What if the election came down to...

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

The bedrock of Liberalism! Trot out a Hitler reference and say that conservatives want to bring us back to the stoneages - then you can get whatever "progressive" change you want!

It's not that simple, friend. Americans are conservatives, by and large, and they respect the tenets of the constitution.

If anything, the nanny state that liberals support is more similar to the totalitarian actions of Hitler.

Just because most Germans circa 1940 were Nazis doesn't mean doesn't mean change wasn't for the better. Likewise, just because most Americans are conservatives doesn't make it right. And no, I'm not comparing conservatives to Nazis (except for the irritatingly righteous right-wing tendencies), it's just an example. Sorry to extend the Hitler reference - important characters in history are there to put behind us and not learn from, right?

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Just because most Germans circa 1940 were Nazis doesn't mean doesn't mean change wasn't for the better. Likewise, just because most Americans are conservatives doesn't make it right. And no, I'm not comparing conservatives to Nazis (except for the irritatingly righteous right-wing tendencies), it's just an example. Sorry to extend the Hitler reference - important characters in history are there to put behind us and not learn from, right?

Certainly! Learning from history is incredibly important.

What have american democrats learned from the Great Society programs? Not much. They passed them in the 70s and they never fixed the problem. Whoops!

Liberals don't bother to look at the past to make decisions about government. They use the trial-and-error approach. Oops! Great Society didn't work! Time to try more spending! Oops! It's not helping minorities enough! Time to tax the rich more! Oops! We need to abort more babies!...and on and on and on.

Yes, it would be nice if politicians used history as a guide, but the only politicians that do that are conservatives. Newt Ginrich, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul...these men frequently quote historical figures when they make arguments for change. Yes, they want change too, but the mark of a conservative is that he wants simple and rational change - not the kneejerk impulsive change of liberal nincompoops.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

Yes, it would be nice if politicians used history as a guide, but the only politicians that do that are conservatives. Newt Ginrich, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul...these men frequently quote historical figures when they make arguments for change. Yes, they want change too, but the mark of a conservative is that he wants simple and rational change - not the kneejerk impulsive change of liberal nincompoops.

Way to paint all liberals with one brush. So what, liberals are socialist nincompoops who never learn from history, and are bent on destroying America?

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

So what, liberals are socialist nincompoops who never learn from history, and are bent on destroying America?

If they learned from history then they would know that socialism has failed whenever it has been practiced. This is fact.

...they aren't bent on destroying America, per se. They're more interested in hastening the suicide...

Kann

CorporateWhore wrote:

If they learned from history then they would know that socialism has failed whenever it has been practiced. This is fact.

...they aren't bent on destroying America, per se. They're more interested in hastening the suicide...

First of all american liberals are not socialist, by far.
Second of all socialism hasn't been practised correctly anywhere, but even if it had what is the criteria for success? If it's economical power, China isn't really doing so bad.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

If they learned from history then they would know that socialism has failed whenever it has been practiced. This is fact.

...they aren't bent on destroying America, per se. They're more interested in hastening the suicide...

I still fail to see how being a liberal automatically equates to wanting a socialist government. Socialized health care and improvements in public schools isn't exactly a death knell for capitalism. It's just people taking care of people.

Y'know - humanism.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I still fail to see how being a liberal automatically equates to wanting a socialist government. Socialized health care and improvements in public schools isn't exactly a death knell for capitalism. It's just people taking care of people.

Y'know - humanism.

WHO is taking care of people? An ever-present and corrupt government. I don't want the government stealing my rights so it can "take care of me," thank you.

CorporateWhore

Kann wrote:

First of all american liberals are not socialist, by far.
Second of all socialism hasn't been practised correctly anywhere, but even if it had what is the criteria for success? If it's economical power, China isn't really doing so bad.

American liberals are indeed socialist. Universal healthcare is just the beginning for them. They are well-versed in the teachings of Marx; namely, that one must first have capitalism before they can reach socialism.

mammasan

This one is a no brainer. I would vote Ron Paul. Actually you can put any other candidate up there against Paul and I would still vote Ron Paul.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

WHO is taking care of people? An ever-present and corrupt government. I don't want the government stealing my rights so it can "take care of me," thank you.

In case you hadn't noticed, liberals don't exactly advocate corruption.

Besides, corruption in the government is to some extent a separate issue. The fact that your government is corrupt needs to be fixed one way or another. It doesn't make socialized health care a bad idea.

LoveRock333

CorporateWhore wrote:

The bedrock of Liberalism! Trot out a Hitler reference and say that conservatives want to bring us back to the stoneages - then you can get whatever "progressive" change you want!

It's not that simple, friend. Americans are conservatives, by and large, and they respect the tenets of the constitution.

If anything, the nanny state that liberals support is more similar to the totalitarian actions of Hitler.

At least liberals acknowkedge problems, even if their solutions are either entirely inadequate or extremely thoughtless.

I "Trot out Hitler" because it's a good example of what lack of change does. At first he changed things, creating employment and roads and rebuilding Germany, he was a great leader.

