If McCain won the election........

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

norm wrote:

once again the voice of reason and his name is vinna goomba...well said my friend

Thanks, Norm.

soulsinging wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

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?

soulsinging wrote:

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.

soulsinging wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

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.

soulsinging wrote:

i think they're being led around by the nose by people like beck and hannity. maybe they hijacked a legit movement, but that's all the more reason for the original movement to distance itself from these people that are hurting its credibility.

I'm on the fence about this, and am watching it closely for this reason. I will admit, that I had that awful feeling in my gut the second I saw the "conservative" talking heads championing these events. It's like when Jon Stewart said to Ron Paul, and I paraphrase, "Don't you feel like that cool indie band that pioneered a whole different sound, but never sold lots of records, only to see someone rip off your style and reap all of the rewards?" referring to the tea parties.

I think the whole tea party movement has been a wake up call for a lot of people, including some members of my family who LOVED Bush, but are now realizing that you can't blame Obama SOLELY for almost anything-- the precedent was set by his predecessors, W. being the worst. That is exactly my litmus test for people I talk to that rail against Obama. If they cannot acknowledge the wrongdoings of the last administration, they have no credibility in my eyes. Some change their minds, others don't.

Some tea parties have barred elected officials who actively contributed to this country's problems from speaking at the events. +1 for the people! Others are puppets.

Maybe I'm just optimistic? Probably about as optimistic as most Obama supporters... SO HEY MAN, GIVE THE TEA PARTY PROTESTS SOME TIME! WE'VE ONLY BEEN AT THIS FOR 10 MONTHS! Change doesn't come overnight!

soulsinging wrote:

it truly felt like the cheney/rove contingent sat the last election out figuring mccain was a lost cause in that he was unelectable and not really a neo con anyway and instead spent their time plotting this... a fabricated grass roots movement aimed solely at smearing obama to set up someone for a run in 2012. much as i'd love to see the republicans run a moderate or libertarian style candidate, i think their next choice will be someone like palin... a clear religious ideologue just itching to resurrect the neo con agenda.

For reasons like this, I really wish just ONE third party could get their shit together. Historically speaking, these have NOT been the only 2 parties that have had legitimate power in our country. Maybe it's time for another one or two to rise, and maybe it is actually possible? You never know until you try. I don't feel like anyone is trying, but we're running out of options.

mca47 wrote:

mb262200 wrote:

there not questions.....they're opinions, and pretty knowing opinions at that. I'll admit, McCain was for stimulus but not nearly as much because he didn't want any pork in his plan, and maybe the oil thing is questionable because of the high sulphur content makes it very expensive to refine....but other than that, it's pretty acurate.

Whoa!
Psychosinlove, is that you?!?!?!


Hey guys, remember psychosinlove from the old boards? Same kinda guy!
Spelling is slightly better though...

We had a psychos chat in the "At What Point..." thread

miss that guy

Watching from the North this is what I see:

1. 8 terrible years under a horrible, horrible president.
2. The population finally speaks up and decides to try something different
3. The losers of the Election bitch and complain because they lost
4. When you try to argue with them, their only counterpoint.......ever........is "liberal Media"

Jesus Christ.....you dug yourself into the mess and the majority of you chose to hire someone you thought would help you dig your way out. Let him do the job he was hired to do.