NationStates Jolt Archive

And first, please no "ZOMG IDEOLOGIES ARE TEH STUPIDS". I agree to a point, but I'm curious as to which one I'm closest to. I generally thought of myself as more right-wing (I'm an atheist, though) but recently I've adopted a stance on civil rights which basically says that it's none of the government's business or anyone else's business and they should butt out of gay marriage and suchlike. However, I'm capitalist and I tend to support the policies of right-wing parties, like the War on Terror. Am I libertarian?

And first, please no "ZOMG IDEOLOGIES ARE TEH STUPIDS". I agree to a point, but I'm curious as to which one I'm closest to. I generally thought of myself as more right-wing (I'm an atheist, though) but recently I've adopted a stance on civil rights which basically says that it's none of the government's business or anyone else's business and they should butt out of gay marriage and suchlike. However, I'm capitalist and I tend to support the policies of right-wing parties, like the War on Terror. Am I libertarian?
Damned if I know! I'm leftish on social issues, libertarian on economic issues, and hawkish on international issues, so go figure! :eek:

I say forget ideologies and go for the jugular. :D

Libertarian or socially moderate right-winger. It really depends on how pronounced your feelings on these issues are. Being that you seem to be American you might be better off saying that you are the latter because libertarians do not have any major power unless you view your social views as strongly as your economics views.

And first, please no "ZOMG IDEOLOGIES ARE TEH STUPIDS". I agree to a point, but I'm curious as to which one I'm closest to. I generally thought of myself as more right-wing (I'm an atheist, though) but recently I've adopted a stance on civil rights which basically says that it's none of the government's business or anyone else's business and they should butt out of gay marriage and suchlike. However, I'm capitalist and I tend to support the policies of right-wing parties, like the War on Terror. Am I libertarian?

You are Republican I think.

Libertarian or socially moderate right-winger. It really depends on how pronounced your feelings on these issues are. Being that you seem to be American you might be better off saying that you are the latter because libertarians do not have any major power unless you view your social views as strongly as your economics views.

Not American, Australian.

Not American, Australian.
Sorry, I just assumed based on the fact that the US is currently the nation that is well-known for being caught up in the "War on Terror" and huge attention on social issues like gay marriage and such. Not only that but the current situation is causing disillusionment among fiscal conservatives. I appologize for such an assumption.

hey I got one. I hate gun control, am pro-death penalty, pro-tough on crime, very capitalist and hate affirmative action and welfare. On the other hand Im very liberal on every single social issue, Im an environmentalist, and am against Israel and the war in Iraq. What am I?

hey I got one. I hate gun control, am pro-death penalty, pro-tough on crime, very capitalist and hate affirmative action and welfare. On the other hand Im very liberal on every single social issue, Im an environmentalist, and am against Israel and the war in Iraq. What am I?
Intellectually challenged? :confused:

hey I got one. I hate gun control, am pro-death penalty, pro-tough on crime, very capitalist and hate affirmative action and welfare. On the other hand Im very liberal on every single social issue, Im an environmentalist, and am against Israel and the war in Iraq. What am I?
You are probably a clear-cut libertarian. In fact, I have little reservation by saying this because you pretty much stated that you were fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

hey I got one. I hate gun control, am pro-death penalty, pro-tough on crime, very capitalist and hate affirmative action and welfare. On the other hand Im very liberal on every single social issue, Im an environmentalist, and am against Israel and the war in Iraq. What am I?

You are Republican. Even though I believe passionately in the environment like you do, I'm still an honest Democrat.

I'm glad that the one issue you care about deeply is the environment because that's exactly why progressives are using it. We have tried to fight the moral cause of a government intervening extensively in business to make it more fair, as well as much higher taxation in order for the government ot guarantee education,l healthcare, childcare, pensions, food and housing and recreation.

Anyhow, most stupid people don't like it because they are all caught up in being "indepedent," but if they ever studied post-moderism, which is the dominant belief today among anyone who is smart, the masses would know that individualism is an illusion.

My point is that using the environment we are getting people that would otherwise be Republican, like you, to embracing extensive corporate regulation and high taxation (especially on the RICH, who don't need any more money) in order to fight "global warming."

You are probably a clear-cut libertarian. In fact, I have little reservation by saying this because you pretty much stated that you were fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
But the problem I have with libertarians is that they don't care about protecting the environment.

You are Republican. Even though I believe passionately in the environment like you do, I'm still an honest Democrat.

