NationStates Jolt Archive

Sure it is--losing 20-30% of your income to taxation is quite trivial compared to what most of the world pays, and depending on where you are, you may have greater earning potential both now and over the course of your lifetime than the vast majority of humans, so that 20-30% becomes even more trivial.
Trivial to you, maybe: not trivial to me. Theft is theft. Just because we happen to have a higher standard of living and a lower tax rate than most does not deprive me of the right to want to make things better. If you want to be able to denounce my every concern as 'trivial,' don't get indignant when I do it to you.

I believe it's Swimmingpool's signature that says "the only small governments are in third world countries." Be careful what you wish for, Melkor.
I haven't seen much from him that impressed me too much, and his signature is certainly no exception. That's like saying leaves are fruit because they both grow on trees.

Third world countries are third world countries because they either have shit in the way of natural resources, or their leaders fucked the whole continent over generations ago. It has nothing to do with the size of their government; if anything it's the [i]effect rather than the cause.

EDIT:
Angola
Mozambique
Ethiopia
Cambodia
Laos
North Korea
Vietnam
Cuba
Yemen [West?]

All of these employed or do employ Socialist and/or Communist economic systems and they're just as poor today as they were when they started: some undoubtedly moreso. 3rd World countries can have big governments too.

Sometimes I think that Libertarianism would die a quick death in the US if we had another Great Depression. It's been a long time since this country really had to stare down a fiscal crisis.
Yeah but the probem we have with you guys is you want to pretend it's the Depression all the damn time.

Trivial to you, maybe: not trivial to me. Theft is theft. Just because we happen to have a higher standard of living and a lower tax rate than most does not deprive me of the right to want to make things better. If you want to be able to denounce my every concern as 'trivial,' don't get indignant when I do it to you.Trivial in the grand scheme of things, as compared to what you'd pay otherwise, Melkor. Look, I don't expect to convince you to change your mind--you're locked in and no amount of internet debate is going to make a significant difference. I respect that--I disagree with you, but I respect that.

We obviously have differing opinions of what "better" is, as far as society is concerned. I'm looking at the health of the whole versus the individual, because I firmly believe that individuals can only prosper if the whole is prospering--otherwise, you wind up with a modern version of feudalism. And if the health of the whole is benefitted by a redistribution of wealth, if that causes greater stability and productiveness, then I'm glad to see it happen and pay my share of it. To be quite frank, I'm glad I don't live in your world.

I haven't seen much from him that impressed me too much, and his signature is certainly no exception. That's like saying leaves are fruit because they both grow on trees.

Third world countries are third world countries because they either have shit in the way of natural resources, or their leaders fucked the whole continent over generations ago. It has nothing to do with the size of their government; if anything it's the [i]effect rather than the cause.
Here's where you're wrong--third world countries, especially in Africa, have plenty of natural resources, and it wasn't their leaders who spent the last four centuries fucking the continent over--it was our (the so-called civilized west) leaders who did the fucking over. We're the cause, and we see the effect now--small, corrupt government and hundred of millions of people suffering for it.

Yeah but the probem we have with you guys is you want to pretend it's the Depression all the damn time.
Sorry, but that's bullshit, plain and simple, and if you don't know it then you ought to be ashamed.

Trivial in the grand scheme of things, as compared to what you'd pay otherwise, Melkor. Look, I don't expect to convince you to change your mind--you're locked in and no amount of internet debate is going to make a significant difference. I respect that--I disagree with you, but I respect that.
Fair enough.

We obviously have differing opinions of what "better" is, as far as society is concerned. I'm looking at the health of the whole versus the individual, because I firmly believe that individuals can only prosper if the whole is prospering--otherwise, you wind up with a modern version of feudalism. And if
Yeah, IF.

the health of the whole is benefitted by a redistribution of wealth, if that causes greater stability and productiveness, then I'm glad to see it happen and pay my share of it. To be quite frank, I'm glad I don't live in your world.
I'd pay my share of it too--if it was my choice and not someone else's. And you do live in my world. Everybody lives in my world, because the world I'm talking about is the world we're living in right now and what's right for it. We're not talking alternate realities or collectivist Utopias here.

