NationStates Jolt Archive

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler’s mission. Yet Clinton wasn’t concerned with Arafat’s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who negotiated peace in the Middle East”. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we’ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers. Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

Liberals fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re liberals? Only the kook fringe ideologues like Howard Dean have the courage to. The average leftist will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their liberalism. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?

Don't even attempt to make me post Republican "thoughts" if you can even call them that.

What the hell is everyone's problem with Jews!? Not all of us are the racist nuts in Israel! What the heck is wrong with you!? Is it becuase thousands of us were murdered? Is it becuase there are so few of us left that you need someone to screw over? Is it becuase one bad group in Israel that you need to hate EVERY SINGLE Jew? Why the hell does everyone hate Jews dammit!?

What the hell is everyone's problem with Jews!? Not all of us are the racist nuts in Israel! What the heck is wrong with you!? Is it becuase thousands of us were murdered? Is it becuase there are so few of us left that you need someone to screw over? Is it becuase one bad group in Israel that you need to hate EVERY SINGLE Jew? Why the hell does everyone hate Jews dammit!?

Why the hell does anyone hate anyone else based on the actions of a few?

Why the hell does anyone hate anyone else based on the actions of a few?
Exactly. Nazis in Germany killed thousands of Jews and other innocent people, and I don't hate the Germans.

how is everything you stated different from conservative tactics? In a general way, I see conservatives doing everything you claim liberals doing.

I also like how conservatives have completely destroyed the word "liberal" which means "open-minded" and "welcome to change" whereas "conservative" means "close-minded" or "stubborn" or "asshole-ish," okay the latter was opinion, but what's the difference between fact and opinion on, say, FOX News? Conservatives as well as some liberals, view fact and opinion to be interchangable.

Everything you just said can just as easily be applied to conservative thinking. If you want examples, in the words of your fearless leader, "bring 'em on."

What the hell is everyone's problem with Jews!? Not all of us are the racist nuts in Israel! What the heck is wrong with you!? Is it becuase thousands of us were murdered? Is it becuase there are so few of us left that you need someone to screw over? Is it becuase one bad group in Israel that you need to hate EVERY SINGLE Jew? Why the hell does everyone hate Jews dammit!?

I have no problem with jews. It's conservatives who stand up for Israel and who shape policies that support it both politically and materially. It's the LEFT who uses the people of Abraham as scapegoats. It's the american LEFT that uses terms like neocon. Recognize who your true allies and enemies are. I can assure you Robert Byrd won't be welcoming you into his home.

I have no problem with jews. It's conservatives who stand up for Israel and who shape policies that support it both politically and materially. It's the LEFT who uses the people of Abraham as scapegoats. It's the american LEFT that uses terms like neocon. Recognize who your true allies and enemies are. I can assure you Robert Byrd won't be welcoming you into his home.

Last time I checked conservative politics is highly influenced by ignorant and blind hatred towards race, sexual orientation, and religion.

Ooh good, let's generalize about the psychology of "liberals." Whatever the fuck they are. While we're at it, let's imply all libertarians are these 'liberals' just joining a new party for the fad of it. And hey, let's make sure to play the Jew card so no one can disagree with you without sounding like a nazi! Good work!

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you?re experienced in handling them I?d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn?t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the ?thug culture? of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America?s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler?s mission. Yet Clinton wasn?t concerned with Arafat?s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the ?President who negotiated peace in the Middle East?. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we?ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam?s coffers. Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

Liberals fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they?re liberals? Only the kook fringe ideologues like Howard Dean have the courage to. The average leftist will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their liberalism. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don?t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they?ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.

Then there?s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can?t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who?s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?

As much as I'm loathe to admit I agree with a healthy percentage of this, you really have to be careful when you start in with rhetoric: the problem with liberalism isn't so much any of these problems, it's that they tend to think the best solution to any given problem in society is the most obvious one, or the solution that presents itself most easily.

Many of the boldface headings you invoke are indicative trends of everyone in politics, not just liberals. You need to be every bit as critical of your own party as you are of your rivals. Sometimes even moreso.

Ooh good, let's generalize about the psychology of "liberals." Whatever the fuck they are. While we're at it, let's imply all libertarians are these 'liberals' just joining a new party for the fad of it. And hey, let's make sure to play the Jew card so no one can disagree with you without sounding like a nazi! Good work!
Aren't politcs and religion fun?

Could you have please written this topic in a less condescending and generally ignorant manner of speaking? 'Problems with liberal ideology' probably would have been OK.

Fine, you suckered me into answering your arguments:

1. Your historical analysis is laughable. Social Security has not caused people to become "dependent" on the government. It allows people to spend more before they retire, stimulating investment in the economy. It also allows people to rest assured that their entire lives won't be destroyed if the stock market collapses again. Indeed, many economists believe the Depression could have been avoided if a Social Security system had pumped more money into the economy. Welfare has not caused the "dissolution" of families. It allowed those who couldn't survive otherwise to do so. There's no conclusive evidence pointing to the welfare system as a result of deaths of black males in urban communities. Many happen to blame racist police organizations. Others blame the lack of money to pay for adequate health care and sanitation, which Welfare helps fix. Finally, environmental regulation has on-balance improved the quality of the environment. Complete supression of forest fires was a scientific failure, not one inherent in the liberal idea of preventing environmental destruction. Corporate exploitation is probably worse, anyway.

2. Not a fact. Free trade is in fact considered to be a conservative economic belief in the United States. "Liberals" are supposed to be protectionist. This phenomenon you refer to is called "argument." People find facts to support their position. It's your duty to prove those facts wrong. Conservatives also happen to be worse than liberals on this one. They decry Bill and Monica, but when Bush misleads the public about WMD or DeLay commits criminal actions, ethics don't become much of a concern.

3. False. Liberals just think that there are other measures than killing people that can support national security. You know, like diplomacy. While Arafat was a horrible man, negotiating with the PA is probably good. I'd like to see the source on your later assertions. I don't think there's a shred of credible evidence that Clinton is more responsible for September 11th than Bush is.

4. This is a JOKE. Conservatives call an act banning certain types of marriage the "Defense of Marriage" act. They call eliminating social security "reform." They call obscene tax cuts "simplification." Give me a break on this one.

Most liberals are proud to identify as such.

Additionally, the "association" argument is ridiculous. Because Hitler thought economic growth, is everyone who thinks economic growth a Nazi. Because I think the war has been handled poorly, and a terrorist thinks the same thing, do I agree with the terrorist? No, I don't. By the way, do you really like to associate with Jerry "The Jews and Gays caused September 11th" Fallwell?

Economic Growth is good. It's how Hitler went about trying to achieve that was bad. Who's Jerry Fallwell?

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.
This is the only line from that whole rant that I can actually agree with.

Economic Growth is good. It's how Hitler went about trying to achieve that was bad. Who's Jerry Fallwell?
I was making fun of his argument. He says some people who are against the war hate Jews, so everyone who's against the war hates Jews. That's a really dumb argument. Above is why, through my analogy.

Jerry Fallwell is a fundamentalist Christian preacher who blames all the world's problems on religious and sexual groups different from himself. He's also not very, well, smart. A powerful rhetorician, and a clever publicist, but not intelligent in the traditional sense.

This is the only line from that whole rant that I can actually agree with.
So do conservatives.

"Democracy in the Middle East is a great idea. So the war's going great!"

It seems that this is somewhat more of a rant against politics in general, rather than a real criticism of liberals...

I have no problem with jews. It's conservatives who stand up for Israel and who shape policies that support it both politically and materially. It's the LEFT who uses the people of Abraham as scapegoats. It's the american LEFT that uses terms like neocon. Recognize who your true allies and enemies are. I can assure you Robert Byrd won't be welcoming you into his home.
..and it's the american RIGHT that uses terms like liberals as an insult. It's also conservatives who don't give a shit about other people's religion because by blindly supporting Israel, you attack Muslims. Gee, I wonder why they hate us?

I was making fun of his argument. He says some people who are against the war hate Jews, so everyone who's against the war hates Jews. That's a really dumb argument. Above is why, through my analogy.

Jerry Fallwell is a fundamentalist Christian preacher who blames all the world's problems on religious and sexual groups different from himself. He's also not very, well, smart. A powerful rhetorician, and a clever publicist, but not intelligent in the traditional sense.
Hey we learned about that in math. Was called proofsl. Like, statement: Many pans are made of copper Summary: All pans are made of copper, Statement to prove false: My mom has an iron pan or somethin like that.

Jerry Fallwell sounds like an idiot.

Hey we learned about that in math. Was called proofsl. Like, statement: Many pans are made of copper Summary: All pans are made of copper, Statement to prove false: My mom has an iron pan or somethin like that.

Jerry Fallwell sounds like an idiot.
Exactly.

..and it's the american RIGHT that uses terms like liberals as an insult. It's also conservatives who don't give a shit about other people's religion because by blindly supporting Israel, you attack Muslims. Gee, I wonder why they hate us?
They crazy. I hang out with a Muslim guy at school, pretty cool guy. Did you know that if all the Muslims grouped together, they would be the largest religion of all?

Last time I checked

Then you need to check your sources. CBS is not your friend.

If you want examples, in the words of your fearless leader, "bring 'em on."

That has NO relation to any of the points I made.

you really have to be careful when you start in with rhetoric:.... Sometimes even moreso.

I realize you're doing your job as a mod here, keeping things from blowing up or language getting out of hand. I realize something I said could do just that but these are the things I thoroughly believe. Calling a spade a spade can be rough sometimes, but I'm not here to coddle or keep feelings from being hurt. I confront these things head on. Keeping in mind that I don’t own this forum though I’ll attempt to keep a watch out for anything too inflammatory on my part. Besides, look at the visceral expletive ridden ad hominem responses. None of them attempt to discredit what I’ve said with facts of their own. All they can do is give an ideological equivalency of “O ya?!? Well you’re stupid!”

We do police our own on the right, it’s just that no one notices. They’re so busy attacking constantly that when we correct one of our own they see it as “us finally seeing it their way”.

Well, if you're defining a successful program as one that does a great deal of good for a great number of people, then you'd be hard-pressed to find more successful programs than either Social Security or Medicare. You can throw the Veteran's Administration in there as well, except for the last couple of years--not because they've suddenly become incompetent or anything, but because they've become overworked and underfunded thanks to the Republican war and subsequent lack of funding.

If however, you define a successful program as one that enriches the top one percent of the population at the expense of the rest, then you're correct--Social Security and Medicare are indeed dismal failures.

Me, I'll take the first definition of success, but then again, I'm a liberal and proud of it.

P.S. If you have a job and it's not life-threatening because of negligence on the part of the employer, if you get paid for overtime, if you don't have to live in a company town and work for slave wages, thank the liberals. A lot of them died securing the benefits you currently take for granted.

I realize you're doing your job as a mod here, keeping things from blowing up or language getting out of hand. I realize something I said could do just that but these are the things I thoroughly believe. Calling a spade a spade can be rough sometimes, but I'm not here to coddle or keep feelings from being hurt. I confront these things head on. Keeping in mind that I don’t own this forum though I’ll attempt to keep a watch out for anything too inflammatory on my part. Besides, look at the visceral expletive ridden ad hominem responses. None of them attempt to discredit what I’ve said with facts of their own. All they can do is give an ideological equivalency of “O ya?!? Well you’re stupid!”

We do police our own on the right, it’s just that no one notices. They’re so busy attacking constantly that when we correct one of our own they see it as “us finally seeing it their way”.
*Notices Fox's foot in mouth*
Did you read this thread?

That has NO relation to any of the points I made.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what you said. Maybe you should put it back in context where it belongs.

What I think Conservitives are thinking is supporting a war that our nations President did not get a chance to declare, turing America into a anarchy by passing harsh laws, geting fat at McDonalds like a typical Republican would, and being a red neck. In fact I think America would be better off without Conservitives corrupting Democracy.

What I think Conservitives are thinking is supporting a war that our nations President did not get a chance to declare, turing America into a anarchy by passing harsh laws, geting fat at McDonalds like a typical Republican would, and being a red neck. In fact I think America would be better off without Conservitives corrupting Democracy.
You're even more incoherent than the initial poster.

What I think Conservitives are thinking is supporting a war that our nations President did not get a chance to declare, turing America into a anarchy by passing harsh laws, geting fat at McDonalds like a typical Republican would, and being a red neck. In fact I think America would be better off without Conservitives corrupting Democracy.
A world without conservatives is best described in Imagine:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

sounds peaceful huh?
You're even more incoherent than the initial poster.
...but he's more coherent than the President

A world without conservatives is best described in Imagine:
*snip
Who sung that again? I hope I'm not embarassing myself, but was it Bob Dylan?

I realize you're doing your job as a mod here, keeping things from blowing up or language getting out of hand. I realize something I said could do just that but these are the things I thoroughly believe. Calling a spade a spade can be rough sometimes, but I'm not here to coddle or keep feelings from being hurt. I confront these things head on. Keeping in mind that I don?t own this forum though I?ll attempt to keep a watch out for anything too inflammatory on my part. Besides, look at the visceral expletive ridden ad hominem responses. None of them attempt to discredit what I?ve said with facts of their own. All they can do is give an ideological equivalency of ?O ya?!? Well you?re stupid!?

We do police our own on the right, it?s just that no one notices. They?re so busy attacking constantly that when we correct one of our own they see it as ?us finally seeing it their way?.

Uh, my statements here have nothing to do with my being a Moderator. If I make an "official edict" or warn someone for something in some other thread, you'll know it.

But, as a point of fact, your suppositions here don't amount to much more than "O ya?!? Well you?re stupid!" in an ideological sense either. As I said before, most of the traits you mentioned are present in nearly every politician on the planet.

...They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism. ...

*ahem* ok, now that I've complete my massive snippage of this travesty of a post, I shall now tell you why you have managed to do the amazing feat of blowing out your ass.

A Liberatarian is NOT a liberal (or a Liberal). They are very different political concepts, as well, liberals (not with a capital L, because here, the Liberals are a group of corrupt bastards), do identify themselfs as -gasp- liberals! Imagine that!

Oh, and no, I'm not either, I'm a socialist. Once again, there is a difference.

Why not google these keywords? You might be amazed at what you learn. But, I'm not going to encourage it. After all, you conservatives need to think in one line of thought like the good sheep you are. That's why you have FOX news and we have more enlightened media.

Who sung that again? I hope I'm not embarassing myself, but was it Bob Dylan?
John Lennon, A Perfect Circle did a creepy cover of it, but I like it.
Maybe you're thinking of "Blowin' in the wind" by Bob Dylan -- another liberal anti-war song.

sweet, my 100th post

A world without conservatives is best described in Imagine:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

sounds peaceful huh?



Peaceful? No. Grounded in reality? No. Sickeningly idealist? Yes.

That's not a world without conservatives, that's a world without self-respect.

John Lennon, A Perfect Circle did a creepy cover of it, but I like it.
Maybe you're thinking of "Blowin' in the wind" by Bob Dylan -- another liberal anti-war song.

sweet, my 100th post
My bad. I forgot.

Peaceful? No. Sickeningly idealist? Yes. Grounded in reality? No.

That's not a world without conservatives, that's a world without self-respect.

I respect your opinions, but I disagree. I also like how you give no argument, you just make blanket statments damaging to my arguement...typical.

Peaceful? No. Grounded in reality? No. Sickeningly idealist? Yes.

That's not a world without conservatives, that's a world without self-respect.
It's definately a peaceful world. Just, unfortunately, impossible.

Note the line: "Nothing to kill for."

I respect your opinions, but I disagree. I also like how you give no argument, you just make blanket statments damaging to my arguement...typical.

You want arguments, read the wiki article I link to in my sig. I don't offer you an enormous treatise on these ideas because I've done so already on this forum ad nauseum.

It is funny that more people are responding to the "If I had a Penis" forum than this one. :p

You want arguments, read the wiki article I link to in my sig. I don't offer you an enormous treatise on these ideas because I've done so already on this forum ad nauseum.
mmmmmmm wiki

In direct reference to the lyrics (Imagine) already posted.....

Dubya's thoughts on stuff and.....stuff.
"I also understand that many problems can be only solved by love. Many problems can only be solved when a decent citizen takes time out of their lives and says, how can I help you, brother? What can I do to make your life better?" (Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2004)

'Course, this was the same man who was, just over four months later, saying this:
"The short-term objective of this country is to find an enemy and bring them to justice before they strike us. The long-term objective is to make this world a more free and hopeful and peaceful place. I believe we'll succeed because freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world." (Portsmith, Ohio, 2004)

Separation of Church and State, my bum :rolleyes:

Though, I can't agree that Imagine is a world entirely free of Conservatives. Take me, for example....whether or not the rest of the libs want a religion, I'm gonna be saying my rosary in the privacy of my own house, and damn whatever they think, it's none of MY business. But then, upper-class liberal Catholics are so rare these days....

What I think Conservitives are thinking is supporting a war that our nations President did not get a chance to declare, turing America into a anarchy by passing harsh laws, geting fat at McDonalds like a typical Republican would, and being a red neck. In fact I think America would be better off without Conservitives corrupting Democracy.

War was declared on US when they hijacked 3 civilian airliners and used them to commit mass murder. Maybe you should keep such tirades about us corrupting democracy to yourself until you stop corrupting the English language.

They are very different political concepts

They were different, not anymore. The reason the libertarian party is being co opted is because you don't need satellite to see the collapse of modern democrat party. The diehards want to be somewhere else when it finally crashes.

Not to burst any of your bubbles here, but I don't have cable tv. That means I don't watch Fox News. Find a new attack line already.

Are you going to answer the arguments against your original post, even the ones posted before you declared people "incapable of answering my position?"

Welllll...

War was declared on US when they hijacked 3 civilian airliners and used them to commit mass murder. But who exactly declared that war you proclaim. The problem is that tragic event is being used to further an agenda that has nothing to do with the organizers of that days tragedy.

Are you going to answer the arguments against your original post, even the ones posted before you declared people "incapable of answering my position?"

Welllll...

I'm wondering the same thing. I'm seeing a lot of angry invective, but I have yet to see a systematic rebuttal from Northern Fox on many of the points that have been raised since he started this somewhat amusing shitstorm.

I'm wondering the same thing. I'm seeing a lot of angry invective, but I have yet to see a systematic rebuttal from Northern Fox on many of the points that have been raised since he started this somewhat amusing shitstorm.
Tragic as hell when they can dish it out, but totally not take it.....

I'm a leftist and proud of it but don't and won't call myself a liberal.

Why you ask?

The answer is simple. In Australia the conservatives (currently in government dammit) are called the Liberal party :D.

Some of the points in your original post are too American oriented for me to comment on but I can and will refute one glaring sterotyping generalisation. Yasser Arrafat was a murdering mongrel and (remember I'm a leftist) I have never, repeat never supported him in any way or any other group that purposly targets unarmed civilians. When that monster finally died, this is one leftist who didn't shed one tear. I do support Israel, just not blindly.

Yasser Arrafat was a murdering mongrel and (remember I'm a leftist) I have never, repeat never supported him in any way or any other group that purposly targets unarmed civilians. When that monster finally died, this is one leftist who didn't shed one tear. I do support Israel, just not blindly.
Arafat was no prize, that's for sure, but neither are most of the politicians on the other side of that conflict, especially Ariel Sharon. There are no angels in that conflict--everyone's gotten bloody after this much time. If you want to get technical about it, I suppose you could trace it back to the British and the UN in 1948 who dispossessed a large number of people in order to salve their consciences about their anti-Semitism and lack of action to stop the early part of the Holocaust, but even blaming them is simplistic.

4. This is a JOKE. Conservatives call an act banning certain types of marriage the "Defense of Marriage" act. They call eliminating social security "reform." They call obscene tax cuts "simplification." Give me a break on this one.

Most liberals are proud to identify as such.

You forgot the "Patriot" Act. Because nothing says patriotic like destroying the freedoms of our nation to fight those who seek to destroy our freedom, right?

You forgot the "Patriot" Act. Because nothing says patriotic like destroying the freedoms of our nation to fight those who seek to destroy our freedom, right?Well, you could lump a bunch of their initiatives under Orwellian doublespeak--Clean Air initiative that just stops counting CO2 as a pollutant or allows greater concentrations of mercury in the air and then calls the air cleaner, the Healthy Forests Initiative that consists of a giveaway to the logging industry to clearcut large swathes of land--the list goes on and on.

Arafat was no prize, that's for sure, but neither are most of the politicians on the other side of that conflict, especially Ariel Sharon. There are no angels in that conflict--everyone's gotten bloody after this much time. If you want to get technical about it, I suppose you could trace it back to the British and the UN in 1948 who dispossessed a large number of people in order to salve their consciences about their anti-Semitism and lack of action to stop the early part of the Holocaust, but even blaming them is simplistic.

Yes I understand all that :).

Thats why, as I posted, I don't support Israel blindly. I do support their right to exist and I do support the right of their kids to ride buses, have parties, go to pizza and ice cream parlours ect without some maniac blowing themselves up over something most of the victims are too young to understand. I also support the right of Palestinian kids to grow up without being brainwashed by their elders to hate Israel for something they are too young to understand.

Yes I understand all that :).

Thats why, as I posted, I don't support Israel blindly. I do support their right to exist and I do support the right of their kids to ride buses, have parties, go to pizza and ice cream parlours ect without some maniac blowing themselves up over something most of the victims are too young to understand. I also support the right of Palestinian kids to grow up without being brainwashed by their elders to hate Israel for something they are too young to understand.Palestinian kids aren't the only ones being brainwashed--just remember that. There are plenty of Israelis out there who would just as soon wipe out everyone in Gaza and the other territories and claim it all for Israel, and they pass along that hatred to their kids. Israel has treated the Palestinians pretty shabbily over the past 60 years. I'm not excusing the violence by the Palestinians, but Israel's got a lot of blood on its hands as well, and it's not all retributive--they've done plenty of offensive killing without provocation.

Are you going to answer the arguments against your original post, even the ones posted before you declared people "incapable of answering my position?"

Welllll...

Fine.


1. Social Security has not caused people to become "dependent" on the government.
2. It allowed those who couldn't survive otherwise to do so.
3. Many happen to blame racist police organizations.
4. Free trade is in fact considered to be a conservative economic belief in the United States.
5. but when Bush misleads the public about WMD or DeLay commits criminal actions
6. I'd like to see the source on your later assertions.
7. Conservatives call an act banning certain types of marriage the "Defense of Marriage" act.
8. Jerry "The Jews and Gays caused September 11th" Fallwell



1. Flat out lie. If they're so independent then why do democrats so oppose giving people control over even a small portion of what is supposed to be their own money.
2. Creating even more dependency. "This will have them n*****s voting Democrat for the next 100 years" - Lyndon Baines Johnson
3. Many people blame others for their own shortcomings. To claim that in these times is nothing more than a cop out.
4. Bull, total and complete bull. Free trade is a liberal ideal in compliance with their "poor nations deserve a chance" ideology.
5. Bush was mislead by Clinton appointed CIA holdover George Tenet. What criminal actions? DeLay hasn’t been charged with ANYTHING but democrat accusations.
6. Is PBS a liberal enough source for you? May 1998 ABC interview of OBL (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html) "After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers....If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil"
7. There are no "certain types of marriage", only one. One man and one women, period. Anything else is not marriage.
8. So your calling Fallwell anti-semetic?

I'm wondering the same thing. I'm seeing a lot of angry invective, but I have yet to see a systematic rebuttal from Northern Fox on many of the points that have been raised since he started this somewhat amusing shitstorm.

It's also conservatives who don't give a shit about other people's religion because by blindly supporting Israel, you attack Muslims. -Last time I checked conservative politics is highly influenced by ignorant and blind hatred towards race, sexual orientation, and religion. - He says some people who are against the war hate Jews - if you don't have to live in a company town and work for slave wages, thank the liberals - geting fat at McDonalds like a typical Republican - let's make sure to play the Jew card so no one can disagree with you without sounding like a nazi! - A world without conservatives is best described in Imagine: - I shall now tell you why you have managed to do the amazing feat of blowing out your ass. - It is funny that more people are responding to the "If I had a Penis" forum than this one.

Really?? I’m supposed to respond to that. I’m supposed to waste my time responding to this garbage in the form of words? Maybe if they actually made intelligent statements worth debating I’d consider it. Until then, I ignore them.

7. There are no "certain types of marriage", only one. One man and one women, period. Anything else is not marriage.
8. So your calling Fallwell anti-semetic?
Eh, I'll leave the others for someone else to pick up, but as for #7: That was brilliant. You DO realize that you just proved their point, right? You label what you define as acceptable to to be the only acceptable way, but you cover that by saying that you are 'protecting the sanctity of marriage', the only one marrige.
And as for 8? Yes, along with anything that isn't what he believes exactly. Because, of course, the terrorists were all gay and were supported by such organizations as the gay-straight alliance, right? So its only natural to blame the gays for 9/11.

7. There are no "certain types of marriage", only one. One man and one women, period. Anything else is not marriage.


Well?

In certain cultures its ok to have multiple wives. In Nepal it's ok for a woman to have up to three husbands.

You are Panhandlia are'nt you?

You're a fucking dick head!!!
And YOU are the reason tht things like that are said. Idiots on both sides are the source, and cause, of most of the idiotic generalization that are made. I have had conservative friends; I am a liberal. I have also had moderate adn apolitical friends. I'll disagree, I'll argue, but I won't hate you for your political idoelogy (so long as that ideology doesn't become hateful). Once the idoelogy becomes hate, in the hands of a few morons... then I get pissed.

You're a fucking dick head!!!
You are Panhandlia are'nt you?

Am I expected to respond to these excellent comments too?

5. Bush was mislead by Clinton appointed CIA holdover George Tenet. What criminal actions? DeLay hasn’t been charged with ANYTHING but democrat accusations.

So it was all Tenet's fault? Just him? Tell me again who awarded Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his service? Oh yeah, Bush, the guy Tenet supposedly misled into this war. Now I know Bush ain't the sharpest guy, but you'd think that if he'd really been misled by this guy who is--according to you--smart enough to fool not only Bush, but the Congress, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, all their underlings as well as a significant portion of Congress, then at the very least Bush wouldn't give him a medal. Of course, to ascribe all that power to Tenet is, in a word, ludicrous. If Bush was fooled--and I'm not willing to grant that he was--then he was fooled willingly.

And as for DeLay, he's been admonished 3 times in the last year by the House Ethics Committee for violations, he's got another complaint before the Ethics Committee right now, and he's being investigated for Texas campaign finance law violations as we speak--the DA has already rolled up people beneath him, and is working on Jack Abramoff, and DeLay is next in line. And before you try to make this into a partisan prosecution, realize that Ronnie Earle, the Austin DA, has prosecuted many Texas politicians over the years, and has convicted more Democrats than Republicans. DeLay's dirty, and I hope he winds up in jail.

You're a fucking dick head!!!

And you are WARNED for flaming.

Expect a Telegram from me shortly.

Am I expected to respond to these excellent comments too?


Well if you are implying we are the same person; we aren't.

You sound kind of like Pan. That is why I asked.....

Well if you are implying we are the same person; we aren't.

You sound kind of like Pan. That is why I asked.....
Not to mention that he/she didn't address the substance of your post--just the aside. Guess that's because he/she doesn't really have a rejoinder.

And as for DeLay, he's been admonished 3 times in the last year by the House Ethics Committee for violations, he's got another complaint before the Ethics Committee right now, and he's being investigated for Texas campaign finance law violations as we speak--the DA has already rolled up people beneath him, and is working on Jack Abramoff, and DeLay is next in line. And before you try to make this into a partisan prosecution, realize that Ronnie Earle, the Austin DA, has prosecuted many Texas politicians over the years, and has convicted more Democrats than Republicans. DeLay's dirty, and I hope he winds up in jail.

If DeLay is guilty then the democrats who are currently blocking the Ethics Committee from meeting should stand aside. DeLay himself has asked that the committee go forward with their investigation so his name can be cleared.

Before anyone cries partisan foul there too, the committee is 50/50 dem and repub.

