NationStates Jolt Archive

Based on this pontificating bullet point list masquerading as actual points.

Where the right gets it wrong. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498579)

One. Ignorance. The right believes that ignorance is a virtue. It believes that what you believe is more a function of your alliegence and morality than actual facts. Congress conservatives have pointed to science fiction novels to rebut real science. Dubya claims that the jury is still out on global warming.

Sovietstan believes this nonsense: (I do not intend for this to be a point by point refutation of his positions. Simply an illustration of the folly of right-wing reasoning).

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.

Conservatives at large complain about "elitists" and "effete intellectuals" on the left. This is simply code word for "those people who know what they're talking about."

Every single point in Sovietstan's list is nothing more than a failure to analyze.

Take a look at his tax statement (statement on taxes that is. Not his actual tax statement). "Lower taxes boost the economy." Really? So the country will work best with a 0% tax rate? Even the most ardent conservative with brain in his head will admit that there is an ideal rate of taxation somewhere between 0% and 100%

Yet Sovietstan, like many simplistic conservatives unable to process higher reasoning, seems intent on reducing it to the idiotic equation "liberals = more taxes, conservatives = less." He doesn't understand how the laffer curve works (nor I'd wager before googling it, what it actually is) he's only memorized the damned slogan.

But it's not simply a matter of being unable to think critically. There are conservatives who are able to understand the flaws in these simplistic slogans dressed up as arguments. But then their recourse seems to be to retreat into ever more complicated bullshit. In the end it seems that the more intelligent the conservative is, the less sane he must be. It's like 1984.

I pointed out the minimum wage thing. Conservatives are allied to corporate interests, and so like to pretend that higher minimum wages kills jobs. Facts show that it is just the opposite, but corporations see wages as overhead instead of an investment in their theatre of operations. So they like to keep wages low and circulate the lie of "job killing," which conservatives buy because it comes from their friends. I pointed this out on another thread and was told that the sources I used (the bbc and charts taken from the bureau of labor and statistics) were biased. Why? Because they support the liberal argument.

Is there no way to guage sanity before handing out voting registrations. Many states have laws denying the vote to the insane and mentally retarded. How can a belief in conservative ideology not be considered a metric for such an appraisal when it clearly demands one or the other?

You have not at all pointed out right wing ideals. Just what some right wing folk happen to think.

Did Soviestan EVER say that 0% taxes would be good for the economy? NO. He said that "lower", and I repeat, "LOWER" taxes would be good.

Did Soviestan EVER say that 0% taxes would be good for the economy? NO. He said that "lower", and I repeat, "LOWER" taxes would be good.

It doesn't seem that they would though.

oh, Domici......er......sorry New Domici

still with the partisan stuff?

you know you didn't actually point out anything? just what you think some conservatives think, not really any of the "ideals" that we hold right?

Yawn.

See, this is why I don't post much anymore. So much damned political mudslinging.

keep going...nothing helps us third-party advocates gain constituents like a healthy dose of partisan punditry.

WTF? You had to make a new thread to bash each other?
:rolleyes:

keep going...nothing helps us third-party advocates gain constituents like a healthy dose of partisan punditry.

Amen brother/sister*is lazy :p*. Popcorn?

Amen brother/sister*is lazy :p*. Popcorn?

Pop away.

Nice strawman, tho.

*pops* Mmmmm. Salt? Butter? *Goes to sit down while sipping a Uber-size coke*

Is new domici ever going to respond? Or did we just hit him to hard with the facts :p

Oh, look. A copycat thread that is even more sophmoric than what the OP claims to attacking.

Shock.

Is new domici ever going to respond? Or did we just hit him to hard with the facts :p
he will be back in a while to tell me (again) how I am brainwashed.

How quickly will it burn......

So, having deplored the right quite falsely for a failure to analyse, you fail to genuinely analyse the postulation that ignorance is inherently bad. You are good. Bloody good show.:)

This thread is spam.

http://brendoman.com/images/You%20Lose.bmp

Amen brother/sister*is lazy :p*. Popcorn?

Dont mind if I do.

he will be back in a while to tell me (again) how I am brainwashed.

It's amazing, but people can debate without saying someone is brainwashed!

Both sides. Are full. Of braindead.

EDIT: @Meath Street, that doesnt help it, now does it?

well said.

Conservatives I find are not deep thinkers everything is simple, black or white.

If you debate with them and they ask for your source of info and immediatelty discount it as you said as biased. Where as all their sources are infallible.

They like to come up with catchy little slogans or rhymes which somehow magically ligitimizes their view as correct. "better dead than red" "axis of evil" etc. Don't have logic to debate with use a slogan and end the debate and pretend the other side are commies.

Their solution to any problem is never to seek a solution/compromise never try to find a middle ground, but resort to violence. War, execute, prison, "pry the gun from cold dead hands" etc. They seem to be afraid of everyone, hostile to change and progress, very insecure.

It's amazing, but people can debate without saying someone is brainwashed!

Both sides. Are full. Of braindead.

EDIT: @Meath Street, that doesnt help it, now does it?
meh, he has told me before that I am "brainwashed" because I am a conservative, anyone who is a conservative must be brainwashed because you wouldn't be one if you weren't.

well said.

Conservatives I find are not deep thinkers everything is simple, black or white.

If you debate with them and they ask for your source of info and immediatelty discount it as you said as biased. Where as all their sources are infallible.

They like to come up with catchy little slogans or rhymes which somehow magically ligitimizes their view as correct. "better dead than red" "axis of evil" etc. Don't have logic to debate with use a slogan and end the debate and pretend the other side are commies.

Their solution to any problem is never to seek a solution/compromise never try to find a middle ground, but resort to violence. War, execute, prison, "pry the gun from cold dead hands" etc. They seem to be afraid of everyone, hostile to change and progress, very insecure.

yes........all of us..every single one of us.........alrighty then. :rolleyes:

*snip*

You lose too.

well said.

Conservatives I find are not deep thinkers everything is simple, black or white.

If you debate with them and they ask for your source of info and immediatelty discount it as you said as biased. Where as all their sources are infallible.

They like to come up with catchy little slogans or rhymes which somehow magically ligitimizes their view as correct. "better dead than red" "axis of evil" etc. Don't have logic to debate with use a slogan and end the debate and pretend the other side are commies.

Their solution to any problem is never to seek a solution/compromise never try to find a middle ground, but resort to violence. War, execute, prison, "pry the gun from cold dead hands" etc. They seem to be afraid of everyone, hostile to change and progress, very insecure.

It's a sad situation now, that the right wing are now streotyped into just plainly people who are bad at debating. When that exists on both sides.

*pops* Mmmmm. Salt? Butter? *Goes to sit down while sipping a Uber-size coke*

Did they fill it to the very top with ice so you're drink is actually a mere fraction of its size? Because if they did I'm not going to buy any.

Did Soviestan EVER say that 0% taxes would be good for the economy? NO. He said that "lower", and I repeat, "LOWER" taxes would be good.


But conservatives never say "lower" than what. Just "lower," which feeds the ignorance. That's why all conservative pundits ever say is "lower." And it seems that conservatives have misplaced the point at which taxes should rest. Clinton raised taxes and things improved. Not because he did it across the board, but because he was an intelligent person and understood how economics worked. It's this sort of complex reasoning that conservatives seem to dismis as "nuanced" and "effete."

e.g. As a liberal I generally believe that a certain tax rate is desirable to increase government revenue, provide a buffer against recession, and to fund public programs. But if I were to gain public office in NYC I would still favor a tax cut. A particular tax cut, as follows, both position and reasoning.