I'm glad that the one issue you care about deeply is the environment because that's exactly why progressives are using it. We have tried to fight the moral cause of a government intervening extensively in business to make it more fair, as well as much higher taxation in order for the government ot guarantee education,l healthcare, childcare, pensions, food and housing and recreation.

Anyhow, most stupid people don't like it because they are all caught up in being "indepedent," but if they ever studied post-moderism, which is the dominant belief today among anyone who is smart, the masses would know that individualism is an illusion.

My point is that using the environment we are getting people that would otherwise be Republican, like you, to embracing extensive corporate regulation and high taxation (especially on the RICH, who don't need any more money) in order to fight "global warming."
The problem I have with republicans is that they are social conservatives and Im a socially liberal atheist. However, you bring up an interesting point that I dont quite get. I dont see how raising taxes and thus slowing the economy and losing jobs is going to help the environment. Can you explain.

You are Republican. Even though I believe passionately in the environment like you do, I'm still an honest Democrat. He seems libertarian to me. He might vote republican based upon his fiscal beliefs but some libertarians do the same.

I'm glad that the one issue you care about deeply is the environment because that's exactly why progressives are using it. We have tried to fight the moral cause of a government intervening extensively in business to make it more fair, as well as much higher taxation in order for the government ot guarantee education,l healthcare, childcare, pensions, food and housing and recreation.

Anyhow, most stupid people don't like it because they are all caught up in being "indepedent," but if they ever studied post-moderism, which is the dominant belief today among anyone who is smart, the masses would know that individualism is an illusion.

My point is that using the environment we are getting people that would otherwise be Republican, like you, to embracing extensive corporate regulation and high taxation (especially on the RICH, who don't need any more money) in order to fight "global warming."
Uh... dude, you are not a democrat. You are a socialist. Also, individualism is not an illusion. There are plenty of intelligent people who believe that individuality exists. Post-modernism cannot be used as a proof of anything, in fact, the philosophical belief in subjectivity that has come to dominate is actually fuel for a belief in individuality.

High taxation and extensive corporate regulation would mean a massive drop in the quality of life for the entire nation and would not be good for us. Besides, need does not govern the lives of the majority, most of us go by what we want and if a rich man wants money so much that he is willing to go off and earn it then let him earn it, he helps everyone else so long as he does this legally.

But the problem I have with libertarians is that they don't care about protecting the environment.
That doesn't mean that you aren't a libertarian. It just means that you are a libertarian that cares about the environment. Belonging to an ideology does not mean that you believe in every aspect of it, just that you believe in the majority of it. You for the most part are a libertarian, you are just a libertarian that likes the environment this belief could even drive you to vote for pro-environmental parties because you view the issue as that important, that does not change your ideological nature though. There are many republican groups that disagree with the republicans like pro-gay rights republicans and pro-abortion republicans but they are still right-wingers. I am not quite as certain about the divides in the democrats other than the liberals and the conservative democrats.

Uh... dude, you are not a democrat. You are a socialist.

No. He is a right-winger who likes to invent straw men.

No. He is a right-winger who likes to invent straw men.
Possibly that. No matter what though he isn't a mainstream democrat.

The problem I have with republicans is that they are social conservatives and Im a socially liberal atheist. However, you bring up an interesting point that I dont quite get. I dont see how raising taxes and thus slowing the economy and losing jobs is going to help the environment. Can you explain.

Republicans doubt global warming and they say if it does exist "let's wait until the next technology is discovered that solves it retroactively."

WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG, as Al Gore said, the Earth is dangerously in trouble unless we act now. Unfortunately the only thing we can do is to start to close down key industries and slow economic activity, which will reduce pollution.

This might seem bad for an American, but the truth is that most of the world already lives with a low carbon footprint, so why shouldn't Americans?

The other piece to think about, and many Democrats have found this threat of global catastrophe to be good news, because Americans have proved too stupid to realize the benefits of a more fair economy. Why should some people have a jet airplane and others have to take public transportation?

The truth is that the government has to step in to ensure fundamental fairness. The Constitution as promised, offered healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, housing and food, as well as education for all, but that promised has been stopped by Republicans since the Founding.

And it's so stupid because the Democrats always offer free things every election and the Republicans, to the extent that you can actually believe their lies, promise vague notions of individual "liberty," the warmth of "faith," and human "freedom." The point is: The Democrats have been offering actual free things for a long time, yet people turn it down. In real life, who actually turns down free things?

