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

24567

Posts

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    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?

    Yeah, this is usually how it winds up. Nestle and their slave chocolate, Enron, banks making shitty loans, etc. With all the bad that happens in and because of the free market, that people still support it as this utopian ideal absolutely baffles me.

    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.
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    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.'

    I think that given the overwhelming lopsidedness of the D&D forum deters any real debate on any issue that doesn't become a 20 to 1 slaughterfest of ideology.

    Which is fine, I prefer it that way.

    But I'm not going to pretend that any real reasonable debate over differing viewpoints greater than how much socialism is too much is ever going to take place, or that anyone will ever get an answer that is so completely convincing that it will break through the lenses that shape our beliefs and change anyone's mind. At least, not on D&D.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ITT: Kagera forgets about Jewcars and ElJeffes. :( Some of us were republicans before the Bush era. It's getting really tiring hearing people claim that everyone in D&D agrees on everything because it's not true.

    Incenjucar on
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    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?

    Yeah, this is usually how it winds up. Nestle and their slave chocolate, Enron, banks making shitty loans, etc. With all the bad that happens in and because of the free market, that people still support it as this utopian ideal absolutely baffles me.

    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie

    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
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    ITT: Kagera forgets about Jewcars and ElJeffes. :( Some of us were republicans before the Bush era. It's getting really tiring hearing people claim that everyone in D&D agrees on everything because it's not true.

    Can you honestly say that D&D was the primary reason for your shift in political views?

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie

    We're not capitalists.

    Like European countries, we do things in different degrees of moderation. Extremism leaves you vulnerable to the weaknesses of idealogies without anything to patch the holes.

    --

    Kagera: No. My views changed in 2001 during the Axis of Evil speech when I realized we had a preacher for president. Nobody here has been in a position to give me an "oh snap!" moment.

    Incenjucar on
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    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?

    I mean the best way according to the market. People won't buy from companies they don't like. Companies spend hundreds of millions every year trying to improve their image.

    Smurph on
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie
    It is ridiculous to even conceive of tabulating any kind of scorecard that breaks down times and places into either "capitalist" or "socialist" and then names the day and age a win or a loss. It's stupid to take the transition from communism to tyrannism as axiomatic because it was observed at X in Y, and it's just as stupid to attribute the points from A at B to "socialism" or "capitalism" whole-cloth.

    It's a very nuanced discussion and there's a reason it's all hand-wringing when it's big pictures like this instead of more focused threads like, say, addressing nationalized healthcare specifically, where we actually have a scope and can produce statistics.

    A thread this broad is, unfortunately, just punditry. It can't be anything more. :|

    Oboro on
    words
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    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?

    Yeah, this is usually how it winds up. Nestle and their slave chocolate, Enron, banks making shitty loans, etc. With all the bad that happens in and because of the free market, that people still support it as this utopian ideal absolutely baffles me.

    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie

    Much of Europe would like to have a talk with you and your warped, Fox News world view about leftism.

    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.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Smurph wrote: »
    I mean the best way according to the market. People won't buy from companies they don't like. Companies spend hundreds of millions every year trying to improve their image.

    Perception is reality?

    Because you see there is still Nestle.

    Incenjucar on
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie

    We're not capitalists.

    Like European countries, we do things in different degrees of moderation. Extremism leaves you vulnerable to the weaknesses of idealogies without anything to patch the holes.

    --

    Kagera: No. My views changed in 2001 during the Axis of Evil speech when I realized we had a preacher for president. Nobody here has been in a position to give me an "oh snap!" moment.

    You caught me. We arent true capitalists but our system is vastly superior to that of the soviet's

    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
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Kagera: No. My views changed in 2001 during the Axis of Evil speech when I realized we had a preacher for president. Nobody here has been in a position to give me an "oh snap!" moment.

    Which is all I'm saying.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    You caught me. We arent true capitalists but our system is vastly superior to that of the soviet's

    Wait, are you confusing socialism with communism?

    Where is the "cut yourself" .gif...