In Manhattan restaurants are subject to the rules of fashion. They will be enourmously popular for a little while and then become passe and go out of business. But they are also subject to the rules that most businesses live and die by. The first year is the hardest and really hard to pull a profit from. So I would advocate waiving the porperty tax on any new restaurant (in the case of rent, the landlord would be required to pass on savings to the entrepeneur in order to benefit from the waiver) for the first year, and apply a graduated reinstatement after that. This would encourage restauranteurs to open a place, make their bundle, then close shop and open a new one. This creates economic activity by removing an obstacle that a lot of business owners can't overcome in Manhattan. But so you think Exonn labors under a similar burden? Dubya does.

Wether you think the plan I mentioned above is good or not is besides the point. The point is that it demonstrates an understanding of how economics works that conservative voters lack and conservative politicians deliberatly obscure.

well said.

Conservatives I find are not deep thinkers everything is simple, black or white.

If you debate with them and they ask for your source of info and immediatelty discount it as you said as biased. Where as all their sources are infallible.



So instead of actually going to the thread to debate the topic, you come to this one and do some nice stereotypical baching. According to you , wouldn't that make you a "conservative"?

But conservatives never say "lower" than what. Just "lower," which feeds the ignorance. That's why all conservative pundits ever say is "lower." And it seems that conservatives have misplaced the point at which taxes should rest. Clinton raised taxes and things improved. Not because he did it across the board, but because he was an intelligent person and understood how economics worked. It's this sort of complex reasoning that conservatives seem to dismis as "nuanced" and "effete."

e.g. As a liberal I generally believe that a certain tax rate is desirable to increase government revenue, provide a buffer against recession, and to fund public programs. But if I were to gain public office in NYC I would still favor a tax cut. A particular tax cut, as follows, both position and reasoning.



Wether you think the plan I mentioned above is good or not is besides the point. The point is that it demonstrates an understanding of how economics works that conservative voters lack and conservative politicians deliberatly obscure.

SO being in all this, you didn't mention once what your "tax cut" would be or what level is necessary for balance, doesn't that make you the same as what you're attacking?

This thread is spam.

i would have agreed if not for the thread I linked to in the original post.

If that one hits the spam pile, I'll happily see this one follow.

i would have agreed if not for the thread I linked to in the original post.

If that one hits the spam pile, I'll happily see this one follow.

The other one at least had some topics to debate w/o starting it out w/ "conservatives all suck" and " I'll argue one point of it".

Did they fill it to the very top with ice so you're drink is actually a mere fraction of its size? Because if they did I'm not going to buy any.

Nope, no ice, just superchilled coke.

I stand by my post, it's generalization I know but it fits the group over all.

right wing types
-prefer violence as a solution, they live for war
-uncaring , selfish
-hate progress because they fear the unknown,
-believe everything is simple to fix as long as it's their way, preferrable violent
-there's commie under every bed
-don't try to understand and accept differences but instantly condem and attack what they don't understand


if it weren't for progressive lefties we would still be living caves clubbing each other and burning witches.:p

I stand by my post, it's generalization I know but it fits the group over all.

right wing types
-prefer violence as a solution, they live for war
-uncaring , selfish
-hate progress because they fear the unknown,
-believe everything is simple to fix as long as it's their way, preferrable violent
-there's commie under every bed
-don't try to understand and accept differences but instantly condem and attack what they don't understand


if it weren't for progressive lefties we would still be living caves clubbing each other and burning witches.:p

Like I said, by making generalized stereotypes and refusing to debate, you are what you condemn by your own(now modified) definition.

SO being in all this, you didn't mention once what your "tax cut" would be or what level is necessary for balance, doesn't that make you the same as what you're attacking?

You don't read too well, do you. It's a first year waiver on property tax on new restaurants that will make the restauranteur better able to make money off of his fragile new business while it is at its most fashionable. That would make the eventual closing of the restaurant part of the business plan instead of a simple failure, and will leave the restauranteur with more capital to start his next restaurant and stablize the economy by enabling him to bring his old staff with him preventing spikes in the unemployment numbers.

You don't read too well, do you. It's a first year waiver on property tax on new restaurants that will make the restauranteur better able to make money off of his fragile new business while it is at its most fashionable. That would make the eventual closing of the restaurant part of the business plan instead of a simple failure, and will leave the restauranteur with more capital to start his next restaurant and stablize the economy by enabling him to bring his old staff with him preventing spikes in the unemployment numbers.

Oh, look, one tiny point of tax law. That must = every other tax law available. I guess no "conservative" ever did that?

Of course you ignore the other points of the debate that you make accusations on.

if it weren't for progressive lefties we would still be living caves clubbing each other and burning witches.:p
Indeed. Now I shall go back to my superior metal abode, laughing at the pitiful man who deosn't extract his home from the earth, whilst writing laws to persecute those religious fundies who are the cause of all evil in our society. Huzzah!:D

The other one at least had some topics to debate w/o starting it out w/ "conservatives all suck" and " I'll argue one point of it".

You really don't read very well. I told you, I was not arguing any of the points, but showing how conservatives rely on ignorance instead of reason and alliegance instead of knowledge.

Here you are proving my point by twice using your ignorance of my posts' content to discredit them.

But conservatives never say "lower" than what. Just "lower," which feeds the ignorance. That's why all conservative pundits ever say is "lower." And it seems that conservatives have misplaced the point at which taxes should rest. Clinton raised taxes and things improved. Not because he did it across the board, but because he was an intelligent person and understood how economics worked. It's this sort of complex reasoning that conservatives seem to dismis as "nuanced" and "effete."

e.g. As a liberal I generally believe that a certain tax rate is desirable to increase government revenue, provide a buffer against recession, and to fund public programs. But if I were to gain public office in NYC I would still favor a tax cut. A particular tax cut, as follows, both position and reasoning.

In Manhattan restaurants are subject to the rules of fashion. They will be enourmously popular for a little while and then become passe and go out of business. But they are also subject to the rules that most businesses live and die by. The first year is the hardest and really hard to pull a profit from. So I would advocate waiving the porperty tax on any new restaurant (in the case of rent, the landlord would be required to pass on savings to the entrepeneur in order to benefit from the waiver) for the first year, and apply a graduated reinstatement after that. This would encourage restauranteurs to open a place, make their bundle, then close shop and open a new one. This creates economic activity by removing an obstacle that a lot of business owners can't overcome in Manhattan. But so you think Exonn labors under a similar burden? Dubya does.

Wether you think the plan I mentioned above is good or not is besides the point. The point is that it demonstrates an understanding of how economics works that conservative voters lack and conservative politicians deliberatly obscure.

it's point they seem to miss(or do so deliberately) being finacially responsible is not a right wing gift. It's not how much taxes are collected but how the tax dollars are spent. A left or right wing government can screw this up. The righties seem to think lower taxes is the end all solution, and only they know how to spend money responsible. Very simplistic view of fiscal responsibility.

You really don't read very well. I told you, I was not arguing any of the points, but showing how conservatives rely on ignorance instead of reason and alliegance instead of knowledge.

Here you are proving my point by twice using your ignorance of my posts' content to discredit them.

So you admit you're not even bothering trying to debate and just are claiming "they're ignorant".

That's exactly what you claim "conservatives" do.

Congradulations, you're now a 'conservative".

Like I said, by making generalized stereotypes and refusing to debate, you are what you condemn by your own(now modified) definition.

you don't debate-you preach and deny

I stand by my post, it's generalization I know but it fits the group over all.

right wing types
-prefer violence as a solution, they live for war
-uncaring , selfish
-hate progress because they fear the unknown,
-believe everything is simple to fix as long as it's their way, preferrable violent
-there's commie under every bed
-don't try to understand and accept differences but instantly condem and attack what they don't understand


if it weren't for progressive lefties we would still be living caves clubbing each other and burning witches.:p

And all lefties...

