in the abstract, but they simply don't apply to real life.
I agree. Nothing short of a worldwide flood of Biblical proportions would ever set things back to square 1. Or, if you took everyone on this planet, and transported them to Earth #2, ass naked, and spread out randomly throughout the globe, this is exactly how things would function. I realize the pipe-dream aspect of it all, and so does everyone who believes in it.
However, leveling the playing field NOW might not bring about the equality we'd all like to see in our lifetimes, but it would get the ball rolling. There is always transition. The whole world could and would start with the uncompassionate rich ruling ruthlessly, but would approach (but probably never quite reach) true freedom for all. Does it mean we shouldn't try?
Warren Buffet should be FREE to lose his fortune, and if he made certain mistakes, he should. The crackhead's kid, with help from the government or not, has to make the conscious choice himself to try and escape the bad cards he's been dealt.
My question is, what better standard is there to rule by than these principles? Isn't it very easy to hold everyone accountable, and protect everyone equally when the laws are kept simple, close to nature, and well-defined?
i dont think it would. levelling the playing field now would simply entrench the elite beyond anyone's power to challenge them. the second somebody gained an edge, they'd be arranging things to benefit themselves. the level playing field would be gone. we've seen it recently in the way banks got all the old depression-era protections phased out, which led to our economic collapse. it's like animal farm... the second someone gains an upper hand, they're going to use it to protect their superior position. we could all start from square one tomorrow and within 10 years we'd be right back where we are now. it's human nature. the only possible defense is a system that caps the ceiling and attempts to raise the floor, which by its nature demands some sort of socialist wealth redistribution.
the idea that all humans want to be free is a fallacy and you can see it every day around you. the rugged individualist americans love to worship does not exist. we're monkeys. we don't want freedom, we want a good silverback to tell us what to do. why do you think we get so heated about our religions or our political parties? we're looking for a troop and someone to follow. most people do not want to think, they do not want to help out their neighbors. they want to feel like they're part of something bigger with a minimum of effort.
i dont think it would. levelling the playing field now would simply entrench the elite beyond anyone's power to challenge them. the second somebody gained an edge, they'd be arranging things to benefit themselves. the level playing field would be gone. we've seen it recently in the way banks got all the old depression-era protections phased out, which led to our economic collapse. it's like animal farm... the second someone gains an upper hand, they're going to use it to protect their superior position. we could all start from square one tomorrow and within 10 years we'd be right back where we are now. it's human nature. the only possible defense is a system that caps the ceiling and attempts to raise the floor, which by its nature demands some sort of socialist wealth redistribution.
the idea that all humans want to be free is a fallacy and you can see it every day around you. the rugged individualist americans love to worship does not exist. we're monkeys. we don't want freedom, we want a good silverback to tell us what to do. why do you think we get so heated about our religions or our political parties? we're looking for a troop and someone to follow. most people do not want to think, they do not want to help out their neighbors. they want to feel like they're part of something bigger with a minimum of effort.
What can I say, SS? I prefer a system where those of us who choose to be free can be free, and those who actually like being monkeys can have it their way as well. What I am calling independence, you are calling individualism. There are definitely differences there. Hey, you see it your way, I see it mine.
i dont think it would. levelling the playing field now would simply entrench the elite beyond anyone's power to challenge them. the second somebody gained an edge, they'd be arranging things to benefit themselves. the level playing field would be gone. we've seen it recently in the way banks got all the old depression-era protections phased out, which led to our economic collapse. it's like animal farm... the second someone gains an upper hand, they're going to use it to protect their superior position. we could all start from square one tomorrow and within 10 years we'd be right back where we are now. it's human nature. the only possible defense is a system that caps the ceiling and attempts to raise the floor, which by its nature demands some sort of socialist wealth redistribution.
the idea that all humans want to be free is a fallacy and you can see it every day around you. the rugged individualist americans love to worship does not exist. we're monkeys. we don't want freedom, we want a good silverback to tell us what to do. why do you think we get so heated about our religions or our political parties? we're looking for a troop and someone to follow. most people do not want to think, they do not want to help out their neighbors. they want to feel like they're part of something bigger with a minimum of effort.