Here's where you're wrong--third world countries, especially in Africa, have plenty of natural resources, and it wasn't their leaders who spent the last four centuries fucking the continent over--it was our (the so-called civilized west) leaders who did the fucking over. We're the cause, and we see the effect now--small, corrupt government and hundred of millions of people suffering for it.
Alright, yeah I hadn't thought of that, I was thinking more along the lines of selling their own subjects into slavery in the 1800s; but in the grand scheme of things they probably didn't have too much of a choice. I can hardly endorse the actions of colonial Europe either.

Who's dictating? Decry, yes. Dictate, no. He has the right to be selfish, and I have the equal right to call him a dick for it. Fair enough?

What are you to me, that I should suffer personal economic hardships to pay for your guilty conscience? One of the defining traits of the American breed of Leftist, is the assumption that they are entitled to use the life energy of others to salve thier own moral qualms, and to use the force of Government to do so.

If you feel guilty about something, you should be attending to it yourself and leaving me out of it. This is as true for Taxes, as it was for Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and any of a dozen other "Peacekeeping" missions where guys I went through Basic with were killed for someone in D.C.'s uneasy conscience or public image.

If you're so inhumane in person, that you can't sleep at night for feelings of guilt, that's your own problem. If you feel bad that your ancestors were predatory arseholes, there's not one thing stopping you from giving back all you can on your own. Making someone else pay for the crimes of dead people who've been dead longer than you've been alive is unjust, beyond that, it's futile-because the criminals are dead, the victims who suffered their actions directly are dead. Neither can be rewarded or punished further in the mortal realm.

Like all dangerous rackets, Government must be held limited by those it claims to serve. Each stage of redistribution leads inevitably to the next if not held back by opposition, this is known in military circles as "Mission Creep". Something simple turns into something complex, something complex turns into an institution. Once it becomes an institution, it is nigh-impossible to remove and very difficult to limit.

something to note: in the 1950's, with high-altitude projects, massive yearly revamping of military programmes, the Interstate Highway construction, (built all those long assed multilane highways that lace our nation together), plus Amtrak, a huge deployment in Europe, and rapid spending on then-experimental Jet Aviation and Ballistic Missiles, (between 1950 and 1960 saw some of the biggest strides in technology in the 20th Century), the average income tax rate was 3%. Nationwide. this included State income taxes, and Social Security witholdings.

Contrast with today, with no Cold War, no buying-a-totally-new-airplane every three years, and no massive national construction of a highway system, the average is 25-30%.

In 1959, with the Interstate Highways almost finished, the Federal Government was running budget Surpluses, there was no National Debt, much less 7 Trillion Dollars worth. The navy and the Air Force were both doing research to reach orbit, as well as developing a few radical and expensive new technologies...

And we had troops stationed across most of the world.

In 2005, with crumbling highway infrastructure, the Postal service being taken off the Federal listing, obselete 30+ year old aircraft on Navy ships, aging Naval vessels and after massive cutbacks over the previous ten years, (along with ineffective and unresponsive governments at the state and local levels), with more "oversight" and more Government programmes that so far do less and less with the same funding, we're in debt up to our eyeballs and being charged more and more in taxes (since tax-brackets don't account for cost-of-living adjustments...).

The answer is clearly not to increase taxation, and redistribution has failed to eliminate Poverty (instead, it spreads the misery around by making those who work less able to enjoy the fruit of their own labours). The redistributive approach, in the United States, has failed, but someone, apparently, did not get the memo, because now, a system put in to deal with an emergency, has become an institution all its own. A symbiote, has turned parasitic.