-have no morals
-want to take my money
-are in bed with teh terrorists
-want to take my guns
-hate me

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=The South Islands;11647231]And all lefties...

-have no morals
-want to take my money
-are in bed with teh terrorists
-want to take my guns
-hate me

:correct! I know it's true because I've been told that so many times before:)

Oh, look, one tiny point of tax law. That must = every other tax law available. I guess no "conservative" ever did that?

Of course you ignore the other points of the debate that you make accusations on.

I was answering your one question post and addressing its only issue. Then you complain that I didn't adress the point you didn't make? You establish your poor command of rhetoric with every post.

you don't debate-you preach and deny

This from the one who presents no sources other than "Jewwatch" hosted by Stormfront.

Congrat's "conservative".

I was answering your one question post and addressing its only issue. Then you complain that I didn't adress the point you didn't make? You establish your poor command of rhetoric with every post.

I thought you weren't trying to debate? Now you are? Which is it? You didn't even try to debate in the other thread.

So you admit you're not even bothering trying to debate and just are claiming "they're ignorant".

That's exactly what you claim "conservatives" do.

Congradulations, you're now a 'conservative".

No, I said I wasn't trying to bring up the point that you were trying to make this thread about. Your post was about as relavent as a post about gay marriage on a thread about Carmen Miranda's hats.

I thought you weren't trying to debate? Now you are? Which is it? You didn't even try to debate in the other thread.

There wasn't anything to debate in the other thread. I wouldn't try to debate in a thread about how orange the sky is either. The positions posted were just too ignorant to be adressed with anything other than a denunciation. It doesn't take long to point out that 2+2=/=5. And anyone who claims that both sides of the issue deserve consideration does not himself deserve consideration.

There wasn't anything to debate in the other thread. I wouldn't try to debate in a thread about how orange the sky is either. The positions posted were just too ignorant to be adressed with anything other than a denunciation. It doesn't take long to point out that 2+2=/=5. And anyone who claims that both sides of the issue deserve consideration does not himself deserve consideration.

This is classic. Every word you type makes you out the exact same as what you're alledgedly attacking.

And anyone who claims that both sides of the issue deserve consideration does not himself deserve consideration.

Both sides are idiots. Happy now? :p

This from the one who presents no sources other than "Jewwatch" hosted by Stormfront.

Congrat's "conservative".
The source was an article from an Israeli paper written by a Jew, where I found it is irrelevant. But it backs my point about right wing types going into denial when give them the evidence. The article didn't agree with your view so it must be biased, fact is it was accurate and you could not refute it.

and before you accuse me of being a Nazi, my family lived in occupied europe we have very little love for anything German especially Nazi's, my father ende the careers of a few.

The people on the right are not selfish. The people on the right fear coersive governments, regardless of those governments' stated motives. The people on the right often are charitable sorts, but they want the power to choose their own causes.

Plus, the right-wing argument is typically that the poor would benefit more from a freer market.

For example, in Alberta, the government controlled the distribution of liquor. If you wanted liquor, you had to visit a government liquor store. They were open during business hours, and had a reasonable selection at reasonable prices. They employed hundreds of people at an average wage of $17/hour.

Then the government privatised liquor distribution. Here's what happened.

The available selection tripled. Average prices fell. The number of people employed in the stores quadrupled. More stores opened. Customer service improved - they were open longer hours, and some even offered delivery. And the average wage earned by the workers there fell to $7/hour.

Many people complained that the wages fell so far, but since so many more people were working in the stores, the total amount of money being paid to labour was actually higher. The liquor economy grew enormously, and more people got jobs. The only people who suffered were the government store employees whose wages wer being propped up on the backs of the unemplpoyed and the consumers.

The source was an article from an Israeli paper written by a Jew, where I found it is irrelevant. But it backs my point about right wing types going into denial when give them the evidence. The article didn't agree with your view so it must be biased, fact is it was accurate and you could not refute it.

*sigh* as was pointed out then and several times after, the article was innacurate on many points. And, as was also pointed out by both sides of the arguement, using sites like that as "evidence" is not considered good technique unless it's been cited from a reputable source. At least you're good at denying reality. You really must be a "conservative" by your definition.

and before you accuse me of being a Nazi, my family lived in occupied europe we have very little love for anything German especially Nazi's, my father ende the careers of a few.

And now the traditional false accusations. Did I call you a "nazi"? No, I basically said you were ignorant enough to use a poorly written "article" cited by anti-semites and Nazi's.

The problem with real conservatives -- not necessarily Republicans -- is that they trust people to look out for themselves. They don't believe the government should exist to right every little wrong and I'm sure that bugs the hell out of non-conservative thinking folks.

The people on the right are not selfish. The people on the right fear coersive governments, regardless of those governments' stated motives. The people on the right often are charitable sorts, but they want the power to choose their own causes.

Plus, the right-wing argument is typically that the poor would benefit more from a freer market.

For example, in Alberta, the government controlled the distribution of liquor. If you wanted liquor, you had to visit a government liquor store. They were open during business hours, and had a reasonable selection at reasonable prices. They employed hundreds of people at an average wage of $17/hour.

Then the government privatised liquor distribution. Here's what happened.

The available selection tripled. Average prices fell. The number of people employed in the stores quadrupled. More stores opened. Customer service improved - they were open longer hours, and some even offered delivery. And the average wage earned by the workers there fell to $7/hour.

Many people complained that the wages fell so far, but since so many more people were working in the stores, the total amount of money being paid to labour was actually higher. The liquor economy grew enormously, and more people got jobs. The only people who suffered were the government store employees whose wages wer being propped up on the backs of the unemplpoyed and the consumers.

selection tripled?-the government still controls selection-

$7.00 an hr, how generous who do you know can live on 7$ in alberta? prices of liquor never declined the only people benefiting are those who own the large liqour chains. wages weren't propped up by the unemployed, the consumers paid the wages with liquor purcheses at the same prices they are paying now.

The problem with real conservatives -- not necessarily Republicans -- is that they trust people to look out for themselves. They don't believe the government should exist to right every little wrong and I'm sure that bugs the hell out of non-conservative thinking folks.
The problem with these kinds of arguments--which is why, to many people's surprise no doubt, I've stayed out of them--is that both sides pick the most extreme examples to make their points about the other side. So the left points at Ann Coulter and James Dobson while the right points at Michael Moore and Fidel Castro, and both arguments are nonsense.

There are very few conservatives who believe that the weakest should be left on their own to live or die with no assistance. They're not monsters. There's just a difference of opinion over who is considered the weakest, and generally that's where the fighting takes place--not over the general principle, but over who should be included in the in group. Liberals tend to try to make the in group larger, and conservatives try to make it smaller, and when either side gets so much power that the extremes start to make policy, you run into trouble.

*sigh* as was pointed out then and several times after, the article was innacurate on many points. And, as was also pointed out by both sides of the arguement, using sites like that as "evidence" is not considered good technique unless it's been cited from a reputable source. At least you're good at denying reality. You really must be a "conservative" by your definition.



And now the traditional false accusations. Did I call you a "nazi"? No, I basically said you were ignorant enough to use a poorly written "article" cited by anti-semites and Nazi's.