    --

    Kagera: You implied that everyone here held the same idealogy. "20 to 1"

    Incenjucar on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    I'm a Conservative. The GOP isn't.

    Most Libertarians are Conservative, they just can't use that word because of social stipulations.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?

    Sadly our two party system is not à la carte, much like cable TV. I voted Republican because of taxes and gun rights. Iraq is over and done and I can care less about the abortion fight, it's a dead topic in my view.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    You caught me. We arent true capitalists but our system is vastly superior to that of the soviet's

    Wait, are you confusing socialism with communism?

    Where is the "cut yourself" .gif...

    --

    Kagera: You implied that everyone here held the same idealogy. "20 to 1"

    What is the difference in your eyes?

    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: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    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?

    I mean the best way according to the market. People won't buy from companies they don't like. Companies spend hundreds of millions every year trying to improve their image.

    Really? Then please explain sweatshops, and the entire manufacturing industry in the United States up until around the 1920's.

    The only thing most consumers care about is the price. Especially when they don't have to see everything else.

    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?'
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Kagera: You implied that everyone here held the same idealogy. "20 to 1"

    No I specifically said that people debate, but that the spectrum was extremely limited, hence the 20 to 1 statement.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    the current Libertarian mindset seems really off to me. As in they always seem to be really lopsided towards the rigth is which "socialist" ideals they rail againsts.

    correct me if I'm wrong but I' never heard a librearian speak out agaisnt:
    farm subsidies
    lobbying interests
    no bid government contracts
    the miltary industrial complex
    taking away states rights on things like medical marijuana

    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
    Emanon wrote: »
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?

    Sadly our two party system is not à la carte, much like cable TV. I voted Republican because of taxes and gun rights. Iraq is over and done and I can care less about the abortion fight, it's a dead topic in my view.
    Yes, because if the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that lowering taxes no matter what is a sound economic plan.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie

    We're not capitalists.

    Like European countries, we do things in different degrees of moderation. Extremism leaves you vulnerable to the weaknesses of idealogies without anything to patch the holes.

    --

    Kagera: No. My views changed in 2001 during the Axis of Evil speech when I realized we had a preacher for president. Nobody here has been in a position to give me an "oh snap!" moment.

    You caught me. We arent true capitalists but our system is vastly superior to that of the soviet's

    Seriously, it's like you stepped out of a 1950's propaganda film.

    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?'
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    What is the difference in your eyes?

    For starters, Europe and America are Socialist.

    Whereas no actual communist country has ever been.

    Incenjucar on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Yeah, this is usually how it winds up. Nestle and their slave chocolate, Enron, banks making shitty loans, etc. With all the bad that happens in and because of the free market, that people still support it as this utopian ideal absolutely baffles me.

    Versus the government and its incessent warmongering and suppression of human rights. Or religions and their constant butchering of those with opposing beliefs. Or aid charities having links to terrorism. I mean, straw men are fun, but pointing out examples of corporate malfeasance isn't exactly damning of the entire structure of capitalism. Most human organizations have awful aspects to them, and government of all of them is probably the least clean in that regard. People who support any ideal without regard to the practical effects of implementing that ideal are almost invariably zealots, so I don't know why we are even discussing it.

    The main problem with leaving control with the government is that they control the army and police force and thus have the ability to actually use force to project thier wants and needs. I mean, sure corporations can manipulate culture and such, but that is far more nebelous and far less scary in my opinion than just the naked excercise of force. Also, corporations are no where near as powerful as the United States government. So their scope is necessarily far more limited. Granted, the chances of them excercising that force probably isn't great at all, but its still something to be wary of.

    Second, the incentives for private industry are different than those of governments. Sometimes this works out in the favor of private markets (getting my cheap cheetos), sometimes it works in favor of government (not explicitly having police force respond to crime based on income).