Progressive scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists have explained the benefits of a more fair economy even separate from global warming, but if you are an "individualist" (which is a pre-modern illusion) then at least support progressive policies based on the coming global catastrophe possibility.

Possibly that. No matter what though he isn't a mainstream democrat.

Holy Awesomeness, I am a Democrat, I believe that Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Stabenow, and everyone up for election on our side NEEDS to win.

You don't like me because you are wed to the old idea that Democrats "need to be pretend to be Republicans" in order to win elections, and you are worried that I am talking about truth.

However, the truth is that the netroots and the election of Howard Dean have proven this wrong. Americans want progressive policies, they just need to talked about in a upfront mannerr.. You want to go back to the days where we pretend to be for "family values" but then go back on it. I'm tired of those days. I'M NOT FOR FAMILY VALUES, I'm for positive liberty guaranteed by government.

*snip*

Case in point.

Holy Awesomeness, I am a Democrat, I believe that Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Stabenow, and everyone up for election on our side NEEDS to win.

You don't like me because you are wed to the old idea that Democrats "need to be pretend to be Republicans" in order to win elections, and you are worried that I am talking about truth.

However, the truth is that the netroots and the election of Howard Dean have proven this wrong. Americans want progressive policies, they just need to talked about in a upfront mannerr.. You want to go back to the days where we pretend to be for "family values" but then go back on it. I'm tired of those days. I'M NOT FOR FAMILY VALUES, I'm for positive liberty guaranteed by government.
I said mainstream democrat. Your rhetoric is that of a socialist which is something that democrats are not. Democrats are for a more mixed economy but they are not for the massive controls that you would put in place. So either you are a right-wing strawman as your rhetoric is so loony or you are a nonsensical socialist.

Why should some people have a jet airplane and others have to take public transportation?The trouble with socialism is that it'd stick everyone on the bus, rather than help get everyone a jet.

Making everyone equally poor is not an improvement for anyone.

By your compass results, you're a Regan style republican. (Moderately.)

Hell, you're more republican then most real republicans.. Don't know if you'd take that as a compliment or an insult, but I can assure you our current president would get something like

Economic left -1.00
Social right 1.00

And Bush is one of the better ones, which tell's you something about what republicans have become. There's republicans, and then there's "neo-cons". The Bush administration, is wholly neo-con, but hardly republican.

WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG, as Al Gore said, the Earth is dangerously in trouble unless we act now. Unfortunately the only thing we can do is to start to close down key industries and slow economic activity, which will reduce pollution.
Thats not the only thing you can do. hell, all they have to do is move from oil powered cars to something else, its not that hard. But whatever is done they must make sure it doesnt slow the economy.
This might seem bad for an American, but the truth is that most of the world already lives with a low carbon footprint, so why shouldn't Americans?
Because at this point thats not necessary.
The other piece to think about, and many Democrats have found this threat of global catastrophe to be good news, because Americans have proved too stupid to realize the benefits of a more fair economy. Why should some people have a jet airplane and others have to take public transportation?
why not? whats wrong with a jet?
The truth is that the government has to step in to ensure fundamental fairness. The Constitution as promised, offered healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, housing and food, as well as education for all, but that promised has been stopped by Republicans since the Founding.
The consitution promises nothing of the sort. In fact all it does promise is life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. In addition the founding fathers had in mind a government that stayed out of peoples lives, since oppression is what they were escaping.
And it's so stupid because the Democrats always offer free things every election and the Republicans, to the extent that you can actually believe their lies, promise vague notions of individual "liberty," the warmth of "faith," and human "freedom." The point is: The Democrats have been offering actual free things for a long time, yet people turn it down. In real life, who actually turns down free things?
Individual liberty is the best thing one could hope for. Also those things you mentioned arent free, in fact they are paid through high taxes and in most cases are more expensive then if they werent "free" at all.
but if you are an "individualist" (which is a pre-modern illusion) then at least support progressive policies based on the coming global catastrophe possibility.
I can do that

Fergi America']The trouble with socialism is that it'd stick everyone on the bus, rather than help get everyone a jet.

Making everyone equally poor is not an improvement for anyone.

I support everyone having the exact same treatment. I AM FOR EQUALITY like what was intended by the Founders. THAT ALL MEN (AND WYMIN) ARE EQUAL.