Government is, in fact, out of control. Our elected leaders are beholden to groups that have nothing to do with the electorate at large-Labour unions don't represent working people anymore because Government itself has become the biggest Union job in the country. (It's nigh-impossible to fire someoen from State or Federal service, even with evidence of gross abuses if that someone is not elected.)
This is probably one of the 'closet' reasons the Teamsters walked on the AFL-CIO: it has ceased representing workers and turned to protecting and raising funds for those that make false claims of support for labour.

Industries find it increasingly better to take their production out of the country because of regulations imposed with the best of intentions, that have grown into little kingdoms of barriers and costs while providing nothing in return. (when was the last time the EPA actually cleaned up something? do you know the number of chemicals banned under the EPA's reign for being toxic? five. after almost forty years.)
Do you know the percentage of "Help" money that actually reaches recipients from the Government? Less than ten percent. the rest is fed into a system filled with what amounts to parasitic "Administration costs". It's no wonder that low-end college graduates support increased government in the form of the Social Welfare sector-it's one of the areas that both require a degree-one that doesn't need to be in anything useful in the economy.

The larger and more intrusive government gets, the more "civil Servants" become "Civil MAsters". One dare not raise one's voice when visiting the State offices or Federal building, because the "Civil Servants" there know they can do pretty much what they please to you without fear of anything happening-their jobs are absolutely secure even if they don't bother to do them in favour of gossiping at the back of the room. (this is not Hyperbole when it happens in front of you.)
the power of the vote only works if you vote someone in who will, in fact, make them uncomfortable enough to remember who it is (not themselves) they're supposed to be serving.

MOST "Civil Servants' are "Liberals" (Self-described), this doesn't mean what it used to. Instead, it's been hijacked to cover a particular brand of Statist dogma derived from the socialist end of the left-because Socialism is very much a means to increase the power and influence of the State at the expense of those it is, under our founding documents, allegedly here to serve.

When I think of the word liberal I think of the worlds most successful political machine! The Liberal Party of Canada! Awesome and fearsome at the same time, without the use of guns as done in other communist organiztions they have managed to co-opt an entire nation into their perverse ways! Just think about it, the national colours, flag are Liberal. Only despots and communists do this kind of thing. And Canadians don't even see it. If you are not Liberal you are not Canadian . wow.

What I think when I hear the word liberal:
That depends on the language. In English, I'd think, "Nah, he's not liberal. He's conservative."
In German I'd think "Damn rightwinger."
The German Liberal Party is right from center and has been so for quite some time...

When I think of the word liberal I think of the worlds most successful political machine! The Liberal Party of Canada! Awesome and fearsome at the same time, without the use of guns as done in other communist organiztions they have managed to co-opt an entire nation into their perverse ways! Just think about it, the national colours, flag are Liberal. Only despots and communists do this kind of thing. And Canadians don't even see it. If you are not Liberal you are not Canadian . wow.

TROLL ALERT! WOOT, WOOT!

Haha the 'right' idea...amusing.

Funnily enough, I think of people hating liberals, so republicans and then hating George Bush...so when you say liberal I think of hating George Bush.

I think of a lack of original ideas and evoking racism to get votes, a la Jesse Jackson.

In the traditional sense. Today, he would be considered a conservative for his stand on moral issues.
How is that a traditional sense? Do you think that liberals were traditionally conservative on moral issues?

True. I find it funny that all these hardcore christians are almost fascist in their opinions on society.
I think Hillary barf Clinton, Howard screaming Dean, John traitor Kerry, and Teddy murderer Kennedy. I would rather hear Joe the voice of reason Lieberman, but he cannot be heard above the yelling radical left. :(
I'm fucking sick of you sheltered Americans. You have no idea what extremism is. Your two parties are both socially moderate and economically right-wing. There are no fascists or radical leftists in either party.

Still waiting for an example.... Oh wait... I have a copy here of Neo Rogolia's Conservative Gospel of Jesus. Let's find a few excerpts, shall we?

And Jesus said,

Giveth not to the poor, for they hath made their own bed to layeth down in.