    Saammiel on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    the current Libertarian mindset seems really off to me. As in they always seem to be really lopsided towards the rigth is which "socialist" ideals they rail againsts.

    correct me if I'm wrong but I' never heard a librearian speak out agaisnt:
    farm subsidies
    lobbying interests
    no bid government contracts
    the miltary industrial complex
    taking away states rights on things like medical marijuana

    I'm pretty sure Penn & Teller have taken on half those subjects with their usual 'logic' of 'here's this guy who's perfect, and here's this jackass who's wrong and stupid'.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Emanon wrote: »
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?

    Sadly our two party system is not à la carte, much like cable TV. I voted Republican because of taxes and gun rights. Iraq is over and done and I can care less about the abortion fight, it's a dead topic in my view.

    There's nothing wrong with lowering taxes. Lowering taxes on only the ultra wealthy when they're your consistency is stupid. As is lowering taxes when you're running up costs on unnecessary things.

    Depending on the situation raising or lowering taxes may be the right or wrong choice. Pretending like lowering taxes is the only proper choice is stupid. It's also quite stupid when it's your only economic theory which is the trap the GOP has fallen into.

    nexuscrawler on
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    the current Libertarian mindset seems really off to me. As in they always seem to be really lopsided towards the rigth is which "socialist" ideals they rail againsts.

    correct me if I'm wrong but I' never heard a librearian speak out agaisnt:
    farm subsidies
    lobbying interests
    no bid government contracts
    the miltary industrial complex
    taking away states rights on things like medical marijuana

    I think you may be mistaken. while this generality is not universal the libertarianism I identify with is for farm subsidies, the legalization drugs, and some libertarians endorse a mandatory draft ( for the record, I am ardently against this).

    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
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Emanon wrote: »
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?

    Sadly our two party system is not à la carte, much like cable TV. I voted Republican because of taxes and gun rights. Iraq is over and done and I can care less about the abortion fight, it's a dead topic in my view.
    Yes, because if the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that lowering taxes no matter what is a sound economic plan.[/QUOTE

    Um, it was. It helped after 9/11 and Katrina. The tax drop isn't why we're in this economic mess today.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Emanon wrote: »
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?
    Because the reason the budget isn't balanced is because Republicans keep cutting taxes without cutting spending and because you gain benefit from government.
    Emanon wrote: »
    Iraq is over and done a
    Coulda fooled me
    300h.jpg

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Emanon wrote: »
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?

    Sadly our two party system is not à la carte, much like cable TV. I voted Republican because of taxes and gun rights. Iraq is over and done and I can care less about the abortion fight, it's a dead topic in my view.
    Yes, because if the last 8 years have taught us anything, it's that lowering taxes no matter what is a sound economic plan.

    Um, it was. It helped after 9/11 and Katrina. The tax drop isn't why we're in this economic mess today.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    Emanon wrote: »
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?
    Because the reason the budget isn't balanced is because Republicans keep cutting taxes without cutting spending and because you gain benefit from government.
    Emanon wrote: »
    Iraq is over and done a
    Coulda fooled me
    300h.jpg

    Vietnam vets are still dying from agent orange. The war in Iraq is basically over, that's why it wasn't a big issue this election.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie

    We're not capitalists.

    Like European countries, we do things in different degrees of moderation. Extremism leaves you vulnerable to the weaknesses of idealogies without anything to patch the holes.

    --

    Kagera: No. My views changed in 2001 during the Axis of Evil speech when I realized we had a preacher for president. Nobody here has been in a position to give me an "oh snap!" moment.

    You caught me. We arent true capitalists but our system is vastly superior to that of the soviet's

    Seriously, it's like you stepped out of a 1950's propaganda film.

    This isn't fear mongering or some propaganda sling fest. Communism sucks. Che Guevera was wrong, and so was Lenin and Karl. Are you really making an argument for these people?

    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
  • 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
    Emanon wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Emanon wrote: »
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?
    Because the reason the budget isn't balanced is because Republicans keep cutting taxes without cutting spending and because you gain benefit from government.
    Emanon wrote: »
    Iraq is over and done a
    Coulda fooled me
    300h.jpg

    Vietnam vets are still dying from agent orange. The war in Iraq is basically over, that's why it wasn't a big issue this election.
    It was going to be THE issue until our economy imploded. McCain's whole thing was about foreign policy, specifically, our two wars.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Emanon wrote: »
    Vietnam vets are still dying from agent orange. The war in Iraq is basically over, that's why it wasn't a big issue this election.