What can I say, SS? I prefer a system where those of us who choose to be free can be free, and those who actually like being monkeys can have it their way as well. What I am calling independence, you are calling individualism. There are definitely differences there. Hey, you see it your way, I see it mine.
the trouble is defining freedom. i find the tea party folks have only one thing in mind when they hear it and that's green.... hands off my money! you can regulate what i put in my body (drugs), what i take out (abortion), what i learn in school (creationism and abstinence only), what religion is acceptable (10 commandments in court) and any other personal lifestyle choices you wish... just don't touch my fucking bank account.
well to me, freedom is a helluva lot more than my income. it means i'll pay my fair share for the good of us all, and you keep your fucking lifestyle choices out of my legal code.
i know you're not a believer in this sort of thing, but the sad fact is the movement you're aligned with is. and they've fucked us far too much already for me to be willing to give them anything approaching a chance again.
i dont think it would. levelling the playing field now would simply entrench the elite beyond anyone's power to challenge them. the second somebody gained an edge, they'd be arranging things to benefit themselves. the level playing field would be gone. we've seen it recently in the way banks got all the old depression-era protections phased out, which led to our economic collapse. it's like animal farm... the second someone gains an upper hand, they're going to use it to protect their superior position. we could all start from square one tomorrow and within 10 years we'd be right back where we are now. it's human nature. the only possible defense is a system that caps the ceiling and attempts to raise the floor, which by its nature demands some sort of socialist wealth redistribution.
the idea that all humans want to be free is a fallacy and you can see it every day around you. the rugged individualist americans love to worship does not exist. we're monkeys. we don't want freedom, we want a good silverback to tell us what to do. why do you think we get so heated about our religions or our political parties? we're looking for a troop and someone to follow. most people do not want to think, they do not want to help out their neighbors. they want to feel like they're part of something bigger with a minimum of effort.
What can I say, SS? I prefer a system where those of us who choose to be free can be free, and those who actually like being monkeys can have it their way as well. What I am calling independence, you are calling individualism. There are definitely differences there. Hey, you see it your way, I see it mine.
the trouble is defining freedom. i find the tea party folks have only one thing in mind when they hear it and that's green.... hands off my money! you can regulate what i put in my body (drugs), what i take out (abortion), what i learn in school (creationism and abstinence only), what religion is acceptable (10 commandments in court) and any other personal lifestyle choices you wish... just don't touch my fucking bank account.
well to me, freedom is a helluva lot more than my income. it means i'll pay my fair share for the good of us all, and you keep your fucking lifestyle choices out of my legal code.
i know you're not a believer in this sort of thing, but the sad fact is the movement you're aligned with is. and they've fucked us far too much already for me to be willing to give them anything approaching a chance again.
Fair enough, and thanks for acknowledging that I'm not one of these people you define in your first paragraph. I urge you to keep close watch on this movement from a perspective outside of mainstream news. Were you the one who said he attended one of these things and had first hand experience with it? If so, I give you credit and appreciate your honest assessment of what you see at these rallies. Keep watching-- I'm sure you'll see that the Neo-Con bandwagon has made its large one-time impact on what was a small, but sincere movement. I'm positive that I'm seeing minds gravitating towards the classic libertarian conservatism, hence my enthusiasm here, but also because we're going to have to-- We simply are not going to be able to afford to pay any more taxes or subsidize any more failure over the course of the next few years. I sincerely believe that that inflation train is going to hit us full speed ahead, and that the effects are going to be devastating. We are going to actually have to take care of each other by choice-- not with federally funded programs, because there will be no amount of money with value to be able to take care of the masses through the state. If the state has any role in things, it may only be to help coordinate relief efforts, and they will be doing it for free, out of necessity. I hope I'm terribly wrong.
Comments
fiscally he was left of center... he, like pretty much all republican politicians in recent times, spent more than they taken in.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
i dont even know if that's true. left of center would imply some sort of downward wealth distribution. yeah, he increased spending, but like every other dumbass republican, he paired it with tax cuts for the wealthy to protect the wealthy rather than redistribute. sure, they're hypocrites, but i don't think it makes them left of center.
Second, Mccain would have given bailouts to the major corporations just like obama did. He would have been hands off in terms of individuals who are losing their jobs.
Obama was and still is portrayed as some sort of radical revolutionary. As someone who considers himself a radical, I find that insulting to say the least. Being a democrat, a centrist and or conservative democrat is not revolutionary or radical in the least.
Obama is just like clinton. He doesnt have a radical bone in his body.
so that is her opinion. she deserves to be bashed for her opinion but you deserve to be spared bashing for yours???? interesting... i do not have a problem with what she said. have you walked in her shoes? absolutely not. neither have i and i can understand her point. if you can't understand why she would feel that way then you have your head in the sand.