"a reputable source" there you go, it's your source or nothing-problem with that is you only choose sources you know will agree with you and dismiss all others that don't. If my web search had linked first with the Israeli newspaper where the article originated and quoted from there you would dismiss it as a left wing biased paper. You pick and choose your sources, that isn't debating that's preaching with a closed mind.-typical extreme right wing trait, devoid of sincere intentions

and repeatedly mentioning Stormfront a organization I have never heard of is backhanded way of insinuating I'm a Nazi

"a reputable source" there you go, it's your source or nothing-problem with that is you only choose sources you know will agree with you and dismiss all others that don't. If my web search had linked first with the Israeli newspaper where the article originated and quoted from there you would dismiss it as a left wing biased paper. You pick and choose your sources, that isn't debating that's preaching with a closed mind.-typical extreme right wing trait, devoid of sincere intentions

and repeatedly mentioning Stormfront a organization I have never heard of is backhanded way of insinuating I'm a Nazi

That's nice. You beleive that all you want. It still didn't show any laws that were specific, just lots of "maybe's" and "could be's" and even admitted so.

You also continue to ignore the fact that people on the side of the debate you were supporting chastised you. A little disingenousness goes a long way.

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge when the 1934 Pistol registry went into effect.

Or that the registry was not intended to reduce crime but to reduce crime.

or any other of your claims.

Typical wannabee activist. Doesn't have the source material so just wails" conservatives suck" over and over at the top of his lungs. A little disingenousness goes a long way. Keep up the good work.

*sigh* as was pointed out then and several times after, the article was innacurate on many points. And, as was also pointed out by both sides of the arguement, using sites like that as "evidence" is not considered good technique unless it's been cited from a reputable source. At least you're good at denying reality. You really must be a "conservative" by your definition.



And now the traditional false accusations. Did I call you a "nazi"? No, I basically said you were ignorant enough to use a poorly written "article" cited by anti-semites and Nazi's.


"*SIGH*"< WTF! piss off with the condescending attitude, if you want to debate with adults act like one

"*SIGH*"< WTF! piss off with the condescending attitude, if you want to debate with adults act like one

And now the language and insults to support the "arguement" when the evidence doesn't exist.

The people on the right are not selfish. The people on the right fear coersive governments, regardless of those governments' stated motives. The people on the right often are charitable sorts, but they want the power to choose their own causes.

Plus, the right-wing argument is typically that the poor would benefit more from a freer market.

For example, in Alberta, the government controlled the distribution of liquor. If you wanted liquor, you had to visit a government liquor store. They were open during business hours, and had a reasonable selection at reasonable prices. They employed hundreds of people at an average wage of $17/hour.

Then the government privatised liquor distribution. Here's what happened.

The available selection tripled. Average prices fell. The number of people employed in the stores quadrupled. More stores opened. Customer service improved - they were open longer hours, and some even offered delivery. And the average wage earned by the workers there fell to $7/hour.

Many people complained that the wages fell so far, but since so many more people were working in the stores, the total amount of money being paid to labour was actually higher. The liquor economy grew enormously, and more people got jobs. The only people who suffered were the government store employees whose wages wer being propped up on the backs of the unemplpoyed and the consumers.
Woah, there are jobs that only pay $7 an hour in Alberta?

One of my friends only goes back to Calgary for the summer every year because she can get at least two jobs and even the shitty jobs at McDonalds pay at least $10 because there aren't enough people for the amount of jobs there are.


Also, I would hardly say that de-regulated liquor sales are a conservative thing, Quebec has liquor available at every convenience store and gas station and it's a pretty liberal province...

keep going...nothing helps us third-party advocates gain constituents like a healthy dose of partisan punditry.

If a third party actually gained some power, noone would be happier than I.

If it was the green party, or (dare I dream) marijuana reform, I'd be delerious.

If it was the Christian Conservative party, I'd still like to see the corporate conservatives and the Christian ones turn on each other like a sack full of tomcats that just discovered that half of them had been doused in girlie pee.

Is new domici ever going to respond? Or did we just hit him to hard with the facts :p

No. My daughter has a fever and it's too damned hard to type with one hand and comfort a crying child with the other. As far as analysing and debunking right-wing political positions, that's easy to do, even when your attention is wholly consumed by screaming infants.

oh, Domici......er......sorry New Domici

still with the partisan stuff?

you know you didn't actually point out anything? just what you think some conservatives think, not really any of the "ideals" that we hold right?

I don't pretend to be someone else. My attention was away from the boards for a while and my original was deleted for lack of activity. Since I gave up on the game and just come here to argue it made more sense to come up with a new name for my old rants.

On that note. Is there anyway to get really old posts? Like stuff from the last presidential election? I"m trying to prove that I came up with the "reality has a liberal bias" joke before stephen colbert.

Woah, there are jobs that only pay $7 an hour in Alberta?

One of my friends only goes back to Calgary for the summer every year because she can get at least two jobs and even the shitty jobs at McDonalds pay at least $10 because there aren't enough people for the amount of jobs there are.

Also, I would hardly say that de-regulated liquor sales are a conservative thing, Quebec has liquor available at every convenience store and gas station and it's a pretty liberal province...

I live in this conservative backwater known as Alberta

With out checking I'm reasonably sure that it was Conservative government that regulated the liquor business in the first place, as all nearly the all the governments here have been right to far right wing for decades. Whatever they pay in the corner liquor stores doesn't seem to be enough the one down the street seems to have new employees every week.

$7.00 dollars is the official minimum wage but the only people getting that are 14-15yr olds. It isn't possible to live here on $7 per hr. No adult (only adults work in Liquor sales) will work for that. It is true there are fast food joints paying $10-16 for adults plus benefits, there is an extreme labour shortage(businesses closing for want of employees). $15 seems to be the unofficial minimum (starting) if you want to keep your employees from going to the competition.

And the high wages have nothing to do with the conservative gov.-oil, lot's of it drives this economy.

If a third party actually gained some power, noone would be happier than I.

If it was the green party, or (dare I dream) marijuana reform, I'd be delerious.

If it was the Christian Conservative party, I'd still like to see the corporate conservatives and the Christian ones turn on each other like a sack full of tomcats that just discovered that half of them had been doused in girlie pee.


Greens here lack credilibity as yet, but it's only a matter of time till they win some seats in the gov.

marijuana reform-already very minor offense-give nother 10 yrs and it will likely be legal(after a few more old rightwing types die off)

Christian conservatives-we have them they make a lot of noise but they get little attention, linking up with them to strongly is a sure way to lose the election.

I agree with all sovietstans points except the guns. it doesnt matter shit what the founding fathers wanted, or what the constitution says, guns are for killing people. if a things only purpose is illegal then that thing should also be.

As for the taxes, low taxes are a good idea, but the problem is that the poor dont have much money to pay taxes anyway, so a reduction would not benefit them as they would only have to spend the extra cash on things that were no longer provided by the government because the rich were also paying lower taxes.

Ideally the current system, where tax increases depending on income, needs to be refined. it should be on a curve, rather than stepping, so that a small pay increase doesnt suddenly put someone in a higher bracket and make them poorer. a pay rise should always be a rise. and minimum wage workers should pay less income tax, if any. they contribute sod all anyway and are so poor that the govt has to spend their taxes providing them with things they could buy if they didnt pay taxes. and the rich should pay more. not because they deserve to, because they dont, and certainly not because its fair, cos it aint. they should pay more because they are the ones best able to.

I agree with all sovietstans points except the guns. it doesnt matter shit what the founding fathers wanted, or what the constitution says, guns are for killing people. if a things only purpose is illegal then that thing should also be.

As for the taxes, low taxes are a good idea, but the problem is that the poor dont have much money to pay taxes anyway, so a reduction would not benefit them as they would only have to spend the extra cash on things that were no longer provided by the government because the rich were also paying lower taxes.

