Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Conservatism isn't cool man

oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
edited November 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
I'm a conservative, I'd go so far as to say I'm a libertarian. None the less I was pleased to see Obama elected especially when compared to McCain. God am I glad to see that man wasn't elected. It seems he brought out the worst in the conservative political movement and was a magnet to radicals who often get confused with logical and sane conservatives.

As a conservative I believe in the basic sense of the word. Conserve as much power for the people and the states as possible from the federal government. I believe nationalism can be a very slippery slope and should never be taken lightly as it can lead to infringement on civil liberties. I believe that the war in Iraq is morally and fundamentally wrong and war with Iran is just fucking stupid. I don't support Israel, not because I'm an antisemite but because their foreign policy is utterly horrifying. I can understand both sides of it but I see it as a quagmire that America shouldn't be involved in. I'm not an isolationist but I don't think America should be swinging her sword all over the globe as she tends to. I believe that the 2nd amendment is essential for freedom and liberty. I believe crime isn't caused by guns or automatic rifles but by socio-economic problems. To say guns cause crime is asenine. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution and believe it means exactly what is says and is yet to become outdated as some would argue. I'm not religious and believe the separation of church and state is absolute. I'm open to hearing the ins and outs of any argument and believe civil discourse cannot take place without logical argument. I am willing to change my stance on issues if you're ready to present a logical argument and willing to see my view as well and accept that your political beliefs might be flawed. I'm willing to "agree to disagree" is that so rare?

Are these beliefs really that terrible? I would think that such beliefs would be a lot more common. What the fuck happened to the viability of the conservative party? Why are so called conservatives voting for such outrageous proposals like the patriot act and the war in Iraq? Am I crazy or do I just have a bad case of "raised in Wyoming". The republican party has truly lost its way, and completely lost touch with its principles. What do you guys think?

"A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

"Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
oneeyedjack909 on
«134567

Posts

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Please do tell when the GOP has actually been about smaller government

    nexuscrawler on
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Please do tell when the GOP has actually been about smaller government

    I ... I don't see where he said that at all.

    Armored Gorilla on
    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Last line he implies the GOP has "lost it's way"

    I'm argue they just did what they've been doing for 50 odd years albeit much less competently

    nexuscrawler on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Please do tell when the GOP has actually been about smaller government
    Eisenhower was not happy that the MIC was moving toward the direction it has.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.

    Obama is only viewed as a very liberal candidate in America, and anyone in America that thinks he is very 'liberal' is also buying into bullshit punditry instead of looking at the facts. Barack Obama is, even by American standards, more center-leaning than left-leaning. On the world stage, America has yet to have a candidate that would both be considered very liberal and not an utter laughingstock.

    The 'conservative party' rhetoric and diatribes and dichotomies are worthless. Everything about the lens through which you're viewing our political landscape is warped. :|

    EDIT: The larger relevancy of what I'm saying here is that McCain was not a conservative candidate, he was some kind of ridiculous manifestation of vested interests. You are happier to see Obama elected because Obama truly was the more 'conservative' candidate by your definitions.

    The GOP is not the party you should be looking at anymore. Look to non-fringe Democrats, and approve-of or chastise-for them.

    Oboro on
    words
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I guess what I'm saying is for a supposeably conservative party the GOP hasn't really shown it since, oh i don't know, the 1800s?

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Is there a reason the OP misspelled McCain?

    And the conserva-crazies were attracted more by Palin then McCain himself.

    MagicPrime on
    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I guess what I'm saying is for a supposeably conservative party the GOP hasn't really shown it since, oh i don't know, the 1800s?

    You could make the case for Eisenhower though he was a bit more a a centrist anyway.

    nexuscrawler on
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.
    what's wrong with a centralist libertarian?

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Everyone who identifies as being a libertarian is basically insane, and as such if you're not that then it is a bad category to put yourself in. It's like how being a republican these days basically means you're pro-human misery when you get right down to it.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.

    Obama is only viewed as a very liberal candidate in America, and anyone in America that thinks he is very 'liberal' is also buying into bullshit punditry instead of looking at the facts. Barack Obama is, even by American standards, more center-leaning than left-leaning. On the world stage, America has yet to have a candidate that would both be considered very liberal and not an utter laughingstock.

    The 'conservative party' rhetoric and diatribes and dichotomies are worthless. Everything about the lens through which you're viewing our political landscape is warped. :|

    EDIT: The larger relevancy of what I'm saying here is that McCain was not a conservative candidate, he was some kind of ridiculous manifestation of vested interests. You are happier to see Obama elected because Obama truly was the more 'conservative' candidate by your definitions.