Um let's see
1. She grew up in what she described as a conventional home, Her mom was a stay at home mom
2. She attended Whitney Young Chicago's first magnet high school and was enrolled in gifted classes
3. Member of the national honors society
4. Princeton Grad 1985 and then Harvard Law in 1988
I could keep going but I think you get my point. She has not had a hard life by any means. And you said you can understand her point yet you have not walked in her shoes :?
I don't know about pride in her country, but she certainly honors your language, unlike you.
um....bfd....
well than you have no clue what it means to be an actual conservative. Not a Repukelikin. Your party does nothing but hurt the lower class by convincing them that it's a good thing to rely on the gov. let gov take care of you. :roll:
i'd rather a government that takes care of me (which is what i pay taxes for) than a government that turns a blind eye while the wealthy and powerful rape and exploit those lower classes. dependence is better than oppression.
neither do i. but if i'm starving and homeless, i'd not say no to a food stamp.
are you saying we should return to the days when the titans of industry could hire small children to work in dangerous factories for long hours with no protection and then toss them out if they got crippled? becos, i mean, the government should never be able to tell that factory owner how he should live his life or run his factory... right? if he wants to hire a 12 year old boy to climb into small, unstable mine shafts, that's his business... right?
You need to either correct this statement or provide some sort of proof.
23 Trillion Dollars is a LOT... considering the United States' GDP for 3rd Qtr, 2009 was 14 Trillion Dollars.
I am pretty sure the bailout (including taking on the responsibiliy of the Toxic assets) was $700 Billion.
Hail, Hail!!!
good point...
Murder, rape and stealing for all....f the guberment....
Let's move to Somalia...No gov't, no problems....
seems ironic though how SO MANY people wanted Obama for president knowing full well what his plans were, yet SO MANY turned on him within this first year. It doesn't seem to me like he has strayed too much from his original plans. Everybody knew it was going to take money for everything he preached about. I don't pay attention to everything that has gone on in his first year, but it just seems very strange to me how so many people could turn on him so quickly. I didn't vote. I wasn't sure what to make of all the chaos this time around. I just sat back and watched everyone become hypocrits for turning on a president that THEY wanted so badly. It really doesn't make any sense at all.
thank you for the refresher course, but i was referring to crazy mary not being a black woman in america. she is a big girl and does not need a perfectleft to speak for her. i can see michelle's point because i studied sociology some in grad school and i have the ability to read articles and books and interviews and study context and empathize with people, which is a skill that most conservatives are sorely lacking.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
why don't you please educate the rest of us what it is like to be an "actual conservative", because as it is there is none out there, and if there were they would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, let alone passing sweeping reform with a democratic congress. it is a moot argument. this whole thread is a moot argument because it is all hypothetical and can not be proven.
you party does nothing but hurt the lower class because you would ignore them and let them starve while you let the market that is free falling sort itself out. a true conservative would let these people starve and say "they should have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and made something of themselves instead of sponging off the system" when you know that the only way to escape squalor is to win the lottery or lead a life of crime and end up in jail, which is a better option than dying of exposure and hungry with no home.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i have no problem with government.
if you want a government-free utopia i can recommend the hills on the pakistan-afghanistan border. see how long you will like living without any government there. i would say less than a week.
or here is an idea, why don't you run for office then you can tell others how to run their lives.....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
haha yeah, everything he said related to "aboietion" and "babbies" and smashmouth lol.....those were the days back then...
i miss that dude...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
#1 Socialism and Marxism would noted as out-dated concepts, but not completely wrong either.
#2 The government would be spending less and doing more.
#3 Unemployment and underemployment would be less, because spending money on public works projects improves the economy for all. Also, all of our bridges and roads and shit wouldn't be crumbling.
#4 We wouldn't have a first lady, because the dude is some kind of asexual freak and a political monk. Exactly who we want as President.
we would have...
#5 A commander in chief that knows that there is no current need for war (and I doubt 9/11 would have even happened, because our foreign policy would have drastically changed, thus giving pyscho muslims nothing to be psycho about).
#6 Radical czars running the white house.
#7 Non-partisan gov't.
#8 A treasurer that has paid his taxes.
#9 A monetary system that is under control.
#10 A policy of weaning ourselves off oil.