I am not against everyone having a pollution-free jet, so long as everyone has one. Are you offering a jet for everyone? If not, then we better stick to the bus!

I hope no one thinks I'm a hypocrite, but there is one exception, that would be for me. But this is only because I NEED private transportation in order to get to all my school activities and to work on all the campaigns I'm on.

However, it is not the results we need to be concerned with here. My "exception" will allow the poor to achieve more. Many Democrats share my view on this, as leaders in the progressive movement, they will need their own transportation, but for the masses it will be a great Equality, which is what people have yearrned for since the late 1800's.

By your compass results, you're a Regan style republican. (Moderately.)

Hell, you're more republican then most real republicans.. Don't know if you'd take that as a compliment or an insult, but I can assure you our current president would get something like

Economic left -1.00
Social right 1.00

And Bush is one of the better ones, which tell's you something about what republicans have become. There's republicans, and then there's "neo-cons". The Bush administration, is wholly neo-con, but hardly republican.
me?

Republicans doubt global warming and they say if it does exist "let's wait until the next technology is discovered that solves it retroactively."

WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG, as Al Gore said, the Earth is dangerously in trouble unless we act now. Unfortunately the only thing we can do is to start to close down key industries and slow economic activity, which will reduce pollution.

This might seem bad for an American, but the truth is that most of the world already lives with a low carbon footprint, so why shouldn't Americans?

The other piece to think about, and many Democrats have found this threat of global catastrophe to be good news, because Americans have proved too stupid to realize the benefits of a more fair economy. Why should some people have a jet airplane and others have to take public transportation?

The truth is that the government has to step in to ensure fundamental fairness. The Constitution as promised, offered healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, housing and food, as well as education for all, but that promised has been stopped by Republicans since the Founding.

And it's so stupid because the Democrats always offer free things every election and the Republicans, to the extent that you can actually believe their lies, promise vague notions of individual "liberty," the warmth of "faith," and human "freedom." The point is: The Democrats have been offering actual free things for a long time, yet people turn it down. In real life, who actually turns down free things?

Progressive scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists have explained the benefits of a more fair economy even separate from global warming, but if you are an "individualist" (which is a pre-modern illusion) then at least support progressive policies based on the coming global catastrophe possibility.

You keep throwing out theories you dont explain. It would be helpful If you would start a thread both on A: where the constitution ever said it guarenteed concepts that didnt even exist at the time and B: How pre-modernism defeats the idea of individualism.

Secondly the Republicans didnt come about until appx. 80 years after the founding of the Government.

Back on topic: OP, You dont need to align yourself with a party but you sound moderately republican to me. If you want to narrow it down more there are PAC's and interest groups within each party which greatly diversify opinion, you can probably find a home there.

I support everyone having the exact same treatment. I AM FOR EQUALITY like what was intended by the Founders. THAT ALL MEN (AND WYMIN) ARE EQUAL.

I am not against everyone having a pollution-free jet, so long as everyone has one. Are you offering a jet for everyone? If not, then we better stick to the bus!

I hope no one thinks I'm a hypocrite, but there is one exception, that would be for me. But this is only because I NEED private transportation in order to get to all my school activities and to work on all the campaigns I'm on.

However, it is not the results we need to be concerned with here. My "exception" will allow the poor to achieve more. Many Democrats share my view on this, as leaders in the progressive movement, they will need their own transportation, but for the masses it will be a great Equality, which is what people have yearrned for since the late 1800's.

Perhaps equality is nice in principle, but it's stupid in practice. It's better for some people to be rich and some people to be poor than for everyone to be poor. The fact of the matter is that some people are more deserving of luxuries than others.

I can do that

This is great news. Thank you for sacrificing your absurd notions of individualism for the greater good of SAVING THE EARTH FROM DESTRUCTION!

It almost sounds like I'm a fundy talking about christianity when I say that statement, but the difference is that my belief is based on true fact and their is on fairy tales.

me?
Hamilay, but you strike me as a bit right-wing to.;)

My result was (I just took it now)
Economic right 3.25
Social right 3.23

If only there were more Regan republicans like us, maybe then society wouldn't suck so bad..

You keep throwing out theories you dont explain. It would be helpful If you would start a thread both on A: where the constitution ever said it guarenteed concepts that didnt even exist at the time and B: How pre-modernism defeats the idea of individualism.

Secondly the Republicans didnt come about until appx. 80 years after the founding of the Government.