    The GOP is not the party you should be looking at anymore. Look to non-fringe Democrats, and approve-of or chastise-for them.

    Every political test I take seems to list me as a full blown socialist at this point. So I guess I'm a dirty commie. But besides the point, I also see people like Nader and Kucinich listed on the socialist side of things and those two guys are hugely marginalized in this country. If I'm remembering correctly, most European conservatives would be considered lefties in the US and their lefties would be some sort of super socialist.

    Armored Gorilla on
    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Is there a reason the OP misspelled McCain?

    My bad

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.
    what's wrong with a centralist libertarian?
    "Libertarian," to me, is the shorthand for saying "far-right conservative." Saying "centrist Libertarian" is redundant in that, as I understand and place the terms, you're basically just saying you're an average fiscal conservative who is also 'socially liberal.'

    Social conservatism is going to become a ghost politically in the coming decades. We might see 'social conservatism' disappear from the Republican party within a handful of election cycles, even. We really are on the brink.

    If you are using "libertarian" simply to mean socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I guess it's still a valuable shorthand in America. For the time being! Buuut, apart from these definitions of theory, I'd still say that the politicians who mostly espouse and promote those values are centrist-Democrats. :)

    Although your words might have merit, if you wanted to look up people with the most similar values in American politics -- actually seated politicians -- they would be either fairly left Republicans concentrated in a few states, or the average Democrat, who has become increasingly fiscally-conservative if only as necessary to hold onto their seat against opponents who were attempting to win it away on a platform of more money for my constituents!

    Oboro on
    words
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Oboro wrote: View Post
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.

    Obama is only viewed as a very liberal candidate in America, and anyone in America that thinks he is very 'liberal' is also buying into bullshit punditry instead of looking at the facts. Barack Obama is, even by American standards, more center-leaning than left-leaning. On the world stage, America has yet to have a candidate that would both be considered very liberal and not an utter laughingstock.

    The 'conservative party' rhetoric and diatribes and dichotomies are worthless. Everything about the lens through which you're viewing our political landscape is warped.

    EDIT: The larger relevancy of what I'm saying here is that McCain was not a conservative candidate, he was some kind of ridiculous manifestation of vested interests. You are happier to see Obama elected because Obama truly was the more 'conservative' candidate by your definitions.

    ]The GOP is not the party you should be looking at anymore. Look to non-fringe Democrats, and approve-of or chastise-for them.
    Every political test I take seems to list me as a full blown socialist at this point. So I guess I'm a dirty commie. But besides the point, I also see people like Nader and Kucinich listed on the socialist side of things and those two guys are hugely marginalized in this country. If I'm remembering correctly, most European conservatives would be considered lefties in the US and their lefties would be some sort of super socialist.

    This isn't Europe. Which seems to be the reason we revolted in the first place.

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Is there a reason the OP misspelled McCain?

    My bad

    I've seen people use McKaine in a completely non-ironic sense as a disparaging remark against him, so I just ignored it, figuring you were using it the same way. Ties into Kaine and Able somehow, I don't know. The people who use it don't make much sense in the first place.

    Armored Gorilla on
    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    There really aren't many true libertarian politicians out there. Most who claim they are still cave to the religious right on social issues.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Oboro wrote: View Post
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.

    Obama is only viewed as a very liberal candidate in America, and anyone in America that thinks he is very 'liberal' is also buying into bullshit punditry instead of looking at the facts. Barack Obama is, even by American standards, more center-leaning than left-leaning. On the world stage, America has yet to have a candidate that would both be considered very liberal and not an utter laughingstock.

    The 'conservative party' rhetoric and diatribes and dichotomies are worthless. Everything about the lens through which you're viewing our political landscape is warped.

    EDIT: The larger relevancy of what I'm saying here is that McCain was not a conservative candidate, he was some kind of ridiculous manifestation of vested interests. You are happier to see Obama elected because Obama truly was the more 'conservative' candidate by your definitions.

    ]The GOP is not the party you should be looking at anymore. Look to non-fringe Democrats, and approve-of or chastise-for them.
    Every political test I take seems to list me as a full blown socialist at this point. So I guess I'm a dirty commie. But besides the point, I also see people like Nader and Kucinich listed on the socialist side of things and those two guys are hugely marginalized in this country. If I'm remembering correctly, most European conservatives would be considered lefties in the US and their lefties would be some sort of super socialist.

    This isn't Europe. Which seems to be the reason we revolted in the first place.

    Things have changed in the past 200+ years. That is a completely ridiculous simplification of the reasons for the American Revolution.