Actually Neo Rogolia is a socialist. So much for your compartmentalised opinions generator.

In addition, will people stop calling her a troll? Despite her unconventional opinions, she is not a troll.

Unfortunately, the radical left not the centrists are in control. If you think Dean and Clinton are centrists, I feel sorry for you. Where are the true centrists like Lieberman?
Dean and Clinton are right-wing. I don't know what Lieberman's positions are, but no doubt you were calling him a radical leftist for opposing Bush in the 2000 election.

Well, I have a big suprise in store for you, that Swimmingpool is well aware of :D
Leiutenant, unleash the social programs!

Stinky Head Cheese is an idiot. If you're trying to make a point it's best you spell the key words of your statement correctly especially when you use it more than once!!! It's "absence" you moron!! :eek: :sniper::)

Liberal argument at it's finest.
I think you are both trolls and should leave.

Someone who's going to take my money and find a "good" cause for it, because I'm evil if I want to keep what's mine :rolleyes:
That's pretty much it. Selfishness is evil.

Liberal = lazy, intellectual
contradiction?

What is strange is that there is a Christian out there who actually thinks that way! When I think Christian today my mind inevitably comes to the Republican party who oppose equal distribution of wealth and workers rights, and the evangelical fat-cats who live off of millions in donations - rarely does one even hear of a left-wing Christian. I am overjoyed that they/you exist.
Go to South America or Europe. There are billions of left-wing Christians.

Odd that I don't see the answer in the poll I would give. "Liberal" is a term stolen for use as a cover for "Tyrannical Statism imposed by the Left." it's a word that, in the American Lexicon, has been raped.
Do you honestly believe that the views of the American Left are more in line with the USSR than with say, Sweden? Can someone be so ignorant?

Mysticism. Liberals don't know they're right because they know it, they know they're right because they feel it; it's sort of a microcosm of Utilitarianism; i.e. 'happiness is the measure of virtue,' i.e. 'actions should be morally gauged by the happiness they generate for others,' which to me is completely abhorrent to reason and morality.

Utilitarianism is perfectly reasonable. I'm sure that even you will agree that happiness is good and suffering is bad. Since all people are equal, the actions which cause the most happiness for the most amount of people are the right ones.

I'm fucking sick of you sheltered Americans. You have no idea what extremism is. Your two parties are both socially moderate and economically right-wing. There are no fascists or radical leftists in either party.

Look who's being ignorant...! I never thought I'd see it.

Seriously, there are near-fascists and uber-libertarians in our major parties... Just not very many.

When I heard liberal, I used to think of someone that listened to the various facts and positions on an issue and then formed their own opinion.

Now, that has changed. Drastically.

You know what I think when I hear the word "liberal"? I think, "Man, this conversation is going to suck."

Look who's being ignorant...! I never thought I'd see it.

Seriously, there are near-fascists and uber-libertarians in our major parties... Just not very many.
*claps*
You gave me "liberal" back. I'm glad you honored our deal. *gives Potaria a hundred dollar bill*

Look who's being ignorant...! I never thought I'd see it.

Seriously, there are near-fascists and uber-libertarians in our major parties... Just not very many.
Yeah, but he has a point. Europe has parties THAT MATTER that are made up entirely of socialists or ultra-right racial nationalists, etc. To the extent that those people exist in the Democratic and Republican parties, they are very marginalized and have no real effect on the nation's politics.

*claps*
You gave me "liberal" back. I'm glad you honored our deal. *gives Potaria a hundred dollar bill*

*dances in circles, cheering*

*a gust of wind takes it away*

No! Wait!! NOOOOOOO!!!

Yeah, but he has a point. Europe has parties THAT MATTER that are made up entirely of socialists or ultra-right racial nationalists, etc. To the extent that those people exist in the Democratic and Republican parties, they are very marginalized and have no real effect on the nation's politics.

I know that, but he was pretty much trying to say that there aren't any extremists in either party.