I don't know who the other guy considers to be a Conservative, but I'll tell you who I know to be actual Conservatives. See: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and Adam Kokesh, who will run and WIN their seats in 2010. Ron Paul would be the only incumbent. I hope Judge Andrew Napolitano runs for office as well. These guys best fit the classical, original gangsta definition of "Conservative." Listen to these people, and tell me how, under their system of governance (yes, actual government-- but limited... All rules that protect one's life, liberty, and property, are the only rules that need apply) leaves out the poor and disenfranchised? The little guy always is given the fighting chance to make whatever he wants of himself, because the playing fied is leveled across the board. The big guys are not rewarded when they become so big that they cannot manage themselves effectively, or treat their employees like shit. Yes, believe it or not unions are permissible, and even encouraged in the Free Market,--under a system where the government can't legislate against workers at the behest of their bosses, because such laws infringe on the private property--the wages of the employee, or his life or liberty. In this system the workers realize the power THEY HAVE is equal to that of their employer. Unions and non-unions alike keep each other honest by choosing or not choosing to compete against each other. These ideas are basically natural law-- if we had to all start at square 1 again, this is exactly how it would begin... Everyone would scramble, find the best item to trade, or hone their best craft, and things would be in motion-- wouldn't you take care of your own familly and friends the best you could if you were doing a little beter than them? Wouldn't everyone? All this system does is require people to at least TRY to pull their weight. Everyone knows someone who's TRYING and struggling. Isn't it easier to lend the helping hand to someone who is making an attempt to help themselves? Who would get behind in that world except the people who were just so obstinate that they can't make a baby step towards pitching in? If you got to keep more of what you earn, you'd have more to give VOLUNTARILY, out of compassion and necessity. Imagine charitable organizations doing their absolute best to help people, and thus convince people to donate more to help more people?
This is how The Market provides solutions. It's so free, that it seems like a wild concept. It is. We've been trained to distrust Freedom. Brought to you by the people who told you that you had to give up freedom to be free. What sense does that make? Government is there to protect our rights through a central government with 3-branches each with VERY specific purposes that all check each other. States run things the way they want through the 10th amendment, meaning that if it isn't a power already dedicated to the Federal Government, it belongs to the states. These states could, if they chose to, delegate greater powers on down through the counties and cities. Believe it or not, a true conservative would even be in favor of a completely socialistic commune if 100% of the people who lived their voluntarily waved all of their property rights, and govern only themselves. What they have no right to, is the town next to them or anywhere else. These are the very clear, distinct lines that Conservatives draw that are consistent with the Natural World and The Market. It's The Market that will be there even when you or I won't be. Our interference with The Market is why we're always unaware of what crisis is going to hit us next. There are always unintended consequences when that necessary small amount of government decides it needs to be MORE NECESSARY in determining how IT THINKS the market should operate. And if some outside party or business tries to influence that power, because it can make that power THINK like them... Boom. It's corrupt. Hence, keep it small, and unattractive and ineffective if it gets co-opted by special interests. When companies aim to corrupt it, charge them and the government officials who allow it with FRAUD. It's one of the few "regulations" you need.
Here's something that might surprise you: Same-sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue if the guys I mentioned above had their way... Marriage in general would not be performed, or regulated by the state-- what right does the government have to define personal relationships and give benefits for simply having them? Especially when it's unequal? And to actually have to pay the state for PERMISSION THROUGH LICENSURE to do it? Personal freedom allows us to choose whoever we want to be with so long as both individuals are consenting. Married couples wouldn't get any more special benefits than anyone else through the state. No one would get special benefits from the state ever, actually, and they probably wouldn't be necessary. There would be no Income Tax advantages to be lost by not being married because there would be no Income Tax. Your money would also always be worth SOMETHING, because it would BE SOMETHING, or at least closely tied to it, and you would have actual choices as to what that money would be. Eventually, one currency will probably become more dominant than the others, thus earning itself its place as a standard, but others would still provide decent competition for it.