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler’s mission. Yet Clinton wasn’t concerned with Arafat’s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who negotiated peace in the Middle East”. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we’ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers. Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

Liberals fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re liberals? Only the kook fringe ideologues like Howard Dean have the courage to. The average leftist will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their liberalism. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?

First of all, GENERALIZATIONS.... nothing but! Second of all, not a single source cited, so why anyone should be degrating anyone else's oppinion is really silly, when things not cited just look like oppinion. Thirdly, how is Bill Clinton a liberal?

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is Neo-Conservatives are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that neo-conservative thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Neo-Conservative judge programs based on Idealism not results.

Things such as abortion, which most conservatives oppose because these babies have soulds. Things such as the terry schiavo case, believing that the womans life should be kept alive, even if she said she wanted to die if she were in such a state. Gay marriage, which most neo-conservatives condemn because it is a sin in christianity, not because it will destroy marriage(Which the statistics vehemently oppose that saying).

Fact 2: Conservatives will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

Neo-Conservatives found every possible way during the 2004 elections to oppose their main opponent, john kerry. They focused on villifying him as a flip-flopping, immoral, traitor. They spread names such as scary john kerry, john french kerry, and others. They refused to support him against the people challanging his valid military career. Instead of focusing on what he did for our country, they focused on his going to paris to try and help with troop negotiations. Calling him a traitor simply beacuse he wished to help free his comrades. Calling him a communist in some instances even. The facts prove all these things either false, or just derogatory. The facts will shatter neo-conservative lies every time.

Fact 3: Neo-Conservatives will put national security second to their own image.

Wishing to further his image for the 2004 elections, president bush attacked the sovereign state of Iraq in 2003. Instead of freeing the people of one of the many dictators that the US put in during the cold war, it attacked one that was self-made, one that was mostly secular in affairs, and one that was one of the smallest threats to the US in the world. In doing so, terrorist activity greatly increased.

Fact 4: Neo-Conservatives use codewords.

Neo-conservatives fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re Neo-conservatives? Only the kook fringe ideologues have the courage to. The average neo-con will sooner call themselves Kerry supporters than admit their neo-conservative. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support neo-conservativism. Most Americans don’t support the police being given a blank check to search for subversives, aka terrorists. A current popular tread among neo-conservatives is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, liberal. While your run of the mill NeoCon may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the right use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top NeoConss speak of liberals? You hear names like Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Kerry. Not exactly gentile members of the Kerry movement, are they? Christianss are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the baby-killing liberals are controlling America for Satan. Are these people the company you really want to keep Neocons?

Hmm, seems you can make an ignorant statement, slightly alter it, and it still pretty much works.

If DeLay is guilty then the democrats who are currently blocking the Ethics Committee from meeting should stand aside. DeLay himself has asked that the committee go forward with their investigation so his name can be cleared.

Before anyone cries partisan foul there too, the committee is 50/50 dem and repub.Why don't you tell the whole story, Northern Fox? Afraid it might make your side look bad? The Democrats are holding up the Ethics committee because DeLay pushed through rules changes that would neuter the committee. As the rules were, a tie vote meant an investigation was started--under DeLay's rules, a tie vote means no investigation. DeLay got people on the Committee who owe him--he's raised buttloads of money for them over the years. No way in hell that they're approving an investigation. So the Democrats have said that they're not meeting until the rules go back to the way they were--rules put in place, I might add, when the Democrats were in power and were accused of ethical violations by none other than Tom DeLay.

Face it--Delay is a hypocrite and a crook. If that's cool with you, then by all means embrace him--but be honest about who you're embracing.

If DeLay is guilty then the democrats who are currently blocking the Ethics Committee from meeting should stand aside. DeLay himself has asked that the committee go forward with their investigation so his name can be cleared.

Before anyone cries partisan foul there too, the committee is 50/50 dem and repub.

I am curious as to how that will clear his name?

Do you need a committee to say "No I have never accepted credit cards from a lobbiest."

I have to admit to not reading in detail about it. That's the one bit I heard and if that is the case then he screwed up. Especially if there are rules about it.

Saying "Well the Demos...." does not justify such acts.

If he is guilty then he deserves to be punished.

Not to mention that he/she didn't address the substance of your post--just the aside. Guess that's because he/she doesn't really have a rejoinder.

He for future reference. If you (or in this case Black Forrest) make a personal attack against me your post and any points that might have been made within are invalidated.

He for future reference. If you (or in this case Black Forrest) make a personal attack against me your post and any points that might have been made within are invalidated.

Well that is convient.

I attacked you? *shrugs* oh ok.

It was a question, nothing more.

The points made still remain. Even if I did attack you, that doesn't invalidate the existence of such facts.

He for future reference. If you (or in this case Black Forrest) make a personal attack against me your post and any points that might have been made within are invalidated.Anal little twit aren't you? Just because you say so doesn't mean the rest of us think their points have no value. You really make yourself look the pompous ass.

I DO have better things to do, but I’ll try to wade through this anyway.

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away.
One, I would like to understand where you got the notion that any member of the Left has told America at large that SS is supposed to be their only means of retirement. Two, in many cases it IS the only means of retirement thanks to companies cutting pensions (See United Airlines) and of course there is NO OTHER safety net. Not one, whereas it seems that folks like you would be happy chucking grandma and gramps out on the dirt pile once they retire. Personally, I do not wish to see my parents work at Wal*Mart in their 80s, but then I might be taking that whole honor thy father and mother thing seriously. Then of course there's the issue of conservatives always stating that the Left will raises taxes.

Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos.
Name your source, and no, Rush isn’t a source. Also, welfare has indeed saved families when all else has failed, I know this from personal experience when my father died (thanks to the US Government) when I was 3, leaving my suddenly single mother scrambling to support two children. Did churches help out? Nope. Did neighbors line up to help my mother take care of her kids and work 40 hours a week? Nope. Was food magically brought to us in order to feed us and was the mortgage paid so we would have a roof over our head? Nope. Did welfare step in and make sure that those problems could be solved until my mother was able to gain the training necessary to function and take care of us? Yes, yes it did. I’ve SEEN the friendly hand of man (and yes, this was a small town, not a city), I’ll take the government’s help. They’re slightly steadier.

Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.
Fires are put out because idiots keep building multimillion dollar houses in the woods and then scream about it when the fire department allows them to burn down. The fire situation is less an action of a failed environmental policy than a misunderstanding of the fire cycle, and idiots who want to build and be where they shouldn’t. Again, name your source on this.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan.
You keep setting up nice targets to take pot shots at you know.

Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.
Once more folks, with feeling, NAME YOUR SOURCE!

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler’s mission. Yet Clinton wasn’t concerned with Arafat’s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who negotiated peace in the Middle East”. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we’ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers.
Funny, recent articles have stated how American companies, were in on this, and how the Security Council, where America and the UK were the ones watching out for this, looked the other way. And Bush hardly has his hands clean when it comes to dealing with people we shouldn’t be dealing with. And don’t even get me started on Saddam and his stockpile of weapons we gave him.

Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks.
Now you’re just being silly. If Clinton is, so is Bush, both senior and junior. But once again, where the hell are you pulling this from? Not even that buck passing circus called the 9/11 Commission stated anyone really was directly or fully liable for it.

He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.
And Bush sent our troops into Iraq without armor, the right vehicles, and not enough troops, even after his commanders have said so repeatedly, and then of course challenged the insurgents to "Bring it on". Blood doesn’t wash out blood though so I’m more comfortable calling both idiots in this case.

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

Liberals fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re liberals? Only the kook fringe ideologues like Howard Dean have the courage to. The average leftist will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their liberalism. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc.
*Sighs* Do you know that just about every president in US history up till recently has identified themselves as liberals and progressives? It was only at the start of the Regan years that being a conservative was considered something good.

They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism.
Right, that’s why the country is split down the middle on these issues. Sure, uh-huh

Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not.
I don't know ANYONE who wants or espouces this idea. Again, where do you get this from? Most Americans don't wants enforced religious worship either, but that hasn't stopped the conservatives.

A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.
I’ll leave the Libertarians to yell at you for this. Oh, and you DO realize that also until recently the Republican Party was rather leftist and the Democrats were the right wing?

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?
And YES! He finishes with condemning Jews! Give him a round of applause ladies and gentlemen. Actually, this was even more interesting, first he accuses liberals of hating Jews, and then he condemns them himself. And here I thought some of his other logic was tortured.

Why don’t you find some credible sources, or any sources, for your ranting and try again?

He for future reference. If you (or in this case Black Forrest) make a personal attack against me your post and any points that might have been made within are invalidated.
So I'll ask you--even though your idea of a personal attack is curious at best. How do you respond to the fact that marriage is defined differently by cultures around the world, that polygamy is acceptable in more than one place. Doesn't that invalidate your statement that marriage is one man/one woman and nothing else?

I'll even go a step farther--what is currently recognized as marriage has evolved over time, even in the relatively short history of the US. Do you acknowledge this or do you simply hold to the one man/one woman construct because it suits you?

You know that suggestion (don't remember which) that says that as soon as someone makes a parallel to Hitler or Nazis, the thread is dead, with a handful of exceptions where it really is justified? First post, in this thread. Hmm...

You know that suggestion (don't remember which) that says that as soon as someone makes a parallel to Hitler or Nazis, the thread is dead, with a handful of exceptions where it really is justified? First post, in this thread. Hmm...
Yeah, Godwin's Law. It's gotten some play in the Senate recently as well.

http://www.iaw.on.ca/~ppchurch/strawman.gif
So, I know this is a crazy, nutty idea-but how about you actually make your own arguments and support them instead of pretending to construct someone elses? Maybe I'm a nut...

Something probably lifted from Stormfront

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand whether or not conservatives are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that conservatives thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Conservatives judge programs based on ideology not results.

Even since the Great Depression of the 1930s this is self evident. Widespread economic collapse has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing that church was the only means to improve those who are unfortunate enough to have their livelihoods taken away. This created a new class of neo-Papal aristocrats. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take the Church away. The Southern Baptist Church destroyed the urban black family by promoting slavery, and opposing civil rights legislation by teaching White Southerners that they were God's chosen and Blacks were trying to take what was their due. This was made all the easier by using their political clout to make sure that failing economic systems kept the south in poverty, keeping the Baptist preachers in popular demand. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of morally bankrupt religious movments and created the rural trailer parks.

Unnamed amounts abstinence only programs have proven complete failures, often having effects reverse of their intended effects. Sex is a natural part of the life in the US. But years of self-righteous posturing that ordered all education to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of ignorance among southern teens. Now marriages break apart so often in the bible belt that observers have been forced to concede that teenagers are entering into foolish marriages for the express purpose of having sex. All catastrophic conservative failures.

Fact 2: Conservatives will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Bush was an economic and social conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when he threatened to veto the military spending bill that required the US to actually have the money he wanted to spend. Sorry neo-cons, that was your plan. Was it when Bush signed futile care law in Texas, thereby not just allowing, but forcing poor American families to euthanize their sick family members when they couldn't pay the medical bill. Was it when he abolished the estate Tax that forfeited billions of dollars that would have more than paid for his ill advised war in Iraq? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled future American generations with billions in increased taxation to pay for his debts?
The facts will shatter conservative lies every time.

Fact 3: Conservative will put national security second to their own image.

Saudi Arabia, the home of modern terrorism. Their staggaring unemployment rate and well promoted radical islamic church teaches its adherents to hate America and sacrifice their lives in the opposition of our interests. This country's royal family members have visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of George W. Bush, on one occaision even holding hands while walking through a flower garden. Bush knew that Osama Bin Laden was well connected to the oil royalty of Saudi Arabia, and said that finding him "was not that important." He then pretended that he never said this, thereby proving fact 2 yet again. Yet Bush wasn’t concerned with this royal families terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who conquered the Middle East”. Good job Dubya, every time we remember those murdered in the twin towers we’ll remember you. Bush ruled while Saudi Arabia openly called for American blood on a daily basis. And when they recieved it he used it as a pretext to destroy the only secular nation in the middle east. He complained as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers, yet his friends and family in American oil companies accounted for 52% of this corruption. For mathematically impaired conservatives, that's more than all the others combined. Bush is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American law enforcment forces into New Orleans. When their previous first priority had been counter terrorism, his attorney general decided that prostitution at Mardi Gras was more important. He then manipulated the disaster by swindling congress out of billions to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan, but instead fought the war for oil in Iraq. To save the funds needed for Iraq, he under equipped the US forces, costing soldiers their lives needlessly and then sent them into Iraq without the equipment and initiative needed to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Bush administration denied Sec. Powell's advice that he use "overwhelming force," which was 500,000 troops when Bush the elder invaded, he opted instead to use mercenary forces for 100 times the cost. They were refered to in the media as "civilian contractors" in order to give the impression that the resistence were targeting non-military targets. They also placed these "civilians" in command positions without holding them to American laws, which the troops that they commanded were still held to. They left American troops an impossible mission.

Fact 4: Conservatives use codewords.

Conservatives fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re facist corpratists? Only the kook fringe like Grover Norquist have the courage to. The average neo-con will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their desire to destroy democratic government and replace it with corporate and church rule. They use codewords like Values, Freedom, Strong, Leadership, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support corpratocracy. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among conservatives is to call themselves Libertarians. By pretending that they are not opposing the democratic process, merely making it irrelevant before the power of corporations in the name of the corporations "civil rights." They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same neo-con agenda.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the intelligencia of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, Facist. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Bolton, Norquist, Chenney, Hannity, and Hume. Not exactly genteel members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Bush neocons are controlling America for Bechtel. Are these people the company you really want to keep conservatives?

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand whether or not conservatives are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that conservatives thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Conservatives judge programs based on ideology not results.

Even since the Great Depression of the 1930s this is self evident. Widespread economic collapse has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing that church was the only means to improve those who are unfortunate enough to have their livelihoods taken away. This created a new class of neo-Papal aristocrats. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take the Church away. The Southern Baptist Church destroyed the urban black family by promoting slavery, and opposing civil rights legislation by teaching White Southerners that they were God's chosen and Blacks were trying to take what was their due. This was made all the easier by using their political clout to make sure that failing economic systems kept the south in poverty, keeping the Baptist preachers in popular demand. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of morally bankrupt religious movments and created the rural trailer parks.

Unnamed amounts abstinence only programs have proven complete failures, often having effects reverse of their intended effects. Sex is a natural part of the life in the US. But years of self-righteous posturing that ordered all education to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of ignorance among southern teens. Now marriages break apart so often in the bible belt that observers have been forced to concede that teenagers are entering into foolish marriages for the express purpose of having sex. All catastrophic conservative failures.

Fact 2: Conservatives will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Bush was an economic and social conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when he threatened to veto the military spending bill that required the US to actually have the money he wanted to spend. Sorry neo-cons, that was your plan. Was it when Bush signed futile care law in Texas, thereby not just allowing, but forcing poor American families to euthanize their sick family members when they couldn't pay the medical bill. Was it when he abolished the estate Tax that forfeited billions of dollars that would have more than paid for his ill advised war in Iraq? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled future American generations with billions in increased taxation to pay for his debts?
The facts will shatter conservative lies every time.

Fact 3: Conservative will put national security second to their own image.

Saudi Arabia, the home of modern terrorism. Their staggaring unemployment rate and well promoted radical islamic church teaches its adherents to hate America and sacrifice their lives in the opposition of our interests. This country's royal family members have visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of George W. Bush, on one occaision even holding hands while walking through a flower garden. Bush knew that Osama Bin Laden was well connected to the oil royalty of Saudi Arabia, and said that finding him "was not that important." He then pretended that he never said this, thereby proving fact 2 yet again. Yet Bush wasn’t concerned with this royal families terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who conquered the Middle East”. Good job Dubya, every time we remember those murdered in the twin towers we’ll remember you. Bush ruled while Saudi Arabia openly called for American blood on a daily basis. And when they recieved it he used it as a pretext to destroy the only secular nation in the middle east. He complained as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers, yet his friends and family in American oil companies accounted for 52% of this corruption. For mathematically impaired conservatives, that's more than all the others combined. Bush is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American law enforcment forces into New Orleans. When their previous first priority had been counter terrorism, his attorney general decided that prostitution at Mardi Gras was more important. He then manipulated the disaster by swindling congress out of billions to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan, but instead fought the war for oil in Iraq. To save the funds needed for Iraq, he under equipped the US forces, costing soldiers their lives needlessly and then sent them into Iraq without the equipment and initiative needed to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Bush administration denied Sec. Powell's advice that he use "overwhelming force," which was 500,000 troops when Bush the elder invaded, he opted instead to use mercenary forces for 100 times the cost. They were refered to in the media as "civilian contractors" in order to give the impression that the resistence were targeting non-military targets. They also placed these "civilians" in command positions without holding them to American laws, which the troops that they commanded were still held to. They left American troops an impossible mission.

Fact 4: Conservatives use codewords.

Conservatives fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re facist corpratists? Only the kook fringe like Grover Norquist have the courage to. The average neo-con will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their desire to destroy democratic government and replace it with corporate and church rule. They use codewords like Values, Freedom, Strong, Leadership, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support corpratocracy. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among conservatives is to call themselves Libertarians. By pretending that they are not opposing the democratic process, merely making it irrelevant before the power of corporations in the name of the corporations "civil rights." They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same neo-con agenda.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the intelligencia of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, Facist. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Bolton, Norquist, Chenney, Hannity, and Hume. Not exactly genteel members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Bush neocons are controlling America for Bechtel. Are these people the company you really want to keep conservatives?

Idea thief ;)

Ahhh, the Fox retreated! I think I might cry... or perhaps I won't. :)

Gotta love a completely biased and crazy generalization every now and then... good laugh coming from yet another little kid with the stars & stripes up his ass.

Social Security has not caused people to become "dependent" on the government.


I...I...

WAHHAAHAHAHAHA-ha-eh-HAW!

Not depen--hold on. Hold on, not gonna laugh again. Not..not---oh, shit--

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Stop! Please! Ya gotta--haha--ya gotta stop! F--k! I think I just pissed myself!

That's a good one.

Gotta love a completely biased and crazy generalization every now and then... good laugh coming from yet another little kid with the stars & stripes up his ass.

It does make me laugh, after it makes me toss my cookies.

I...I...

WAHHAAHAHAHAHA-ha-eh-HAW!

Not depen--hold on. Hold on, not gonna laugh again. Not..not---oh, shit--

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Stop! Please! Ya gotta--haha--ya gotta stop! F--k! I think I just pissed myself!

That's a good one.

Aren't we all dependent upon the government? Just a friendly question, but do you know the amount of money people get from that?

He for future reference. If you (or in this case Black Forrest) make a personal attack against me your post and any points that might have been made within are invalidated.
Oh, so I suppose that if they attack your falliable logic with relatively flawless logic, it makes their logic invalidate, despite the fact that you're weaving one hell of a web of lies?

I still agree wholeheartedly with Northern Fox in this one, since i live across the pond. Here in the UK we have a totally liberal government who are swamping us with the leftist ideals. Hell, if we speak out against in publicly, we get arrested for being a racist just so noone else hears our views. The government have practically removed all borders, making us totally vulnerable to the tens of thousands entering illegally every year, and according to the govt. papers that we can see, they think it's a good idea to help these people more! Add into the fact that gordon brown wants to use our gold reserves (our ONLY monetary reserve for when the cack hits the fan) to give to africa (the biggest monetary black hole in history.....), the left-ists (i.e. liberals) are creating one hell of a mess for some other decent people to clean up.

Let us also not forget that political correctness, though not created explicitly by the liberals, was let in by some liberal idiot who decided to embrace radical new ideas. If the prat had thought of what was going on, he would realise that it was created to benefit the minority at the expense of everyone else, ultimately undermining the democratic system that has served us so well for a century. Another thing the liberals have given us. Thank you SO much.

Just on a second note: Liberals admittedly think "open mindledly", and accept new things. Conservatives attempt to oppose drastic change. Let us apply this to any physical system. The first is positive feedback, creating an out-of-control system with no equilibrium anywhere. In nature this is fatal. The conservative system is a negative feedback, which creates stability and a system that tends to survive. QED

Just on a second note: Liberals admittedly think "open mindledly", and accept new things. Conservatives attempt to oppose drastic change. Let us apply this to any physical system. The first is positive feedback, creating an out-of-control system with no equilibrium anywhere. In nature this is fatal. The conservative system is a negative feedback, which creates stability and a system that tends to survive. QED
I don't much care about the rest of this discussion, since it's all about straw men and pointless partisan bickering, but this little note annoys me because it garbles science so badly.

In a natural system you require the pressure for change, and animals that can adapt to novel situations with novel solutions will be favored. Now, random and undirected mutation will tend to be non-beneficial (though will sometimes hit on a really lucky and useful change), so obviously having unrestricted and constant change is a bad thing, but negative feedback without positive feedback is completely and utterly useless to any population looking to thrive in the long term. Even within our own bodies you can see the delicate and amazing balance between positive and negative feedback; you are alive at this very moment because BOTH of those forces are at work inside you (for instance, in your immune system), and because they BOTH are contributing. Trying to claim that one is good while the other is not is simply incorrect, and only serves to display your own ignorance of nature and natural systems.

Dude, Northern Fox, you *totally* forgot how we like to kill babies and hump the Pope and suckle on the teat of Jane Fonda.

Frankly, I'm surprised this flamebait has lasted this long.

Liberal ideas (Not necessarily Democratic Party):

The Bill of Rights
Abolition of Slavery
Women's Suffrage
Child Labor Laws
Minimum Wage Act
Civil Rights Act
Native American Freedom Act

Conservative ideas (Not Necessarily Republican Party):

Monroe Doctrine
Cecession
Native American Relocation Act
Jim Crow Laws
Defense of Marriage Act
Patriot Act

Gee ... which side would you be on?

I still agree wholeheartedly with Northern Fox in this one, since i live across the pond. Here in the UK we have a totally liberal government who are swamping us with the leftist ideals. Hell, if we speak out against in publicly, we get arrested for being a racist just so noone else hears our views. The government have practically removed all borders, making us totally vulnerable to the tens of thousands entering illegally every year, and according to the govt. papers that we can see, they think it's a good idea to help these people more! Add into the fact that gordon brown wants to use our gold reserves (our ONLY monetary reserve for when the cack hits the fan) to give to africa (the biggest monetary black hole in history.....), the left-ists (i.e. liberals) are creating one hell of a mess for some other decent people to clean up.

Let us also not forget that political correctness, though not created explicitly by the liberals, was let in by some liberal idiot who decided to embrace radical new ideas. If the prat had thought of what was going on, he would realise that it was created to benefit the minority at the expense of everyone else, ultimately undermining the democratic system that has served us so well for a century. Another thing the liberals have given us. Thank you SO much.

Just on a second note: Liberals admittedly think "open mindledly", and accept new things. Conservatives attempt to oppose drastic change. Let us apply this to any physical system. The first is positive feedback, creating an out-of-control system with no equilibrium anywhere. In nature this is fatal. The conservative system is a negative feedback, which creates stability and a system that tends to survive. QED

Are you sure you live in the UK because it doesnt sound like the Britiain I live in. If anything Labour is about as far right as the conservatives.

Are you sure you live in the UK because it doesnt sound like the Britiain I live in. If anything Labour is about as far right as the conservatives.

Don't worry, he probably supports the BNP or UKIP...

Ahhh, the Fox retreated! I think I might cry... or perhaps I won't. :)

I went to bed, now I'm going to work. You people are a waste of my time.

This is supposed to be an intellectual debate. If you cannot post without insulting someone, please keep your fingers off the keyboard.

I was thinking about the pure scientific definition of positive feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change from the point of equilibrium, and the scientific definition of negative feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change towards point of equilibrium. I do accept your point thought, in the body there are a FEW cases of positive feedback i.e. thrombin affecting blood factors that cause prothrombin to create still more thrombin in a blood clot, but these are few and far between, and if it wasnt also for the presence of fibrinogen in that example then that positive feedback WILL be out of control. The overwhelming amount of systems are negative. In my opinion, i like to think that shows nature prefers negative feedback.

I grant you that thou, i shouldn't have made such a specific example without clarification. You see where i was coming from however, that the conservative (uk - im not stepping into the american political quagmire!) view being at its simplest level, is AKIN to negative feedback, and so SHOULD always keep the balance. Liberalism, if left uncontrolled, will accept new ideas without viewing the consequences, as that is AKIN to positive feedback. But of course the system is much, much more complicated, but my point is that liberalism must be more controlled than it is at the moment or we are heading for trouble.

Nice quick points bottle, are you a scientist yourself by any chance?

San haiti, please explain how the labour party is right-wing. Its not nice to make a point without explanations, and then leg-it to avoid any kind of debate.

San haiti, please explain how the labour party is right-wing. Its not nice to make a point without explanations, and then leg-it to avoid any kind of debate.

Well, in comparison to what they used to be, there has been a definite shift to the right, privitisation policies etc. However, they are not a right wing party. Centre-right at most.

I went to bed, now I'm going to work. You people are a waste of my time.
Yes, and what's your point?

You started this thread. So, you should be able to stand up for your ignorance - as blissful to you that it is.

Yes, you have to get sleep and work, but don't say that us people are wasting your time. You perhaps should have thought pf that before you fired off the flamebait canon.

Exactly. Nazis in Germany killed thousands of Jews and other innocent people, and I don't hate the Germans.

now I don't meen to insult anyone but facts are the Nazis didn't kill thousands of Jews... They killed six million of them, they also killed about twenty thousand Jehovas witnesses, a few houndredthousand Gypsies (is this the correct term, I'm not used to using english on this level) and so on not of course that I doubt that you already know this, just to set the matters strait to anyone less at home in this subject.

I was thinking about the pure scientific definition of positive feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change from the point of equilibrium, and the scientific definition of negative feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change towards point of equilibrium. I do accept your point thought, in the body there are a FEW cases of positive feedback i.e. thrombin affecting blood factors that cause prothrombin to create still more thrombin in a blood clot, but these are few and far between, and if it wasnt also for the presence of fibrinogen in that example then that positive feedback WILL be out of control. The overwhelming amount of systems are negative. In my opinion, i like to think that shows nature prefers negative feedback.


Okay, now I have to say something. The above paragraph is one of the most in-depth studies of pretending to know science that I have ever seen.

- Prothrombin does not create thrombin. Prothrombin is a precurser that, when cleaved by factor Xa and Va, becomes active thrombin.

- Fibrinogen is cleaved to fibrin threads that help platelets clot the wound. It is not an active down-regulator. It is ant-thrombin that is primarily responsible for inhibiting the coagulation cascade.

Besides your slaughter of the subject of biology, your point is irrelevant, as without both systems of positive and negative feedback, the body would not function. To take your rather inadequate coagulation analogy, a hemophilic person lacks the positive feedback needed to make a blood clot, and is thus vulnerable to even the slightest wound.

Please don't pretend to understand scientific topics when you obviously do not.

now I don't meen to insult anyone but facts are the Nazis didn't kill thousands of Jews... They killed six million of them, they also killed about twenty thousand Jehovas witnesses, a few houndredthousand Gypsies (is this the correct term, I'm not used to using english on this level) and so on not of course that I doubt that you already know this, just to set the matters strait to anyone less at home in this subject.
Actually, Roma is the correct term. Gypsy (gypsies; to be gypped) can be taken to be racist (which I know thanks to a Croatian friend of mine who is up on his racist comments - :rolleyes: don't ask...)

And by the way, strait is one of those narrow waterway passages. The word you're looking for is straight. ;)

This is supposed to be an intellectual debate. If you cannot post without insulting someone, please keep your fingers off the keyboard.

I was thinking about the pure scientific definition of positive feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change from the point of equilibrium, and the scientific definition of negative feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change towards point of equilibrium. I do accept your point thought, in the body there are a FEW cases of positive feedback i.e. thrombin affecting blood factors that cause prothrombin to create still more thrombin in a blood clot, but these are few and far between, and if it wasnt also for the presence of fibrinogen in that example then that positive feedback WILL be out of control. The overwhelming amount of systems are negative. In my opinion, i like to think that shows nature prefers negative feedback.