And, I will say this: There are way more extremist Republicans (usually hardcore christians) than there are extremist Democrats. Well, at least where I am...

Still waiting for an example.... Oh wait... I have a copy here of Neo Rogolia's Conservative Gospel of Jesus. Let's find a few excerpts, shall we?

And Jesus said,

Giveth not to the poor, for they hath made their own bed to layeth down in.

Tis better for one thousand hungry to starve, than to giveth a single lazy shirker a free lunch.

Blessed are the rich, for they investeth into the church.

The Lord God helps those who help themselves, the rest shall be forsook.

If a child goes hungry, let their parents be held accountable. Bring them to the square and stone them as a lesson to all. But feed not or clothe that orphan child, as they are seed of the unworthy.

Judge others harshly, lest they judge you first.

God hath bestowed those rights unto man that only he can keep with raised sword. The meek are completely forsooked.

And so endeth the reading ;)
I have to admit, that was a pretty accurate translation of the Gospels according to NeoCons. Anyone trying to convince you that Jesus was an authoritarian asshole has gotta have a special reservation in a special part of hell.

Neo Regolia, since your book is so full of contradiction, I too can find a wealth of biblical evidence to support the assumption that your Christ was, indeed, a bleeding heart liberal--



"Love your enemies. Blessed are the peacemakers. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:44; 5:9; 5:39.)


"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (John 8:7; Matthew 7:1,2.)



"Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12.15.)


"He who trusts in his riches will fall, but like green leaves the just flourish." (Proverbs 11:28)

"Toil not to gain wealth, cease to be concerned about it." (Proverbs 23:4)



"Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and give to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21)



"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who are ordained by God. Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same, for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn't bear the sword in vain; for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil.


Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually on this very thing. Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor."

(Romans 13:1-7)


"Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, 'I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.'" (Mark 12:41-43)



"'Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?' declares the LORD ." (Jeremiah: 22:15,16)



"He who confers benefits will be amply enriched, and he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed. Him who monopolizes grain, the people curse- but blessings upon the head of him who distributes it!" (Proverbs 11:25-6)


"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I repeat what I said: it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 19:21,23,24; 6:24.)


"He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD , and he will reward him for what he has done. If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered. A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor." (Proverbs 19:17, 21:13, 22: 9)



"He who oppresses the poor blasphemes his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy glorifies him." (Proverbs 14:31)

"He who oppresses the poor to enrich himself will yield up his gains to the rich as sheer loss. Injure not the poor because they are poor, nor crush the needy at the gate; For the LORD will defend their cause, and will plunder the lives of those who plunder them. Open your mouth in behalf of the dumb, and for the rights of the destitute; Open your mouth, decree what is just, defend the needy and the poor!" (Proverbs 14:31, 22:16, 22-3, 31:8-9")

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?" (Isaiah 10:1-3)


"The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just. But the noble man makes noble plans, and by noble deeds he stands." (Isaiah 32:7,8)


"Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers....Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?'" (Isaiah 58:3,6,7,10)


"When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." (Luke 14:13,14.)


"If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it. Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." (Exodus 23:5-7)



"If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:11; Mark 2:27.)


"Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns. Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin." (Deuteronomy 24:14,15)

"You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine. For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts." (Amos 5:11,12)


"'Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?' declares the LORD . 'Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?'" (Jeremiah 5:27-29)



" 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.'" (Ezekiel 16:49)


"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous. Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt." (Exodus 22:21,22; 23:8,9)


"'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity.'" (Leviticus 19:33-35)

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.'" (Zechariah 7:9,10)



"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then will he sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then the King will tell them on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'

The King will answer them, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" (Matthew 25:31-46)
-------------------------------------------------

With a shitty book so full of contradiction, this is like shooting caged birds.
Don't try to rationalize the irrational.
And if you read each and every line I've put up there, you too should come to the conclusion that Christ was indeed the first Commie.
Captain Obvious to the rescue, again!