    Except exchange agent orange for rebel insurgents, add actual troops still in Iraq, and include a death toll of 4000 American troops alone since 'Mission Accomplished' then yeah you pretty much are dead on.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    What is the difference in your eyes?

    For starters, Europe and America are Socialist.

    Whereas no actual communist country has ever been.

    I love the "no actual communist country has ever been" argument. The truth is that every time a country tries to be communist they either wind up letting a brutal dictator turn them into a hell hole or have to eventually turn to the free market to survive. Communism just doesn't work in the real world.

    Smurph 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
    Smurph wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    What is the difference in your eyes?

    For starters, Europe and America are Socialist.

    Whereas no actual communist country has ever been.

    I love the "no actual communist country has ever been" argument. The truth is that every time a country tries to be communist they either wind up letting a brutal dictator turn them into a hell hole or have to eventually turn to the free market to survive. Communism just doesn't work in the real world.

    Yes, but we're talking about Socialism.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    What's wrong with being conservative and wanting lower taxes? Why should my money go to idiots who can't balance a budget?

    I agree.

    But it's hard to separate those goobers from people who really have been dealt a sour hand in life and need help.

    I'd rather suck it up and waste a bit of money on an asshat if it means someone who needs it gets it to instead of depriving them both.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • oneeyedjack909oneeyedjack909 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    As I recall communism was first called socialism and communism was later developed as a spin off.

    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
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    This isn't fear mongering or some propaganda sling fest. Communism sucks. Che Guevera was wrong, and so was Lenin and Karl. Are you really making an argument for these people?
    Communism =/= socialism.

    You were just told this.

    Quid on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Almost as ridiculous as why people embrace socialism as the ideal. capitalism isn't perfect but we have a much better track record than that of any commie

    We're not capitalists.

    Like European countries, we do things in different degrees of moderation. Extremism leaves you vulnerable to the weaknesses of idealogies without anything to patch the holes.

    --

    Kagera: No. My views changed in 2001 during the Axis of Evil speech when I realized we had a preacher for president. Nobody here has been in a position to give me an "oh snap!" moment.

    You caught me. We arent true capitalists but our system is vastly superior to that of the soviet's

    Seriously, it's like you stepped out of a 1950's propaganda film.

    This isn't fear mongering or some propaganda sling fest. Communism sucks. Che Guevera was wrong, and so was Lenin and Karl. Are you really making an argument for these people?

    Why... would anyone have to?

    I mean, to a greater or lesser extent every single modern democracy is based on the same format of a socialist republic. Except Italy, where the government is chosen by Zeus.

    So the idea that you can make any argument with "or communism!" is ridiculous. It's not "or communism" it's "or Denmark's greater social intervention programs".

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    the current Libertarian mindset seems really off to me. As in they always seem to be really lopsided towards the rigth is which "socialist" ideals they rail againsts.

    correct me if I'm wrong but I' never heard a librearian speak out agaisnt:
    farm subsidies
    lobbying interests
    no bid government contracts
    the miltary industrial complex
    taking away states rights on things like medical marijuana

    Also, are you kidding? I mean, libertarianism in general doesn't get a whole lot of press outside the internets, Ayn Rand crazies running their mouths and Ron Paul revolution zealots, but those issues are certainly discussed by rational libertarians.

    I mean, here is a link to a Cato article from 1989 talking about drug legalization as a means to reduce human misery.

    And one on curbing farm subisidies.

    'Lobbying interests' is suffeciently vague that I don't know what you want there. Generally I think the belief is that a lot of current law a la McCain-Feingold is an abridgement of free speech, but that private sector/public sector entanglements are to be avoided.

    I'm sure they aren't fans of no-bid government contracts or the entanglements between industry and the military, but its harder to track down policy positions on that because its just not talked about a lot.

    Saammiel on
Sign In or Register to comment.