Ideally the current system, where tax increases depending on income, needs to be refined. it should be on a curve, rather than stepping, so that a small pay increase doesnt suddenly put someone in a higher bracket and make them poorer. a pay rise should always be a rise. and minimum wage workers should pay less income tax, if any. they contribute sod all anyway and are so poor that the govt has to spend their taxes providing them with things they could buy if they didnt pay taxes. and the rich should pay more. not because they deserve to, because they dont, and certainly not because its fair, cos it aint. they should pay more because they are the ones best able to.

I don't know about the points where you agree with stan but I like you're tax ideas, I may vote for you.

The problem with these kinds of arguments--which is why, to many people's surprise no doubt, I've stayed out of them--is that both sides pick the most extreme examples to make their points about the other side. So the left points at Ann Coulter and James Dobson while the right points at Michael Moore and Fidel Castro, and both arguments are nonsense.

There are very few conservatives who believe that the weakest should be left on their own to live or die with no assistance. They're not monsters. There's just a difference of opinion over who is considered the weakest, and generally that's where the fighting takes place--not over the general principle, but over who should be included in the in group. Liberals tend to try to make the in group larger, and conservatives try to make it smaller, and when either side gets so much power that the extremes start to make policy, you run into trouble.

I wanted to have the last word, but you summed up the bulk of what I was going to say. So I'll just give some examples, instead. All of the financial crises that our government is suffering through are, indeed, due to excesses caused when the _wrong_ group was in power. I'm thinking of income tax withholding, Social Security, welfare and health insurance. Each of these were a modest program started or necessitated by a liberal administration and expanded by subsequent generations of less reasonable left-leaning administrations. I think we need to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find an administration that didn't add more to the public burden.

You don't read too well, do you. It's a first year waiver on property tax on new restaurants that will make the restauranteur better able to make money off of his fragile new business while it is at its most fashionable. That would make the eventual closing of the restaurant part of the business plan instead of a simple failure, and will leave the restauranteur with more capital to start his next restaurant and stablize the economy by enabling him to bring his old staff with him preventing spikes in the unemployment numbers.

So to illustrate your fearsome grasp of the workings of all things economic you have chosen to use a tax cut targetted at enabling trendy restaurants to fail at the end of trendiness while keeping their affluent owners solvent and their expatriate dishwashers working. How quaint and surprising. Especially in a new spam and slam the conservatives thread. A thread that so obviously fabricated to complain about another thread rather than debate in it that it is painful to watch unfold. I now have the strong suspicion that you are no liberal, you are posing as a particularly arrogant and befuddled one in order to discredit them.

So to illustrate your fearsome grasp of the workings of all things economic you have chosen to use a tax cut targetted at enabling trendy restaurants to fail at the end of trendiness while keeping their affluent owners solvent and their expatriate dishwashers working. How quaint and surprising. Especially in a new spam and slam the conservatives thread. A thread that so obviously fabricated to complain about another thread rather than debate in it that it is painful to watch unfold. I now have the strong suspicion that you are no liberal, you are posing as a particularly arrogant and befuddled one in order to discredit them.

Again. There was nothing to debate in that other thread. The "points" it was based on were the Atari 2600 of conservative ideology. Long discredited ideas based on obsolete arguments. Sony isn't billing the PS3 to compete with Colecovision, by the same token I don't bother to debate Sovietstan's points. Nothing else in the thread was interesting enough to get involved in.

I notice that you grumble about my tax cut idea, but only from the "rich=bad poor=good" position that right-wingers fabricate liberals as advocating. You don't actually have anything to say about what you think the effects of such a plan would be. Are you one of those fake liberals who thinks that the purpose of higher taxes is to take money away from people?

The people on the right fear coersive governments, regardless of those governments' stated motives.

that's not even remotely true. not in the slightest.

Where the right gets it wrong

pretty much from "hi, i'm a conservative" on

pretty much from "hi, i'm a conservative" on

Thanks for your well considered essay on politics.

The reason such a system of selective tax reduction for the first period (however long), for a restaurant as it gets going is a nice idea. However the result would be that the owner would find a good lawyer to examine the exact wording of the law. Then he would find some way of re-naming or re-branding his place such that it could be defined as a "new restaurant". After all, what counts as new? New ownership? He just has to get his friend to buy the place, re-pay him the money, then be "nominated" by his friend as the manager. Bingo, the same guy doesn't own the place so it must be under new management. Thus you can call for tax relief.

Laws that mention specific circumstances are not easy to word. Especially if it's a slightly subjective issue like this. Lawyers get paid too much not to find loopholes.

Again. There was nothing to debate in that other thread. The "points" it was based on were the Atari 2600 of conservative ideology. Long discredited ideas based on obsolete arguments. Sony isn't billing the PS3 to compete with Colecovision, by the same token I don't bother to debate Sovietstan's points. Nothing else in the thread was interesting enough to get involved in.

I notice that you grumble about my tax cut idea, but only from the "rich=bad poor=good" position that right-wingers fabricate liberals as advocating. You don't actually have anything to say about what you think the effects of such a plan would be. Are you one of those fake liberals who thinks that the purpose of higher taxes is to take money away from people?


Strictly speaking the purpose of raising taxes is indeed to take more of peoples money from them.

A government will often give tax credits or temporarily lower taxes to encourage a certain type of business or increase the taxload and redtape and regulatory compliance load to discourage certain businesses. Encouraging restaurants to cut and run after a year of paying less property tax than ordinary, and furthermore encouraging them to repeat the process annually is an interesting concept in government sponsored transient business. Taco Bell can move accross the street to the Wendy's location, Wendys can move to the MacDonald's prior years location and MacDonald's can move to Jack in the Box's location all to avoid property taxes. All the trendy restaurants can do the same. Why you would want them to move is a whole other thing.

Now sane governments who want to encourage businesses try to encourage long term large employers or electric powerplants when an aging power infrastructure forces brownouts or small businesses owned and operated by those in the poorer areas of town or even the brass ring of business tourism. By the way ensuring that all the haut couture trendy restaurants scatter to the four winds annually does not endear a city to tourists. In case you didnt know. Moving restaurants to new trendy locations annually is an open invitation to poor business practice higher priced trendy meals and suicidal restaurant owners trying to set up a new shop once a year.

Strictly speaking the purpose of raising taxes is indeed to take more of peoples money from them.

A government will often give tax credits or temporarily lower taxes to encourage a certain type of business or increase the taxload and redtape and regulatory compliance load to discourage certain businesses. Encouraging restaurants to cut and run after a year of paying less property tax than ordinary, and furthermore encouraging them to repeat the process annually is an interesting concept in government sponsored transient business. Taco Bell can move accross the street to the Wendy's location, Wendys can move to the MacDonald's prior years location and MacDonald's can move to Jack in the Box's location all to avoid property taxes. All the trendy restaurants can do the same. Why you would want them to move is a whole other thing.

Now sane governments who want to encourage businesses try to encourage long term large employers or electric powerplants when an aging power infrastructure forces brownouts or small businesses owned and operated by those in the poorer areas of town or even the brass ring of business tourism. By the way ensuring that all the haut couture trendy restaurants scatter to the four winds annually does not endear a city to tourists. In case you didnt know. Moving restaurants to new trendy locations annually is an open invitation to poor business practice higher priced trendy meals and suicidal restaurant owners trying to set up a new shop once a year.

All this talk of trendy restaurants moving every year has started me thinking of hot dog carts. There's the ultimate in mobile and trendy.

Enough of this Restaurant At The End Of The Uniform tax code derail let us delve into what this thread is all about, the OP.


Based on this pontificating bullet point list masquerading as actual points.