I grant you that thou, i shouldn't have made such a specific example without clarification. You see where i was coming from however, that the conservative (uk - im not stepping into the american political quagmire!) view being at its simplest level, is AKIN to negative feedback, and so SHOULD always keep the balance. Liberalism, if left uncontrolled, will accept new ideas without viewing the consequences, as that is AKIN to positive feedback. But of course the system is much, much more complicated, but my point is that liberalism must be more controlled than it is at the moment or we are heading for trouble.

Somebody has already addressed why your analogy continues to be very wrong, so I won't waste anybody's time doing so again.


Nice quick points bottle, are you a scientist yourself by any chance?
Yes.

This is supposed to be an intellectual debate. If you cannot post without insulting someone, please keep your fingers off the keyboard.

I was thinking about the pure scientific definition of positive feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change from the point of equilibrium, and the scientific definition of negative feedback i.e. response to pressure gradient causes change towards point of equilibrium. I do accept your point thought, in the body there are a FEW cases of positive feedback i.e. thrombin affecting blood factors that cause prothrombin to create still more thrombin in a blood clot, but these are few and far between, and if it wasnt also for the presence of fibrinogen in that example then that positive feedback WILL be out of control. The overwhelming amount of systems are negative. In my opinion, i like to think that shows nature prefers negative feedback.

I grant you that thou, i shouldn't have made such a specific example without clarification. You see where i was coming from however, that the conservative (uk - im not stepping into the american political quagmire!) view being at its simplest level, is AKIN to negative feedback, and so SHOULD always keep the balance. Liberalism, if left uncontrolled, will accept new ideas without viewing the consequences, as that is AKIN to positive feedback. But of course the system is much, much more complicated, but my point is that liberalism must be more controlled than it is at the moment or we are heading for trouble.

Nice quick points bottle, are you a scientist yourself by any chance?


Isn't that the idea behind any democratic political system? You've got two parties representing the opposing views in the population, checking each other and reaching a - more or less balanced - decision?
I know that this would be a perfect system, but still. Both views are needed and both need to be controled.
You simply can't blame one for working the way it should and praise the other for exactly the same...

The Labour party is "officially" designated centre-left, with its "official" political ideology being Democratic Socialism, and the party is affiliated with the international group Socialists International and in europe by the Party of European Socialists. It seems labour is desperate to create the centre-right image while the main bulk of the labour backbenchers (the ones that vote measures in....) is down-right socialist. I wonder if they still sing the communist red song behind closed doors? :confused:

Just on a second note: Liberals admittedly think "open mindledly", and accept new things. Conservatives attempt to oppose drastic change. Let us apply this to any physical system. The first is positive feedback, creating an out-of-control system with no equilibrium anywhere. In nature this is fatal. The conservative system is a negative feedback, which creates stability and a system that tends to survive. QED
So is your argument that any change at all is bad? Is our society perfect? Should we not have eliminated slavery because change is so big and scary?

I may not know much about the level of science that this debate came to involve later, but I do know that analogizing politics to science is a BAD idea. Exhibit A is Social Darwinism.

A British philosopher named Herbert Spencer came up with the idea that "If Darwin's ideas about animals are so great, why not apply them to people?" Therefore, Spencer saw human society as one that should be structured by Darwinian ideas of natural selection - only the strong people survive. The application of these ideas led to some of the worst conditions for the American lower classes in the history of the country, including virtual slavery while the rich controlled an exhorbitant amount of money. It also, in part, became the justification for a new trend of racist thought in Germany, of all places, which later evolved into Nazi biological sciences.

Scientific principles explained in this way do not apply to the political realm.

I still agree wholeheartedly with Northern Fox in this one, since i live across the pond. Here in the UK we have a totally liberal government who are swamping us with the leftist ideals. Hell, if we speak out against in publicly, we get arrested for being a racist just so noone else hears our views. The government have practically removed all borders, making us totally vulnerable to the tens of thousands entering illegally every year, and according to the govt. papers that we can see, they think it's a good idea to help these people more! Add into the fact that gordon brown wants to use our gold reserves (our ONLY monetary reserve for when the cack hits the fan) to give to africa (the biggest monetary black hole in history.....), the left-ists (i.e. liberals) are creating one hell of a mess for some other decent people to clean up.


Ahh and yet you guys voted him in for a third term! :p

Not to worry lad, but don't get caught up with the lib vs cons thing over here. The idiologies are different between our two lands.


Let us also not forget that political correctness, though not created explicitly by the liberals, was let in by some liberal idiot

PC is a disease. However, it is practiced by both sides.

Who started it is no longer worth arguing.

As to "open mindness;" well "radical ideas" aren't always new ideas. Radical ideas aren't always good ideas.

Ah well.....

Isn't that the idea behind any democratic political system? You've got two parties representing the opposing views in the population, checking each other and reaching a - more or less balanced - decision?
I know that this would be a perfect system, but still. Both views are needed and both need to be controled.
You simply can't blame one for working the way it should and praise the other for exactly the same...
Uh...only two parties? Aside from partisan nations, a great number of nations in the world are multi-party. So, in this, you get more views, and more chance for conflict, but a greater chance at reaching a true compromise. (in western and democratic nations, mainly).

The problem is not with the Jews but with the Zionists. And the Zionists are in control of America, this is true. Let's face facts: the USA buys all of its nuclear bombs from Jewish companies which are in turn controlled by the Zionists. The Zionists will do anything to ensure Israel's survival including, if necessary, genocide. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will do anything to ensure Palestine's survival. To support one or the other does not make you a racist terrorist thug or a capitalist globalisationist pig. This comes down to nationalism, globalisation and the eurasianism versus atlantism struggle. I support the Palestinians in their struggle against the liberal globalisationist atlantism and that by no means makes me a racist nazi thug who hates Jews. It makes me an ultraleftist, Eurasianist anti-capitalist. Up the National Bolsheviks!

Okay, now I have to say something. The above paragraph is one of the most in-depth studies of pretending to know science that I have ever seen.

- Prothrombin does not create thrombin. Prothrombin is a precurser that, when cleaved by factor Xa and Va, becomes active thrombin.

- Fibrinogen is cleaved to fibrin threads that help platelets clot the wound. It is not an active down-regulator. It is ant-thrombin that is primarily responsible for inhibiting the coagulation cascade.

Besides your slaughter of the subject of biology, your point is irrelevant, as without both systems of positive and negative feedback, the body would not function. To take your rather inadequate coagulation analogy, a hemophilic person lacks the positive feedback needed to make a blood clot, and is thus vulnerable to even the slightest wound.

Please don't pretend to understand scientific topics when you obviously do not.


I just have to say "OUCH!"

;)

Uh...only two parties? Aside from partisan nations, a great number of nations in the world are multi-party. So, in this, you get more views, and more chance for conflict, but a greater chance at reaching a true compromise. (in western and democratic nations, mainly).

I know, I know. And I vey much appreciate any political system that has evolved beyong two opposing parties. But the US and the UK are largely two-party-systems. Smaller parties hardly ever get political power due to the election system

Thank you Deluze and Black Forest for joining in an actual debate. Noone knows all the facts, we can only work with what we know, and learn new things from POLITE corrections in debate. I cannot abide people that simply insult and get off on the fact that they know something the other doesn't. If these people make up the majority in this forum then in future ill keep my ideas and views to myself. :mad:

To those that are polite debaters, dont let the scum wear you down.

The problem is not with the Jews but with the Zionists. And the Zionists are in control of America, this is true. Let's face facts: the USA buys all of its nuclear bombs from Jewish companies which are in turn controlled by the Zionists. The Zionists will do anything to ensure Israel's survival including, if necessary, genocide. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will do anything to ensure Palestine's survival. To support one or the other does not make you a racist terrorist thug or a capitalist globalisationist pig. This comes down to nationalism, globalisation and the eurasianism versus atlantism struggle. I support the Palestinians in their struggle against the liberal globalisationist atlantism and that by no means makes me a racist nazi thug who hates Jews. It makes me an ultraleftist, Eurasianist anti-capitalist. Up the National Bolsheviks!
Uhh...anti-Semitic flamebait much?

Yes my puppets, DANCE!
While you are all busy argueing my secret conspiracy will take over the world, and all of you will be the first to hang! FWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously though...
Are you all so desperate to beleive in your own political perfection that ANY arguement against you shall be immidiatly declared WRONG AND BAD no matter if it contains some logic?
The original post makes good points, the presentation was a bit off, but it has good points.
And because of this it is swamped by 500,000 people saying "OMGWRONGBADIWONTHEARTHISYOUAREEVILCONSERVATIVEBUSHFANATICDIEIDIEIDE!"
You people ever heard of 1984?
Of course you have. I bet a few people make daily refrences to Bush involving it.
Well, it seems to me that half of the liberal party employs Doublethink on a daily basis regarding such wonderful issues as racism, oh, excuse me, "Social Equality", forign policy, and welfare programs.
Argh, Ive been sucked into another idiot circular arguement. *sigh*

Thank you Deluze and Black Forest for joining in an actual debate. Noone knows all the facts, we can only work with what we know, and learn new things from POLITE corrections in debate. I cannot abide people that simply insult and get off on the fact that they know something the other doesn't. If these people make up the majority in this forum then in future ill keep my ideas and views to myself. :mad:

To those that are polite debaters, dont let the scum wear you down.
Thank you as well. Unlike Northern Fox, you listen to the ideas of others.

The problem is not with the Jews but with the Zionists. And the Zionists are in control of America, this is true. Let's face facts: the USA buys all of its nuclear bombs from Jewish companies which are in turn controlled by the Zionists. The Zionists will do anything to ensure Israel's survival including, if necessary, genocide. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will do anything to ensure Palestine's survival. To support one or the other does not make you a racist terrorist thug or a capitalist globalisationist pig. This comes down to nationalism, globalisation and the eurasianism versus atlantism struggle. I support the Palestinians in their struggle against the liberal globalisationist atlantism and that by no means makes me a racist nazi thug who hates Jews. It makes me an ultraleftist, Eurasianist anti-capitalist. Up the National Bolsheviks!


All I can say is wow.

I didn't know the Jews were that organized. And yet they haven't take over the world. They haven't even taken over the middle east.

"the USA buys all of its nuclear bombs from Jewish companies which are in turn controlled by the Zionists."

Wow. I actually worked for one of the biggest and didn't see any pro-Israel stuff. Bad for business as they wished to sell to anybody that had the money to pay for their "wares."

"The Zionists will do anything to ensure Israel's survival including, if necessary, genocide. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will do anything to ensure Palestine's survival."

Yes and for some that includes genocide as well.

"To support one or the other does not make you a racist terrorist thug or a capitalist globalisationist pig. This comes down to nationalism, globalisation and the eurasianism versus atlantism struggle."

Ahh what?

"I support the Palestinians in their struggle against the liberal globalisationist atlantism and that by no means makes me a racist nazi thug who hates Jews. It makes me an ultraleftist, Eurasianist anti-capitalist. Up the National Bolsheviks!"

Wow and I guess the Palistinians I talked to missed those lessons.

Have you ever been to the region? I have......

The problem is not with the Jews but with the Zionists. And the Zionists are in control of America, this is true. Let's face facts: the USA buys all of its nuclear bombs from Jewish companies which are in turn controlled by the Zionists. The Zionists will do anything to ensure Israel's survival including, if necessary, genocide. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will do anything to ensure Palestine's survival. To support one or the other does not make you a racist terrorist thug or a capitalist globalisationist pig. This comes down to nationalism, globalisation and the eurasianism versus atlantism struggle. I support the Palestinians in their struggle against the liberal globalisationist atlantism and that by no means makes me a racist nazi thug who hates Jews. It makes me an ultraleftist, Eurasianist anti-capitalist. Up the National Bolsheviks!

ehe heh he he ehe heh heh eh. . . OMG I think you are serious. The USA buys all its nuclear bombs from Jewish companies. :D Do they get a discount for buying more than ten at a time?

Nationalism, globalization and the eurasianism versus atlantism struggle. What the hell does that goobltygook mean?

But my favorite must be, capitalist globalisationist pig. Anything with pig tacked on the end is good.

ehe heh he he ehe heh heh eh. . . OMG I think you are serious. The USA buys all its nuclear bombs from Jewish companies. :D Do they get a discount for buying more than ten at a time?

Nationalism, globalization and the eurasianism versus atlantism struggle. What the hell does that goobltygook mean?

But my favorite must be, capitalist globalisationist pig. Anything with pig tacked on the end is good.
It's all ridiculous gobbldegook. Israel is not committing genocide against the Palestinians. There is no "world Jewish conspiracy."

He made up a bunch of terms in an impossible attempt to sound intelligent. Alas, racism gives him away.

Thank you Deluze and Black Forest for joining in an actual debate. Noone knows all the facts, we can only work with what we know, and learn new things from POLITE corrections in debate. I cannot abide people that simply insult and get off on the fact that they know something the other doesn't. If these people make up the majority in this forum then in future ill keep my ideas and views to myself. :mad:

To those that are polite debaters, dont let the scum wear you down.

I can't help but feel that this was partly directed toward me (though I could be wrong). Sorry, but if I see something that's blatantly wrong, I want to correct it. This is a debate, but if someone goes around spreading misinformation, that person's credibility drops like a rock. If they are mistaken and/or lying in one post, why should anyone believe other things that person says?

It's all ridiculous gobbldegook. Israel is not committing genocide against the Palestinians. There is no "world Jewish conspiracy."

He made up a bunch of terms in an impossible attempt to sound intelligent. Alas, racism gives him away.

*shaking fist* ooooooo, those Jews and their nuclear bombs factories!!!

*shaking fist* ooooooo, those Jews and their nuclear bombs factories!!!

And I thought they were just making pickles!!!!!!

Damn you! God damn you all to hell!

At least we now know who blew up the planet. ;)

And I thought they were just making pickles!!!!!!

Damn you! God damn you all to hell!

At least we now know who blew up the planet. ;)

So that's who supplied the Vogons. I wonder if the Jews got of the planet with the dolphins.

They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not.
So are you only against social welfare or are you against all taxes?

War was declared on US when they hijacked 3 civilian airliners and used them to commit mass murder. Maybe you should keep such tirades about us corrupting democracy to yourself until you stop corrupting the English language.
Iraq did not attack America. Al-Qaeda did.

you don't need satellite to see the collapse of modern democrat party.
In 2004, more people voted for Democratic Senators and Representatives than for Republicans, and Bush's margin of victory was the smallest ever for an incumbent President. They've suffered much worse defeats in the past.

You forgot the "Patriot" Act. Because nothing says patriotic like destroying the freedoms of our nation to fight those who seek to destroy our freedom, right?
USA PATRIOT Act is an acronymn for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". It is not patriotic, but I suspect that acronym was used to make it sound better and deflect criticism.


7. There are no "certain types of marriage", only one. One man and one women, period. Anything else is not marriage.
Conservatices think that gays should not be allowed to marry. Islamists think that gays should not be allowed to live. I think that you should probably try to think as differently as possible to these terrorists. Why become what you are fighting against?

You are Panhandlia are'nt you?
Panhandlia was as partisan and angry as NF, but NF seems to be slightly more intelligent. Panhandlia usually went for the one or two line-style posts.

Iraq did not attack America. Al-Qaeda did.
Shhhh... You're not supposed to leak such sensitive intelligence. It might make the US look real bad...

bullshit. conservatives are whinney and only interested in tradition and class distinction. quite frankley, they don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up and say, "you're just wrong all of you and murdering supporters will rot in hell and i don't give a god god-fking-dmn what you think about my politics". you should try it, its very cathartic.

bullshit. conservatives are whinney and only interested in tradition and class distinction. quite frankley, they don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up and say, "you're just wrong all of you and murdering supporters will rot in hell and i don't give a god god-fking-dmn what you think about my politics". you should try it, its very cathartic.
But then that would make them libs. Perish the thought...

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler’s mission. Yet Clinton wasn’t concerned with Arafat’s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who negotiated peace in the Middle East”. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we’ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers. Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

Liberals fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re liberals? Only the kook fringe ideologues like Howard Dean have the courage to. The average leftist will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their liberalism. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?

And conservatives are so much better how? I agree that there are a lot of problems in liberalism but honestly, conservatism is just as bad if not worse.
We need more people like Arizona Senator John Mccain who is willing to see both sides equally.

We need more people like Arizona Senator John Mccain who is willing to see both sides equally.

Ahh, yes, John McCain, who did more to stifle the first amendment w/ "campaign finance reform" since the alien & sedition acts.

This pisses me off beyond belief...liberals* and conservatives* are not classical liberals (libertarians). They hide beyond our politics...don't you ever make a generalisation like that again. That only proves that you view things as simply left-right. I urge you to leave your talking points from D.C. at the door when you arrive here.
Love,
A pissed off classical liberal

*in the American sense

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler’s mission. Yet Clinton wasn’t concerned with Arafat’s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who negotiated peace in the Middle East”. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we’ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers. Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

Liberals fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re liberals? Only the kook fringe ideologues like Howard Dean have the courage to. The average leftist will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their liberalism. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?
blah blah blah i couldn't be bothered to read past the first few lines of that crap. what the hell is your problem? hateful little neocon-laizes faire-nazi aren't we?


now maybe i've totally lost my sense of humour (if this is supposed to be funny), but i'm allowed to cos my PC died and i lost all my stuff :mad:

This thread topic ---> :rolleyes:

This thread topic ---> :rolleyes:
I can't believe it, either.

blah blah blah i couldn't be bothered to read past the first few lines of that crap. what the hell is your problem? hateful little neocon-laizes faire-nazi aren't we?


now maybe i've totally lost my sense of humour (if this is supposed to be funny), but i'm allowed to cos my PC died and i lost all my stuff :mad:
Oh, you're the PC dying dude? You have my sympathy, mine went down two weeks ago and left me with my laptop :(

Anyway, I think it's safe to assume, by his passionate pleas to stop proving him wrong, that Northern Fox was very much serious, however ill-informed he may have been at the start.

I think he's just covering his tracks now, personally.

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.
[snip]

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.
[snip]

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.
[snip]

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.
[snip]

You're making quite a few generalizations here. I don't think any of those apply to me. What exactly have liberals done for you to spew so much hatred in their direction?

Oh for fuck's sake when will you bloody yanks realise that you dont have any liberals, you have the far right and the even further right. please at least make an attempt to get your political centrepost into some kind of context with the civilised world

Oh for fuck's sake when will you bloody yanks realise that you dont have any liberals, you have the far right and the even further right. please at least make an attempt to get your political centrepost into some kind of context with the civilised world
There are a smattering of liberals (in the correct sense). Our "liberals" are mild "conservaives".

He for future reference. If you (or in this case Black Forrest) make a personal attack against me your post and any points that might have been made within are invalidated.
Funny how everytime you post, you get into a flame war. Most of the rest of us on the board manage to get on with perfect civility. What's your problem?

I thought that liberals used the same idiot thought processes that conservatives used.

For example: I always start with a couple of jello shooters, get a quick lap dance from a Hooter's gal, and then smoke a bowl before thinking conservative thoughts.

Last time I checked conservative politics is highly influenced by ignorant and blind hatred towards race, sexual orientation, and religion.

We, being conservatives, aren't "Blind haters", we just sound like that because we have to counter the liberals, who will do anything to win an election, including ripping apart the U.S. We understand the issues, and wish to retain some form of moral standard, that the liberals have nearly destroyed.

Chancellor Thorlath
The Federation of Schordic
Corporal
Gatesville Militia
Secretary of State
Blutsoldaten Koalition Milititia

4. This is a JOKE. Conservatives call an act banning certain types of marriage the "Defense of Marriage" act. They call eliminating social security "reform." They call obscene tax cuts "simplification." Give me a break on this one.

I have to say, it is not the role of government to monitor and control a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION such as marriage. America is behind in this matter. All over Europe and Asia, people recieve a civil union and may partake in having a ceremony. Mexico as well uses the same system. Why are we so behind in this debate? "Sanctity of Marriage" my foot. Divorces are on the rise. Those are not "religious" and neither are women recieving and education. It's time we break away from such a hidden fundamentalist regime.

Hey Fox, your point went moot as soon as I saw your ridiculous Zionist accusations.

You know that suggestion (don't remember which) that says that as soon as someone makes a parallel to Hitler or Nazis, the thread is dead, with a handful of exceptions where it really is justified? First post, in this thread. Hmm...

Google "Godwin's Law".

Google "Godwin's Law".
That could have been applied several pages ago.

There are a smattering of liberals (in the correct sense). Our "liberals" are mild "conservaives".
No kidding! They are too right for even some of us hosers, who are scared by the (moderately) right-wing CP.

That could have been applied several pages ago.
Like page one, maybe?

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

This much I do agree with - but the rest of it is questionable, at best. And no, Libertarians are not liberals. Liberals want the government to tax us to death and use the money to try to solve all the world's problems. Libertarians want fewer taxes and less government interference.

And while we're at it, here's something about Conservatives that particularly irks me: Conservatives want the government to force Christian rituals on public school children, regardless of the religious beliefs held by those children and their families. They insert their subliminal (and not-so-subliminal) religious messages in all sorts of places where they don't belong (the Pledge of Allegiance, money, the walls of public buildings, etc.). They use the Constitution to wipe their feet and the Bill of Rights to wipe their butts. They ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but they're not.

Like page one, maybe?
No kidding!

it's pretty simple, liberalism does not support objective morality, conservatives do, a conservative will tell you something is right or wrong, good or bad, in definitive terms.

the other distinction is in use of factual information, conservatives base much of their thinking on what they deem to be effective or sensible, liberals strive for an idealism which they never actually are able to achieve and will use any means to support their claims if they are true or not. while there are exceptions on both sides, this is the general rule. this does not make liberal thinkers evil or nescessarily stupid, but it does make them misguided and sets a dangerous precedent.

a fantastic book which outlines how liberal thinkers have enacted failed social policy over the past half century is Thomas Sowell's Vision of the annointed, i reccomend all of you read it no matter what side of the aisle you claim to be,it sheds light on the situation and put emphasis on facts, not blind idealism.

No kidding! They are too right for even some of us hosers, who are scared by the (moderately) right-wing CP.

well then I apologise and salute the true liberals and socialists of america, but your "mainstream" politics are further right than hitler (I shit you not)

Oh for fuck's sake when will you bloody yanks realise that you dont have any liberals, you have the far right and the even further right. please at least make an attempt to get your political centrepost into some kind of context with the civilised world

Hmmm somebodies pissed about Manchester United! :p

well then I apologise and salute the true liberals and socialists of america, but your "mainstream" politics are further right than hitler (I shit you not)
Please don't talk if you don't know WTF you are saying.
Oh, and nice fufillment of Godwin's Law there.

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Nice Coulter-esque paragraph. You are already not gaining points from your arrogance and condescending tone, especially since I hate radicals like Coulter and Limbaugh.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

All politicians do that. If you haven't learned that yet, then there's really no reason to continue.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.

How about the deregulation of the telecom industry? And Free Trade is a conservative economic policy.

Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler’s mission. Yet Clinton wasn’t concerned with Arafat’s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who negotiated peace in the Middle East”. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we’ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers. Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.

Yeah, letting leaders like Arafat come here that much may look bad, but it's called diplomacy. It's a way better alternative to war, when it works. I'm not into conspiracy theories, so I'm not even going to get into the 9/11 stuff. Because that's just what it is. Sorry, but all kinds of things can be used as "facts" to prove that Clinton, Bush, or whoever was directly responsible for 9/11.

Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

Liberals fear being identified for who they are. When do you ever hear them admit they’re liberals? Only the kook fringe ideologues like Howard Dean have the courage to. The average leftist will sooner call themselves Bush supporters than admit their liberalism. They use codewords like Progressives, Centrists, Moderates, Bi-partisan, etc. They fear being identified because they know that the majority of Americans do NOT support liberalism. Most Americans don’t support the police enforced seizure of assets from those whom produce in order to transfer them to those whom do not. A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.

Bah, the only reason Howard Dean is called radical is because he has a backbone. Liberals don't fear being identified, rather they don't like the trend of placing labels on things and people. Because not an entire party or person's views can fit under one label.

If the majority of Americans do not support liberalism, then how come the majority of the public disagree with the recent ideas the Republicans have tried to push? Schiavo, Social Security Reform, Nuclear Option. I believe the majority of the public was shown to be against the Republicans on all three of these. Along with the fact that Bush only has an approval rating around what 45%?

Oh you may say he won the election and the popular vote, but I'm not talking about just the voting populace. I'm talking about the WHOLE populace. There are no doubt people who didn't vote in the last election because the candidates were too similiar. But that's something I'll get into a little later in this reply.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

I have no problem with jews. It's conservatives who stand up for Israel and who shape policies that support it both politically and materially. It's the LEFT who uses the people of Abraham as scapegoats. It's the american LEFT that uses terms like neocon. Recognize who your true allies and enemies are. I can assure you Robert Byrd won't be welcoming you into his home.

What American Left? Oh, you mean the pseudo left-wing parties like the Democrats. Face it, both parties are right wing. It's just the Dems are closer towards the real center while the Republicans are way far off to the radical right. Now if the Dems would stop acting like Republicans, and trying to be Republican-Lite, then maybe we could have a real left-wing party again. Then maybe they could win elections. As it is, most people can't tell a difference and as such can't decide who to vote for because they are nearly exactly alike in terms of policies.

well then I apologise and salute the true liberals and socialists of america, but your "mainstream" politics are further right than hitler (I shit you not)
...Uh...I guess I do too. I'm NOT American though, I'm a hockey lovin' beaver-tail eatin' hoser. :D

You are already not gaining points from your arrogance and condescending tone, especially since I hate radicals like Coulter and Limbaugh.

What American Left? Oh, you mean the pseudo left-wing parties like the Democrats. Face it, both parties are right wing. It's just the Dems are closer towards the real center while the Republicans are way far off to the radical right.
I'm not argueing with any of your points--I totally agree with them, but I'm pretty sure it's more politically correct to refer to far right-wing conservatives as "reactionaries." "Radicals" is usually applied to far left-wingers. It would just make us look smarter. Sorry to be nit-picking but I can't help it sometimes.

well then I apologise and salute the true liberals and socialists of america, but your "mainstream" politics are further right than hitler (I shit you not)
This thread has defied Godwin's Law.

This thread has defied Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Law was invoked on the first bleedin' page.

same deal with eery political party/orientation

I was a liberal briefly before I became an anarcho-communist. From what I remember, I basically doubted the validity of authority and hierarchy, but was afraid to go as far as I should have and actually reject them.

"American liberalism is for people who either would be true liberals, but just don't have the time and energy, or for people whose parents are conservative, but they want a bit of rebellion." (The latter is largely true of the area where I grew up)

I consider myself, in the broad spectrum, a bit to the left....but still clinging safely to the center. This, of course, makes me radically leftist in America, which doesn't coincide with all the other stereotypical characteristics of what I am, in the mindset of the masses.

*hums softly* ....And I've been thinkin' about leavin'.....long enough to change my mind.....

My God (not yours) ... is this *still* going on?

it's pretty simple, liberalism does not support objective morality, conservatives do, a conservative will tell you something is right or wrong, good or bad, in definitive terms.


There are actually a small percentage of us [Moral Objectivists] that will tell you that religin is a crock of shit. I'm one of them :D

The beauty part of it is, you don't even have to believe in it. It's still there.

My God (not yours) ... is this *still* going on?
Yeah, ad hominem attacks like the first post somehow tend to generate more debate than questions with no intent to attack others. Beats me as to why.

If you think the first post is ad hominem, you really need to hit the dictionary.

Stupid? Yes. Uninformed? Yes. Ad hominem? No.

If you think the first post is ad hominem, you really need to hit the dictionary.