Back on topic: OP, You dont need to align yourself with a party but you sound moderately republican to me. If you want to narrow it down more there are PAC's and interest groups within each party which greatly diversify opinion, you can probably find a home there.

I'm not Republican, unless the party embraces education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for all, some minimal amount of recreation guaranteed by law, and a quality pension for all, then I will never be Republican.

Plus, have you seem how they push their Christian morality down everyone's throats. They pretned like its always been that way, but the Founders hated Christianity and wanted it removed from the country, unfortunately they failed. The only thing we can hope for is for the government, when the Democrats take over the Congress in November, start a problem to require comprehensive sex education, and unrestricted access to abortion, in all the Southern states.

This is great news. Thank you for sacrificing your absurd notions of individualism for the greater good of SAVING THE EARTH FROM DESTRUCTION!


Actually Im not pro-environment because I believe in greater good of society or any of that bullshit and I certianly dont think individualism is an absurd notion. I just dont want to live in a world that will fall apart while Im still in it.

You keep throwing out theories you dont explain. It would be helpful If you would start a thread both on A: where the constitution ever said it guarenteed concepts that didnt even exist at the time and B: How pre-modernism defeats the idea of individualism.

Secondly the Republicans didnt come about until appx. 80 years after the founding of the Government.

Back on topic: OP, You dont need to align yourself with a party but you sound moderately republican to me. If you want to narrow it down more there are PAC's and interest groups within each party which greatly diversify opinion, you can probably find a home there.

The Constitution: The 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments and their broader meaning interpreted in a modern setting.

Pre-modernism allowed for individual thought, but we now know that individuality is just in the mind of the person and is not a true reality. I myself don't know the details, but professors that studied extensively during the 60's and 70's (because Republicans started an illegal war in Vietnam, that many progressives had to stay in school to avoid it) have researched this and it is now considered true fact.

I'm not Republican, unless the party embraces education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for all, some minimal amount of recreation guaranteed by law, and a quality pension for all, then I will never be Republican.

Plus, have you seem how they push their Christian morality down everyone's throats. They pretned like its always been that way, but the Founders hated Christianity and wanted it removed from the country, unfortunately they failed. The only thing we can hope for is for the government, when the Democrats take over the Congress in November, start a problem to require comprehensive sex education, and unrestricted access to abortion, in all the Southern states.

OP= Opening post, I was talking to the thread starter in everything after i said OP. You didnt answer the questions above that anyway.

edited to add:

Modern interpretation eh :rolleyes: . Still say it deserves a thread, as for the second part, I'll need a source.

Actually Im not pro-environment because I believe in greater good of society or any of that bullshit and I certianly dont think individualism is an absurd notion. I just dont want to live in a world that will fall apart while Im still in it.

LOL, I see your point. At least you realize that we have to implement progressive polciies because capitalism WILL DESTROY THE EARTH!

We are 4% of the population consuming 40% of the resources; this is unfair!

...many Democrats have found this threat of global catastrophe to be good news, because Americans have proved too stupid to realize the benefits of a more fair economy.

I assume you must be a parody-liberal, but this was just an absurdly dumb statement, even from a troll. No one at DNC headquarters is dancing around saying "Yay! Global catastrophe! What a great excuse to become socialists!"

:p

LOL, I see your point. At least you realize that we have to implement progressive polciies because capitalism WILL DESTROY THE EARTH!

actually I dont think you see my point and Im not even sure if you read my posts because I have said that we do not need to implement progressive policies nor do I think capitalism will destroy the earth. I think capitalism and environmentalism can work side by side.
We are 4% of the population consuming 40% of the resources; this is unfair!
Why?

Anyhow, most stupid people don't like it because they are all caught up in being "indepedent," but if they ever studied post-moderism, which is the dominant belief today among anyone who is smart, the masses would know that individualism is an illusion.

I don’t know what to say to this except…. Baa baa baaaa
I'm going to take a guess… you are either in high school or a college freshman (maybe sophomore on the 5 year plan ;)

Alas, this strain of idiocy is prevalent on many campuses – fortunate most people tend to grow out of this phase. You have been exposed to some very socialist professors and the ‘cool’ crowd falls into step with the whole Che cult so you follow suit.

You will likely have this misguided notion until you finish your psych or arts degree and get out into the real world. With a little luck, you will actually start to think for yourself and grow out of this silliness.


Unfortunately the only thing we can do is to start to close down key industries and slow economic activity, which will reduce pollution.