Where the right gets it wrong. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498579)

So far it leads to another general thread that is open for debate. Surely this is more than a sophomoric copycat thread or a way out of debating in an existing thread?



One. Ignorance. The right believes that ignorance is a virtue. It believes that what you believe is more a function of your alliegence and morality than actual facts. Congress conservatives have pointed to science fiction novels to rebut real science. Dubya claims that the jury is still out on global warming.

Sovietstan believes this nonsense: (I do not intend for this to be a point by point refutation of his positions. Simply an illustration of the folly of right-wing reasoning).

So far it is a cross between asserting that all conservatives are of a single mind and then intimating that you can read this mind and it is evil. Then a paragraph of troll stalking sovietstan for whatever purpose. I'll stay out of defending sovietstan, he is a big boy and whatever differences and samenesses you have aginst him is your personal problem and I want none of it.

Lets see if we can find any actual statements, points or ideas that can and should be discussed further down the post shall we?



Conservatives at large complain about "elitists" and "effete intellectuals" on the left. This is simply code word for "those people who know what they're talking about."

Every single point in Sovietstan's list is nothing more than a failure to analyze.

Take a look at his tax statement (statement on taxes that is. Not his actual tax statement). "Lower taxes boost the economy." Really? So the country will work best with a 0% tax rate? Even the most ardent conservative with brain in his head will admit that there is an ideal rate of taxation somewhere between 0% and 100%

Not yet. More generic "conservatives are evil" rants followed by another diatribe against sovietstan then more referrals to another active post in NSG.
I wont give up until I find the meat of this post. I promise.



Yet Sovietstan, like many simplistic conservatives unable to process higher reasoning, seems intent on reducing it to the idiotic equation "liberals = more taxes, conservatives = less." He doesn't understand how the laffer curve works (nor I'd wager before googling it, what it actually is) he's only memorized the damned slogan.

Another paragraph of bashing sovietstan outside of his thread. Not my problem.




But it's not simply a matter of being unable to think critically. There are conservatives who are able to understand the flaws in these simplistic slogans dressed up as arguments. But then their recourse seems to be to retreat into ever more complicated bullshit. In the end it seems that the more intelligent the conservative is, the less sane he must be. It's like 1984.

Hmmm slogans are bad. You say. Especially simplistic ones. They may be bad but they are effective. We are surrounded by them in song and speech and advertisements from the time we can speak. We "get" slogans. Madison Avenue knows this. Slogans work and compel. Liberal and Conservative politicians know this too and both use it. Sorry it is news to you but slogans are no more damning for conservatives than they are for liberals. Everybody likes to use what works.




I pointed out the minimum wage thing.
Bullshit
Ive carefully read all of your post so far and you did not mention minimum wage nor a minimum wage thing.


Conservatives are allied to corporate interests, and so like to pretend that higher minimum wages kills jobs. Facts show that it is just the opposite, but corporations see wages as overhead instead of an investment in their theatre of operations. So they like to keep wages low and circulate the lie of "job killing," which conservatives buy because it comes from their friends. I pointed this out on another thread and was told that the sources I used (the bbc and charts taken from the bureau of labor and statistics) were biased. Why? Because they support the liberal argument.

There is no liberal argument. If somewhere and somewhen you produced charts to prove some point which is invisible here and now, then it was your argument and not the liberal argument. Seriously you are allowed to have your own side in a debate and not have to pick one team or the other as your platform. You can and have chosen to do so as a sort of mad spokesman but your personal viewpoint holds more water with anyone who gives a rats ass than saying that you give the official liberal perspective.



Is there no way to guage sanity before handing out voting registrations. Many states have laws denying the vote to the insane and mentally retarded. How can a belief in conservative ideology not be considered a metric for such an appraisal when it clearly demands one or the other?

Yeee Haw an argument that stands alone and can be debated at last! I knew my faith wasnt misplaced. OK you are for more stringent testing of voters before they cast their ballots. I am opposed to this on purely democratic reasons.Even the dull and the uneducated deserve to have the opportunity to be represented when laws are being passed and taxes are levied against them. It sucks occasionally but disenfranchising them would blow goats and open the door to fewer and fewer people with voting rights.

All this talk of trendy restaurants moving every year has started me thinking of hot dog carts. There's the ultimate in mobile and trendy.

Not to mention tasty! Now Im hungry. Curse your hotdog mentioning ways Myrm!;)

Thanks for your well considered essay on politics.

i've offered plenty. no need to retread well covered ground.

Not to mention tasty! Now Im hungry. Curse your hotdog mentioning ways Myrm!;)

Not coincidentally, that was my lunch today -- a quarter pound Hebrew National hot dog with kraut and mustard.

Give in, there's no hope.

Based on this pontificating bullet point list masquerading as actual points.

Where the right gets it wrong. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498579)

One. Ignorance. The right believes that ignorance is a virtue. It believes that what you believe is more a function of your alliegence and morality than actual facts. Congress conservatives have pointed to science fiction novels to rebut real science. Dubya claims that the jury is still out on global warming.

Sovietstan believes this nonsense: (I do not intend for this to be a point by point refutation of his positions. Simply an illustration of the folly of right-wing reasoning).

Conservatives at large complain about "elitists" and "effete intellectuals" on the left. This is simply code word for "those people who know what they're talking about."

Every single point in Sovietstan's list is nothing more than a failure to analyze.

Take a look at his tax statement (statement on taxes that is. Not his actual tax statement). "Lower taxes boost the economy." Really? So the country will work best with a 0% tax rate? Even the most ardent conservative with brain in his head will admit that there is an ideal rate of taxation somewhere between 0% and 100%

Yet Sovietstan, like many simplistic conservatives unable to process higher reasoning, seems intent on reducing it to the idiotic equation "liberals = more taxes, conservatives = less." He doesn't understand how the laffer curve works (nor I'd wager before googling it, what it actually is) he's only memorized the damned slogan.

But it's not simply a matter of being unable to think critically. There are conservatives who are able to understand the flaws in these simplistic slogans dressed up as arguments. But then their recourse seems to be to retreat into ever more complicated bullshit. In the end it seems that the more intelligent the conservative is, the less sane he must be. It's like 1984.

I pointed out the minimum wage thing. Conservatives are allied to corporate interests, and so like to pretend that higher minimum wages kills jobs. Facts show that it is just the opposite, but corporations see wages as overhead instead of an investment in their theatre of operations. So they like to keep wages low and circulate the lie of "job killing," which conservatives buy because it comes from their friends. I pointed this out on another thread and was told that the sources I used (the bbc and charts taken from the bureau of labor and statistics) were biased. Why? Because they support the liberal argument.

Is there no way to guage sanity before handing out voting registrations. Many states have laws denying the vote to the insane and mentally retarded. How can a belief in conservative ideology not be considered a metric for such an appraisal when it clearly demands one or the other?
That's the best you could do? Wow. I mean you start things off by yelling, "They're evil and stupid and in need of my political enlightenment!" And that SF novel was written by a scientist. The same scientist who wrote Twister. He knows a thing or two about meteorology. Also, Dave Dahl, a meteorologist, isn't convinced. There are hundreds more like them, which blows the whole consensus argument out of the water, yet you still use it. But this thread isn't about GW, it's about New Domici hating people for their beliefs.

Do we need taxes for government to function? Yes. But the rate should be even for everyone. The rich will pay the most and the poor will pay the least. And everyone is treated equally by the system. And that tax rate should be low to allow people to keep most of their money and spend it how they choose.