I think of good old Charlie Kennedy of course!

When I think of liberal... I think whiny pothead, whiny atheist, whiny feminist, whiny educator, whiny homosexual, whiny media, whiny welfare mom, whiny commie... just generally whiny.

Then I remember that most good comedians are liberal, and most is forgiven.

When I think of conservative... I think whiny bible-thumper, whiny redneck, whiny traditionalist, whiny pro-lifer, whiny censorship fascist, whiny abstainer, whiny nazi... just generally whiny.

Then I remember that most good Nascar drivers are conservative, and most if forgiven.

Which is why I'm a centrist.

Taxation used as wealth redistribution is theft, and that was the original complaint about modern liberals.
So are you against all taxes? Because all taxes are spent, and government spending, even if only on roads, is wealth redistribution.

I see liberals as having good intentions, but I see that in the evangelical right as well.

They are very much the same, each has an idea about what is the correct way to run society, and they are very active in using the government to institute their vision of the utopian society.
Libertarians force capitalism on us. There is no government-orientated political ideology that doesn't force something on the people.

I'm not here to discuss the implications of the fact that taxation is theft.
The implications are inseparable. Whether you like it or not, the world exists outside of you.

Economic status should in no way grant an individual precedent over the rights of others.
Finally! Vittos, you see the light. Nobody should have the right to higher standards of healthcare and education just because they're richer than others.

And George Bush can be associated with Prescott Bush's actions?
I don't think that he was trying to smear the current president. He was just highlighting a case where even terrible evil will not stop some men in their pursuit of money.

And, I will say this: There are way more extremist Republicans (usually hardcore christians) than there are extremist Democrats. Well, at least where I am...
The people you call extremists are not so. Wanting to ban gay marriage, drugs and abortion is conservative, but not extreme. Wanting to deport all immigrants is extreme. At the other end, wanting to end capitalism entirely is another extreme. Such parties exist in Europe.

Yeah, but he has a point. Europe has parties THAT MATTER that are made up entirely of socialists or ultra-right racial nationalists, etc. To the extent that those people exist in the Democratic and Republican parties, they are very marginalized and have no real effect on the nation's politics.
Correct my friend. Still, I would rather have a multi-party system containing some extremist parties than two almost identical parties which lock out alternatives and give no hope to change their direction of the nation.

And George Bush can be associated with Prescott Bush's actions?
I don't think that he was trying to smear the current president. He was just highlighting a case where even terrible evil will not stop some men in their pursuit of money.

Libertarians force capitalism on us. There is no government-orientated political ideology that doesn't force something on the people.
Swimmingpool, this has to be the most rediculous thing I've ever read from you. Where are these uberpowerful libertarians forcing capitalism on your "us"?

This is a bizarre, distorted and paranoid misconception of political power. Were you for fucking real? :rolleyes:

Liberal - I want to have the most freedoms I can and I would like everyone regardless of skin-color to have a fair shake in life.

Conservative - I want everyone to liveaccording to my rules and I love violence and money.

Liberal - I want to have the most freedoms I can and I would like everyone regardless of skin-color to have a fair shake in life.

Conservative - I want everyone to liveaccording to my rules and I love violence and money.


Haha thats so true.

So are you against all taxes? Because all taxes are spent, and government spending, even if only on roads, is wealth redistribution.

I fail to see how most public works are used to privilege a certain portion of society. Is there a portion of society that are disallowed from using roads?

Libertarians force capitalism on us. There is no government-orientated political ideology that doesn't force something on the people.

Capitalism is economic freedom. If groups of people want to engage in socialistic or communistic activities there is no problem, however, it cannot be governmentally enforced.

Finally! Vittos, you see the light. Nobody should have the right to higher standards of healthcare and education just because they're richer than others.

Actually, I agree with you on healthcare somewhat, as I worry that its nature could lead it to be a coercive market. I think maybe the best way to handle that is to make it completely free for everyone, including the wealthy. Unfortunately, there are drastic pitfalls to that policy as well.