You are right… we have been so stupid… we must all live like the Amish.
Everyone out of the city right now and go live on a farm like the Amish because that is the only way to reduce pollution.

Hey… if nobody has any money to buy things then we won’t have any polluting factories. So let us make sure the economy crashes. Of course a booming economy where people are not so desperate they will do anything to try to get their next meal (wherever it might come from) would be able to develop more efficient technologies and finds ways to prevent pollution and remediate polluted environments, but why would we want to do that? Sure, lots of people will starve, and those that survive will have a miserable standard of living, but that’s just the price were going to have to pay.

This might seem bad for an American, but the truth is that most of the world already lives with a low carbon footprint, so why shouldn't Americans?

And much of the world starves to death, has a life expectancy half what America has, and has a low standard of living - so why don’t we all just do that then? What, you actually want electricity?

The US consumes more resources and produces more pollution than anyone else in the world, but it also produces more than anyone else in the world. Consumption and pollution are in step with production. If you want to get your knickers in a twist look at China, India, or much of the developing world – they pollute quite a bit more in comparison to their production as their level of development is highly inefficient. If you want to improve efficiency and lower environmental impact you should be encouraging better more efficient technologies.

Why should some people have a jet airplane and others have to take public transportation?

Because some people want to have a better standard of living than a bum and are willing to work for it.

The truth is that the government has to step in to ensure fundamental fairness. The Constitution as promised, offered healthcare, childcare, pensions, recreation, housing and food, as well as education for all, but that promised has been stopped by Republicans since the Founding.

The government does need to ensure fairness – enslaving the productive for the betterment of the unproductive is in no way fair.

You used this same phrase in another thread, in which I pointed out how ridiculous it was, which makes me think you must either be dimwitted or purposefully ignorant for some unfathomable reason (sufficiently immature that you think it is funny?).

The constitution was written to ensure one’s liberty – it enshrined the right for people to be able to get these things if they so desired but in no way was that intended to say that people should be provided these things.

And it's so stupid because the Democrats always offer free things every election and the Republicans, to the extent that you can actually believe their lies, promise vague notions of individual "liberty," the warmth of "faith," and human "freedom." The point is: The Democrats have been offering actual free things for a long time, yet people turn it down. In real life, who actually turns down free things?

Why can you not understand that nothing is free?
You have to collect taxes to pay for government programs. Fortunately there are enough voters who are not quite as ignorant of basic economics as you seem to be – for enough people realize that you have to pay for things.

Are you one of those people that thinks food comes from the supermarket?
Food comes from a farm, fisherman, or hunter – it does not magically materialize, it has to be produced. Nothing is free – somebody has to work for it.

You know, the democrat's mindframe is retarded at best.

Thier whole system of fiscal dogma is this;

Some guy steals your wallet. You had a large amount of cash in there you were considering investing in a healthplan but couldn't decide quite yet.

The guy that stole your wallet took it upon himself to buy you a healthplan, you had no say in which one, have no idea how they function, and there's no way to get your money back in exchange for the healthplan if you don't like it.

And then, the guy expects gratitude..

You know, the democrat's mindframe is retarded at best.

Thier whole system of fiscal dogma is this;

Some guy steals your wallet. You had a large amount of cash in there you were considering investing in a healthplan but couldn't decide quite yet.

The guy that stole your wallet took it upon himself to buy you a healthplan, you had no say in which one, have no idea how they function, and there's no way to get your money back in exchange for the healthplan if you don't like it.

And then, the guy expects gratitude..
that about sums it up :D

The Constitution: The 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments and their broader meaning interpreted in a modern setting.

The 1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Short, sweet, and to the point. No government mandated religion, you cannot be arrested for saying the king is an idiot, cannot be prohibited from printing the atrocities the king’s troops are committing, the right of people to get together to chat, and the right to speak up and complain.

The 4th : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Same again – what do you get out of this? It quite simply says you have a right to keep your own property secure against government intrusion unless they have a damn good reason.

The 9th : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This simply states that the government does not have the ability to impinge upon the rights of the people. In other words, they cannot take away my freedoms.

Now the 14th is a bit long winded – alas we did not retain the concise nature of the founding fathers – so I will only post what it covers: Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt

The first section simply states that the States have no power to deny life, liberty, or property without due process of law – they can’t kill you, throw you in jail, or take your stuff unless you get a fair chance in the legal system.