Stupid? Yes. Uninformed? Yes. Ad hominem? No.
Maybe 'ad hominem' is not the phrase I am looking for then. I mean that it attacks the people rather than making a point which could be debated.
I mean, this seems like an attack to me:
Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

Actually, the most striking thing about liberals is their pragmatic streak. While I don't necessarily agree with most liberals about whether or not this is a good thing, but the fact remains that there is no orthodox "liberal" position on such matters as human nature, preferred social structure, theory of God, etc. There does, however, tend to be if not an orthodox position within the Republican Party, then at least there is an overwhelmingly dominant consensus on each of these matters. As a result, liberals tend to judge a policy on the basis of whether it works, conservatives on the basis of whether or not it fits within their overall ideology.

I really shouldn't have to provide examples as they are so abundant, but nevertheless I will. You don't ever hear liberals arguing for or against the idea of progressive sexual education on the basis of human nature, but on the basis of the fact that 1) there is some fairly good empirical evidence that when tried, progressive sexual education teaches young people how to fend off the negative consequences of sexual experimentation while at the same time not necessarily encouraging them to sexually experiment, and 2) the alternative, or abstinence-only, does not seem to provide any benefits relative to the more progressive model. It's conservatives, however, who put their ideological blinders on whenever empirical evidence comes out, because the facts get in the way of their preconceived ideas about how the world should work. Young people should be taught about sexuality. Any ambiguity about whether sex before marriage should cause bad consequences. Therefore, they do, whether or not the actual evidence agrees with this conclusion or not.

This pattern continues itself over and over and over. You won't hear conservatives calling for an end to the Drug War, even though medical tests show that marihuana (government started spelling it with a j in the 20's so as to tie in anti-drug sentiment with anti-Latino immigrant sentiment, so I refuse to spell it any other way than its original spelling) is a drug whose worst side effect is that it makes you want to eat cookie dough and the Drug War has serious consequences for society (the number one reason why there is a lack of black males in society isn't because of welfare, but because of borderline racist sentencing requirements for drug possession). And so on and so forth.


Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.


1) The implication here conflicts with the point you mentioned above. Are they unconcerned with results, or are they obsessed with them to the exclusion of all else? They can't be both.

2) Most of the things you cite are either nothing more than propaganda or they are actual conservative policies that Clinton adopted with the rest of the neoliberal wing of the party. NAFTA, MFN trading status with China, and balanced budget proposals were all heavily favored by industry because, according to classical liberal thinking (and just to be clear, classical liberal philosophers include people like Adam Smith and David Riccardo, who are the gods of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, and usually not associated with modern liberalism), they would increase the overall strength of the global economy, with the rising tide raising all ships.

As for the increased taxation and overregulation, I would like for you to point out any statutes Clinton passed that did anything of the sort. The '93 marginal tax increases dealt with personal, not corporate tax rates, and Clinton was a big fan of deregulation, not overregulation. You've apparently bought into the myth of Clinton liberalism, when in fact he was more of a Republican than Reagan was.


Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.

Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. He quite literally wrote the book on how to gain political advantage and international attention through the murder of innocents. This man visited the White House on multiple occasions with the full blessing and welcome of Bill Clinton. Clinton knew Arafat was a butcher, a murderer and the inheritor of Hitler’s mission. Yet Clinton wasn’t concerned with Arafat’s terror connections, only with his personal quest to be the “President who negotiated peace in the Middle East”. Good job Bill, every time we remember those murdered in the intifada we’ll remember you. Clinton ruled while Iraq openly violated the Gulf War cease fire on a daily basis. He stood by as France, Germany and Russia made a laughing stock of the Oil For Food program thereby funneling billions into Saddam’s coffers. Clinton is directly liable in the 9/11 attacks. He sent American forces into Somalia but tied their hands by denying them the equipment and initiate to carry out their mission of securing the peace. When the Clinton administration denied commanders their request for AC-130 gunships, armored transports and tanks for the Bakara market operation they left American troops an impossible mission. Only their training, skill and perseverance kept it from being a total massacre. During that battle Osama Bin Laden was in Mogadishu. He is seen on a video tape talking of how the Americans retreat from Somalia after the Battle of Bakara Market gave him the confidence that we could be attacked directly.


1) What the hell does Yasser Arafat have to do with national security? Is the PLO responsible for a bombing in America that I'm not aware of?

2) Okay, he dealt with an evil guy. I admit it, Yasser Arafat was a thoroughly evil person. But how that equates with a compromise in national security I have no idea. To be sure, if the two are related it means that a lot of people in America's past have compromised America's security. Mao was a pedophile, yet Nixon reached an accord with him that resulted in an explosion of American trade. Pinochet was a tyrant who killed thousands, yet Bush I and Reagan both worked with him to stop the spread of communism. Hell even Jefferson could have been said to have compromised America by that standard because hey, he negotiated with those dastardly Barbary Pirates.

3) The Oil For Food program was a program designed to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMD's, not prevent graft. In that case, it worked spectacularly. If you want to fault it for the graft it produced, then you need to talk to the people who designed the program who are. . .well, shit, they're the people now criticizing the program. Wolfowitz, Cheney, et. all were all heavily responsible for the creation of the Oil For Food program. You can't have it both ways, buddy. If you don't like the program, blame the people who built it, not liberals. If you do like the program, don't complain about the damn graft as a way of excusing your failure to find WMD's.

4) I will agree with you about his failure in Somalia, although I disagree that this makes Clinton completely and solely responsible for 9/11. There was a lot that could have been done between 1993 and 2001 to stop it, much of it on Bush II's watch.

Given how asinine the final point was, I'm not going to even bother with it.

Funny how everytime you post, you get into a flame war. Most of the rest of us on the board manage to get on with perfect civility. What's your problem?

Because you type leftist tripe "Is GW Bush worse than Hitler?" and others agree with you. That's your problem. I dare to type a dissenting opinion to the constant leftist tripe and you people explode. That's my problem.

Because you type leftist tripe "Is GW Bush worse than Hitler?" and others agree with you. That's your problem. I dare to type a dissenting opinion to the constant leftist tripe and you people explode. That's my problem.

Now, now. Lets not play the victim card.....

No, actually, I'd say your problem lies more within the fact that you have systematically refused to debate just about every argument you've seen in thie thread, dismissing them as "tripe" or not worth responding to.

You don't start a thread like this unless you're prepared to deal with the dissent. You don't start a thread like this if you're not prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the Liberal ideology almost as much as you do: I think it's one of the most misguided, subliminally evil movements in American History. You just need a better strategy for denouncing it.

Because you type leftist tripe "Is GW Bush worse than Hitler?" and others agree with you. That's your problem. I dare to type a dissenting opinion to the constant leftist tripe and you people explode. That's my problem.
It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 "I'm in Paris. how dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine." This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster.
Yeah, those liber-hey...

No, actually, I'd say your problem lies more within the fact that you have systematically refused to debate just about every argument you've seen in thie thread, dismissing them as "tripe" or not worth responding to.

You don't start a thread like this unless you're prepared to deal with the dissent. You don't start a thread like this if you're not prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the Liberal ideology almost as much as you do: I think it's one of the most misguided, subliminally evil movements in American History. You just need a better strategy for denouncing it.
As opposed to the morally "superior" but ideologically empty libertarian philosophy you espouse, right? A philosophy that argues that individuals accomplish more than societies has an issue with empirical evidence--that's all I'm saying.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the Liberal ideology almost as much as you do: I think it's one of the most misguided, subliminally evil movements in American History. You just need a better strategy for denouncing it.
Evil?

I seriously, seriously doubt it.

Another funny aspect of the Dominionist/Pre-millenialist/Post-Millenialist concept of GOP neo-con escatology....

Anyone who dares question US support of Israel is anti-semetic...

All the same time as taking their cue sheet from a man (Falwell) who considers Jews the personification of the Anti-Christ (right next to homosexuals).

Last time I read premillenialist escatological studies, it was the Antichrist who was the "Friend" of Israel, initially protecting her from her enemies.... Sounds an awful lot like the United States of America, in conjunction with the GOP and President Bush.... Perhapse Bush is the antichrist (in this escatology)... With his "RealID" (mark of the beast) that all the GOP'ers and neo-cons are lining up for.

Maybe all the Dispensationalist GOP'ers should question their party affiliation.

As opposed to the morally "superior" but ideologically empty libertarian philosophy you espouse, right? A philosophy that argues that individuals accomplish more than societies has an issue with empirical evidence--that's all I'm saying.

Ahhh, no. I'm an Objectivist first, and a libertarian second. In fact, if you'd care to look into the matter at all [which you obviously haven't] you'd find that Objectivism does, in fact, have some problems with the modern Libertarian movement. "Ideologically empty" my ass.

Evil?

I seriously, seriously doubt it.

Subliminally evil. There's a subtle difference. I don't doubt that most liberals are well-meaning people, but their ideology boils down to an ultimate lack of respect for the self and a near-compulsory submission to an undifferentiating egomass. That's evil.

Ahhh, no. I'm an Objectivist first, and a libertarian second. In fact, if you'd care to look into the matter at all [which you obviously haven't] you'd find that Objectivism does, in fact, have some problems with the modern Libertarian movement. "Ideologically empty" my ass.
It's based on a reality that doesn't exist--the idea that humans in a society can approach each others as anything remotely approaching equals. That sounds good in a theoretical sense, but in the real world, sorry Melkor, it just ain't so.

Here--this is a breakdown of Rand's philosophy of objectivism, in her own words. I'm sure you're familiar with it. I'll hit it point by point:My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.1. Facts are nothing without context. Moral issues and questions are rarely, if ever black and white---they are relative to time, place and circumstance. And quite often, the same set of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways by perfectly reasonable and objective people. In short, facts are never independent of the context in which they are observed.

2. Reason may be the best way to perceive reality, but it's far from being the only one. We're working with hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary biology that has hard-wired certain instincts into us--the fact that we're able to reason at all is incredible, and the fact that we're able to push our more primal urges to the bottom in order to civilize ourselves is equally impressive, but the fact is that humans are as ruled by their emotion and their evolutionary instincts far more than they are by reason. If they weren't, most of the violence we see around us wouldn't exist, but violence in most cases isn't a reasonable course of action.

3. This is where the theory descends into vapidity. If all humans felt the way Rand did, we'd never have made it out of the caves. As animals go, indivudlally, we're pretty poorly designed for survival--we're not the fastest or the strongest. In fact, we're nowhere near the upper echelon of those categories. What we are is social, and that's one of the factors that has saved our asses time and again. We recognize the validity of strength in numbers instinctively, and have since before we were even human. Society is what makes humanity the dominant lifeform on this planet, and society demands sacrifice. The more complex the society, the more sacrifice demanded. For a far more detailed discussion of this phenomenon, I suggest Robert Wright's Nonzero:The Logic of Human Destiny.

4. Much as Rand would have liked to believe otherwise, laissez-faire capitalism has been tried multiple times through history, and it always ended the same way--violent revolution by a downtrodden and exploited underclass. Mind you, the revolutions weren't always successful--in fact they often resulted in great death and destruction to the underclass--but the revolutions occurred nonetheless. That's because laissez-faire, like any unregulated system, spins out of control, and those who are on the winning side continue to win, not because of any particular strategy, but because they happened to be the lucky ones with access to the things valued. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel deals with this sort of thing obliquely.

One last point to make--the thing that bugs me most about the Objectivist or Libertarian viewpoint is the smugness that comes from the idea that you're self-made. It's the "I made the money and it's mine and you can't have it" attitude. There's not a self-made person on this planet--we're all standing on the backs of the trillions of people who came before us and the billions who exist right now, and to argue that you've accomplished something on you lonesome is not only arrogant, it's pathetic and delusionary. Get over yourself (not you, specifically, Melkor)--you've done nothing by any subjective measure, so get over yourself and accept that you owe an unpayable debt to the society that has provided you with so much.

Subliminally evil. There's a subtle difference. I don't doubt that most liberals are well-meaning people, but their ideology boils down to an ultimate lack of respect for the self and a near-compulsory submission to an undifferentiating egomass. That's evil.

*Blinks*

Ahm okaaaaa.

Lack of respect for the self?

Submission to the egomass?

Do explain for the less intelligent like myself.

Ahhh, no. Subliminally evil. There's a subtle difference. I don't doubt that most liberals are well-meaning people, but their ideology boils down to an ultimate lack of respect for the self and a near-compulsory submission to an undifferentiating egomass. That's evil.
That's a terrible use of the word evil, as under that definition, everyone's ideology who has effects that you perceive as deleterious become evil ideologies.

Further, if lack of respect for the self is evil, than is someone with low self esteem evil?


The funny thing is, that's a very innacurate picture of liberalism. Modern liberalism is derived from classic liberalism (libertarianism) after the advent of modern capitalism. Why? Because it liberalism was all about the rights of the individual. One of the most important liberal tenets is that people must have inalienable individual rights and freedoms. Before modern capitalism was tried, it seemed the best way to secure that system was having the government do functionally nothing, as governments at the time were, well, enormous disasters. However, it became apparent that in the modern economy, corporations were more dangerous to the rights of the individual than the government, much more of your "undifferentiating egomass," as they placed profits above people in terms of their actions. See the United States at the end of the 19th century. Individuals had functionally no rights; if they protested agains their company they often died of starvation or were killed by Pinkerton detectives. Therefore, companies must be regulated to preserve individual freedom. Liberalism is libertarianism that has adapted to the modern economy.

Ahhh, no. I'm an Objectivist first, and a libertarian second. In fact, if you'd care to look into the matter at all [which you obviously haven't] you'd find that Objectivism does, in fact, have some problems with the modern Libertarian movement. "Ideologically empty" my ass.

Subliminally evil. There's a subtle difference. I don't doubt that most liberals are well-meaning people, but their ideology boils down to an ultimate lack of respect for the self and a near-compulsory submission to an undifferentiating egomass. That's evil.
Objectivism is a nice idea, but unfortunately the world is filled with Jims and not Dagnys. You're more apt with self made men to see them get to the top, then use their weight to crush others out of exsistance, not through free market forces, but the 800 pound gorilla ideal. See Microsoft.

It's based on a reality that doesn't exist--the idea that humans in a society can approach each others as anything remotely approaching equals. That sounds good in a theoretical sense, but in the real world, sorry Melkor, it just ain't so.

Equals? Excuse me? I've read through my share of Objectivist manuals and descriptions and I've never seen it implied anywhere in any passage by Rand or any other Objectivist thinker that even came close to implying that people are "equal." If anything, Objectivism contends men are not equal. Your assertation to this effect leads me to believe you're shockingly less familiar with this ideology than you seem to think.

1. Facts are nothing without context. Moral issues and questions are rarely, if ever black and white---they are relative to time, place and circumstance. And quite often, the same set of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways by perfectly reasonable and objective people. In short, facts are never independent of the context in which they are observed.

This is the best attack on Objectivist Metaphysics I've ever seen. Allow me to refute it. Of course facts are nothing without context--but in most cases, this context is simply reality. In a scientific sense, the basic facts we know about the universe are unimpeachable and cannot be coherently refuted by our senses. If you're talking about moral or ethical situations, I still agree: emotion and cultural upbringing can have drastic effects on how one perceives what goes on around him. But A is still A.

Basically what you're telling me here is that no two people think completely alike, which is fine--it's still not much of a counterargument to Objectivism.

2. Reason may be the best way to perceive reality, but it's far from being the only one.

And if its the best, we should use it before anything else. Next!

We're working with hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary biology that has hard-wired certain instincts into us--the fact that we're able to reason at all is incredible, and the fact that we're able to push our more primal urges to the bottom in order to civilize ourselves is equally impressive, but the fact is that humans are as ruled by their emotion and their evolutionary instincts far more than they are by reason. If they weren't, most of the violence we see around us wouldn't exist, but violence in most cases isn't a reasonable course of action.

I wholeheartedly disagree. If humans were governed primarily by emotions, innovations and discoveries would be much fewer and far between. Some people are governed by emotions, some by logic. Making a blanket statement either way is absurd. Objectivism doesn't even pretend to do this.

3. This is where the theory descends into vapidity. If all humans felt the way Rand did, we'd never have made it out of the caves.

But they don't. However, I am forced to point out that were it not for the instinctive desire to make a better life for ourselves, we would have never gotten out of the caves either.

As animals go, indivudlally, we're pretty poorly designed for survival--we're not the fastest or the strongest. In fact, we're nowhere near the upper echelon of those categories. What we are is social, and that's one of the factors that has saved our asses time and again. We recognize the validity of strength in numbers instinctively, and have since before we were even human. Society is what makes humanity the dominant lifeform on this planet, and society demands sacrifice. The more complex the society, the more sacrifice demanded. For a far more detailed discussion of this phenomenon, I suggest Robert Wright's Nonzero:The Logic of Human Destiny.

We're not so much social as were inclined to trade. Sure, we cant exist or sustain ourselves or build a skyscraper all by ourselves, but what we [i]do end up doing is approaching other people and saying--in effect--"I will give you x for service y." Social interaction would not exist without mutual benefit.

4. Much as Rand would have liked to believe otherwise, laissez-faire capitalism has been tried multiple times through history, and it always ended the same way--violent revolution by a downtrodden and exploited underclass.

"Pure" laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in any civilization on Earth. Argument rejected.

One last point to make--the thing that bugs me most about the Objectivist or Libertarian viewpoint is the smugness that comes from the idea that you're self-made. It's the "I made the money and it's mine and you can't have it" attitude. There's not a self-made person on this planet--we're all standing on the backs of the trillions of people who came before us and the billions who exist right now, and to argue that you've accomplished something on you lonesome is not only arrogant, it's pathetic and delusionary. Get over yourself (not you, specifically, Melkor)--you've done nothing by any subjective measure, so get over yourself and accept that you owe an unpayable debt to the society that has provided you with so much.

Of course it's arrogant. What's the problem with that? How is it pathetic to be good at what you do? How is it delusional to recognize the circumstances of your success? We take pride in being as self-made as our circumstances allow. Of course we have dead relatives. Whats your point? I've asked from nothing from society, any benefits it gives to me it gives to me because the government tells them to.

I'm not argueing with any of your points--I totally agree with them, but I'm pretty sure it's more politically correct to refer to far right-wing conservatives as "reactionaries." "Radicals" is usually applied to far left-wingers. It would just make us look smarter. Sorry to be nit-picking but I can't help it sometimes.

Eh, whatever. I just use radical for anything to the far-end of a spectrum. Far-right, far-left, and the other two directions on the usual political compass.

Aren't we all dependent upon the government? Just a friendly question, but do you know the amount of money people get from that?


I don't know how much money people get from Social Security. Care to enlighten us?

And yes, we're all dependent on the government. It's very hard to refute that fact effectively.


I'm seeing a lot of blind generalizations on both sides here. Not many of you are taking the time to think about what others are saying, and are jumping in with thinly veiled flames, it seems.

Maybe because you all have been arguing this topic for so long, you're all tired of coming up with legitimate responses. Not to say that there haven't been legitimate responses, they're just few and far between.

Oh, could anyone tell me what the difference is between a UK/European liberal and a US liberal? Someone here stated that US liberals are really "far Right", and conservatives are "far FAR Right". Man, I wanna know how far left one needs to be to be considered a liberal in the UK. This isn't an attack on anyone, I'm seriously asking. What's the difference? And, while we're on that, what defines a UK conservative as well?

That's a terrible use of the word evil, as under that definition, everyone's ideology who has effects that you perceive as deleterious become evil ideologies.

Further, if lack of respect for the self is evil, than is someone with low self esteem evil?

In most cases, yes. This lack of self-respect has a way of being transposed to others. How can you respect other people if you don't respect yourself?


The funny thing is, that's a very innacurate picture of liberalism. Modern liberalism is derived from classic liberalism (libertarianism) after the advent of modern capitalism.

The entire American political spectrum is derived from classical liberalism.

Why? Because it liberalism was all about the rights of the individual. One of the most important liberal tenets is that people must have inalienable individual rights and freedoms.

Oh, you mean like property rights? Property like money? Money that modern liberals want me to give to someone else?

Before modern capitalism was tried, it seemed the best way to secure that system was having the government do functionally nothing, as governments at the time were, well, enormous disasters. However, it became apparent that in the modern economy, corporations were more dangerous to the rights of the individual than the government,

Lunacy. I can't believe you're actually proposing this. Corporations don't go to war or incarcerate people on anywhere near the level government is capable of. Nike can't put me in jail: George W. Bush can. DuPont can't nuke Japan, but Truman can.

much more of your "undifferentiating egomass," as they placed profits above people in terms of their actions. See the United States at the end of the 19th century. Individuals had functionally no rights; if they protested agains their company they often died of starvation or were killed by Pinkerton detectives.

Yes, and the people who made this unfortunate circumstance a reality were acting irrationally and thus I do not approve of their actions. Extortion should not exist in proper capitalism; I won't stand for it and neither should you.

Therefore, companies must be regulated to preserve individual freedom. Liberalism is libertarianism that has adapted to the modern economy.

Regulated in what capacity? I'll agree with a regulation that says "Mattell can't put me in a corporate prison" or one that says "Boeing can't build nuclear weapons," then yeah. But suggesting that trade should be regulated for the "rights of the individual" are more subversive to the "rights of the individual" to make their choice on the free market than even your demonization of corporate culture.

In most cases, yes. This lack of self-respect has a way of being transposed to others. How can you respect other people if you don't respect yourself?
Actually, very well. If you think you're worse than other people, you tend to respect them more. Even still, liberals don't disrespect other people. That's what the rest of my original post proves.

Futher, it's really unfair to tell someone who has depression that they're evil just because they have low self-esteem. More than unfair, it's cruel and largely innacurate.

The entire American political spectrum is derived from classical liberalism.
Not in the sense that I meant. It would have been better phrased as "intellectual heirs."

Oh, you mean like property rights? Property like money? Money that modern liberals want me to give to someone else?
Money that they take from those who don't need and give to those who do. Beyond that, many people's money right now are being scammed away by corporate monopolies and unfair business practices. Those people's property fights need to be defended too.

Lunacy. I can't believe you're actually proposing this. Corporations don't go to war or incarcerate people on anywhere near the level government is capable of. Nike can't put me in jail: George W. Bush can. DuPont can't nuke Japan, but Truman can.
Going to war, everyone agrees, is the domain of the state. It's not an individual right that needs to be safeguarded; it also occurs much more infrequently than corporate domination in an unchecked market. In the status quo United States, you're right, the state imposes more on people than companies do. However, you functionally conceed that when the American market was unregulated as possible, corporations a) functionally controlled the government, meaning that they could impose whatever they want on people and b) were allowed to do whatever they want with people who worked for them, including placing them in conditions that were essentially slavery. Nike and DuPont now might not be able to do to much, but US Steel and JP Morgan functionally WERE the government.

Yes, and the people who made this unfortunate circumstance a reality were acting irrationally and thus I do not approve of their actions. Extortion should not exist in proper capitalism; I won't stand for it and neither should you.
That's cheating. I don't approve of ineffecitve regulation or unfair taking of money from individuals. I only approve of regulation that does its intended job or taking money from those who don't need it and giving it to those who don't. However, liberals can't only claim our best policies. Likewise, you can't claim only the best free markets. You have to realize that the inevitable result of a free market in the laissez-faire sense is absolute corporate domination of society. The closest society in world history to Laissez Faire capitalism would prove this. You can't only endorse the good parts of your ideology.

Regulated in what capacity? I'll agree with a regulation that says "Mattell can't put me in a corporate prison" or one that says "Boeing can't build nuclear weapons," then yeah. But suggesting that trade should be regulated for the "rights of the individual" are more subversive to the "rights of the individual" to make their choice on the free market than even your demonization of corporate culture.
I doubt that's true. One of the state's roles is to prevent people from exploiting another. If someone's being exploited by an inhuman corporation, I doubt they have much self-respect. If people are forced to buy in company stores, then their ability to participate in the free market is kinda hampered.

This would also indicate you're more of a liberal than you think you are.

I still agree wholeheartedly with Northern Fox in this one, since i live across the pond. Here in the UK we have a totally liberal government who are swamping us with the leftist ideals. Hell, if we speak out against in publicly, we get arrested for being a racist just so noone else hears our views. The government have practically removed all borders, making us totally vulnerable to the tens of thousands entering illegally every year, and according to the govt. papers that we can see, they think it's a good idea to help these people more! Add into the fact that gordon brown wants to use our gold reserves (our ONLY monetary reserve for when the cack hits the fan) to give to africa (the biggest monetary black hole in history.....), the left-ists (i.e. liberals) are creating one hell of a mess for some other decent people to clean up.

Let us also not forget that political correctness, though not created explicitly by the liberals, was let in by some liberal idiot who decided to embrace radical new ideas. If the prat had thought of what was going on, he would realise that it was created to benefit the minority at the expense of everyone else, ultimately undermining the democratic system that has served us so well for a century. Another thing the liberals have given us. Thank you SO much.

Just on a second note: Liberals admittedly think "open mindledly", and accept new things. Conservatives attempt to oppose drastic change. Let us apply this to any physical system. The first is positive feedback, creating an out-of-control system with no equilibrium anywhere. In nature this is fatal. The conservative system is a negative feedback, which creates stability and a system that tends to survive. QED

I was reading this thread calmly until I read this bit. I shall split it bit by bit.

1. Labour is not liberal. Labour is about as conservative as the Tories. The only main liberal party is the Lib Dems.
2. I have never heard of anyone being arrested for disagreeing with Blair under charges of racism. I have heard of people being arrested for starting race riots in town centres, political parties started under the sole principle to get all non-whites out of Britain and when critised for any of these, blaming it on the government.
3. Immigration is a hot issue. I personally believe that the country is just as secure as it was before, and the increase in immigrants is caused by refugees more than economic immigrants. About 20 days ago you had a choice to either vote for Howard and his tighter Immigration or Labour. People voted Labour. Maybe they, like me, disagreed with the overtones of playing on peoples fears which came from the Tories
4. Africa needs Aid. We are a rich country. If it all goes wrong for any one of us, we will still get enough money to pick ourselves up again. Africa is extremely poor, ruined by AIDS, currupt governments (left and right) and foreign intervention. Again, being a democracy, people seem to want to give AID to Africa, as the thousands of signatures on sites such as makepovertyhistory.org and maketradefair.org.uk suggest.
5. Political correctness is a good idea. It is verbally acknowledging that using inciteful language and derogatory terms isn't good at all. Also look at the name - it orginally came about because not to be PC is commiting Political Suicide, alienating a large section of voters and making the rest doubt your tact and goodwill. I agree that in some cases it has gone to far, but I still do not adhere to the Daily Mail policy of all PC is completly wrong.

I think that's the extent of it, and I would have gone into a lot more depth and been a lot more attacking if I wasn't so tired.

Actually, very well. If you think you're worse than other people, you tend to respect them more. Even still, liberals don't disrespect other people. That's what the rest of my original post proves.

Preposterous. If you hate yourself, then on some level, you hate everyone else too. I have yet to meet a socially apt self-loather. I'm not saying that people with mental and/or self-esteem problems are evil--I'm talking about the people who think that they're doing the right thing for society by giving up all their possessions or asking me to give up a share of mine.

Still, I fail to see how asking me to live my life for someone else shows "respect" for me. Liberals don't consciously dislike people, they don't try to fuck with my shit, they just do it as a consequence of their bass-ackwards ideology.

Futher, it's really unfair to tell someone who has depression that they're evil just because they have low self-esteem. More than unfair, it's cruel and largely innacurate.

It's a difficult distinction to make, in this sense, between depressed folks and what I call 'self loathers.' Depressed people are depressed, generally, through some biological or physiological means, and it's not always within their control. I--at times-- suffer from chronic depression myself, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

When I talk about people with 'no self-esteem' or invoke a lack of self-respect in someone's political ideology, I'm not talking about mentally troubled folks, but rather about people who have committed some form of evasion or logical fallacy in their own mind at a formative stage which has led them to place the well-being of others above their own. People who endorse programs like welfare, social security, affirmative action, and so on. Once you break down these central principles to their irreducible primaries, you find an ultimate subservience of the self to the remainder of society. It's a lot easier to illustrate with a more extreme ideology like Communism or Fascism, but American Liberalism shares some of the same traits.