As for education, low interest loans should be made readily available.

However, healthcare and education are services that are bought on the market. Nobody has an inherent right to them.

Saying that you have a right to healthcare is logically the same as saying that one has the right to a haircut or a car wash. Just because there is a higher necessity does not mean that there is more of a right.

Liberal = "Shamelessly optimistic" and not "left wing enough".

You've hit the root of the problem IMO. This "What's mine is mine" attitude. Why do we have to go around trying to OWN everything we see? You know you can even own stars now, it's getting so ridiculous.

Possesions are transitory at best. Money is a figment of humanity's collective imagination. And, ownership of property is basically "selling the ground out from unborn feet".

Debate...

It's mine because I put in the labor and skills needed to obtain it. There is noting "greedy" about wanting to keep something you helped create or earned, what is greedy is insisting that this means of trade that I've worked to earned shouldn't be mine, but should go towards someone whom I've never met, who in my eyes might not deserve it but the decision of giving it or not is taken out of my hands.

When I give my money to a charity, I know exactly where my money is going, who it's helping and how it's going to help them. When the government takes my money, I do not know where it's going, who its helping or, in some cases, if that money's just keeping some lazy asshole who doesn't feel like working from having to get off his couch except to pick up his welfare check.

Utilitarianism is perfectly reasonable. I'm sure that even you will agree that happiness is good and suffering is bad. Since all people are equal, the actions which cause the most happiness for the most amount of people are the right ones.
The first sentence here and the last half of your final one are completely off the mark; the rest of it is actually fairly accurate, though with the caveat that people are only equal when engaged in the process of trade; i.e, their physical/mental capacities or characteristics are of no consequence when offering a material item; though they frequently are a factor when discerning the value of a service.

The pain/pleasure model advocated by Utilitarianism holds that these two emotional responses are the only two Absolutes in our universe; and the degree of pain/pleasure that these actions cause is the Utilitarian moral barometer. As I've said countless times on these forums, happiness is not the measure of virtue. If it were, you would be liable to be arrested any time you unsettled the 'happiness' of one or more people; the cause of which may be completely beyond your control.

Happiness is the purpose of virtue, not it's standard. Utilitarianism assumes that every man has the right to attain happiness, which he doesn't. If that were the case, one could claim he is 'attaining happiness' by sleeping on the hood of your car: if there happened to be more than one of them it would be morally reprehensible for you [one person] to move them off.

Vittos, Melkor, Neo Kervoskia...

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing, guys. ;)

When I think of liberal... I think whiny pothead, whiny atheist, whiny feminist, whiny educator, whiny homosexual, whiny media, whiny welfare mom, whiny commie... just generally whiny.

Then I remember that most good comedians are liberal, and most is forgiven.

When I think of conservative... I think whiny bible-thumper, whiny redneck, whiny traditionalist, whiny pro-lifer, whiny censorship fascist, whiny abstainer, whiny nazi... just generally whiny.

Then I remember that most good Nascar drivers are conservative, and most if forgiven.

Which is why I'm a centrist.

:rolleyes: WOW! What excellent political analysis!

Considering I live in British Columbia, where the party known as the BC Liberals are middle-to-right-wing ... I have a general dislikage of them.

However, I find a truly liberal political ideology a pleasant, if unachievable, dream.

How is that a traditional sense? Do you think that liberals were traditionally conservative on moral issues?

Right.



I'm fucking sick of you sheltered Americans. You have no idea what extremism is. Your two parties are both socially moderate and economically right-wing. There are no fascists or radical leftists in either party.


By your native standards, yes. By American standards, no. Should I judge England, France, or Russia's political climate by american standards? If I did, I would have to conclude that the West Lost the Cold War.
(Hint: No, the Soviets and their clients lost.)


Actually Neo Rogolia
...snipped...
In addition, will people stop calling her a troll? Despite her unconventional opinions, she is not a troll.