    Armored Gorilla on
    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • darthmixdarthmix Registered User
    edited November 2008
    "Guns don't kill people, socio-economic problems kill people."
    Hey, it's got a nice ring to it.

    But seriously, I wonder how the OP feels about things like social security and universal healthcare? I feel pretty strongly that the free market, while a powerful engine of wealth-creation, is prevented by it's own nature from effectively providing any kind of social safety net, and I think it makes sense to rely on democratic government to create institutions around these things. Most of the time when libertarians tell me "the constitution means just what it says" they're really trying to wedge these issues out of the domain of the public sector and into the private.

    darthmix on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    This isn't Europe. Which seems to be the reason we revolted in the first place.

    Well I do declare I find the stamp tax most appalling!

    nexuscrawler on
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    oneeyedjack909 wrote: View Post
    quote:
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.
    what's wrong with a centralist libertarian?
    "Libertarian," to me, is the shorthand for saying "far-right conservative." Saying "centrist Libertarian" is redundant in that, as I understand and place the terms, you're basically just saying you're an average fiscal conservative who is also 'socially liberal.'

    Social conservatism is going to become a ghost politically in the coming decades. We might see 'social conservatism' disappear from the Republican party within a handful of election cycles, even. We really are on the brink.

    If you are using "libertarian" simply to mean socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I guess it's still a valuable shorthand in America. For the time being! Buuut, apart from these definitions of theory, I'd still say that the politicians who mostly espouse and promote those values are centrist-Democrats.

    Although your words might have merit, if you wanted to look up people with the most similar values in American politics -- actually seated politicians -- they would be either fairly left Republicans concentrated in a few states, or the average Democrat, who has become increasingly fiscally-conservative if only as necessary to hold onto their seat against opponents who were attempting to win it away on a platform of more money for my constituents!

    Let me tell you the libertarian party is home to the biggest menagerie of political beliefs and levels of radicallism that you can hope to find. there is no stereotypical libertarian. But I guess collectively they do lean to the right.

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Nixon's first term could be called conservative.

    Smurph on
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Health care is a tough thing. Ill admit I wouldn't min a socialist approach since going to the doctor without paying would rule but whenever you nationalize an industry you put the power of that industry in the hands of the government. That to me is the danger in it. I'd love to hear an alternative that has the same effect without nationalization.

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    I'd still love to hear why it's more dangerous -- necessarily, absolutely, axiomatically -- to vest power in government instead of the private sector. I mean, I and several dozen others here have asked that of every single 'libertarian' that's posted on the forum.

    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    Oboro on
    words
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    I'd still love to hear why it's more dangerous -- necessarily, absolutely, axiomatically -- to vest power in government instead of the private sector. I mean, I and several dozen others here have asked that of every single 'libertarian' that's posted on the forum.

    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C
    Because INVISIBLE HAND!!

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    This isn't Europe. Which seems to be the reason we revolted in the first place.

    Well I do declare I find the stamp tax most appalling!

    We should have some sort of demonstration; perhaps capture the incoming stamp shipments and lick them all preemptively. Then toss the whole thing in the harbor.

    Oh and blame it on Indians.

    Armored Gorilla on
    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Health care is a tough thing. Ill admit I wouldn't min a socialist approach since going to the doctor without paying would rule but whenever you nationalize an industry you put the power of that industry in the hands of the government. That to me is the danger in it. I'd love to hear an alternative that has the same effect without nationalization.

    Whereas right now it's in the hands of insurance company bean counters

    How is that better?

    nexuscrawler on
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Health care is a tough thing. Ill admit I wouldn't min a socialist approach since going to the doctor without paying would rule but whenever you nationalize an industry you put the power of that industry in the hands of the government. That to me is the danger in it. I'd love to hear an alternative that has the same effect without nationalization.

    Whereas right now it's in the hands of insurance company bean counters

    How is that better?

    I love that particular argument. People are being turned down for health insurance by companies due to pre-existing conditions, so we'd like the government to handle it. "But the government will turn down people for pre-existing conditions!" Wouldn't one think the lawmakers would craft it so that doesn't happen?

    Armored Gorilla on
    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    oneeyedjack909 wrote: View Post
    quote:
    In the other thread we had that was an exact duplicate of this I asked the OP why he didn't simply abandon a definition of a word that has ceased to have any relevance and accept that he is now a centrist-Democrat. Well, okay, I asked like three times. Point is, the guy never got back to me.
    what's wrong with a centralist libertarian?
    "Libertarian," to me, is the shorthand for saying "far-right conservative." Saying "centrist Libertarian" is redundant in that, as I understand and place the terms, you're basically just saying you're an average fiscal conservative who is also 'socially liberal.'