Now onto minimum wage: You'd better check those stats again. According to the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm) only 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers are paid at or below the minimum wage. It's not a significant portion of the population. A wage hike wouldn't benefit enough of the population and it would likely cost more than we'd get out of it. What we should do is tie minimum wage to inflation and leave it. No more hikes, no more talk of making it a living wage, just tie it and leave it.

Wow. Declare the opposition stupid, retarded, or insane and deny them the right to vote. What will you propose next? That everyone who disagrees with you be rounded up and sent to re-education centers? Camps? Over a cliff?

So you think the world would be better off if the left were given complete and unopposed control of things, eh? Let's try that on a small scale for...how about a decade or so and see how things turn out? Well we don't have to wait because we have a prime example ready for grading! It's called Murderapolis--err, I mean Minneapolis. Yes for over a decade (actually it's more like two) the DFL has had complete control over that city and by now it should be a sparkling utopia! But it's not. Crime, poverty, taxes, and whole bunch of other problems are on the rise. You can't blame it on the right because we've been removed from the picture for years and years. Yes, the blame for the problems of Minneapolis rest solely on the DFL and their bad leadership, policies, and politicians.

selection tripled?-the government still controls selection-

$7.00 an hr, how generous who do you know can live on 7$ in alberta? prices of liquor never declined the only people benefiting are those who own the large liqour chains. wages weren't propped up by the unemployed, the consumers paid the wages with liquor purcheses at the same prices they are paying now.
The number of distinct SKUs available tripled within a year. The supply is still managed by the government, but anyone can order new products through them. They no longer control inventory.

And I didn't say people are earning $7/hour now. I was describing the almost immediate effect of the change in liquor regulation.

And prices did fall - every reputable study says so. That's why there is now a steady flow of smuggled liquor flowing into BC; Alberta has vastly cheaper liquor.

I live in this conservative backwater known as Alberta

With out checking I'm reasonably sure that it was Conservative government that regulated the liquor business in the first place
You should have checked.

Like most of North America, the liquor industry was regulated by the government at the end of prohibition. The regulation simply never went away.
And the high wages have nothing to do with the conservative gov.-oil, lot's of it drives this economy.
Really? Then why aren't other provinces with oil doing just as well? Saskatchewan has arguably more resource wealth than Alberta does. BC has lots of oil, not even counting the stuff off-shore.

Alberta put itself is a position to benefit from the high oil prices when it balanced its budget in 1993. At the time, the price of oil was $12/bbl.

Also, you might be interested to know that the total oil royalties collected by the government in 2004 was about $9 billion. That's less than the net $11 billion taken out of the province by the federal government. That's the cost to Albertans of being in Canada, and if you took away Canada and took away the oil, Albertans would still come out ahead.

i've offered plenty. no need to retread well covered ground.

This seems to be a common post for you. You've already covered it, or you've already debunked it, or whatever.

Go ahead, enlighten us again.

Other than the insults tho, we've had enough of those.

Conservatives I find are not deep thinkers everything is simple, black or white.

If you debate with them and they ask for your source of info and immediatelty discount it as you said as biased. Where as all their sources are infallible.

They like to come up with catchy little slogans or rhymes which somehow magically ligitimizes their view as correct. "better dead than red" "axis of evil" etc. Don't have logic to debate with use a slogan and end the debate and pretend the other side are commies.

Their solution to any problem is never to seek a solution/compromise never try to find a middle ground, but resort to violence. War, execute, prison, "pry the gun from cold dead hands" etc. They seem to be afraid of everyone, hostile to change and progress, very insecure.
As a non American I think I have some objectivity. Most of what you say is accurate, though, liberals also often dismiss legit sources for being "biased". Not only conservatives have that annoying habit.

You should have checked.

Like most of North America, the liquor industry was regulated by the government at the end of prohibition. The regulation simply never went away.

Really? Then why aren't other provinces with oil doing just as well? Saskatchewan has arguably more resource wealth than Alberta does. BC has lots of oil, not even counting the stuff off-shore.

Alberta put itself is a position to benefit from the high oil prices when it balanced its budget in 1993. At the time, the price of oil was $12/bbl.

Also, you might be interested to know that the total oil royalties collected by the government in 2004 was about $9 billion. That's less than the net $11 billion taken out of the province by the federal government. That's the cost to Albertans of being in Canada, and if you took away Canada and took away the oil, Albertans would still come out ahead.

how obtuse- Oil is the difference, prices of all resources go up and down but none are as essential as oil and as long as the demand remains high a retard can run this province. BC's oil production is minor, Sask is half of what Alberta's is and they don't have anywhere near as much reserves. Interesting that both economies of BC and Sask are doing very well, both better managed than Alberta's.

Sask has done well with far less the only time it's socialist governments ran into Budget problems is when they inherited a bankrupt province from the previous corrupt conservative government.

Alberta with out Canada, right lets forget about the time before oil who was supporting who then? And where would be without oil? another have not province run by idiot wannabe cowboys. What does that say about your right-wing personality; greedy and selfish as I posted earlier. Happy to be Canadian when times are tough and you need support, get a few dollars and you turn your back on the rest of the country. We're all Canadians the oil belongs to everyone in the country not just us Albertan's..

This government hasn't a clue take away the oil revenue and they be exposed as the idiots they are even to someone as shortsighted as you. The recent admission that they had "no plan" says it all. Our medical system is shambles because of their mismangement, if you're going to be sick go to Sask if you want a hospital bed. Giving away $1.2billion while schools are collapsing, f***** awesome management that is. People are right when they say "12 drunken monkeys could do a better job running this province"

"the liquor industry was regulated by the government at the end of prohibition. The regulation simply never went away."-conservatives take nearly 70yrs to deregulate and you're proud of their brilliant prompt move to do so? How sad and desperate you are to find good things to say about an inept government. Even former a Former Conservative Premier has come out and said they're inept.

We have the wealth of oil equal to Iran and Libya combined and the right-wing loonies still mange to screw it up.

The number of distinct SKUs available tripled within a year. The supply is still managed by the government, but anyone can order new products through them. They no longer control inventory.

And I didn't say people are earning $7/hour now. I was describing the almost immediate effect of the change in liquor regulation.

And prices did fall - every reputable study says so. That's why there is now a steady flow of smuggled liquor flowing into BC; Alberta has vastly cheaper liquor.

your exact quote-"the average wage earned by the workers there fell to $7/hour.

Many people complained that the wages fell so far, but since so many more people were working in the stores, the total amount of money being paid to labour was actually higher." -it's what you said, do want to withdraw that?

"And prices did fall - every reputable study says so." what studies? conservative government studies? I know what I pay for beer/wine it's no cheaper than anywhere else

your exact quote-"the average wage earned by the workers there fell to $7/hour.

Many people complained that the wages fell so far, but since so many more people were working in the stores, the total amount of money being paid to labour was actually higher." -it's what you said, do want to withdraw that?

"And prices did fall - every reputable study says so." what studies? conservative government studies? I know what I pay for beer/wine it's no cheaper than anywhere else

Here ya go:

http://aglc.ab.ca/liquor/albertaliquorprivatization.asp

Now dispute it w/ facts.

This seems to be a common post for you. You've already covered it, or you've already debunked it, or whatever.

Go ahead, enlighten us again.