Helping folks is all well and good, making a policy out of making me help folks is a different beast altogether. You say liberals respect people, but they seem to have a lot of fun telling me what to do with my life; telling me that I "owe a debt" to society. It's one thing to give a bum $10, but its moral cannibalism to have a cop come to my door and force me to.

Not in the sense that I meant. It would have been better phrased as "intellectual heirs."

Heh. Fair enough. But political viewpoints have a way of being skewed. How can property rights be anything if they're not upheld across the board? Why is there a tendancy in American politics to selectively enforce the tenets it claims to hold so dear?

Money that they take from those who don't need and give to those who do. Beyond that, many people's money right now are being scammed away by corporate monopolies and unfair business practices. Those people's property fights need to be defended too.

The opening sentance here disturbs me, who decides who "needs" money and who doesn't? Why does it make sense to punish success and reward failure? A lot of people seem to think that if you did away with welfare and social security programs that our poor would just be in such a state of degradation that nothing would possibly be able to get them out of it. Welfare has been around for decades: anyone else think it isn't doing shit? I don't have a problem with government programs that I can see a benefit from, but welfare is just a rat-hole.

Private charities and corporate donations will do more to end poverty than any government program ever will. Also, this means you don't have to violate my property rights to solve the problem.


Going to war, everyone agrees, is the domain of the state. It's not an individual right that needs to be safeguarded; it also occurs much more infrequently than corporate domination in an unchecked market. In the status quo United States, you're right, the state imposes more on people than companies do. However, you functionally conceed that when the American market was unregulated as possible, corporations a) functionally controlled the government, meaning that they could impose whatever they want on people and b) were allowed to do whatever they want with people who worked for them, including placing them in conditions that were essentially slavery. Nike and DuPont now might not be able to do to much, but US Steel and JP Morgan functionally WERE the government.

And, like I said before, this had to have been a horribly mismanaged set of policies to have actually been the case.


That's cheating. I don't approve of ineffecitve regulation or unfair taking of money from individuals.

I call bullshit. If you're an American liberal, I'm going to assume you support programs like Welfare and Social Security, which means you endorse both of these concepts.

I only approve of regulation that does its intended job or taking money from those who don't need it and giving it to those who don't.

How quaint. Allow me to translate: "I advoacate the destruction of property rights if the person in question has more money than someone else." Inalienable rights my ass.

However, liberals can't only claim our best policies. Likewise, you can't claim only the best free markets. You have to realize that the inevitable result of a free market in the laissez-faire sense is absolute corporate domination of society.

And this is worse than government domination... how? The market today is much larger than it was in the glory days of evil capitalism that you described earlier. It's not as easy for them to pull that shit anymore; we won't stand for it. It doesn't matter who "dominates society" in this sense--whether your a corporate honcho or a government offical, you're still human. There isn't that much of a difference in the way these people think. I'd rather have a small government that recognized my ability to do what I want with my life than a large one who effectively cornholes my property rights in the name of defending $IDIOT_CITIZEN from his own spending habits.

In short, you've got to make a trade. You have to say to yourself "Am I willing to do my homework and buy only what really works? Am I willing to give my money to this corporation for the service they're asking?"

The alternative is to try to shelter everyone from this choice, and the result--inevitably--is some form of authoritarianism.

The closest society in world history to Laissez Faire capitalism would prove this. You can't only endorse the good parts of your ideology.

Um... "good parts?" What? I endorse the whole thing. The concept of "fair trade" is implicit with any form of capitalism, as well as my own beliefs. Many of the concepts you're invoking here are "unfair trade" and thus not an accurate reprsentation of how I think things should be run. Saying I'm cherry picking just because I want things to happen for mutual benefit is laughable at best, and depressing at worst.

I doubt that's true. One of the state's roles is to prevent people from exploiting another. If someone's being exploited by an inhuman corporation, I doubt they have much self-respect.

And if someone's being exploited by an inhuman government, I doubt they have much self-respect either.

If people are forced to buy in company stores, then their ability to participate in the free market is kinda hampered.

ROFL. That's the whole definition of free market. Besides, no one is forcing you to do anything. People don't shop in supermarkets because they're forced to, they do it because the store has something they want/need.

When you go to the mall, do corporate hitmen follow you there? Don't be absurd. This is one of the most bogus arguments I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

This would also indicate you're more of a liberal than you think you are.

I'm pretty liberal on social issues, which we're unfortunately not discussing here. Most people are, in a sense "more liberal than they think" since--as was mentioned before--American politics have been devised from Classical Liberalism.

Still, claiming that I'm 'more liberal than I think' because I dont want a CEO to be able to throw me in prison is a bit of a stretch. I know what I think.

Preposterous. If you hate yourself, then on some level, you hate everyone else too. I have yet to meet a socially apt self-loather. I'm not saying that people with mental and/or self-esteem problems are evil--I'm talking about the people who think that they're doing the right thing for society by giving up all their possessions or asking me to give up a share of mine.

Still, I fail to see how asking me to live my life for someone else shows "respect" for me. Liberals don't consciously dislike people, they don't try to fuck with my shit, they just do it as a consequence of their bass-ackwards ideology.
Being "socially apt" does not equal loving everyone else. By the way, I do know a self-hater who's very "socially-apt." Also, living your life for someone else is to me, the ultimate self respect - the fact that you're so comfortable with your own being that you don't feel the need to do too much to better its material conditions means that you're happy with the way you are now. This part of the discussion, however, is becoming increasingly irrelevent.

It's a difficult distinction to make, in this sense, between depressed folks and what I call 'self loathers.' Depressed people are depressed, generally, through some biological or physiological means, and it's not always within their control. I--at times-- suffer from chronic depression myself, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
Conceeded. That distinction just wasn't in the first post, so I felt the need to bring it up.

When I talk about people with 'no self-esteem' or invoke a lack of self-respect in someone's political ideology, I'm not talking about mentally troubled folks, but rather about people who have committed some form of evasion or logical fallacy in their own mind at a formative stage which has led them to place the well-being of others above their own. People who endorse programs like welfare, social security, affirmative action, and so on. Once you break down these central principles to their irreducible primaries, you find an ultimate subservience of the self to the remainder of society. It's a lot easier to illustrate with a more extreme ideology like Communism or Fascism, but American Liberalism shares some of the same traits.
I don't really think that's an "evasion or logical fallacy." I think it's actually the most moral and just means of living. To me, it's honorable to devote one's life to helping others. I also don't think people who support welfare, social security, and affirmative action support the well-being of others above their own. Either they are recipients or beneficiaries, in which case you'd think they were being smart, or they think that they have enough that they're not placing other people above them, they're helping those other people get to a better place - but in almost every case, that place is still below their own. If I had 40 billion dollars, and gave 10 dollars away to charity, it would make virtually no dent in my own quality of life, but could help someone else, I wouldn't be placing that person over myself because the loss of that 10 really doesn't hurt me. Replace 10 dollars with 10 billion dollars, and you get the same result given how much money that is for one individual.

I won't get into it here, because the ideas are too complex and involved for me to explain on a thread about something else, but you should read some books by a guy named Emmanuel Levinas, or at least some secondary literature on him. Actually, read the secondary stuff first because he's really hard to understand. His philosophy and ideas are excellent at explaining why priviledging the Other over the self is good.

Helping folks is all well and good, making a policy out of making me help folks is a different beast altogether. You say liberals respect people, but they seem to have a lot of fun telling me what to do with my life; telling me that I "owe a debt" to society. It's one thing to give a bum $10, but its moral cannibalism to have a cop come to my door and force me to.
It's not if that $10 could be more beneficial to the bum than you. For example, it might help the bum to survive while it might allow you to buy a more expensive dinner. I'd defend that as being a just function of the government. This, of course, depends on your philosophical perspective. A Rawlsian or a Levinasian would defend the action as being the most important tenet of a just society (although they differ on a lot of other things). A utilitarian would also probably think this action would be good, because it would be the greatest good for the greatest number. To defend this idea, you have to defend a deontological moral perspective. We can have that discussion here, if you want.

Heh. Fair enough. But political viewpoints have a way of being skewed. How can property rights be anything if they're not upheld across the board? Why is there a tendancy in American politics to selectively enforce the tenets it claims to hold so dear?
If they were upheld across the board, we couldn't have a government, because than it could never tax and thus not fund the bare-minimum military and police force needed to have a government. Government as a concept inherently picks and chooses property rights to defend. They aren't "selectively enforced," but rather enforced under particular circumstances given a system of criteria.


The opening sentance here disturbs me, who decides who "needs" money and who doesn't? Why does it make sense to punish success and reward failure? A lot of people seem to think that if you did away with welfare and social security programs that our poor would just be in such a state of degradation that nothing would possibly be able to get them out of it. Welfare has been around for decades: anyone else think it isn't doing shit? I don't have a problem with government programs that I can see a benefit from, but welfare is just a rat-hole.

Private charities and corporate donations will do more to end poverty than any government program ever will. Also, this means you don't have to violate my property rights to solve the problem.
Someone with 40 Billion dollars doesn't need that money. I'll conceed that capitalism is good. I agree, success should be rewarded, and to an extent that people should be able to enjoy a better lifestyle if they succeed. However, opulence should generally not override someone else's ultimate right - that of survival. In essence, you're denying them the property right of their own body.

Poverty has gone down significantly since the government began expanding its aid to the poor. If it hadn't during the depression, that whole thing would have lasted a hell of a lot longer than it did in this country, impeding our ability to organize for WWII, and perhaps totally altering the course of the war. In addition, the Johnson-era programs have been proven empirical successes in reducing poverty. Data coming after the current waves of hellish testing.

Ditto for private charity v. government. In addition, do you really think most incredibly wealthy people would donate enough money to significantly alleviate poverty?

And, like I said before, this had to have been a horribly mismanaged set of policies to have actually been the case.
These policies came into existance because the government at the time believed that it should absolutely stay out of the affairs of the private sector. Zero regulation, zero income tax, people in functional slavery and corporate control of government. That's what happens when the market is left to its own devices to such a great extent.

I call bullshit. If you're an American liberal, I'm going to assume you support programs like Welfare and Social Security, which means you endorse both of these concepts.
I don't think this type of regulation has failed. Social Security is one of the greatest successes in American political history. When you show me your sources, I'll show you mine (meaning I'm too lazy/busy to do any sort of research beyond past reading on the subject until you make me).

How quaint. Allow me to translate: "I advoacate the destruction of property rights if the person in question has more money than someone else." Inalienable rights my ass.
Not if they have just any more money - I wouldn't take someone's single dollar and give it someone who had none. If they have much more money than is needed even to encourage success in private industry (which is, in my mind, the best reasons for lower taxes) it should be taken and restributed to people who are DYING from starvation and "easily curable diseases." That seems way fair to me, thanks. Food seems like a pretty important property right.


And this is worse than government domination... how? The market today is much larger than it was in the glory days of evil capitalism that you described earlier. It's not as easy for them to pull that shit anymore; we won't stand for it. It doesn't matter who "dominates society" in this sense--whether your a corporate honcho or a government offical, you're still human. There isn't that much of a difference in the way these people think. I'd rather have a small government that recognized my ability to do what I want with my life than a large one who effectively cornholes my property rights in the name of defending $IDIOT_CITIZEN from his own spending habits.

In short, you've got to make a trade. You have to say to yourself "Am I willing to do my homework and buy only what really works? Am I willing to give my money to this corporation for the service they're asking?"

The alternative is to try to shelter everyone from this choice, and the result--inevitably--is some form of authoritarianism.
The reason corporate domination is worse is because it inherently opposes limits on individual's other freedoms if they impede their ability to make a profit. The status quo US government is NOT authoritarian. It gives people a certain amount of rights and (at least attempts) to protect them from harms from abroad. I'd take that any day over a goverment that "refers to its citizens as human resources."

In order for you to win this argument, you need to win that any government with a welfare program becomes authoritarian. This is false. Corporate government is inherently authoritarian. See above and past posts.

Um... "good parts?" What? I endorse the whole thing. The concept of "fair trade" is implicit with any form of capitalism, as well as my own beliefs. Many of the concepts you're invoking here are "unfair trade" and thus not an accurate reprsentation of how I think things should be run. Saying I'm cherry picking just because I want things to happen for mutual benefit is laughable at best, and depressing at worst.
But then where do you draw the line? If we can impede on Microsoft's ability to accrue a profit to help out other companies, why can't we impede on Bill Gate's ability to have a ridiculous amount of money to help other people? This, to me, seems untenable given your absolute property rights argument above.

And if someone's being exploited by an inhuman government, I doubt they have much self-respect either.
Which is not inherently the case in a liberal government. You have to win that the American liberal ideal becomes an authoritarian dictatorship inherently to win this argument. Sorry, not going to happen.

ROFL. That's the whole definition of free market. Besides, no one is forcing you to do anything. People don't shop in supermarkets because they're forced to, they do it because the store has something they want/need.

When you go to the mall, do corporate hitmen follow you there? Don't be absurd. This is one of the most bogus arguments I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
You obviously don't know what a "company store" is. A company store is one ran by your employer, who pays you on the condition that you spend it at their store(s), and if you spend it anywhere else, you're fired. They keep track of your expenditures to track this. This was a common practice in the 19th century laissez-faire economy. It really, really sucks.


I'm pretty liberal on social issues, which we're unfortunately not discussing here. Most people are, in a sense "more liberal than they think" since--as was mentioned before--American politics have been devised from Classical Liberalism.
I assumed that. Agreed.

Still, claiming that I'm 'more liberal than I think' because I dont want a CEO to be able to throw me in prison is a bit of a stretch. I know what I think.
It was a snappy closing line. Besides, all I mean is that you do believe in restrictions on the pursuit of profit and acquisition of property.

I'm a little late to this discussion; however, I do not think that it is fair to color one entire party as "racist." I can't believe I'm about to defend Republicans, but without Republican senators there never would've been a Civil Rights Act of 1964 (they're probably beating themselves up about this now, but I digress). There are racists within each party; however, I think that they are louder within the Republican party. I do, however believe that Democrats are rapidly losing this battle by simply giving lip service and taking no action. This of course is difficult in a House and a Senate run by Republicans, but we need to be forward minded.

As for taking the blame out on "liberals," I don't understand (nor condone) the blantant and disgusting use of religion mixed with politics. This is a major offense to the heart and spirituality of Christianity. I can almost guarantee that Jesus would stand behind a party that wants to keep the richest two percent rich and could care less about the impoverished. That is all.

I'm naked under my clothes.
Don't spam.

Because you type leftist tripe "Is GW Bush worse than Hitler?" and others agree with you. That's your problem. I dare to type a dissenting opinion to the constant leftist tripe and you people explode. That's my problem.
:rolleyes:

Care to link me to one of my posts where I compare Bush to Hitler?

Being "socially apt" does not equal loving everyone else. By the way, I do know a self-hater who's very "socially-apt." Also, living your life for someone else is to me, the ultimate self respect - the fact that you're so comfortable with your own being that you don't feel the need to do too much to better its material conditions means that you're happy with the way you are now. This part of the discussion, however, is becoming increasingly irrelevent.

How the FUCK does living your life for someone else show ANY modicum of self-respect?! This disgusts me on too many levels to expound upon right now.

I don't really think that's an "evasion or logical fallacy." I think it's actually the most moral and just means of living.

You're free to think that, just don't pass laws that make me think that. It's the 'most moral and just means of living' because you say it is. No one else can really change your mind. Conversely, living for myself is the most moral means of living, because I say so. And you're never going to change my mind.

To me, it's honorable to devote one's life to helping others. I also don't think people who support welfare, social security, and affirmative action support the well-being of others above their own.

Honorable? Perhaps. Worthy of making over-arching policy of? Certainly not. I'll agree to that last bit though; but like I said the error they're making is imposing the same standard upon me.

Either they are recipients or beneficiaries, in which case you'd think they were being smart, or they think that they have enough that they're not placing other people above them, they're helping those other people get to a better place - but in almost every case, that place is still below their own. If I had 40 billion dollars, and gave 10 dollars away to charity, it would make virtually no dent in my own quality of life, but could help someone else, I wouldn't be placing that person over myself because the loss of that 10 really doesn't hurt me. Replace 10 dollars with 10 billion dollars, and you get the same result given how much money that is for one individual.

And if you have $40 billion, you're perfectly within your rights to do so and I have no right to admonish you for it. It was a bit of a stretch for me to insinuate that people who support those policies value the well-being of others before their own.

I won't get into it here, because the ideas are too complex and involved for me to explain on a thread about something else, but you should read some books by a guy named Emmanuel Levinas, or at least some secondary literature on him. Actually, read the secondary stuff first because he's really hard to understand. His philosophy and ideas are excellent at explaining why priviledging the Other over the self is good.

You're talking to an Objectivist, pal. Somehow I don't think it's in the cards.


It's not if that $10 could be more beneficial to the bum than you. For example, it might help the bum to survive while it might allow you to buy a more expensive dinner. I'd defend that as being a just function of the government.

Philosophy is nothing without consistency. Extrapolate upon this concept a bit more and you'll end up a Communist. The inherent problem with this idea is that it assumes that any one person within society is capable of telling the rest of us just to what extent this is appropriate.

This, of course, depends on your philosophical perspective. A Rawlsian or a Levinasian would defend the action as being the most important tenet of a just society (although they differ on a lot of other things). A utilitarian would also probably think this action would be good, because it would be the greatest good for the greatest number. To defend this idea, you have to defend a deontological moral perspective. We can have that discussion here, if you want.

My ideology isn't very easy to explain on a forum, since it relies on so many concepts and ideas that I'd have to start with Metaphysics and Epistemology and work backwards from that. Since I don't feel like writing a book right now, I'll pass. We'll just deal with the meat and bones of it to the extent that which we are able.


If they were upheld across the board, we couldn't have a government, because than it could never tax and thus not fund the bare-minimum military and police force needed to have a government.

Um.... taxes aren't the government's only form of income. Before 1914, this county didn't have an income tax: it was only levied during wars and it went away shortly thereafter. If the government can take $30 out of the pocket of anyone who parks within 30 feet of a stop sign and $40 from anyone who parks within ten feet of a fire hydrant, why do they need money from my paycheck? Why does the government get to sit on its ass and collect money for nothing? Why can't they earn their income just like everyone else?

The government cannot possibly be "For the People by the People" if it's held to an entirely different social standard. It's illegal for my neighbor to take my money if he's an electrician, but if he works in the IRS, it's OK? Fuck that, thanks.

Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with the government providing us with products and services to compete with the private sector in the free market. If people think they're doing something good for their country by buying a government made can of peas, fine. But if they wan't something better they'll go to the Piggly-Wiggly.

Government as a concept inherently picks and chooses property rights to defend. They aren't "selectively enforced," but rather enforced under particular circumstances given a system of criteria.

Yeah, and it's bullshit. Like I said before, Philosophy is nothing without consistency.

Someone with 40 Billion dollars doesn't need that money. I'll conceed that capitalism is good. I agree, success should be rewarded, and to an extent that people should be able to enjoy a better lifestyle if they succeed. However, opulence should generally not override someone else's ultimate right - that of survival. In essence, you're denying them the property right of their own body.

Whether they need it or not is irrelevant: they earned it. It's not anyone else's fault they had what it takes to succeed in society.

Poverty has gone down significantly since the government began expanding its aid to the poor. If it hadn't during the depression, that whole thing would have lasted a hell of a lot longer than it did in this country, impeding our ability to organize for WWII, and perhaps totally altering the course of the war. In addition, the Johnson-era programs have been proven empirical successes in reducing poverty. Data coming after the current waves of hellish testing.

Figures, please.

Ditto for private charity v. government. In addition, do you really think most incredibly wealthy people would donate enough money to significantly alleviate poverty?

Under the current system? No, probably not. The solution, here, is to award dollar for dollar tax credit on charitable donations.

These policies came into existance because the government at the time believed that it should absolutely stay out of the affairs of the private sector. Zero regulation, zero income tax, people in functional slavery and corporate control of government. That's what happens when the market is left to its own devices to such a great extent.

The government should be able to prevent people from entering "functional slavery." And actually, there's always been some manner of government finger in the corporate pie: despite this example, no purely capitalist system has ever existed in any civilization on the planet. Rich people will always be in charge: get used to it. Even in your Ideal Liberal System, even in Communism, or any other government you can possibly come up with. I'd rather have a government that was honest about it.

I don't think this type of regulation has failed. Social Security is one of the greatest successes in American political history. When you show me your sources, I'll show you mine (meaning I'm too lazy/busy to do any sort of research beyond past reading on the subject until you make me).

What?! I'd love to see this.


Not if they have just any more money - I wouldn't take someone's single dollar and give it someone who had none. If they have much more money than is needed even to encourage success in private industry (which is, in my mind, the best reasons for lower taxes) it should be taken and restributed to people who are DYING from starvation and "easily curable diseases." That seems way fair to me, thanks. Food seems like a pretty important property right.

Philosophy is nothing without consistency. Property rights are property rights, regardless of someone else's lack of property. If you want to distribute your property accordingly, fine. Don't tell me to.


The reason corporate domination is worse is because it inherently opposes limits on individual's other freedoms if they impede their ability to make a profit.

You mean like Communism?

The status quo US government is NOT authoritarian. It gives people a certain amount of rights and (at least attempts) to protect them from harms from abroad. I'd take that any day over a goverment that "refers to its citizens as human resources."

I hope we're still able to say this in 20 years.

In order for you to win this argument, you need to win that any government with a welfare program becomes authoritarian. This is false. Corporate government is inherently authoritarian.

So's Government Government. Corporations at least force competition.

But then where do you draw the line? If we can impede on Microsoft's ability to accrue a profit to help out other companies, why can't we impede on Bill Gate's ability to have a ridiculous amount of money to help other people? This, to me, seems untenable given your absolute property rights argument above.

Then you're not thinking about it hard enough. We shouldn't be able to impede on Microsoft's progress; it's not their fault that people prefer to buy from them. Philosophy is nothing without consistency; if I have freedom Mr. Gates should have it too.

Which is not inherently the case in a liberal government. You have to win that the American liberal ideal becomes an authoritarian dictatorship inherently to win this argument. Sorry, not going to happen.

Ridiculous. I just have to prove it's a crock of shit.

You obviously don't know what a "company store" is. A company store is one ran by your employer, who pays you on the condition that you spend it at their store(s), and if you spend it anywhere else, you're fired. They keep track of your expenditures to track this. This was a common practice in the 19th century laissez-faire economy. It really, really sucks.

Um... that's hardly "laissez-faire." No, I didn't know what a "company store" is/was, I was assuming it was something more along the lines of a more modern marketplace.

Are we there yet?

Just out of curiosity. How old are you Melkor?

How old do you think I am?

How old do you think I am?

Well on the boards I am pretty bad at alias detection, gender detection, and age detection.

But If I had a guess, late teens early 20s.

Well on the boards I am pretty bad at alias detection, gender detection, and age detection.

But If I had a guess, late teens early 20s.

Nice shot, Oswald. I'm 20. Lowest esimate I've gotten so far, I must be slipping! :eek:

Nice shot, Oswald. I'm 20. Lowest esimate I've gotten so far, I must be slipping! :eek:

It's the intensity and use of language in your debates! ;)

I'll take that as a compliment! :D

;) I've found that you can never generalize anything about a vast group of people( i.e. a religious or political group) and expect that generalization to apply to everyone. I identify as a leftist when it comes to politics but i'm not too far left. I don't think too much affirmative action is a good thing. But it seems to me, that this markedly conservative administration has put the interest of Haliburton above that of national security.

I am not saying that the soldiers in Iraq are dying in vain; they are helping( or trying to help as their government keeps screwing up ;) a group of people who have been utterly oppressed for about a half century ever since the Baath party came into power. But was the Baath Party in on the 9/11 attacks? OF COURSE NOT!!

I have it on reliable information that one of the primary goals of the Al Qaeda ist group is the destruction of Israel. But we simply can't be all-Israel-all-the-time and expect there to be peace!

I agree Social Security needs some kind of reform( though not one that entails putting peoples' retirement funds into the stock market) and it may have created some dependency on government. But i think a lot of conservative ideologues have failed to recognize that government is not a negative thing when in the right hands.

I know the Bush administration does not, by a long chalk, represent the views of all conservatives( though moderates in any pary are becoming increasingly harder to find) but when i think of what the President and his allies have done to this country's economy so that they won't have any taxes to pay, it makes me wanna :headbang: Well u get the idea.

Bi-Partisans and Centrists unite!! Lets create huge, sterilizing forest fires!
Bill Clinton was a fascist!! Terrorists are just misunderstood!!

Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced
Yes, that's what made him the most econoically conservative of all democrtaic presidents in the last century.
Pretending that Nafta or trade with china isnt a conservative Ideal is as much of a fallacy as any failed Liberal program

Bi-Partisans and Centrists unite!! Lets create huge, sterilizing forest fires!
Bill Clinton was a fascist!! Terrorists are just misunderstood!!
well,actually...
"You cant say you love your country, or hate your government"
Is onr of my Favourites, right along with " That depends what the meaning od is is"
or "I can spend your money better than you can"

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. As well as rice, Ashcroft and rumsfeld.
And Gingrich, and Buchanan, and Roberston (oh, yeah, theyre jews)

Fine.
2. Creating even more dependency. "This will have them n*****s voting Democrat for the next 100 years" - Lyndon Baines Johnson

You have to be kiding voting for your party becauses it actually supports your family a bad thing? Wouldn't that make them people who care about the people who get votes because they do? Nah they're dirty liberals creating dependency.

Northern Fox: I can see why you ,personally, would think that the fact that Republicans get such a small percentage of the black vote is a bad thing. But if you think about it : a lot ( I'm not saying all) but many major Republican political figures have been rascist: Nixon and Reagan to name two of the most prominent. They both consistently fought egalitarian endeavors such as equal housing etc.

So asking why Republicans don't get a lot of the black vote is kind of like asking why they don't get a lot of the homosexual vote. I personally think ( some of you leftists out there may want to eviscerate me for admitting weakness, but this is true) that if the Democratic Party somehow loses the black vote, then they will not see the Oval Office for a looong while. So you might say the Democratic Party is dependent on blacks, instead of vice-versa.

I pray that day never comes.( or that the Dems can somehow make white America see the truth that's under their noses: That, though there are secularists in the party, the term "religious Democrat" or even " conservative Democrat" is not an oxymoron) if all future GOP candidates are in the same mold as Bush, and this trend keeps up, I think the country will be screwed.

Originally posted by: Northern Fox

Liberals use code-words.

And conservatives don't? Since the GOP has so arrogantly claimed a monopoly on Jesus, they have to make sure that all their codes involve God.
Their code-word for environmentalism? " Being good stewarts for God's Earth."

But, hey, i'm a Christian and an environmentally thoughtful person, so if Republicans want to help out,( not just claim the issue for themselves and do nothing) then i'm down with them using that particular code-word. :)

AHA! I'm going to address two of your quotes at the top - they blatantly contradict each other:
The government should be able to prevent people from entering "functional slavery." And actually, there's always been some manner of government finger in the corporate pie: despite this example, no purely capitalist system has ever existed in any civilization on the planet. Rich people will always be in charge: get used to it. Even in your Ideal Liberal System, even in Communism, or any other government you can possibly come up with. I'd rather have a government that was honest about it.
Then you're not thinking about it hard enough. We shouldn't be able to impede on Microsoft's progress; it's not their fault that people prefer to buy from them. Philosophy is nothing without consistency; if I have freedom Mr. Gates should have it too.
Here's the contradiction: You say Bill Gates has an unlimited right to his property. We shouldn't be able to take it from him, it's not our fault people want to buy things from him. However, it would be a lot more profitable for Bill Gates if he, say, imposed a monopoly on the computer market, because then he could set the prices. If that's the case, we can't prevent him from getting a monopoly. Taking that further, it would be a lot more profitable for Bill Gates if he made all his employees buy from the Microsoft Comapany Store, and pay them no more than a subsistence wage, because they have nowhere else and no other line of work. Whose rights trump whose? Bill Gates, or his employees and an unrestricted market. And "philosophy is nothing without consistency." Rights cannot be absolute; there will always be some sort of contradicting rights. You've got to arbitrate.