    Social conservatism is going to become a ghost politically in the coming decades. We might see 'social conservatism' disappear from the Republican party within a handful of election cycles, even. We really are on the brink.

    If you are using "libertarian" simply to mean socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I guess it's still a valuable shorthand in America. For the time being! Buuut, apart from these definitions of theory, I'd still say that the politicians who mostly espouse and promote those values are centrist-Democrats.

    Although your words might have merit, if you wanted to look up people with the most similar values in American politics -- actually seated politicians -- they would be either fairly left Republicans concentrated in a few states, or the average Democrat, who has become increasingly fiscally-conservative if only as necessary to hold onto their seat against opponents who were attempting to win it away on a platform of more money for my constituents!

    Let me tell you the libertarian party is home to the biggest menagerie of political beliefs and levels of radicallism that you can hope to find. there is no stereotypical libertarian. But I guess collectively they do lean to the right.

    There's no single stereotypical libertarian, no, but there are definitely identifiable types. There are the Randians (fuck everybody else mememememememe, see Bob the Angry Flower comic), the glibertarians (Megan McArdle, Tom Friedman, the character Stephen Colbert, basically neocons that scream louder about taxes) and the rank-and-file fuckers that seem to just like the name and ideology but know fuck-all about politics or history when pressed.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I'd still love to hear why it's more dangerous -- necessarily, absolutely, axiomatically -- to vest power in government instead of the private sector. I mean, I and several dozen others here have asked that of every single 'libertarian' that's posted on the forum.

    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    The same reason communism is a terrible idea. When you put an industries power in the governments hands and a an individual dissents against that government (which is and individuals right) violently or non violently whats to keep that gov't from denying the services that industry offers based on political stance. It may sound outrageous or paranoid but it has happened before in other countries and even this one. The nice thing about it is the interstate act prevents private businesses from denying individuals of that right but history has shown that governments don't tend to check themselves when they hold absolute power in a certain area. in other words, and this is just an example not something i necissarilly foresee happening,, what happens if all members of say, the communist party suddenly had all their government health insurance cards blacklisted? Hope that explains my stance

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    meh... I don't understand the Right's love affair with State's Rights. For me, the states have never done anything of value.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I guess what I'm saying is for a supposeably conservative party the GOP hasn't really shown it since, oh i don't know, the 1800s?

    Lincoln extended Civil Rights to an entire race (at least in theory until the Southern states got "states rights" again), created the IRS and the first national income tax and the first national progressive tax, increased the power of the federal government more than any President other than FDR, ascribed to the Living Document paradigm of Constitutional Law (and included the Declaration of Independence and possibly even the Northwest Ordinance as a binding Constitutional document) and wrote
    The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.

    In the mid-1800s, the two factions of the Republican party were the Liberal Republicans and the Radical(ly Liberal) Republicans. The Democratic Party was the Conservative party until the New Deal Coalition formed during the FDR Administration.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    You mean the D&D echo chamber of Hopium has never gotten a satisfactory answer to stop it's undying loathing for free market solutions?

    :P

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Health care is a tough thing. Ill admit I wouldn't min a socialist approach since going to the doctor without paying would rule but whenever you nationalize an industry you put the power of that industry in the hands of the government. That to me is the danger in it. I'd love to hear an alternative that has the same effect without nationalization.

    Whereas right now it's in the hands of insurance company bean counters

    How is that better?

    I love that particular argument. People are being turned down for health insurance by companies due to pre-existing conditions, so we'd like the government to handle it. "But the government will turn down people for pre-existing conditions!" Wouldn't one think the lawmakers would craft it so that doesn't happen?
    That's what Obama's planning to do.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I'd still love to hear why it's more dangerous -- necessarily, absolutely, axiomatically -- to vest power in government instead of the private sector. I mean, I and several dozen others here have asked that of every single 'libertarian' that's posted on the forum.

    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    The same reason communism is a terrible idea. When you put an industries power in the governments hands and a an individual dissents against that government (which is and individuals right) violently or non violently whats to keep that gov't from denying the services that industry offers based on political stance. It may sound outrageous or paranoid but it has happened before in other countries and even this one. The nice thing about it is the interstate act prevents private businesses from denying individuals of that right but history has shown that governments don't tend to check themselves when they hold absolute power in a certain area. in other words, and this is just an example not something i necissarilly foresee happening,, what happens if all members of say, the communist party suddenly had all their government health insurance cards blacklisted? Hope that explains my stance

    Again insurance companies don't have a problem holding back treatment till you die if they get away with it.