The second section simply lays out that states get congressional representatives based on population excluding criminals.

Third section states that no one who has been in a rebellion against the US can hold office.

The fourth section states that the US is obligated to pay the debts incurred by the north for the civil war but does not have to pay the debts incurred by the south nor compensate those who held slaves who were freed.

In the interest of being complete – section 5 says congress has the power to enforce this amendment.


Just where in all that do you find the justification for the government to provide education, healthcare, childcare, pensions, food and housing, and recreation?
I do not mean to sound snarky about this, I honestly want to know.

How about this guy steals your wallet, spends half on buying a discount card for somebody else's prescription drugs, the rest he blows on a rifle. Then he goes to the Payday loan joint and gets a $500 advance with your driver's license, in your name. Then he returns your wallet to you empty, but with a brand new ID card that swears to the world you're not a Mexican (unless you actually are), and tells you you can do whatever you want with it, because he believes in your economic freedom.

If this is an ideology, then ideology is retarded, but fortunately it's merely the platform of the US Republican Party, and therefore only the wish list of the crooked used car salesmen who run our country. :rolleyes:

I support everyone having the exact same treatment. I AM FOR EQUALITY like what was intended by the Founders. THAT ALL MEN (AND WYMIN) ARE EQUAL.

Indeed – all men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. Nobody gets special legal treatment, nobody should be oppressed for being a minority, nobody should have restrictions placed upon their particular socioeconomic group that does not apply to everyone equally.

I am not against everyone having a pollution-free jet, so long as everyone has one. Are you offering a jet for everyone? If not, then we better stick to the bus!

This is an old fallacy that I really wish would die out. Just because everyone cannot have every luxury nobody should have any is not a world I would hold up as an ideal.

I hope no one thinks I'm a hypocrite, but there is one exception, that would be for me. But this is only because I NEED private transportation in order to get to all my school activities and to work on all the campaigns I'm on.

However, it is not the results we need to be concerned with here. My "exception" will allow the poor to achieve more. Many Democrats share my view on this, as leaders in the progressive movement, they will need their own transportation, but for the masses it will be a great Equality, which is what people have yearrned for since the late 1800's.

I was honestly dumbfounded by this one…
I have always had a slight doubt about you – surely nobody could be that stupid. This statement has outed you beyond question as nothing but a troll.

Indeed – all men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. Nobody gets special legal treatment, nobody should be oppressed for being a minority, nobody should have restrictions placed upon their particular socioeconomic group that does not apply to everyone equally.

This is an old fallacy that I really wish would die out. Just because everyone cannot have every luxury nobody should have any is not a world I would hold up as an ideal.

I was honestly dumbfounded by this one…
I have always had a slight doubt about you – surely nobody could be that stupid. This statement has outed you beyond question as nothing but a troll.

I would not be opposed to the leaders of the nation having private jets or other lead activists, like I am. I'M FIGHTING FOR EDUCATION HEALTHCARE AND CHILDCARE FOR ALL, so I am due special consideration. Considering all you do is work for 10 hours a day for yourself and your family, you don't deserve an exemption.

However, I apologize, I don't want to sound troll. I'm just trying to help change the world for the better, and it's so annoying that the Republicans keep saying "no." :( Why are they so mean? We could have so much free things if they just said yes :(

SNIP

Things would be free if the person who makes it isn't working for anything because of "pay it forward" means that government provides him everything he needs, so he can simply work to the best of his ability and not need to be paid.

Most Americans want this system, and will elect Democrats to put it into place. Go Amy Klobuchar!

If this is an ideology, then ideology is retarded, but fortunately it's merely the platform of the US Republican Party, and therefore only the wish list of the crooked used car salesmen who run our country. :rolleyes:
Are you trying to imply i'm a republican? If so you're sadly mistaken. Republicans are just democrats who havn't smoked enough crack to kill off all thier brain-cells.. (but they're getting there..)

I would not be opposed to the leaders of the nation having private jets or other lead activists, like I am. I'M FIGHTING FOR EDUCATION HEALTHCARE AND CHILDCARE FOR ALL, so I am due special consideration.

And there it is: The plague that has burdened and toppled every truly socialist society.

Are you trying to imply i'm a republican? If so you're sadly mistaken. Republicans are just democrats who havn't smoked enough crack to kill off all thier brain-cells.. (but they're getting there..)

Yeah you're a Republican. If smoking rocks is what you believe will bring you wisdom, I say go for it.