How the FUCK does living your life for someone else show ANY modicum of self-respect?! This disgusts me on too many levels to expound upon right now.
Because you don't feel the need to constantly build yourself up to be secure about yourself. I'm sure you went through high school. Remember the kid who always insulted everyone and bragged about his accomplishments? Remember how he was really the most insecure kid in school, with major self esteem problems? Remember how the nice kid who always helped everyone else out was the one who really felt good about themself and what they did? Exactly.

You're free to think that, just don't pass laws that make me think that. It's the 'most moral and just means of living' because you say it is. No one else can really change your mind. Conversely, living for myself is the most moral means of living, because I say so. And you're never going to change my mind.
My moral argument was just in response to your claims; I don't believe in legislating moral judgments with no utilitarian justifications. But I have some here. It's unfair for someone to have a ridiculous amount of money while others are starving, money they don't need to live even the most opulent lifestyle imaginable. Redistributing much of that would allow other people to become productive members of society; "the greatest good for the greatest number."

BTW, if someone took all of Paris Hilton's money, the world would be a better place.

Honorable? Perhaps. Worthy of making over-arching policy of? Certainly not. I'll agree to that last bit though; but like I said the error they're making is imposing the same standard upon me.
Answered above. Thanks for the compromise.

And if you have $40 billion, you're perfectly within your rights to do so and I have no right to admonish you for it. It was a bit of a stretch for me to insinuate that people who support those policies value the well-being of others before their own.
Discussed above. Thanks again.


You're talking to an Objectivist, pal. Somehow I don't think it's in the cards.
I'm not asking you to agree with it; simply to read it. I've read some Ayn Rand and some articles on Objectivism. I just disagree with them; at least I'm informed about (one of) my opposition(s).

Philosophy is nothing without consistency. Extrapolate upon this concept a bit more and you'll end up a Communist. The inherent problem with this idea is that it assumes that any one person within society is capable of telling the rest of us just to what extent this is appropriate.
The reason that wouldn't be consistent is because communism ends up failing. Liberal capitalism is the closest possible to the ideal of perfect equality while still allowing for progress in society.

My ideology isn't very easy to explain on a forum, since it relies on so many concepts and ideas that I'd have to start with Metaphysics and Epistemology and work backwards from that. Since I don't feel like writing a book right now, I'll pass. We'll just deal with the meat and bones of it to the extent that which we are able.
You probably wouldn't. This is just a discussion of ethical theory as of right now. But if you don't want to...I can't make you...

Um.... taxes aren't the government's only form of income. Before 1914, this county didn't have an income tax: it was only levied during wars and it went away shortly thereafter. If the government can take $30 out of the pocket of anyone who parks within 30 feet of a stop sign and $40 from anyone who parks within ten feet of a fire hydrant, why do they need money from my paycheck? Why does the government get to sit on its ass and collect money for nothing? Why can't they earn their income just like everyone else?
This argument is circular. In the status quo, police aren't ticketing nearly enough people for the government to support itself. Nor are what you term "the government's jobs" providing nearly enough income for the government to afford carrying out those jobs. In a modern economy, without income tax, the government simply can't keep up and will inevitably collapse. Name one country with a major military and major economy without income tax.

I term the government's essentially function to be looking out for the well being of its citizens. It gets to "sit on its ass" because it uses that money to provide essential services to the people which they could not have provided on their own. That's why we have governments.

Also, my original argument still holds true. Taking their money for parking in the "wrong place" not only takes their property but their liberty to park where they want. "Philosophy is nothing without consistency."
The government cannot possibly be "For the People by the People" if it's held to an entirely different social standard. It's illegal for my neighbor to take my money if he's an electrician, but if he works in the IRS, it's OK? Fuck that, thanks.
The people make up the government; the government provides services to those people.

Your electrician can take your money in exchange for services. Ditto for government.

Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with the government providing us with products and services to compete with the private sector in the free market. If people think they're doing something good for their country by buying a government made can of peas, fine. But if they wan't something better they'll go to the Piggly-Wiggly.
The government's role is not to be part of the private secotr, by definition. You propose essentially making the government a big corporation. I've said why that's bad in every post before this one.

Yeah, and it's bullshit. Like I said before, Philosophy is nothing without consistency.
You conceed that government as a concept inherently picks and chooses rights to enforce. Property rights may be good, but the right to murder is not defended. If you want to defend that picking rights is bad in every case, then defend anarchy.

In addition, philosophy is consistent if exceptions are consistently upheld. For example, you can't say the death penalty is being inconsistent if mentally retarded individuals are never executed because they're not responsible for what they do. If that exception is consistently applied, then you have two consistent rules, one of which affecting the other.

Whether they need it or not is irrelevant: they earned it. It's not anyone else's fault they had what it takes to succeed in society.
It doesn't matter whose fault that they're obscenely wealthy is. I don't freakin' care. I just think it's a lot more fair to allow them to keep the majority of their reward while at the same time preserving someone else's right to eat.

The concept of need is entirely relevant to my conception of a just society. It's fundamentally unfair for some people to have obscene amounts of money while others starve, especially when a lot of that money isn't earned (inheritance).
Note: I don't advocate abolishing inheritance. Just taxing it.

Figures, please.
http://rwor.org/a/1199/poor.htm
Ignore the communist propaganda surrounding the figures: the figures themselves are from the Children's Defense Fund, Columbia University, and more impartial, qualified sources.

http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/usa192941/consequences.html
The arguments as to why the New Deal was successful are far more persuasive than the others.

If this becomes a stats debate, I'll go beyond google for more in depth stastics.

The historical analysis stands, irrespective of stastics and unrefuted.
Under the current system? No, probably not. The solution, here, is to award dollar for dollar tax credit on charitable donations.
The reason this doesn't make sense is because government's only purpose is not social welfare and charity. It needs the money for other things as well. As good as this would be (and good it would be) the government would soon collapse for lack of funds for law enforcement.

Additionally, it contradicts the rest of your ideas - the government is still compelling people to give away their property. "Philosophy is nothing without consistency."

What?! I'd love to see this.
Websites just featuring the direct quote in my last post:
http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political_agenda/social_security/index.cfm
http://www.unionvoice.org/ufcwvoiceactivated/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=1422847
http://www.theshorthorn.com/archive/2004/spring/04-apr-08/n040804-03.html
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/Articles/a2004-12-28-success.html

More
http://www.truemajorityaction.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=jvLUJdP8H&b=445483&en=igKJIRMAL8LEKSOALaLML7MLIhIGIQOxFfKLJ0OMJuG
http://www.socsec.org/commentary.asp?opedid=207
http://www.eoionline.org/SS-PolicyBrief2001-Part1.htm

These last two are particularly good.

Philosophy is nothing without consistency. Property rights are property rights, regardless of someone else's lack of property. If you want to distribute your property accordingly, fine. Don't tell me to.
I've answered this above.

You also conceed that food is a more important property right than opulence.

You mean like Communism?
Pulling out the C-word, Ayn Rand style. It doesn't help you in the argument of liberal democracy v. libertarian wet dream.


I hope we're still able to say this in 20 years.
We will. Give me evidence to the contrary.

So's Government Government. Corporations at least force competition.
No, it's not inherently autocratic. I see you have the freedom to criticize it. And I have the freedom to be upset about Bush dismantling Social Security. unlike a corporate government, where strikes are supressed by the army. This type of government doesn't foster cooperation - it's made up of corporations who have come to dominate their areas due to lack of government intervention.

Ridiculous. I just have to prove it's a crock of shit.
I'm talking about this specific sub-argument in this sprawling overarching debate. To win that corporate government is better or at least as bad as liberal democracy, you have to win that liberal democracy is more autocratic, given your commitment to liberty. Just this little sub-argument.


Um... that's hardly "laissez-faire." No, I didn't know what a "company store" is/was, I was assuming it was something more along the lines of a more modern marketplace.
But only government intervention can bust it up. Especially since it would be taking away the corporation's right to property that would otherwise to go the workers' paychecks. After all, how can someone expect to become a propertied fat-cat if they can't exploit their workers?

AHA! I'm going to address two of your quotes at the top - they blatantly contradict each other:

There's a teeeeny difference between "property rights" and "corporate slavery." Any government that can't draw a line between the two is not fit to govern. Wow, what a leap that was.

Here's the contradiction: You say Bill Gates has an unlimited right to his property. We shouldn't be able to take it from him, it's not our fault people want to buy things from him. However, it would be a lot more profitable for Bill Gates if he, say, imposed a monopoly on the computer market, because then he could set the prices. If that's the case, we can't prevent him from getting a monopoly.

Correct. Provided the product in question was the creation of the Microsoft corporation, this should be the case. However, patents are only temporary monopolies; after a certain perioud of time everyone else gets a fair shot at making it. If they can't break into the market, that's not Microsoft's fault unless they're using unscrupulous business practices [which I'm prepared to admit that they have].

Taking that further, it would be a lot more profitable for Bill Gates if he made all his employees buy from the Microsoft Comapany Store, and pay them no more than a subsistence wage, because they have nowhere else and no other line of work.

Incorrect. Philosophy is nothing without conistsency: his employees have property rights too. You're jumping to the conclusion that I only support the property rights of the wealthy. Please stop.

Whose rights trump whose? Bill Gates, or his employees and an unrestricted market. And "philosophy is nothing without consistency." Rights cannot be absolute; there will always be some sort of contradicting rights. You've got to arbitrate.

Contradictions do not exist in nature, and I will not tolerate them in any arena of political or philosophical thought.

Because you don't feel the need to constantly build yourself up to be secure about yourself. I'm sure you went through high school. Remember the kid who always insulted everyone and bragged about his accomplishments? Remember how he was really the most insecure kid in school, with major self esteem problems? Remember how the nice kid who always helped everyone else out was the one who really felt good about themself and what they did? Exactly.

I didn't know you were a psychologist. Its one thing to be secure about your own circumstance and feel comfortable with giving your means to others, its something else altogether to demand that every one else be content with their circumstance and do the same thing. I've said this about a dozen times now, when are you actually going to answer to it?

My moral argument was just in response to your claims; I don't believe in legislating moral judgments with no utilitarian justifications. But I have some here. It's unfair for someone to have a ridiculous amount of money while others are starving, money they don't need to live even the most opulent lifestyle imaginable.

Life is unfair. I work a dead-end, thankless, shitty job, for example. That's the way the world works; some people get all the goods and some are left to wallow in the gutter. I'll say it again: if you want to help them that's your business and you're welcome to do it but goddamn it don't assume I share your sympathies. I don't make that much money, and I'd rather have that extra 25% put back in my check thankyoudrivethrough.

Redistributing much of that would allow other people to become productive members of society; "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Redistributing it also means violating my property rights to do so. Philosophy is nothing without consistency.

BTW, if someone took all of Paris Hilton's money, the world would be a better place.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

I'm not asking you to agree with it; simply to read it. I've read some Ayn Rand and some articles on Objectivism. I just disagree with them; at least I'm informed about (one of) my opposition(s).

And I've heard just about every argument under the sun for stealing from my paycheck to give to people whos circumstance I have nothing to do with.

The reason that wouldn't be consistent is because communism ends up failing. Liberal capitalism is the closest possible to the ideal of perfect equality while still allowing for progress in society.

I think it's safe to say I disagree with the latter with every cell of my being.

You probably wouldn't. This is just a discussion of ethical theory as of right now. But if you don't want to...I can't make you...

Probably wouldn't what?

This argument is circular. In the status quo, police aren't ticketing nearly enough people for the government to support itself. Nor are what you term "the government's jobs" providing nearly enough income for the government to afford carrying out those jobs. In a modern economy, without income tax, the government simply can't keep up and will inevitably collapse. Name one country with a major military and major economy without income tax.

Name me one country that doesnt waste the vast majority of that tax money on stupid bullshit. Get rid of the programs that aren't doing anything, streamline the ones that are, and guess what! You'll find out that you don't have to take nearly the same amount of money from your worker base to fund it all. A smaller government, incidentally, leaves less room for corruption and waste.

I term the government's essentially function to be looking out for the well being of its citizens. It gets to "sit on its ass" because it uses that money to provide essential services to the people which they could not have provided on their own. That's why we have governments.

I'd be more comfortable about my government 'sitting on its ass' if it spent the money wisely. It doesn't.

Also, my original argument still holds true. Taking their money for parking in the "wrong place" not only takes their property but their liberty to park where they want. "Philosophy is nothing without consistency."

Sophistry. I never said we should be completely free of all government regulation: parking too close to a stop sign [especially if you're driving an SUV or a tall van] creates an unacceptable risk to personal well being or property by making it nearly impossible to see the sign. Next!

The people make up the government; the government provides services to those people.

Your electrician can take your money in exchange for services. Ditto for government.

Remind me to look for my welfare check in the mail next week. Same thing with my SSI.

The government's role is not to be part of the private secotr, by definition. You propose essentially making the government a big corporation. I've said why that's bad in every post before this one.

Um no... actually, you say that it's bad to have over-arching corporate influence over government. And yeah, I'm suggesting that the government could possibly look into the idea of actually earning their keep. What's so wrong with that? All you liberals can buy form them and know that your money is going to the politicans' pockets; maybe the bums out there will get their cut too. You can feel good for yourself, then, throwing them a few pennies from your can of peas. If the government wants to fund things like welfare and SSI that the average citizen isn't guaranteed to see a result from, then it can do things like this to get the money together.

It beats stealing from me any day.

You conceed that government as a concept inherently picks and chooses rights to enforce. Property rights may be good, but the right to murder is not defended. If you want to defend that picking rights is bad in every case, then defend anarchy.

What?

In addition, philosophy is consistent if exceptions are consistently upheld. For example, you can't say the death penalty is being inconsistent if mentally retarded individuals are never executed because they're not responsible for what they do. If that exception is consistently applied, then you have two consistent rules, one of which affecting the other.

Depends on the nature of the exception. In the above case, I'd tend to agree. But I'm on the fence about the death penalty as it is.

It doesn't matter whose fault that they're obscenely wealthy is. I don't freakin' care. I just think it's a lot more fair to allow them to keep the majority of their reward while at the same time preserving someone else's right to eat.

And I think it's a lot more fair to allow them to decide what to do with it. If they want to hoard their money, it's their business. If, say, someone like you wants to get out there and really make a difference, the onus is on you.

The concept of need is entirely relevant to my conception of a just society. It's fundamentally unfair for some people to have obscene amounts of money while others starve, especially when a lot of that money isn't earned (inheritance).

All money is eanred in one form or another. Inheritence is irrelevant: yeah it pisses you off, but the fact of the matter is someone earned that money and as a result, he got to choose what happened to it after he died. If, say, the rich dead guy was interested in having his children earn their own living, he could just give it all away in his will. If he wants to pamper his family, then, the choice is also his.

Note: I don't advocate abolishing inheritance. Just taxing it.

Ahh. Theft. Nice.


http://rwor.org/a/1199/poor.htm
Ignore the communist propaganda surrounding the figures: the figures themselves are from the Children's Defense Fund, Columbia University, and more impartial, qualified sources.

http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/usa192941/consequences.html
The arguments as to why the New Deal was successful are far more persuasive than the others.

If this becomes a stats debate, I'll go beyond google for more in depth stastics.

The historical analysis stands, irrespective of stastics and unrefuted.

Social Security is still a flawed concept because it assumes that everyone will want/need it. It would be much more productive to distribute the collected funds to a private account with someone's name on it as opposed to shovelling the money into a superfund and pilfering from it whenever you felt like.

If the money is for me when I get old, then I should be asked if I want it when I get old. Philosophy is nothing without consistency.

Still, I wasn't so much looking for numbers [they don't impress me], but rather a more thorough and in-depth exposition of just how you think the idea of Social Security makes any sense at all, considering the way it's run. More on this below.

The reason this doesn't make sense is because government's only purpose is not social welfare and charity. It needs the money for other things as well. As good as this would be (and good it would be) the government would soon collapse for lack of funds for law enforcement.

Again, you're selectively choosing the points of my ideology you choose to refute. In assuming that the government would collapse without these taxes, you're also assuming that the government is still funding the stupid crap i'd get rid of. End idiotic practices like the Drug War, Wefare, Social Security, and so forth, and you'll note an amazing change in our budget situation. And, subsequently, the government wouldn't have to take in the same amount of money.

Additionally, it contradicts the rest of your ideas - the government is still compelling people to give away their property. "Philosophy is nothing without consistency."

Sophistry. Are you seriously comparing voluntary donations to forcibly extracted tax money? I'm not an economist so I can't tell you just what taxes would have to stay to fund my minarchist sensibilites, but I'm going to be realistic here and assume there are going to have to be some. That would probably be a bridge best left to cross when we get there.

Websites just featuring the direct quote in my last post:
http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political_agenda/social_security/index.cfm
http://www.unionvoice.org/ufcwvoiceactivated/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=1422847
http://www.theshorthorn.com/archive/2004/spring/04-apr-08/n040804-03.html
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/socialsec/Articles/a2004-12-28-success.html

Wow I trust...none of those sources.

More
http://www.truemajorityaction.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=jvLUJdP8H&b=445483&en=igKJIRMAL8LEKSOALaLML7MLIhIGIQOxFfKLJ0OMJuG
http://www.socsec.org/commentary.asp?opedid=207
http://www.eoionline.org/SS-PolicyBrief2001-Part1.htm

These last two are particularly good.

Funny, for all the rabid denouncing you do of American corporate culture, you're quick to the draw with sources from people like the Century Foundation, which has strong corporate roots. It may sound like a cop out, but I'm vastly more interested in the arguments you can devise in justification of these policies than pulling up websites that parrot your party line. If I wanted to, I could probably find a dozen websites that told you what I'm trying to tell you. The sources would be every bit as colored. Admittedly, I should have been a bit more specific when I said "I'd love to see this," since I don't particularly care to bring numbers into this or [generally] most other debates. This is a bigger issue than numbers.

You also conceed that food is a more important property right than opulence.

Of course it's more imporant. But opulence is the result of work too, thus it's also to be considered property. Just because it's not necessary for one's survival doesn't mean its right to take it away. Furthermore, who gets to define "opulence?" By any conventional world-standard, what we're doing right now is considered opulence: think about it for a second. We're sitting in [presumably] climate contolled rooms arguing about philosophy over the internet. I've got two lava lamps on my desk. My clothes aren't torn to shreds and I can go to the fridge to get food whenever I want. By most standards, that's pretty opulent. Does that mean it's right for someone to come in and take our computers or lava lamps or refrigerators away because other people don't have them? Please.


Pulling out the C-word, Ayn Rand style. It doesn't help you in the argument of liberal democracy v. libertarian wet dream.

Oh, you mean Communism doesn't "oppose limits on individual's other freedoms they imped their ability to make a profit?" Way to dodge that bullet.

We will. Give me evidence to the contrary.

You're asking me to see into the future now?

No, it's not inherently autocratic. I see you have the freedom to criticize it. And I have the freedom to be upset about Bush dismantling Social Security. unlike a corporate government, where strikes are supressed by the army. This type of government doesn't foster cooperation - it's made up of corporations who have come to dominate their areas due to lack of government intervention.

Again, you're cherry picking my ideology, magnifying what you see as possible negative aspects of it while minimizing or completely ignoring the remainder. [i]Neither corporations nor the government should be able to interfere with the right to choose and the right to life an property. This means [b]no mandatory company store spending, no slave labor, no unfair supression of strikes, etc etc.

The government should exist to protect us from each other and to make sure contracts are upheld. Yes, I'm saying the government should step off regulating trade, but I'm not saying it should turn a blind eye to corporations altogether. Government should be small but hard-assed, as opposed to enormous and hard-assed.

I'm talking about this specific sub-argument in this sprawling overarching debate. To win that corporate government is better or at least as bad as liberal democracy, you have to win that liberal democracy is more autocratic, given your commitment to liberty. Just this little sub-argument.

I find it curiously amusing just how many 'victory conditions' you're interested in stipulating to this thread. Is turnabout fair play?

But only government intervention can bust it up. Especially since it would be taking away the corporation's right to property that would otherwise to go the workers' paychecks. After all, how can someone expect to become a propertied fat-cat if they can't exploit their workers?

Ah, the old "exploitation is the only road to success" argument. It keeps getting better every time I hear it.

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking.

Let me break it down for you one time then fucknut, attend:

Liberals think that the richest 1% should pay their fair share instead of getting a free ride while the poorest members of society work their asses off.

Liberals think that any troops sent into war should be properly outfitted with the best armor their government can supply them with, after all, they ARE doing their government's bidding.

Liberals think that small government should mean small government, which means, get the bloody hell out of my uterus, my bedroom, and my school for chrissakes.

Liberals think that hypocrisy stinks, and thats why we call you on your shit so much, le duh.

Liberals don't care what gay people do in their bedrooms, because unlike you repressed conservatives, we are way to busy getting some in our own bedrooms to give a flying rat's ass what gay people are doing in theirs.

Liberals think that finite resources should be used sparingly, lest one find one's self pitched in a vicious battle over.........oil........

And, to make a long story short, liberals think that people should live and let live, unlike you holier than thou Christians out there who seem to feel called upon by your sky god to make as many people dead, as quickly as possible.


Now kindly take your stupid, it's been done to death and beyond on this site, lists, and cram them firmly up your tight conservative ass.

:D

Has anyone besides me bothered to enjoy laughing at this? After all, all of these mistakes have one thing in common: They were committed by Americans. No matter which group you look at, both are equally detrimental to the US.

Let me break it down for you one time then fucknut, attend:

Liberals think that the richest 1% should pay their fair share instead of getting a free ride while the poorest members of society work their asses off.

Liberals think that any troops sent into war should be properly outfitted with the best armor their government can supply them with, after all, they ARE doing their government's bidding.

Liberals think that small government should mean small government, which means, get the bloody hell out of my uterus, my bedroom, and my school for chrissakes.

Liberals think that hypocrisy stinks, and thats why we call you on your shit so much, le duh.

Liberals don't care what gay people do in their bedrooms, because unlike you repressed conservatives, we are way to busy getting some in our own bedrooms to give a flying rat's ass what gay people are doing in theirs.

Liberals think that finite resources should be used sparingly, lest one find one's self pitched in a vicious battle over.........oil........

And, to make a long story short, liberals think that people should live and let live, unlike you holier than thou Christians out there who seem to feel called upon by your sky god to make as many people dead, as quickly as possible.


Now kindly take your stupid, it's been done to death and beyond on this site, lists, and cram them firmly up your tight conservative ass.

:D

Those things in front of your brain are called 'eyes' and they would have been wisely deployed in this situation slightly to the left of my posts to read the words "Nationstates Moderator Team" as my user title. Due to the content of the above post I'm obligated to WARN! you for flaming ie. "...and cram them firmly up your tight conservative ass" and so forth.

Northern Fox, I haven't seen you cross the line as such yet, but I've noticed a large number of responses like this to your remarks. If you want to learn how to take down libearls, watch and learn. Don't lure people into saying things like this with your statements, try to avoid things like "It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking" and stick to constructive point by point rebuttals, like say, what Deleuze and I are doing. You haven't broken the rules yet, but damn it, I'm getting sick of going out of my way for this kind of thing on account of your posts.

That said, Great Beer and Food shouldn't have responded as he did. Expect a telegram from me shortly.

OW!!!

This thread hit my funny-bone! I don't know whether to laugh or to cry...

This, however

Bill Clinton was a fascist!! Terrorists are just misunderstood!!

...is pure comedic genius! :)

Oh, you mean like property rights? Property like money? Money that modern liberals want me to give to someone else?

You pay firemen-taxes so that when your house catches fire, firemen can come and put it out.

You pay policemen-taxes so that when criminals rob you, the police can come and arrest them.

You pay social security taxes so that when you need social security, you can receive it.

Great Beer and Food: Most of your stuff was accurate, but there were two things that seriously ticked me off.

Your insinuation that liberals are all horny and jump around from bed to bed.
Suffice it to say that a lot of liberals are not homophobic( i've yet to meet one who is anyway) If you think about it, if some people think gays are an abomination to God, then that means those people should agree with this idiotic statement: Those nutbars who killed Matthew Shepherd were doing God's work.

However I am a non homophobic Christian( that is not an oxymoron Great Beer and Food) so I am a little shocked @ your attack on my religion. Yes, the reasoning of some prominent Christian leaders is bogus, but without certain morals society would fall apart.

You pay firemen-taxes so that when your house catches fire, firemen can come and put it out.

You pay policemen-taxes so that when criminals rob you, the police can come and arrest them.

Yes, and that's the way it should be.

You pay social security taxes so that when you need social security, you can receive it.

And, like I said before, if that money is supposed to be mine it should exist in a private account as opposed to a faceless, nameless mass of money. again, if the money is for me I should be asked if I want to save it.

And, like I said before, if that money is supposed to be mine it should exist in a private account as opposed to a faceless, nameless mass of money. again, if the money is for me I should be asked if I want to save it.
That way you can save everything you worked for and not give it to people who may actually need it! Perfect! Then the entire Social Security program will be fucked because every rich person and those that understand the stock market and know how to invest, will put their money into private accounts and everyone else will be left to die in the cold on the streets!

Bush has a deep contempt for Social Security, that is why he's pushing private accounts because he knows that will ruin Social Security once and for all, and he's dumbing everyone up to accept it. We've already accepted perpetual war, why can't we accept no Social Security? Besides, what does a cripple know anyway?

That way you can save everything you worked for and not give it to people who may actually need it! Perfect! Then the entire Social Security program will be fucked because every rich person and those that understand the stock market and know how to invest, will put their money into private accounts and everyone else will be left to die in the cold on the streets!

Umm... the principle behind Social Security is that I'm supposedly saving money for myself to use after retirement. You can't use the "but the money's for you!" argument and then turn around with your next breath and denounce the idea of saving money "for myself" when I get older.

"Everyone else," assuming they worked at some point in their life, would get whatever was put into their accounts, plus a rollover of funds from people who either moved out of the country or died before the qualification age. If they never did work, they wouldn't be eligble for SSI anyway.

Bush has a deep contempt for Social Security, that is why he's pushing private accounts because he knows that will ruin Social Security once and for all, and he's dumbing everyone up to accept it.

Thank God.

We've already accepted perpetual war, why can't we accept no Social Security? Besides, what does a cripple know anyway?

I'm sorry, but anyone who counts solely on Social Security for their retirement is quite frankly an idiot. The people that really need the money, on the other hand, could have it given to them at a greatly reduced [or possibly no] cost to the average taxpayer.

"Everyone else," assuming they worked at some point in their life, would get whatever was put into their accounts, plus a rollover of funds from people who either moved out of the country or died before the qualification age. If they never did work, they wouldn't be eligble for SSI anyway.

assuming they knew how to invest properly, which many Americans don't.


I'm sorry, but anyone who counts solely on Social Security for their retirement is quite frankly an idiot. The people that really need the money, on the other hand, could have it given to them at a greatly reduced [or possibly no] cost to the average taxpayer.

true, anyone who relies solely on SS is a retard, but they must still have a right to live correct? Or does that end at conception?

The problem with private accounts is it will be an option for multimillionaires to help out the rest of society. And because money is the root of all evil, don't be surprised if they're giving none away. Regardless if the recipients worked as hard as they could've (even though in most cases the lower class works harder than the upper class) they should still receive some Social Security benefits, or does that make too much sense?

Umm... the principle behind Social Security is that I'm supposedly saving money for myself to use after retirement. You can't use the "but the money's for you!" argument and then turn around with your next breath and denounce the idea of saving money "for myself" when I get older.


Ok, but say that something drastic happens to you and your finances are screwed when you hit 60- you have absolutley nothing left, nada, zilch, not a penny.

What would you do if Social Security didn't benefit all? Would you be a geriatric begger? Seriously?
I don't understand the 'well i've got mine, tough shit to you bub' mentality.

Originally posted by: Deleuze
If somebody took all of Paris Hilton's money, the world would be a better place.