    How is the private sector better in this regard?

    nexuscrawler on
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I'd still love to hear why it's more dangerous -- necessarily, absolutely, axiomatically -- to vest power in government instead of the private sector. I mean, I and several dozen others here have asked that of every single 'libertarian' that's posted on the forum.

    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    The same reason communism is a terrible idea. When you put an industries power in the governments hands and a an individual dissents against that government (which is and individuals right) violently or non violently whats to keep that gov't from denying the services that industry offers based on political stance. It may sound outrageous or paranoid but it has happened before in other countries and even this one. The nice thing about it is the interstate act prevents private businesses from denying individuals of that right but history has shown that governments don't tend to check themselves when they hold absolute power in a certain area. in other words, and this is just an example not something i necissarilly foresee happening,, what happens if all members of say, the communist party suddenly had all their government health insurance cards blacklisted? Hope that explains my stance

    Your stance is stupid. There are a number of safeguards in a democracy that would prevent this type of abuse in almost any democracy, and if you are in a dictatorship, well, you probably have other concerns.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    I'd still love to hear why it's more dangerous -- necessarily, absolutely, axiomatically -- to vest power in government instead of the private sector. I mean, I and several dozen others here have asked that of every single 'libertarian' that's posted on the forum.

    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    The government does not have the same motivations that the private sector has to find the best way to do a job. The private sector has to make a profit on something to stay alive, when a division of the government will more or less still get their funding no matter what unless they really screw up horribly. Even then, they will probably get even more money to try and fix the situation. This doesn't really work that same with all products though. In the case of something with inelastic demand, like health care, the benefits of having the government provide care may out weigh the risks. The main fear is that the government establishes the ability to just nationalize entire industries and after a while we have so much government influence that it really starts to interfere with the free market. We could have a more centrally planned economy, where government leaders have more control over businesses than the demand of consumers. Centrally planned economies are always worse than free market ones. No exceptions. It's not that we hate people and don't want them to have health care, we just realize that it could be a slippery slope.

    Smurph on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    You mean the D&D echo chamber of Hopium has never gotten a satisfactory answer to stop it's undying loathing for free market solutions?

    :P
    I really don't think "some governments in the world, historically, neverminding relevancy to present-day America, have become totalitarian or tyrranical!" is a satisfactory answer, no, and that's the only one we ever get.

    Do you think that's satisfactory? Because if we grant that logic its free pass, it opens the doors to a whole floodgate of bullshit which is just as logically valid and immediately contradicts every bit of headway the libertarian just 'gained.'

    Oboro on
    words
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I love that particular argument. People are being turned down for health insurance by companies due to pre-existing conditions, so we'd like the government to handle it. "But the government will turn down people for pre-existing conditions!" Wouldn't one think the lawmakers would craft it so that doesn't happen?

    Sorta like they did with social security numbers? The original law spoke of not denying any American anything based on his/her refusal to produce said number but fuck-all if thats the case today. You see when congress passes a law that contradicts a preexisting law the new law stands untill it is brought before the supreme court in a case.

    oneeyedjack909 on
    "A mans first duty is to his conscience and honor"- Mark Twain

    "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for a little safety diserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Smurph wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    I'd still love to hear why it's more dangerous -- necessarily, absolutely, axiomatically -- to vest power in government instead of the private sector. I mean, I and several dozen others here have asked that of every single 'libertarian' that's posted on the forum.

    None of them ever had a satisfactory answer. How about you? :C

    The government does not have the same motivations that the private sector has to find the best way to do a job. The private sector has to make a profit on something to stay alive, when a division of the government will more or less still get their funding no matter what unless they really screw up horribly. Even then, they will probably get even more money to try and fix the situation. This doesn't really work that same with all products though. In the case of something with inelastic demand, like health care, the benefits of having the government provide care may out weigh the risks. The main fear is that the government establishes the ability to just nationalize entire industries and after a while we have so much government influence that it really starts to interfere with the free market. We could have a more centrally planned economy, where government leaders have more control over businesses than the demand of consumers. Centrally planned economies are always worse than free market ones. No exceptions. It's not that we hate people and don't want them to have health care, we just realize that it could be a slippery slope.

    Best? really? You sure you don't mean cheapest, most reckless, most ignorant of any concerns relating to human life?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    also every libertarian should be writing their senator daily on the subject of American farm subsidies, since that essentially is the doomsday scenario they all describe in threads like this, and it's already happening, and it's infinitely more destructive globally than even the worst-case scenario one could envision from nationalizing healthcare in whole or in part, so uh

    redirect your energies to where it's most needed?

    Oboro on
    words
«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.