You may agree with none of this. And I think it's sad if people can't agree with at least part of what ACTUAL Conservatives stand for. I'll tell you that we believe in much of what the "socially-liberal" stand for, and that the best way to get social justice, you have to strictly adhere to the Constitution's provisions that protect everyone's rights. When it was written, sadly, it may have only meant 'White Men' to the authors, but framers did not even take the time to actually word it that way. Could they have? Sure. But they didn't. Thus the laws written hundreds of years ago say what everybody needs them to say. You are all equal. Real Conservatives try to maintain this natural law. And yes, this would even apply to TURRRRRORRR suspects. They are still entitled to a free trial and equal treatment under the law.If nothing else, at least you know the standard that you can hold them to. Their beliefs and mission are very clear-cut, and therefore it is easy to judge them on how hard they are trying to deliver. They promise to re-recognize what is already written, and should not be over-written by 1,200 page bills that enslave us without even being able to be read until after the votes pass. So next time someone claims to be a Conservative, you have to wonder if they believe in any of what I wrote above. It's just another label that's lost its meaning.
this is where the conservative pipe dream comes crashing down though... we DON'T all start at square one, and the free market never protects that. to do so, you would have to take a 100% tax on inheritances, otherwise you will always have those with more and those with less. there is never a level playing field in any real sense, only in the abstract and meaningless theorietical sense. i am as FREE as my neighbor to buy a gulfstream jet, but there is no way i am as able as warren buffet. every american might be FREE to better themselves through education, but that's not true in any practical sense when one kid grows up in a ghetto with a crack-addicted mother and has to care for little brothers, work all through high school, and hope to get enough loans to cover the degree, on top of the disadvantage of failed schools due to wealth distribution. that kid is NEVER on a level playing field with the kid whose dad is a billionaire, went to the best schools, had private tutors, the luxury of volunteering to pad the resume, and never had to worry about taking on any loans or debt. there is no square one in the real world, and there is no level playing field. you can talk about fairness and freedom in the abstract, but they simply don't apply to real life.
I agree. Nothing short of a worldwide flood of Biblical proportions would ever set things back to square 1. Or, if you took everyone on this planet, and transported them to Earth #2, ass naked, and spread out randomly throughout the globe, this is exactly how things would function. I realize the pipe-dream aspect of it all, and so does everyone who believes in it.
However, leveling the playing field NOW might not bring about the equality we'd all like to see in our lifetimes, but it would get the ball rolling. There is always transition. The whole world could and would start with the uncompassionate rich ruling ruthlessly, but would approach (but probably never quite reach) true freedom for all. Does it mean we shouldn't try?
Warren Buffet should be FREE to lose his fortune, and if he made certain mistakes, he should. The crackhead's kid, with help from the government or not, has to make the conscious choice himself to try and escape the bad cards he's been dealt.
My question is, what better standard is there to rule by than these principles? Isn't it very easy to hold everyone accountable, and protect everyone equally when the laws are kept simple, close to nature, and well-defined?
i dont think it would. levelling the playing field now would simply entrench the elite beyond anyone's power to challenge them. the second somebody gained an edge, they'd be arranging things to benefit themselves. the level playing field would be gone. we've seen it recently in the way banks got all the old depression-era protections phased out, which led to our economic collapse. it's like animal farm... the second someone gains an upper hand, they're going to use it to protect their superior position. we could all start from square one tomorrow and within 10 years we'd be right back where we are now. it's human nature. the only possible defense is a system that caps the ceiling and attempts to raise the floor, which by its nature demands some sort of socialist wealth redistribution.
the idea that all humans want to be free is a fallacy and you can see it every day around you. the rugged individualist americans love to worship does not exist. we're monkeys. we don't want freedom, we want a good silverback to tell us what to do. why do you think we get so heated about our religions or our political parties? we're looking for a troop and someone to follow. most people do not want to think, they do not want to help out their neighbors. they want to feel like they're part of something bigger with a minimum of effort.
What can I say, SS? I prefer a system where those of us who choose to be free can be free, and those who actually like being monkeys can have it their way as well. What I am calling independence, you are calling individualism. There are definitely differences there. Hey, you see it your way, I see it mine.
the trouble is defining freedom. i find the tea party folks have only one thing in mind when they hear it and that's green.... hands off my money! you can regulate what i put in my body (drugs), what i take out (abortion), what i learn in school (creationism and abstinence only), what religion is acceptable (10 commandments in court) and any other personal lifestyle choices you wish... just don't touch my fucking bank account.
well to me, freedom is a helluva lot more than my income. it means i'll pay my fair share for the good of us all, and you keep your fucking lifestyle choices out of my legal code.
i know you're not a believer in this sort of thing, but the sad fact is the movement you're aligned with is. and they've fucked us far too much already for me to be willing to give them anything approaching a chance again.