Then he went to war and started persecuting everyone who was different (not relevant to my point) but during the war he didn't change tactics, he kept blitzkreiging until his forces were stretched too thin and he couldn't fight.

Republicans/Conservative ideology is similar in that they halfway acknowledge a situation, patch it up a little and continue ignoring the real issues. Look at climate change, they fix up New Orleans and little, but do nothing to prevent it from happening again.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed, liberals don't exactly advocate corruption.

Besides, corruption in the government is to some extent a separate issue. The fact that your government is corrupt needs to be fixed one way or another. It doesn't make socialized health care a bad idea.

Ahh don't you see? The more money you give someone, the more corrupt they are capable of being. The difference is: you trust the government with your money. I don't. I think that the more funding the government has, the more powerful it is.

Liberals might not advocate corruption, but no one does. They advocate funding a corrupt government after many indications of corruption. Why? They just love to give second chances that's all!

CorporateWhore

LoveRock333 wrote:

Look at climate change, they fix up New Orleans and little, but do nothing to prevent it from happening again.

This is where we disagree. You think it's the government's job to get those people out of New Orleans or to fix the levies. I think if the people want to live there, then they sure as hell better fix their own levies. Otherwise, they should move the hell out of there. There is no need for government to come in and "help." The people can fix the situation nicely on their own.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

Ahh don't you see? The more money you give someone, the more corrupt they are capable of being. The difference is: you trust the government with your money. I don't. I think that the more funding the government has, the more powerful it is.

Liberals might not advocate corruption, but no one does. They advocate funding a corrupt government after many indications of corruption. Why? They just love to give second chances that's all!

No no... We advocate funding a government... The corruption comes as standard, but we don't necessarily need it.

LoveRock333

CorporateWhore wrote:

This is where we disagree. You think it's the government's job to get those people out of New Orleans or to fix the levies. I think if the people want to live there, then they sure as hell better fix their own levies. Otherwise, they should move the hell out of there. There is no need for government to come in and "help." The people can fix the situation nicely on their own.

The government has a duty to it's people. That's the whole point of democracy. We elect them to fix the problems on a national scale. They should try to allocate resources as best they can.

You come across very selfish, not wanting to help your fellow man. Where are your ethics? Where are your morals?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

CorporateWhore

LoveRock333 wrote:

The government has a duty to it's people. That's the whole point of democracy. We elect them to fix the problems on a national scale. They should try to allocate resources as best they can.

You come across very selfish, not wanting to help your fellow man. Where are your ethics? Where are your morals?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Why do they have to fix our problems on a national scale? Why not on a state scale?

Will they more efficiently allocate resources if its national? False. They cannot. Any good corporation delineates responsibility in brackets to the lowest man on the todem pole.

I'm selfish of my rights, yes. I want to keep them for me.

LoveRock333

Yo, Corporate whore, sometimes you have to stop being a good republican and start being a good person.

Firstly: The government should only allow public state-run schools its fair and balanced, no bias and certainly none of that creationism crap.

Secondly: No tax breaks for the really rich or any "religious" organization.

Thirdly: Cancel all world debt. Do away with any taxes that may exist on non-governmental organizations. Ban all non-fair trade goods.

Fourthly: Limit ability to purchase firearms

That's all I've got for now. But wait and see for more.

mammasan

LoveRock333 wrote:

Yo, Corporate whore, sometimes you have to stop being a good republican and start being a good person.

Firstly: The government should only allow public state-run schools its fair and balanced, no bias and certainly none of that creationism crap.

Secondly: No tax breaks for the really rich or any "religious" organization.

Thirdly: Cancel all world debt. Do away with any taxes that may exist on non-governmental organizations. Ban all non-fair trade goods.

Fourthly: Limit ability to purchase firearms

That's all I've got for now. But wait and see for more.

not to be picky but corporatewhores political views are not that of a Republican but that of a Libertarian. By advocating the protection of individual rights does not equate to that person being selfish or not having any concern for their fellow man.

I would love to see every man, woman, and child in this country with healthcare coverage, but I would fight tooth and nail to make sure that it was not in the hands of our government. I am more than willing to aid my less fortunate neighbors but it should be by choice and not forced upon me by taking it from my paycheck and managed by a corrupt inept over bloated bureacracy known as the US federal government.

CorporateWhore

LoveRock333 wrote:

Yo, Corporate whore, sometimes you have to stop being a good republican and start being a good person.

Firstly: The government should only allow public state-run schools its fair and balanced, no bias and certainly none of that creationism crap.

Secondly: No tax breaks for the really rich or any "religious" organization.

Thirdly: Cancel all world debt. Do away with any taxes that may exist on non-governmental organizations. Ban all non-fair trade goods.

Fourthly: Limit ability to purchase firearms

That's all I've got for now. But wait and see for more.

LOL! I'll be sure to wait for some more garbage!! While I wait, I'm going to clean and polish my handgun, thanks.

LoveRock333

CorporateWhore wrote:

LOL! I'll be sure to wait for some more garbage!! While I wait, I'm going to clean and polish my handgun, thanks.

Sure, go polish the gun that does not need to be fired.

I thought Christians were non violent?

Guess I was wrong.