Agreed. Neo Rogolia's not a troll at all. She's a very nice young person.


Dean and Clinton are right-wing.

In Germany, France, Italy, or Britain. (oops, forgot Zimbabwe and Ethiopia...) By American standards ( the standards of the nation in which they have their Political Careers) they're "Left of Centre".

I don't know what Lieberman's positions are, but no doubt you were calling him a radical leftist for opposing Bush in the 2000 election.


Unlikely. Lieberman's less-left than Clinton on Moral issues.






That's pretty much it. Selfishness is evil.

Selfishness can be expressed as wishing to impose on others the cost of one's own desires-a firm marker of Socialist Dogmas. "I wantitandyou'regonnabuyitforme" is very much a central key to the whole "Tax-and-redistrubute" design of Socialist economics. Bread and Circuses to keep the masses fat and entertained.


Go to South America or Europe. There are billions of left-wing Christians.

You could just go to New York or Chicago to see those. Or Washington D.C.


Do you honestly believe that the views of the American Left are more in line with the USSR than with say, Sweden? Can someone be so ignorant?


Based on the Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, a host of bills proposed in State legislatures, and the questionable accounting practices of the (mostly Democrat) Elections Board in King County? Yes. I Read Mao's little red book. I've Read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto.
it's not ignorance when you can see it going on around you.

wow what an unbias pole we have very good good and absolutly terrible thw word that springs to my mind is wrong. Simply wrong as in "they are wrong"

I think of unadulterated hate and venom towards anything American. I think of the absense of ideas, and misdirection from that absense by nonsensical idealogical garbage.

Thank god you didn't use the word culture and the US in the same sentence.

Only in America do they have people stand in front of a flag saying a North Korea like 'pledge of alligence' - in any other country, it would be seen as a joke.

I primarily think that you need to get your definitions straight.
Liberals are people who are close to Libertarians. They are anti-state and want to see people make choices.
That doesn't mean they're kind-hearted, so I don't have an option.

Anyways, here is what "Liberal" means in Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia

True, the traditional sense is getting the state out of peoples lives, and giving individuals the freedom AND responsibility to take care of themselves; get the government out of the bedroom, religion, and so forth.

In the literal sense, it actually means freedom.

Hence the reason if one were to say "tax and spend" the correct catagory would actually be Social Democrats - then again, GWB seems to be doing a bloody fine job in the borrow, spend and hope.

Love and bunnies! :fluffle:

As are the leftist fundamentalists that make up the majority of the Democrat party in the U.S. The ignore the will of the people and just rely on extremist judges to make law.

Yeah, sure; a fundamentalist is one who goes back to the fundamentals of a chosen indeology - so what ideology, pray-tell, do the Democrats base their party upon?

Can't be any worse than the Straussian ideas of the 1940/50s coupled with the mutated and missquoted parts from the bible - to unify the masses behind something of common hate - gays, and in the mean time, whilst bashing the gays, the Republicans will work behind the scenes ensuring that they keep the special interest groups happy.

Unfortunately, the radical left not the centrists are in control. If you think Dean and Clinton are centrists, I feel sorry for you. Where are the true centrists like Lieberman?

Can't get to him because he doesn't turn the lights on on Saturdays let alone drive a car - yeap, thats him alright;

"stop everything! I nothing should occur on Sabbath or otherwise I won't be able to do anything about it, and make the US look like the hero!"

I actually puke when I eat lentils too!
We have something in common. Awwww.
You can have a soy burger...
Made from scratch...
Never mind. I know the answer to that one, don't I?

Must be crappy lentils; I love my lentils, especially those yummy sweet chilli flavoured ones :D

Yummy :D

Socialist, unorthodox people who go against any ideas set forth by old-fashioned values, morals, religion, or principles.

It depends on who says it. If I say it, I think of "totally radical awsum peeps!!"

When I hear it from a republican I think of the people who are oppressed by the Conservatives. :D