I agree with the sentiment, but face it, we've all seen that socialism doesn't work. The best thing we can do is just give to people frequently and generously. There are a lot of great charities out there. There's this that helps people in Haiti and other Third World nations called Opportunity International: 96% of whatever money you give goes to actually helping people. :)

I agree with the sentiment, but face it, we've all seen that socialism doesn't work. The best thing we can do is just give to people frequently and generously. There are a lot of great charities out there. There's this that helps people in Haiti and other Third World nations called Opportunity International: 96% of whatever money you give goes to actually helping people. :)

socialism DOES work- Socialism doesn't. Theres a diff between the two. As for the charities- its a good step.
:)

There's a teeeeny difference between "property rights" and "corporate slavery." Any government that can't draw a line between the two is not fit to govern. Wow, what a leap that was.

Correct. Provided the product in question was the creation of the Microsoft corporation, this should be the case. However, patents are only temporary monopolies; after a certain perioud of time everyone else gets a fair shot at making it. If they can't break into the market, that's not Microsoft's fault unless they're using unscrupulous business practices [which I'm prepared to admit that they have].

Incorrect. Philosophy is nothing without conistsency: his employees have property rights too. You're jumping to the conclusion that I only support the property rights of the wealthy. Please stop.

Contradictions do not exist in nature, and I will not tolerate them in any arena of political or philosophical thought.
You misunderstand the contradiction I'm pointing out. It's about the nature of "absolute property rights." If people have an absolute right to anything they can produce by the fruits of their own work, and no one has any right to take them away, then you run into conflicting claims to property. Entrepreneur X (I'll stop saying Bill Gates because I like him and he doesn't run company stores), because of his success, claims the right to dominate the market and pay his workers subsistence wages at his company because he clawed the way to the top. His workers claim the right to a fair wage for their work. Whose right trumps whose? The government either doesn't intervene (people are in functional slavery to Entreprenuer X) or the government intervenes, and Entreprenuer loses money he could have otherwise made. You see, then, why property right can never be absolute? But you can't stop there. If it's justified to stop one instance of conflicting rights, why can't the government give someone another's money in order to get them food? The position is philosophically untenable because it can't be consistant about the nature of property rights.

Patents are irrelevent when the company also controls all of the means of manufacture, as happened in the 19th century. It was called vertical integration. It's still done, to a smaller degree, today. See US Steel as an example of an industry which controlled every single part of steel manufacture, from supply all the way through sale. No way for competition to rise.

I didn't know you were a psychologist. Its one thing to be secure about your own circumstance and feel comfortable with giving your means to others, its something else altogether to demand that every one else be content with their circumstance and do the same thing. I've said this about a dozen times now, when are you actually going to answer to it?
You don't need a psychological evaluation - you just need one of those kids to admit it to you. Or confront them about something.

Your second argument has nothing to do with the (now really irrelevent) self-respect debate. I didn't answer that argument on a level of self-respect because that's not where it's relevant. I gave several justifications for enforcing a certain amount of tax on people.

Life is unfair. I work a dead-end, thankless, shitty job, for example. That's the way the world works; some people get all the goods and some are left to wallow in the gutter. I'll say it again: if you want to help them that's your business and you're welcome to do it but goddamn it don't assume I share your sympathies. I don't make that much money, and I'd rather have that extra 25% put back in my check thankyoudrivethrough.
Cool, life is unfair. Two answers:
1. Don't ever say it's unfair that the government takes your money now.
2. It doesn't have to be that way for everyone. We can do our best to make life as fair as possible. Quite literally, it's try or die.

I'm sorry you have to work at a shitty job. I'd advocate cutting taxes for your bracket. (I don't mean to sound patronizing, if I do, I'm sorry). You shouldn't shoulder the majority of the tax burden. Billionaires should. Liberals don't believe in higher taxes for everyone. Your 25% is a lot more important to you than 10 billion dollars is to someone who has 40. That money could fund the government a lot better, too.

Redistributing it also means violating my property rights to do so. Philosophy is nothing without consistency.
I understand your position. Mine is that rule utilitarian systems of evaluating actions are good. My position is that the greatest good for the greatest number is on balance a good principle. The reason we have such intractable views is that our views on basic moral philosophy are different. You keep looking at my answers through your lens, and vice versa for me. The only way we could theoretically work out this sort of difference is an argument about whose system of evaluating actions is good.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.
Hey, I thought that was a pretty good throwaway joke. Paris Hilton is more or less useless off-camera. Do you really think her money couldn't be better used elsewhere?
(Note: I don't advocate taking all of her money immediately. This is largely a joke).

And I've heard just about every argument under the sun for stealing from my paycheck to give to people whos circumstance I have nothing to do with.
No, you haven't. I guarantee you haven't, because you haven't read the philosophy I referred you too. It's a novel attack on current ethical systems and conceptions of human existence (even the word existence is haltingly used in these works). I haven't read every argument for callously ignoring the starving, either.

I think it's safe to say I disagree with the latter with every cell of my being.
I assume the rest of thread is your reasoning. It is, in my opinion, the best compromise between extreme Objectivism and extreme Communism.

Probably wouldn't what?
Have to go into metaphysics and epistemology to debate ethics, which is really at the heart of this discussion.

Name me one country that doesnt waste the vast majority of that tax money on stupid bullshit. Get rid of the programs that aren't doing anything, streamline the ones that are, and guess what! You'll find out that you don't have to take nearly the same amount of money from your worker base to fund it all. A smaller government, incidentally, leaves less room for corruption and waste.
I can't answer this question the way you set it up. You think any example I give will be "stupid bullshit." I think SS and Welfare are not "stupid bullshit." But, by any stretch of the imagination, the military isn't stupid bullshit. Status quo military spending requires tax. I won't go further on this unless you want the isolationism debate as well as the rest of the stuff we've discussed.

Also, I'm pretty sure your math is wrong here. Almost definately sure.

I'd be more comfortable about my government 'sitting on its ass' if it spent the money wisely. It doesn't.
I think it does. There's no point in having a 4th grade level "Yes, no, yes, no" argument when we actually discuss this later in the posts.


Sophistry. I never said we should be completely free of all government regulation: parking too close to a stop sign [especially if you're driving an SUV or a tall van] creates an unacceptable risk to personal well being or property by making it nearly impossible to see the sign. Next!
So it's the government's role to protect the health of its citizens?
And, it's not if liberty is the most important thing. You're cramping my personal liberty to park where I want. If rights are absolute, then let me park in front of the sign.

Remind me to look for my welfare check in the mail next week. Same thing with my SSI.
Say that again in 50 years. SS is recipricol - you pay for a share of other people now, they pay for a much larger share of you in the future. It's called cooperation - one of those parts of a human society.

Um no... actually, you say that it's bad to have over-arching corporate influence over government. And yeah, I'm suggesting that the government could possibly look into the idea of actually earning their keep. What's so wrong with that? All you liberals can buy form them and know that your money is going to the politicans' pockets; maybe the bums out there will get their cut too. You can feel good for yourself, then, throwing them a few pennies from your can of peas. If the government wants to fund things like welfare and SSI that the average citizen isn't guaranteed to see a result from, then it can do things like this to get the money together.
Making the government compete like a corporation turns it into an organization designed for profit, because it needs those funds in order to survive. A corporation, then. That's an even better internal link into corporate domination of government; the government has BECOME a big corporation. This is an awful, awful, idea - a corporation who controls the military and the police! And competition will last how long...Oh wait.

It beats stealing from me any day.
No, it doesn't. It would cause the same thing, only much, much, worse. See above.

What?
My argument is that rights can never be absolute in any circumstance but anarchy. People don't have perfect individual liberty if any government existed; they may be able to buy what they want, but they can't murder who they want. Your philosophy of absolute rights is never consistant.

Depends on the nature of the exception. In the above case, I'd tend to agree. But I'm on the fence about the death penalty as it is.
Ok, cool.

I, too, am on the fence about the death penalty.

And I think it's a lot more fair to allow them to decide what to do with it. If they want to hoard their money, it's their business. If, say, someone like you wants to get out there and really make a difference, the onus is on you.
I don't know why that's more fair. To me, it just seems intrinsically unfair that a system allows some people to be so obscene and others to die for apparent reason.
Fairness (dictionary.com):Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.
I guess it comes from different ethical theories. Again, I really think that's the heart of the debate.

All money is eanred in one form or another. Inheritence is irrelevant: yeah it pisses you off, but the fact of the matter is someone earned that money and as a result, he got to choose what happened to it after he died. If, say, the rich dead guy was interested in having his children earn their own living, he could just give it all away in his will. If he wants to pamper his family, then, the choice is also his.
This is the same argument you've made earlier, specific to inheritance. It doesn't make sense if you grant me my moral framework; my arguments don't make sense if I grant you yours.

Ahh. Theft. Nice.
It's called a compromise; they keep most of their money and some of it goes to people for survival purposes. T ome, it seems like preventing murder. Which is worse?

Also, taxes are a legitimate government function in my mind, so it's not theft.

Social Security is still a flawed concept because it assumes that everyone will want/need it. It would be much more productive to distribute the collected funds to a private account with someone's name on it as opposed to shovelling the money into a superfund and pilfering from it whenever you felt like.

If the money is for me when I get old, then I should be asked if I want it when I get old. Philosophy is nothing without consistency.

Still, I wasn't so much looking for numbers [they don't impress me], but rather a more thorough and in-depth exposition of just how you think the idea of Social Security makes any sense at all, considering the way it's run. More on this below.
Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted numbers. Good, I like this better.

I see your arguments. The problem is, having this money in reserve is the only way to prevent it from being appropriated/misused. That money could easily be thrown away, or stolen, without government supervision. And don't even try to say American Social Security is a corrupt system. I'd like to see sources detailing abuses and thefts from social security by government agents, except for Bush's tax cuts.

Additionally, the costs of a transition to private accounts now would destroy that money entirely. Setting it up would cost billions of dollars in transition expenses, preventing people from ever seeing that money they've paid to the government.

More so, holding money in reserve is CRUCIAL to preventing large scale economic collapse. Saving that money until a crisis allows for reinvestment into the economy to prop up industry in the case of a looming depression.

Again, you're selectively choosing the points of my ideology you choose to refute. In assuming that the government would collapse without these taxes, you're also assuming that the government is still funding the stupid crap i'd get rid of. End idiotic practices like the Drug War, Wefare, Social Security, and so forth, and you'll note an amazing change in our budget situation. And, subsequently, the government wouldn't have to take in the same amount of money.
Welfare is real good. Medicare is real good. Medicaid is real good. SS is real good, in my view. War on Drugs, probably bad. Point is, you have to win they're idiotic before winning this argument. We can get into to each of those, if you'd like.

I'd also like to see the math on that, given how high the military budget is.

Sophistry. Are you seriously comparing voluntary donations to forcibly extracted tax money? I'm not an economist so I can't tell you just what taxes would have to stay to fund my minarchist sensibilites, but I'm going to be realistic here and assume there are going to have to be some. That would probably be a bridge best left to cross when we get there.
You were making those voluntary donations compulsory, Bill Parcells-style: Either you "voluntarily" donate money to charity, or we'll take it from you in taxes. No choice to keep your money in that system.

Ok to the last part. Check it out; see what you would need. I think it's a lot more than you would expect.

Wow I trust...none of those sources.
Good for you. The people who need these things to survive - poor laborers, the elderly...their opinions don't matter.

Funny, for all the rabid denouncing you do of American corporate culture, you're quick to the draw with sources from people like the Century Foundation, which has strong corporate roots. It may sound like a cop out, but I'm vastly more interested in the arguments you can devise in justification of these policies than pulling up websites that parrot your party line. If I wanted to, I could probably find a dozen websites that told you what I'm trying to tell you. The sources would be every bit as colored. Admittedly, I should have been a bit more specific when I said "I'd love to see this," since I don't particularly care to bring numbers into this or [generally] most other debates. This is a bigger issue than numbers.
I don't hate corporations; I hate corporate control of society. As I said, I think capitalism is good, it just has to be regulated. So it's not inconsistant to cite corporate-tied organizations.

Anyway, some reasons SS is good (admittedly derived from my research, but that's what research is for):
Social Security is needed to pay for people who otherwise couldn't survive. Some aspects of SS are similar to welfare in that sense. Survivors benefits to children of deceased workers are particularly useful.

Middle class retired Americans get 64% of their income from SS. Otherwise, they couldn't afford essentials.

The US census department says that social security aid has lowered the American poverty rate across the board, in particular lowered it from above 50% to about 10.

That's just some of them. The point is, the extra money Social Security provides to millions of people is essential both to their health and the health of the US economy.

Of course it's more imporant. But opulence is the result of work too, thus it's also to be considered property. Just because it's not necessary for one's survival doesn't mean its right to take it away. Furthermore, who gets to define "opulence?" By any conventional world-standard, what we're doing right now is considered opulence: think about it for a second. We're sitting in [presumably] climate contolled rooms arguing about philosophy over the internet. I've got two lava lamps on my desk. My clothes aren't torn to shreds and I can go to the fridge to get food whenever I want. By most standards, that's pretty opulent. Does that mean it's right for someone to come in and take our computers or lava lamps or refrigerators away because other people don't have them? Please.
I'm not defending communism; don't make some stupid slippery slope argument. The only way to generate effective economic growth is through a capitalist system; there need to be incentives for people to want to succeed and make money. However, there's still incentive for someone who makes 1 million dollars to become a billionaire if they're taxed more. I have a million; if I were to work more in the status quo, I could get up to 1 billion. Do you really think if that number became even as much lower as 300 million tha the person wouldn't want the extra money? Of course not. There are still incentives to make money; just less of an absurd amount than before. My lifestyle is just supported by the amount of money we make in my house, as I assume is yours. Extra taxation would change that standard much more than a shift from 1 billion to 300 million would. That, even, may be a little drastic for me.

Oh, you mean Communism doesn't "oppose limits on individual's other freedoms they imped their ability to make a profit?" Way to dodge that bullet.
If you don't have to defend anarchy, I don't have to defend communism. And no, communism doesn't inherently do something like ban sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Calling every liberal who challenges objectivism a communist doesn't work very well.

You're asking me to see into the future now?
You made a predictive claim: Liberal democracy leads to tyranny. I want some reasoning and evidence to prove that claim.

Again, you're cherry picking my ideology, magnifying what you see as possible negative aspects of it while minimizing or completely ignoring the remainder. [i]Neither corporations nor the government should be able to interfere with the right to choose and the right to life an property. This means [b]no mandatory company store spending, no slave labor, no unfair supression of strikes, etc etc.
The first bit is what's known as effective rhetoric. You do it too by calling taxes "theft," for one example.

See above for the rest; I answered all of this at the beginning. Property rights cannot be absolute. If this proposition goes down, the rest of objectivism's political applications go down with it.

The government should exist to protect us from each other and to make sure contracts are upheld. Yes, I'm saying the government should step off regulating trade, but I'm not saying it should turn a blind eye to corporations altogether. Government should be small but hard-assed, as opposed to enormous and hard-assed.
Above.

I find it curiously amusing just how many 'victory conditions' you're interested in stipulating to this thread. Is turnabout fair play?
This one isn't arbitrary; it's the result of a logical statement:
The worst form of government is autocratic (we've both implicitly said this).
Corporate government is inherently autocratic.
For liberal government to be worse than corporate goverment, liberal government has to be autocratic.

This "victory condition" is a result of an analysis of the assumptions and arguments of both sides.


Ah, the old "exploitation is the only road to success" argument. It keeps getting better every time I hear it.
That part was a joke.

The rest of it is pointing out the major contradiction in Objectivism: The concept of absolute property rights inherently contradicts itself.

Originally posted by: Deleuze
If somebody took all of Paris Hilton's money, the world would be a better place.

I agree with the sentiment, but face it, we've all seen that socialism doesn't work. The best thing we can do is just give to people frequently and generously. There are a lot of great charities out there. There's this that helps people in Haiti and other Third World nations called Opportunity International: 96% of whatever money you give goes to actually helping people. :)
That line was more a comment on Paris Hilton than political issues.

That's a good charity, but unfortunately, it will never be able to get the same amount of funds as the government.

Originally posted by: Psychotic Mongooses

socialism DOES work- Socialism doesn't...

I know a bit about socialism and wealth distribution, but i'm curious: What's the dif? And another thing:Any particular reason your screen name is Psychotic Mongooses? :D

Melkor Unchained, do you think that roads should be under government control or under corporate control?

Yes, and that's the way it should be.



And, like I said before, if that money is supposed to be mine it should exist in a private account as opposed to a faceless, nameless mass of money. again, if the money is for me I should be asked if I want to save it.

I could easily switch that around, claiming that I don't want to spend money on firemen and police since up until now, I have not benefitted from it.

Should I not be allowed to decide whether to save up money to pay for the police should I ever need them?

assuming they knew how to invest properly, which many Americans don't.

Is that my fault?

true, anyone who relies solely on SS is a retard, but they must still have a right to live correct? Or does that end at conception?

They have a right to live, and they have a responsibility to see to it that they do so without imposing on others. With rights comes responsibility.

The problem with private accounts is it will be an option for multimillionaires to help out the rest of society. And because money is the root of all evil, don't be surprised if they're giving none away. Regardless if the recipients worked as hard as they could've (even though in most cases the lower class works harder than the upper class) they should still receive some Social Security benefits, or does that make too much sense?

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor ? your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions ? and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made ? before it can be looted or mooched ? made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss ? the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery ? that you must offer them values, not wounds ? that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade ? with reason, not force, as their final arbiter ? it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability ? and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality ? the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth ? the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money ? and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another ? their only substitute, demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich ? will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt ? and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard ? the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money ? the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law ? men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims ? then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion ? when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing ? when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors ? when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you ? when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice ? you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while your damning its life-blood ? money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves ? slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers ? as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money ? and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being ? the self-made man ? the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose ? because it contains all the others ? the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity ? to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide ? as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns ? or dollars. Take your choice ? there is no other ? and your time is running out."

Sorry about the length, but I really, really don't feel like paraphrasing that here: it's been a long night. Deleuze, more on you tomorrow [or later tonight if the post pisses me off enough].

Is that my fault?

Does it matter?

Does it matter?

Cherrypicking.

And yes, it does.

Cherrypicking.

And yes, it does.
Are you sure? Can you explain why it matters? I'd like to know because it has no relevence to anything I'm talking about whatsoever.

Don't even attempt to make me post Republican "thoughts" if you can even call them that.

Republican thoughts-
You go bang bang me happy Bush love happy!

Seems like Northern Fox has really stirred up a shit storm here (pardon the lang.)
I have ben following this thread with a lot of amusement and interest. A lot of good comments every way. I will not take sides however as i do not feel qualified to do so.
But i must comment that it seems as though Fox has just given up trying to answer ppl, it seems as though Melkor Unchained Deleuze have taken the party over. Man you know haw to argue.^^
Good luck, and lets hope Fox comes with some seriously good comeback to fuel this quarrel some more^^ :p

Of course it matters, Deleuze. It makes absolutely no sense to hold someone accountable for something he or she didn't do, and that includes paying money for someone else's indiscretions. I wouldn't ask you to give me money because I blew my savings at a whorehouse: while it would have been stupid of me to do so, it does not morally obligate you to redeem me for my actions. However, if you choose to do so, you are perfectly within your rights, even though there's no guarantee that I wouldn't do something so foolish again.

However, if I were to come to you and say, "In the name of the greater good, you owe me money, for I have no savings," I would be guilty of moral cannibalism. In effect, I would be using what I think should be your moral code, whether it is in fact or not, to extort you into doing something for my own benefit. That's irrational self-interest and no one should have to stand for it.

I'd happilly pay taxes for welfare, if I thought I got something out of it. I have no problem paying tax dollars for roads because I use those roads: I get a return on my investment. I don't even have a problem with social security, at least as it was origionally designed as a safety net. However, I'm not fully convinced I will be able to collect on social security because of how grossly it's been mismanaged, particularly in the wake of the baby boom era.

But I digress. What Melkor is saying that just because it may be the right thing to do doesn't mean that he should be made to do it: we all have a responsability toward our own morality. That's a big issue I have with conservatives in this country, as they are mostly interested in telling me what God to believe in, what sexual partners I can't have (and I'm straight, by the way), and what I can't smoke or drink. To say, then, that I have a moral duty to give to the needy, and that the state should make it it's business that I should do so, is basically the same fallacy.

However, you were right, Del, when you said that this basically boils down to fundamental differences in moral theory: It cannot be expected that any two people, no matter how closely related, to have completely identical values.

Does it matter?

Yes, it does. Try googleing something called 'personal responsibility'

Of course it matters, Deleuze. It makes absolutely no sense to hold someone accountable for something he or she didn't do, and that includes paying money for someone else's indiscretions. I wouldn't ask you to give me money because I blew my savings at a whorehouse: while it would have been stupid of me to do so, it does not morally obligate you to redeem me for my actions. However, if you choose to do so, you are perfectly within your rights, even though there's no guarantee that I wouldn't do something so foolish again.
I'm not sure what you were referencing in my post; I wish you had quoted so I could refer back. I'll just make do with answering what you wrote.

You don't become "responsible" for someone's mistakes in a liberal capitalist system in the sense that you're not blamed for them. You are, however, as a prequisite for being part of the amalgamated society, resposible for a commitment to help the other people in that society - this responsibility is recipricol. Everyone is supposed to help out everyone else as much as they can. That's the point of a government: to combine people's efforts to make society as a whole better. Even parking regulations and the military are examples of that combination for a greater good. Thus, any acceptance of governmental legitimacy is an acceptance of "societal responsibility" in a moral sense.

If you accept a rule utilitarian moral framework, what you say "makes little sense" actually become quite logical.

However, if I were to come to you and say, "In the name of the greater good, you owe me money, for I have no savings," I would be guilty of moral cannibalism. In effect, I would be using what I think should be your moral code, whether it is in fact or not, to extort you into doing something for my own benefit. That's irrational self-interest and no one should have to stand for it.
Not in an interpersonal sense, no. But we're talking about governmental action and the legitimacy of governmental intervention. If you want to defend anarchy, go ahead, because it's the only consistant way to take the stance you're taking. See my earlier posts to explain this from another tack.

I'd happilly pay taxes for welfare, if I thought I got something out of it. I have no problem paying tax dollars for roads because I use those roads: I get a return on my investment. I don't even have a problem with social security, at least as it was origionally designed as a safety net. However, I'm not fully convinced I will be able to collect on social security because of how grossly it's been mismanaged, particularly in the wake of the baby boom era.
I think that the big problem with social security began after Bush took office. There was a three trillion dollar surplus designed for SS; after the tax cuts, it was gone.

But that's not a principled stance; it's a qualm with implementation. You, unlike Melkor, accept that the government has a responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, or at least that it could. Work, then, on how we can make SS a better system, not on eliminating entirely.

But I digress. What Melkor is saying that just because it may be the right thing to do doesn't mean that he should be made to do it: we all have a responsability toward our own morality. That's a big issue I have with conservatives in this country, as they are mostly interested in telling me what God to believe in, what sexual partners I can't have (and I'm straight, by the way), and what I can't smoke or drink. To say, then, that I have a moral duty to give to the needy, and that the state should make it it's business that I should do so, is basically the same fallacy.
Partially answered above.

On (what's functionally) your second point, don't make the mistake of confusing religious morality and secular ethics. All of your examples about limitation on personal liberty assume a world in which the ultimate acceptable justification is what an arguably non-existant deity says about a particular course of action, with no actual justification beyond that. No one really has a convincing secular defense of control of sexual or religious practice; it's all based on their faith. My justifications are based off of actual, quantifiable, objective standards for what makes the world a better place. A democratic system takes away my right to become an authoritarian government, and I may disagree with that (I don't). But society imposes it's view on what the best form of government is on me. They, as am I here, are right about which would make the world a better place for more people. Again, you must provide a convincing takedown of government and utilitarianism to make this case effectively.

However, you were right, Del, when you said that this basically boils down to fundamental differences in moral theory: It cannot be expected that any two people, no matter how closely related, to have completely identical values.
Thank you. That last bit is slightly different from what I'm saying, but it's probably true.

Ah. My mistake. I was referring in the first bit to where Achtung 45 asked, "does it matter?" when Melkor asks, "is it my fault (that the average American does not invest wisely)?"

As for the rest

Posted by Deleuze:
You don't become "responsible" for someone's mistakes in a liberal capitalist system in the sense that you're not blamed for them. You are, however, as a prequisite for being part of the amalgamated society, resposible for a commitment to help the other people in that society - this responsibility is recipricol. Everyone is supposed to help out everyone else as much as they can. That's the point of a government: to combine people's efforts to make society as a whole better. Even parking regulations and the military are examples of that combination for a greater good. Thus, any acceptance of governmental legitimacy is an acceptance of "societal responsibility" in a moral sense

Well, the problem is that "helping people out" can be wildly subjective. I can say to myself, "I want to be a good person and help my neighbor out, free of charge." So I go over, I do laundary, mow the lawn, provide company, that sort of thing. There's no guarantee, however, that my actions will make that person actually happy. Individual needs are too varied and too specific for me to trust an over arching government to provide for all of them. Individuals are by definition unique: so are one's needs and values, so the more an authority tries to make everybody happy, the greater danger of making everybody unhappy ironically becomes. I'm not saying that's your argument per se, but this is how I tend to look at things.

I agree that government has a responsability toward making sure people do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. I do not agree, however, that government must protect people from themselves, or to compell people to "be good."

If you accept a rule utilitarian moral framework, what you say "makes little sense" actually become quite logical.


With all due respect, I do not accept utilitarian morality. An excellent example of utilitarianism in theory is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Forgive me for quoting Star Trek movies in that, btw :D

The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that it says ultimately, the individual is unimportant, the collective mass of individuals supersedes. How does one determine, then, what is the greatest good? Well, you could argue that a democratic majority does so. But even a democratic majority could oppress a minority: Under such a mindset, ethnic minorities would be in great danger of oppression via legislation at the hands of an ethnic majority's superior numbers.

Utilitarianism ignores the needs of the individual because, in my honest opinion, it ignores trees in favor of the forest.

But of course if a few trees die, the forest lives on, no? Well, I'd care if one of those trees were me.

Not in an interpersonal sense, no. But we're talking about governmental action and the legitimacy of governmental intervention. If you want to defend anarchy, go ahead, because it's the only consistant way to take the stance you're taking. See my earlier posts to explain this from another tack.

The government should not be allowed to do things that an individual can't do. To allow otherwise opens the door to authoritarianism. There are instances of this you can find today: For example, while private corporations and individuals can be sued for environmental damages, the government is immune from such litigation. Don't believe me? I'll give you a true story.

A company called Hooker Chemical warned, practically begged the Niagara Falls School Board not to excavate the land where Hooker had stored toxic waste. The school board ignored them, and when health problems arose, taxpayers had to pay some $30 million in relocation. The EPA, naturally, sued Hooker Chemical, not the school board, due to a little known policy called "sovereign immunity." Never mind the fact that by all reasonable accounts, the toxic waste would not have endangered anyone if left alone.

So. What good does it really do, then, when a government is allowed to do things that it forbids private citizens to do?

But that's not a principled stance; it's a qualm with implementation. You, unlike Melkor, accept that the government has a responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, or at least that it could. Work, then, on how we can make SS a better system, not on eliminating entirely.

Melkor does accept that government has a responsability to it's citizens (I should know, I'm his bro :P The disagreement here is on where do those responsabilities begin and end. I don't blame people for wanting welfare: who doesn't want money? But for my part, I refuse to give charity only because I refuse to take it. Unfortunatly, the government won't allow me to put my money where my mouth is. If I, on the other hand, am the sort who accepts charity, then I shouldn't have a problem with taxes. Since I don't, tho, I do lol.