Other than the insults tho, we've had enough of those.

on why the right goes wrong from pretty much "hi, i'm a conservative"?

for starters, there is that little fact that 'conservatives' have historically been super willing to throw out pretty much every principle they have ever claimed when their favored elite tells them to. it's just a stupid label for a bunch of authoritarian followers. like pol pot leading an 'anti-death penalty' movement.

in fact, the right's only abiding principle has been the support of elite rule and the promotion of elite power and prestige. which have always been terrible ideas, both in practice and in terms of justice. their overarching goal is to take history's worst mistake and make sure it never gets fixed, and to undo any attempts that have been made to minimize it's current effects.

if they ever say something of value, it is by accident or merely incidental. and you can bet that within 20 years the exact same rightwingers who said it will be saying the opposite (at least part of the time - they don't seem to be much concerned with consistency of any sort). in fact, as an ideology (if it can even be called such) it requires that most of it's adherents not apply critical thought in any significant or systematic way at all.

and so on

on why the right goes wrong from pretty much "hi, i'm a conservative"?

for starters, there is that little fact that 'conservatives' have historically been super willing to throw out pretty much every principle they have ever claimed when their favored elite tells them to. it's just a stupid label for a bunch of authoritarian followers. like pol pot leading an 'anti-death penalty' movement.

in fact, the right's only abiding principle has been the support of elite rule and the promotion of elite power and prestige. which have always been terrible ideas, both in practice and in terms of justice. their overarching goal is to take history's worst mistake and make sure it never gets fixed, and to undo any attempts that have been made to minimize it's current effects.

if they ever say something of value, it is by accident or merely incidental. and you can bet that within 20 years the exact same rightwingers who said it will be saying the opposite (at least part of the time - they don't seem to be much concerned with consistency of any sort). in fact, as an ideology (if it can even be called such) it requires that most of it's adherents not apply critical thought in any significant or systematic way at all.

and so on

You see? All of this is simply you dressing up your hatred for "the right" as fact when it's simply your opinion.

"if they ever say something of value, it is by accident or merely incidental"? Yea, sure can't be because they are ever right about anything. :rolleyes:

You need to back up, and rethink things. Try being objective. It helps.

"if they ever say something of value, it is by accident or merely incidental"? Yea, sure can't be because they are ever right about anything.

since they will change their position as soon as their favored authorities tell them to, then whether they are currently right about anything is irrelevant. and don't even try to deny the well documented, damn-near stalinist, lockstep changes in party line that the right as a whole is incredibly prone to.

hatred has nothing to do with the actual facts on the ground. its just that the facts necessitate that lovers of liberty and reason have to oppose the right as a matter of survival.

Funny you mention Stalin when talking about the right because he was about as left as you could get.

FS, calm down. Think before you speak. Or in this case type. Nobody wants to hear a hate rant.

And if you have an argument, back it up with facts. Just spouting an opinion and then calling it fact does not make it so.

Please calm down, back up, and try to take an objective view of things. Objective is not your view, it is not the left view, it is not the right view, it is the objective, middle view.

Funny you mention Stalin when talking about the right because he was about as left as you could get.

funny how? what do you take me to be saying about the left?

Objective is not your view, it is not the left view, it is not the right view, it is the objective, middle view.

on what grounds could you claim that the 'middle view' is objective? objective does not mean 'between'

[QUOTE=New Domici;11646921]Based on this pontificating bullet point list masquerading as actual points.

Where the right gets it wrong. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498579)

One. Ignorance. The right believes that ignorance is a virtue. It believes that what you believe is more a function of your alliegence and morality than actual facts. Congress conservatives have pointed to science fiction novels to rebut real science. Dubya claims that the jury is still out on global warming.

As you later reference 1984, I must congratulate you on your "newspeak." Regarding "global warming," you must define your argument better as it is unclear whether you are addressing a climatic change in global temperature or the issue as to what would be causing global temperatures. As to both, the jury is still out - especially among climatologists. Remember we previously had an ice age - proof enough that global temperatures can fluctuate.[/I]

Sovietstan believes this nonsense: (I do not intend for this to be a point by point refutation of his positions. Simply an illustration of the folly of right-wing reasoning).



Conservatives at large complain about "elitists" and "effete intellectuals" on the left. This is simply code word for "those people who know what they're talking about."

I think you have just proven the point you attempt to refute; one would be hard pressed to provide a more glaring example of an elitist statement than the foregoing.

Every single point in Sovietstan's list is nothing more than a failure to analyze.

Take a look at his tax statement (statement on taxes that is. Not his actual tax statement). "Lower taxes boost the economy." Really? So the country will work best with a 0% tax rate? Even the most ardent conservative with brain in his head will admit that there is an ideal rate of taxation somewhere between 0% and 100%

Yet Sovietstan, like many simplistic conservatives unable to process higher reasoning, seems intent on reducing it to the idiotic equation "liberals = more taxes, conservatives = less." He doesn't understand how the laffer curve works (nor I'd wager before googling it, what it actually is) he's only memorized the damned slogan.

"simplistic conservatives" see supra.

But it's not simply a matter of being unable to think critically. There are conservatives who are able to understand the flaws in these simplistic slogans dressed up as arguments. But then their recourse seems to be to retreat into ever more complicated bullshit. In the end it seems that the more intelligent the conservative is, the less sane he must be. It's like 1984.

By complicated bullshit so you mean arguments you cannot refute, understand, or both?

I pointed out the minimum wage thing. Conservatives are allied to corporate interests, and so like to pretend that higher minimum wages kills jobs. Facts show that it is just the opposite, but corporations see wages as overhead instead of an investment in their theatre of operations. So they like to keep wages low and circulate the lie of "job killing," which conservatives buy because it comes from their friends. I pointed this out on another thread and was told that the sources I used (the bbc and charts taken from the bureau of labor and statistics) were biased. Why? Because they support the liberal argument.

An artificial inflation of the minimum wage only serves to increase the price of current goods and services, as the increased cost of doing business is ultimately born by the consumer.

Is there no way to guage sanity before handing out voting registrations. Many states have laws denying the vote to the insane and mentally retarded. How can a belief in conservative ideology not be considered a metric for such an appraisal when it clearly demands one or the other?

An ad hominum attack, like much of this screed, which fails to advance any debate. In fact, the only issue you actually address is the minimum wage, though in fairness I must note that you almost engaged in a discussion of taxes before you digressed, and you are plain wrong on that, as demonstrated above. Ultimately, you engage in more egregious abuses of logic, partisianship, and bias then those you accuse. Maybe I missed the sarcasm.

funny how? what do you take me to be saying about the left?
You said that those on the right fall in Stalinist lockstep with the party. This is not true. I do not fall in with everything the party states. I usually agree on economic philosophy but that's only because it is successful. If you don't think that capitalism is the more successful of the two main socio-economic philosophies just look at the outcome of the war of 1812. Yes, 1812, the cold war. It was very cold in 1812.:D (You have to remember to have fun when discussing politics.) I don't always agree with one party when it comes to the social issues though. I think drugs should be legalized and other laws be more lenient but that the punishments for those laws be more severe because people are being given more room with lax laws.

It is the left that falls in lockstep and tosses out those that don't (Joe). And Stalin was a big lefty that killed those who didn't agree with him.

on what grounds could you claim that the 'middle view' is objective? objective does not mean 'between'
In politics, objectivity is a neutral point of view.

You said that those on the right fall in Stalinist lockstep with the party. This is not true. I do not fall in with everything the party states.

there are always outliers. and also lots of people like yourself, only they merely claim disagreements, but never seem to let that interfere with their actions in support of the leadership.

and it never seems to slow down the widespread changes in party line among the movement followers as a whole - who can be passionately both for and against having the state have the power to engage in extralegal activities depending entirely on what their favored elites are currently saying, for example. it's not as if the body of right wingers changes dramatically between shifts in position.

there is actually a lot of good research that's been done on this.

In politics, objectivity is a neutral point of view.

no. this is the mistake of journalism, that objective merely means between the opposing sides. objective means something like verifiable through evidence and not contingent on appeals to authority or the like. if one side is wrong, not saying so is to give up on objectivity.