On (what's functionally) your second point, don't make the mistake of confusing religious morality and secular ethics. All of your examples about limitation on personal liberty assume a world in which the ultimate acceptable justification is what an arguably non-existant deity says about a particular course of action, with no actual justification beyond that. No one really has a convincing secular defense of control of sexual or religious practice; it's all based on their faith. My justifications are based off of actual, quantifiable, objective standards for what makes the world a better place. A democratic system takes away my right to become an authoritarian government, and I may disagree with that (I don't). But society imposes it's view on what the best form of government is on me. They, as am I here, are right about which would make the world a better place for more people. Again, you must provide a convincing takedown of government and utilitarianism to make this case effectively

Well, being an atheist, I don't see much of a difference between secular and religious morality, they all have the same fundamental idea in mind: To do good. And Del, a government doesn't "take away your right to become an authoritarian government" because such a right does not exist. We can both agree that because an individual can do something does not necessarilly mean that he has the right to do it.

I am NOT an anarchist because without government, I have no real protection of my own property, nor of my life, come to that. Where I draw the line is when government steps in and decides how I manage my life, instead of just safeguarding it. You could argue that welfare does just that: safeguards lives. But to implement welfare properly, you have to go to people and say "you don't have a choice, you must give money" and effectively MANAGE, in that sense, how people spend their money.

Del, there's no way I can convince you of my values and there's no way you can convince me of yours. Argument isn't about winning, it's merely about making the other side think. One thing I'm sure we both can agree on.....

.......Bush needs to go. I hate that guy, really I do, though I'm sure for different reasons then y'all liberals :D

You misunderstand the contradiction I'm pointing out. It's about the nature of "absolute property rights." If people have an absolute right to anything they can produce by the fruits of their own work, and no one has any right to take them away, then you run into conflicting claims to property. Entrepreneur X (I'll stop saying Bill Gates because I like him and he doesn't run company stores), because of his success, claims the right to dominate the market and pay his workers subsistence wages at his company because he clawed the way to the top. His workers claim the right to a fair wage for their work. Whose right trumps whose? The government either doesn't intervene (people are in functional slavery to Entreprenuer X) or the government intervenes, and Entreprenuer loses money he could have otherwise made. You see, then, why property right can never be absolute? But you can't stop there. If it's justified to stop one instance of conflicting rights, why can't the government give someone another's money in order to get them food? The position is philosophically untenable because it can't be consistant about the nature of property rights.

The situation you describe here is neither "free" nor "trade" in any sense of either word. It's not so much a question of "whos right trumps whos," but rather "does everyone get the same rights."

Your definition of "absolute property rights" here fail to distribute any "property" to the worker in the first place; he might get a check but all that money is coming right back to his boss anyway. Its not a fair trade. This should not and would not be legal.

Patents are irrelevent when the company also controls all of the means of manufacture, as happened in the 19th century. It was called vertical integration. It's still done, to a smaller degree, today. See US Steel as an example of an industry which controlled every single part of steel manufacture, from supply all the way through sale. No way for competition to rise.

I've noticed that whenever the left argues for their policies, they pick out specific circumstances within them as some sort of rallying point for their cause. If $EVENT can happen within the system, most reason, then we must take all steps necessary to prevent it, even if the actual probability of such an occurance is lower than most things we accept in life.

I didn't mean to imply that the government shouldn't encourage competition, but I regrettably don't know anything about the steel industry or more specialized fields like it, so I can't address it from a position of knowledge. Still, it's a relatively minor point.

Cool, life is unfair. Two answers:
1. Don't ever say it's unfair that the government takes your money now.
2. It doesn't have to be that way for everyone. We can do our best to make life as fair as possible. Quite literally, it's try or die.

1. It also happens to be a violation of my property rights.
2. You can do your best. I want my money back. More on this later.

I'm sorry you have to work at a shitty job. I'd advocate cutting taxes for your bracket. (I don't mean to sound patronizing, if I do, I'm sorry). You shouldn't shoulder the majority of the tax burden. Billionaires should. Liberals don't believe in higher taxes for everyone. Your 25% is a lot more important to you than 10 billion dollars is to someone who has 40. That money could fund the government a lot better, too.

Sickening. I don't hold other peoples to standards different from those which I adhere to myself. Philosophy is nothing without consistency.
Taxes should be lower for all of us and the government should get its head out of its ass. Taking money is taking money, I don't care how much you have.

I understand your position. Mine is that rule utilitarian systems of evaluating actions are good. My position is that the greatest good for the greatest number is on balance a good principle. The reason we have such intractable views is that our views on basic moral philosophy are different. You keep looking at my answers through your lens, and vice versa for me. The only way we could theoretically work out this sort of difference is an argument about whose system of evaluating actions is good.

You're on. Would keeping, say 49% of the population taxed to their eyes and oppressed of their property be justified in order to sustain the other 51%? I'm not suggesting America should or even could be like this, but the 'greatest good for the greatest amount' idea applies here pretty specifically. Sure, slightly less than half the population would have to live in shit conditions, but the other 51% would be kickin' it.

Hey, I thought that was a pretty good throwaway joke. Paris Hilton is more or less useless off-camera. Do you really think her money couldn't be better used elsewhere?
(Note: I don't advocate taking all of her money immediately. This is largely a joke).

I understand your jest, but I'm forced at this point to note that just because someone's money can be put to better use somewhere else doesn't mean it should be put to use somewhere else. Money represents the sum of your labors; it's basically a ticket you get for the time you take out of your life to give your services to others. Just like the time spent washing dishes is my time, and thus my life, the remuneration I get for it represents the same damn thing.

Socialization, trade, and prduction would not exist without mutual benefit. I'd like the whole thing, please. I don't see Uncle Sam working 25% of my shift.

No, you haven't. I guarantee you haven't, because you haven't read the philosophy I referred you too. It's a novel attack on current ethical systems and conceptions of human existence (even the word existence is haltingly used in these works). I haven't read every argument for callously ignoring the starving, either.

Then show me something new.


Have to go into metaphysics and epistemology to debate ethics, which is really at the heart of this discussion.

*groan*

You first.

I can't answer this question the way you set it up. You think any example I give will be "stupid bullshit." I think SS and Welfare are not "stupid bullshit." But, by any stretch of the imagination, the military isn't stupid bullshit. Status quo military spending requires tax. I won't go further on this unless you want the isolationism debate as well as the rest of the stuff we've discussed.

Sure you can answer it. You mean to tell me that no government on the planet is wasting any of its money on any programs that aren't working?

Also, I'm pretty sure your math is wrong here. Almost definately sure.

It's not math [note the lack of numbers], it's common sense.

So it's the government's role to protect the health of its citizens?

Yes. within reason and without damaging the health, life, or potential for life of another citizen.

And, it's not if liberty is the most important thing. You're cramping my personal liberty to park where I want. If rights are absolute, then let me park in front of the sign.

You're putting this "absolute" word in my mouth again and I'm liking the taste of it less and less. Rights are not 'absolute and unending' as you seem to love trying to claim, but rather they end where someone else's begin. This is a ridiculous example to try and prove this point on: I have a right to see the sign in enough time to stop so I can avoid being killed.

Say that again in 50 years. SS is recipricol - you pay for a share of other people now, they pay for a much larger share of you in the future. It's called cooperation - one of those parts of a human society.

I'm not interested so much in debating the effects of Social Security: I'm sure you can guess that I think it's a crock of shit and it's not working at all, but in order to do that I'd have to invoke numbers probably just as tainted as the ones you posted earlier. I mean Christ, do you really think the AARP and the Unions would tell you it wasn't working?

And it's not cooperation; cooperation is when two or more people work towards a common goal. Since not everyone is not united behind Social Security , it's not a common goal. In [i]theory Social Security appeals to the concept of trade: you pay for this now, and you'll get it later. The only problem with it, in this context, is that it's mandatory trade: you must pay for this now, and you'll get it back if we run it right. Regarldess of whether or not it works, a trade like this cannot be justified in the absence of choice. I'm not so much an enemy of social security as I am an advocate of free trade. Please be sure to incorperate both parts of this if you want to challenge it again.

Making the government compete like a corporation turns it into an organization designed for profit, because it needs those funds in order to survive.

Right, but the main difference here is they will have a die-hard customer base of people like you who should buy only from them to help the disadvantaged folks you're so worried about.

A corporation, then. That's an even better internal link into corporate domination of government; the government has BECOME a big corporation. This is an awful, awful, idea - a corporation who controls the military and the police! And competition will last how long...Oh wait.

That explains why the government bombs FedEx and UPS trucks. Or why they're muscling private security firms out of business. And say nothing of agent orange strikes on privately held farms!

My argument is that rights can never be absolute in any circumstance but anarchy. People don't have perfect individual liberty if any government existed; they may be able to buy what they want, but they can't murder who they want. Your philosophy of absolute rights is never consistant.

My "philosophy of absolute rights" doesn't [i]exist. My philosophy of consistent rights does. Please stop with this "absolute rights" nonsense.

I don't know why that's more fair. To me, it just seems intrinsically unfair that a system allows some people to be so obscene and others to die for apparent reason.

This is like the dozenth time you've phrased the "but it's not fair" argument using a different configuration of words. I've already answered to this enough; if you want my opinions on this concept just look back to my previous posts.

I do find it curious, however, how you dodged my bit about if 'someone like you wants to get out there and really make a difference, the onus is on you.' Are you telling me, then, that solving the situation yourself or with a group of like minded people isnt an acceptable option?

Fairness (dictionary.com):Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.
I guess it comes from different ethical theories. Again, I really think that's the heart of the debate.

I guess it is. Still, I'm not too likely to be the one to breach the topic first, since you already seem to be familiar with my ideology, and presumably with its 'ethical theories' as well.

This is the same argument you've made earlier, specific to inheritance. It doesn't make sense if you grant me my moral framework; my arguments don't make sense if I grant you yours.

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" in the sense of you persoanlly, but in more of a generic sense. I probably should have phrased it differently.

It's called a compromise; they keep most of their money and some of it goes to people for survival purposes. To me, it seems like preventing murder. Which is worse?

You can't possibly be equating murder with starvation. If someone has nothing, nine times out of ten this means they don't work. If you want to get into the reason they're not working, you might want to take a gander at some of those liberal business restrictions that are causing companies to outsource. The fact that the republicans are now encouraging it is even more damaging to the situation.

If you're talking about that one guy out of ten that really can't work or really does need help, then all you have to do is find the other three or four people out of ten that are willing to give him a portion of their earnings. You're one of those people aren't you?

Also, taxes are a legitimate government function in my mind, so it's not theft.

So it'd be fine with you if a cop took your wallet and bought a streetlight with it? Like I said before, a government can't be very representative if it's held to an entirely different standard. Philosophy is nothing withou.... argh, fuck it.

Taxes would and can be a legitimate function of government--provided it brings a benefit to me. That is how money works. It is exchanged for mutual benefit. If Welfare is helping so many folks, what the hell are they doing for me? Is this 'sense of self satisfaction' the only return I'm getting for the money I'm spending? If so, I'm not satified. In either case, I want my money back.

Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted numbers. Good, I like this better.

I see your arguments. The problem is, having this money in reserve is the only way to prevent it from being appropriated/misused. That money could easily be thrown away, or stolen, without government supervision. And don't even try to say American Social Security is a corrupt system. I'd like to see sources detailing abuses and thefts from social security by government agents, except for Bush's tax cuts.

I'm not interested in the results of social security, I'm interested in the principles behind it. If I had a slightly different mind, I'd love to take you to the mat on SS figures though; you're the first person I think I've ever talked to that says it's working perfectly. It's not, but that's neither here nor there. The only way you've ever belive me is if you trusted my numbers and vice versa, which isn't going to happen.

Additionally, the costs of a transition to private accounts now would destroy that money entirely. Setting it up would cost billions of dollars in transition expenses, preventing people from ever seeing that money they've paid to the government.

Well, I'm appealing to the principle of the money supposedly being for me later; if that's the case it should have my name on it. The reason Social Security works the way it does is because when it was passed into law, the government had to start paying out immediately or else all the old people would get all cranky. If we'd have been a bit more patient with it we might have made it work, but such as it is now I don't even advocate private accounts, I say get rid of SS altogether.

More so, holding money in reserve is CRUCIAL to preventing large scale economic collapse. Saving that money until a crisis allows for reinvestment into the economy to prop up industry in the case of a looming depression.

That's why we have the Federal Reserve.

Welfare is real good. Medicare is real good. Medicaid is real good. SS is real good, in my view. War on Drugs, probably bad. Point is, you have to win they're idiotic before winning this argument. We can get into to each of those, if you'd like.

Easy. You're using my money to pay for things that I would never pay for on the free market. I'd say that's pretty bad. Anything else?

I'd also like to see the math on that, given how high the military budget is.

Please tell me you're kidding. If we were to cut all those programs, are you seriously suggesting the government would have to take in the same amount of tax revenue?

You were making those voluntary donations compulsory, Bill Parcells-style: Either you "voluntarily" donate money to charity, or we'll take it from you in taxes. No choice to keep your money in that system.

The suggestion I had made previously was a Libertarian idea. Thanks for pointing out the flaw in it; I'm beginning to discover Objectivism's problems with the Libertarian agenda the more I poke around.

Still, I don't much care to propose a solution for the 'people are starving' problem. The people who want to solve that problem can solve it with their own money, not mine.

Ok to the last part. Check it out; see what you would need. I think it's a lot more than you would expect.

Only one way to find out, no?

Good for you. The people who need these things to survive - poor laborers, the elderly...their opinions don't matter.

Given that they're the recipients of Social Security, I don't deem it very likely that they ever would tell us to abandon it.

I don't hate corporations; I hate corporate control of society. As I said, I think capitalism is good, it just has to be regulated. So it's not inconsistant to cite corporate-tied organizations.

Anyway, some reasons SS is good (admittedly derived from my research, but that's what research is for):
Social Security is needed to pay for people who otherwise couldn't survive. Some aspects of SS are similar to welfare in that sense. Survivors benefits to children of deceased workers are particularly useful.

Middle class retired Americans get 64% of their income from SS. Otherwise, they couldn't afford essentials.

Like I said, I don't care much for numbers; I'm more interested in theory. I'll bet if you didn't tax those people so heavily when they were working, they'd have more money to sock away to live on their own.

The US census department says that social security aid has lowered the American poverty rate across the board, in particular lowered it from above 50% to about 10.

The US government will also tell you that the War on Drugs and the War in Iraq are rousing successes. I also don't believe for a second that the poverty rate in this country has been anywhere near 50% in the last hundred years.

That's just some of them. The point is, the extra money Social Security provides to millions of people is essential both to their health and the health of the US economy.

If you want to give people 'extra money,' a more direct method of doing so would be to not tax them.

I'm not defending communism; don't make some stupid slippery slope argument. The only way to generate effective economic growth is through a capitalist system; there need to be incentives for people to want to succeed and make money. However, there's still incentive for someone who makes 1 million dollars to become a billionaire if they're taxed more. I have a million; if I were to work more in the status quo, I could get up to 1 billion.

This has been discuessed several times already. Property rights are not--and should not be--contingent on how much property you own.

Do you really think if that number became even as much lower as 300 million tha the person wouldn't want the extra money? Of course not. There are still incentives to make money; just less of an absurd amount than before. My lifestyle is just supported by the amount of money we make in my house, as I assume is yours. Extra taxation would change that standard much more than a shift from 1 billion to 300 million would. That, even, may be a little drastic for me.

See above.

If you don't have to defend anarchy, I don't have to defend communism. And no, communism doesn't inherently do something like ban sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I'm not saying you have to defend Communism. I'm just pointing out that the American left likes to ignore the things it has in common with Communism. There's no denying that Liberals have always been worried about the rapacous effects of capitalist society on the American people; never mind that we forged a world superpower out of wilderness.

Calling every liberal who challenges objectivism a communist doesn't work very well.

Agreed. That's why I'm not calling you a Communist. Read my observations in context and you'll note I'm only pointing out consistencies in the two agendas.

You made a predictive claim: Liberal democracy leads to tyranny. I want some reasoning and evidence to prove that claim.

And I'd like to see a copy-pasted quote of where I said this.

The first bit is what's known as effective rhetoric. You do it too by calling taxes "theft," for one example.

Taxes are theft. If I stole your wallet, gave $10 to a bum, repaved your driveay, and gave you the change, do you expect I'd avoid charges?

See above for the rest; I answered all of this at the beginning. Property rights cannot be absolute. If this proposition goes down, the rest of objectivism's political applications go down with it.

There's that "absolute" again. Tsk.

This one isn't arbitrary; it's the result of a logical statement:
The worst form of government is autocratic (we've both implicitly said this).
Corporate government is inherently autocratic.
For liberal government to be worse than corporate goverment, liberal government has to be autocratic.

No, it just has to contradict itself, which you've already admitted it has.

This "victory condition" is a result of an analysis of the assumptions and arguments of both sides.

Technically speaking, the only real 'victory condition' for any argument is to find the fallacy in your opponent's position. Seeing that contradictions are the most obvious form of fallacy, I'd venture to say I've already done this. You seem to think you've found one in Objectivism re: 'absolute' property rights. For all the claims you lodged about being familiar with Objectivist philosophy, I'm disappointed to see that you've failed to notice that term is never used in any area of Objectivist thought. Replace "absolute" with "rational" and you have a closer match.

That part was a joke.

The rest of it is pointing out the major contradiction in Objectivism: The concept of absolute property rights inherently contradicts itself.

Of course it does. That's why this concept doesn't exist within Objectivism.

Melkor Unchained, do you think that roads should be under government control or under corporate control?

Currently, the government is doing an excellent job with our road systems. Since they built it in the first place, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to transfer control entirely to the private sector.

Any money that goes through the DMV goes to fund our roads: it's a good system because the people who pay for it are the ones that use it. Same thing with the USPS.

It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.blah blah blah


Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.blah blah blah



Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.blah blah blah



Fact 4: Liberals use codewords. blah blah blah





Fact one two three and four are not facts at all rather self-incriminating hogwash imho. Especially bogus is the forest management thing. I used to work in forest management and I am familiar with US forest practices and Now that I had a good laugh I will kick myself for looking at this thread after ignoring it for three or four days. LOL!!!

Social Security has not caused people to become "dependent" on the government.
I...I...

WAHHAAHAHAHAHA-ha-eh-HAW!

Not depen--hold on. Hold on, not gonna laugh again. Not..not---oh, shit--

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Stop! Please! Ya gotta--haha--ya gotta stop! F--k! I think I just pissed myself!

That's a good one.
Well said!
All arguments perfectly countered, marvelous considerations and, overall, an excellent contribution to the discussion.
Thank you for your time and contribution, Cryosaur.

Well said!
All arguments perfectly countered, marvelous considerations and, overall, an excellent contribution to the discussion.
Thank you for your time and contribution, Cryosaur.

Well, at least Cryosaur gave me a cheap laugh ... besides, I think it's almost impossible to prove whether Social Security causes people to become dependent on government, either pro or con. So he did what he could, namely heap scorn on the opposing argument. Don't be so hard on the boy.

I've noticed that whenever the left argues for their policies, they pick out specific circumstances within them as some sort of rallying point for their cause. If $EVENT can happen within the system, most reason, then we must take all steps necessary to prevent it, even if the actual probability of such an occurance is lower than most things we accept in life.
Not adding anything really, but you need to go back and read your Rand again. Rearden was aming for intergrated control for his mills (owned the mills, the mines, and anything else needed). Such control systems happened quite often till it was broken by the anti-monopoly laws (Standard Oil, AT&T, and the studio system being the most famous).

Currently, the government is doing an excellent job with our road systems. Since they built it in the first place, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to transfer control entirely to the private sector.

Any money that goes through the DMV goes to fund our roads: it's a good system because the people who pay for it are the ones that use it. Same thing with the USPS.
How about military spending? Too much? Too little?


(Most of our government's spending, above a 1/2, goes to the military)

Not adding anything really, but you need to go back and read your Rand again. Rearden was aming for intergrated control for his mills (owned the mills, the mines, and anything else needed). Such control systems happened quite often till it was broken by the anti-monopoly laws (Standard Oil, AT&T, and the studio system being the most famous).

As a point of fact, I haven't read that one. I'm about halfway through We The Living and it's the first work of her's I've read. I don't much care for it as far as works of literature goes, but the philosophy behind it [and i'm assuming her other works] are spot-on. Great philosophers don't tell you how to think, they tell you what you already know.


How about military spending? Too much? Too little?

Too much. I think we should stop focusing on building our offensive power, but rather start consolidating our defense. I'd have thought 9/11 would have taught us a lesson in this regard, but seemingly the people in power are only interested in continuing more of the same belligerent foreign policy practices that landed us enemies like this in the first place.

As a point of fact, I haven't read that one. I'm about halfway through We The Living and it's the first work of her's I've read. I don't much care for it as far as works of literature goes, but the philosophy behind it [and i'm assuming her other works] are spot-on. Great philosophers don't tell you how to think, they tell you what you already know.
Really? Atlas Shrugged is actually rather compelling as a work of lit, though I can see why it gives feminist lit crits the fits. ;) I disagree with her on a number of points within the book however, and with Objectivism in general, or rather points within Objectivism.

You should read it when you get the chance though.

Such control systems happened quite often till it was broken by the anti-monopoly laws (Standard Oil, AT&T, and the studio system being the most famous).

And? How does that make anti-monopoly laws a good thing? You know of course that quite a few ubercorporations lobbied for their introduction, intending to use them a bludgeon against competitors. In fact, today we see corporations controlling bigger shares of their markets than Standard Oil ever did.

I have a compromise for you two (Melkor and Deleuze). Why don't you take something that buisness has privatized (insurance, book stores) and have the government use it to make a profit. Would you both agree on that?

PS: Melkor Unchained, it is unwise to suggest a huge government superstore. it would have mass reprocutions on our economy. Buisness entrepreneurs could not exist, merely because the government is not intrested in making a gross profit, but merely to make a profit. Therefore, they would offer their merchandise at cheaper levels, making sure that only our food buisness would survive. Also, there would be no fuil(sp?) for competition, therefore we won't have our lovely computer advancements.

Technically speaking, the only real 'victory condition' for any argument is to find the fallacy in your opponent's position. Seeing that contradictions are the most obvious form of fallacy, I'd venture to say I've already done this. You seem to think you've found one in Objectivism re: 'absolute' property rights. For all the claims you lodged about being familiar with Objectivist philosophy, I'm disappointed to see that you've failed to notice that term is never used in any area of Objectivist thought. Replace "absolute" with "rational" and you have a closer match.

That's not true at all. Objectivist thought is strongly rooted in Lockean thought, which uses terms like 'absolute' and 'natural'. Moreover, all the philosophical underpinings of objectivism lead inexorably to the conclusion that the right to property is not a rational right as such, but a 'natural' right- I discussed this in that other thread. We can easily see that these 'rights' are in fact absolute in practice, if not in name: an objectivism sees tax as theft, even when tax is legal: the implicit message here is that rights transcend human laws. Where do they come from then? The objectivist answer is that they follow rationally from man's nature, which is clearly not so when we examine the issue more closely. Objectivism fundementally relies on a fallacious a priori conception of rights with no grounding in either philosophical argument or reality.

You forgot the "Patriot" Act. Because nothing says patriotic like destroying the freedoms of our nation to fight those who seek to destroy our freedom, right?

I'm sure your life is full of fear and terror from the government because of this act, right?

Canada City']I'm sure your life is full of fear and terror from the government because of this act, right?

It's merely the principal of the matter.

Us- :) :sniper: - Government

That's not true at all. Objectivist thought is strongly rooted in Lockean thought, which uses terms like 'absolute' and 'natural'. Moreover, all the philosophical underpinings of objectivism lead inexorably to the conclusion that the right to property is not a rational right as such, but a 'natural' right- I discussed this in that other thread. We can easily see that these 'rights' are in fact absolute in practice, if not in name: an objectivism sees tax as theft, even when tax is legal: the implicit message here is that rights transcend human laws. Where do they come from then? The objectivist answer is that they follow rationally from man's nature, which is clearly not so when we examine the issue more closely. Objectivism fundementally relies on a fallacious a priori conception of rights with no grounding in either philosophical argument or reality.
I really, really don't want to sound like I'm evading your argument here, but I have to say, honestly.... you really don't know anything about Objectivism. If you're so interested in criticizing it, you'd do well to actually do some research on it.

The way you're discussing it, it occurs to me that the possibility of you having read the opening sentance of a paragraph or two [and skipping the rest] on Wiki is a strong one. Objectivism doesn't contend that anything exists 'intrinsically' or 'in and of itself,' which is what 'natural rights' essentially are. Rights don't exist purely by virtue of our existence, they exist because to breach them is objectively wrong. They transcend human laws simply because... [gasp!] large amounts of people can still be wrong!

Furthermore, saying 'Objectivism has no grounding in reality' is like telling me I don't have two arms.

Last time I checked conservative politics is highly influenced by ignorant and blind hatred towards race, sexual orientation, and religion.

That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have seen when someone tries and labeles conservatives. Talk about blind and hatred.

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.
Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.
Fact 3: Liberals will put national security second to their own image.
Fact 4: Liberals use codewords.

by your location and speech, you must be refering to american liberals? you had said they use codewords, such as centrist? centrist is real liberal, not leftist. leftist is socialist, and there's lesser versions, but i don't know the correct names of the lesser versions of socialist, they're all either socialist or centrist to me, so it doesn't matter, or for the purpose of this debate. but anyways, by the american defintions, "conservatives" do the exact same things. the funny thing is, conservatives are actually the communists, hahahaha! or if you go back far enough, the oligarchists, since human society was originally mostly oligarchies, and conservatives are people who want to keep the same traditions and everything, make things the way they were. i'm just starting to ramble now...

EDIT: in that case, i'm a conservative, all hail the communist oligarchy!

AAAAAGH (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc8.jpg)

So do conservatives.

"Democracy in the Middle East is a great idea. So the war's going great!"


Even though you've already cast YOUR vote, technically the verdict is still out on that one.

Northern Fox, can't you stop flamebaiting?

Taxes are theft. If I stole your wallet, gave $10 to a bum, repaved your driveay, and gave you the change, do you expect I'd avoid charges?


To be fair, it isn't theft because you've assented to it through the social contract betwen the government and the governed.

To be fair, it isn't theft because you've assented to it through the social contract betwen the government and the governed.
Oh really? On virtue of what action? My mere existence?

I call bullshit. I didn't sign up for this, and I want out of this humanitarian torture chamber at once!

That is the price you have to pay for living in any country, corrupt or not. It's a give and take part of modern and unmodern civilization.

That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have seen when someone tries and labeles conservatives. Talk about blind and hatred.

And by saying that you're just as bad as him.
Me- :cool: :mp5: - you

[QUOTE=Northern Fox]It can be baffling sometimes trying to understand what it is liberals are thinking. Unless you’re experienced in handling them I’d advise against trying it. You see in order to properly handle them you have to realize that liberal thinking isn’t tied to reason or fact. Let me expand on that:

Fact 1: Liberals judge programs based on intentions not results.

Even since the Great Society initiatives of the 1930s this is self evident. Social security has created an entire new class of dependency. People have been scamed into believing what was only meant to be a supplement to retirement was be their entire retirement. Then they tell the elderly every election that their opponents want to take SS away. Welfare destroyed the urban black family by making the father obsolete and even harmful to qualifying. This lead in large part to creating the “thug culture” of leaderless young black males and created the inner city ghettos. Unnamed amounts environmental programs have proven complete failures, sometime having effects reverse of their intended effects. Fire is a natural part of the environment in the western US. But 60 years of forest management that ordered all fires to be put out immediately created a half century backlog of fuel. Now fires burn so large and so hot it sterilizes everything. All catastrophic liberal failures.

You can look here to find information on social security, this is an offical U.S.A government website. I dont agree with what you said, but you are free to think that. You have some interesting ideas. Maybe some of your comments could be called racist though. Social security was invented by F.D.R. during the great depression. It is meant to act as an aid, not a crutch. It was not actually the democrats that began policies to protect the environment that was Teddy roosevelt. The link about that is under the social security link. Also the approval rating for W.'s social security reform plan is, or was, very low. He did not gain enough support in put his ideas in focus. The link for his approval rating is under the one abou Teddy.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pubaffairs.html
http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/people/trprofessorship.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/27/bush.poll/