What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope.

Then what are you implying?

I'm not implying anything, I'm making a statement, here it is;

I can't help everyone by myself but many still need help.

The government is the best way to ensure old/poor don't starve and the best way to ensure help is available to all that need it.

It won't take all of your money to help, just a pittance.

I'm also declaring that I have no problem spending a bit of your money, along with mine, to help fellow Americans.

The only rebuttal to that so far is I'm a morality bigot and I accept that too. I don't really care as long as those that need help get it.

What evidence do you have that the government is the best way to help people? Why don't you and I actually discuss this issue specifically? You provide evidence that the government is the best way to provide assistance, and I will provide evidence that other options work better. Lets find out who can make a better case.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The government is the best way to ensure old/poor don't starve and the best way to ensure help is available to all that need it.

Central government liberal welfare creates poverty, it does not end it. American blacks, for example, were the primary target of liberal welfare back in the 60's. It amounted to a near genocide against them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Then what are you implying?

I'm not implying anything, I'm making a statement, here it is;

I can't help everyone by myself but many still need help.

The government is the best way to ensure old/poor don't starve and the best way to ensure help is available to all that need it.

It won't take all of your money to help, just a pittance.

I'm also declaring that I have no problem spending a bit of your money, along with mine, to help fellow Americans.

The only rebuttal to that so far is I'm a morality bigot and I accept that too. I don't really care as long as those that need help get it.

What evidence do you have that the government is the best way to help people? Why don't you and I actually discuss this issue specifically? You provide evidence that the government is the best way to provide assistance, and I will provide evidence that other options work better. Lets find out who can make a better case.

If I may, the answer depends on which government. In 1906 San Francisco had a massive earthquake followed by a fire. The US government was able to muster every tent in their arsenal and get them to The City within days. The Bush Administration never did get those trailers on line after Katrina.

Somethings require a massive influx of men, material and money. The few Americans who control massive amounts of money aren't going to part with it out of the goodness of their hearts. At times it will require the resources of the Federal Government.

The huge bureaucracy which is the Federal Government developed over the years to fix problems not fixable by the private sector. I want my meat and produce inspected by a bureaucrat, not an employee of those who profit in meat and produce sales.

I want my water supply maintained and inspected by those who are not paid by those who profit from its sale.

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts. When the clowns and fools running for the Republican Nomination learn that leadership is not placing blame on others, saying over and over "ain't it awful' and making promises in the wind, maybe there will be something to debate.

As for now there is nothing in the words of Libertarians or conservatives or Republicans but an ideological argument based on assumptions not proved or proven as failures.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Good thread Wry Catcher.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I want my water supply maintained and inspected by those who are not paid by those who profit from its sale.

shall we turn Coke and Pepsi over to the liberals as the Soviets and Red Chinese did and so starve 100 million to death on liberal inspected food and drink products?????????????


If Pepsi poisons someone they are out of business, if the government poisons and impoverishes you, they merely hire a new bureaucrat and pray he too he doesn't get bribed or get lazy. Catching on now? See where profit is the best incentive, rather than the worst?

Liberals lack the intelligence to understand freedom so like little children they believe in magical government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As for now there is nothing in the words of Libertarians or conservatives or Republicans but an ideological argument based on assumptions not proved or proven as failures.

Of course thats purely idiotic and purely liberal. America is the most libertarian country in human history and so the source of civilization and wealth on earth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts.

If you think our Founders were nuts why not move to Cuba?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The huge bureaucracy which is the Federal Government developed over the years to fix problems not fixable by the private sector..

yes, obviously, like the liberal government caused Great Depression and the current Great Recession. If we had a bureaucracy as big as France's we could have an average income like Arkansas's too!! Even better, if we had a Soviet sized bureaucracy we could have a soviet sized en masse liberal famine too! What was Red China thinking when it switched to freedom and capitalism to end the famines that slowly starved 30 million to death at a time?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts.

If you think our Founders were nuts why not move to Cuba?

It's too hot and humid and I don't speak Spanish. I also enjoy the greatest freedom in the world as a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding the fear mongering and hysterical rants of conservatives and Libertarians.

I don't believe our founders were nuts; I believe they were products of the 16th and 17th centuries and could not fathom the world of the 21st Century. What they accomplished through bravery and genius is incredible, but they could not foresee our world or anticipated the myriad problems we might face.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts.

If you think our Founders were nuts why not move to Cuba?

It's too hot and humid and I don't speak Spanish.

but you would not seem so treasonous and anti American there and you would not be so ashamed.

I also enjoy the greatest freedom in the world as a citizen of the United States,

actually freedom in America means freedom from big liberal government the very thing you support. Are you slow? What did you think Jefferson created America for anyway???

I don't believe our founders were nuts; I believe they were products of the 16th and 17th centuries and could not fathom the world of the 21st Century.

too stupid!!! they looked at all the centuries before they created America. They knew liberal government was the source of evil as a result. THey did not need to see the great 20th century liberals: Hitler Stalin Mao to know it. You have seen it and still can't understand it.

What they accomplished through bravery and genius is incredible, but they could not foresee our world or anticipated the myriad problems we might face.

there is nothing knew under the sun. Why do you think you are so afriad to identify a "new" problem you are referring to? What does your fear tell you, liberal!.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually I fear ignorance, I fear you Edward.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually I fear ignorance, I fear you Edward.

of course if conservatism was ignorant you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

Do you think no one noticed that the liberal needed to the change the subject when he could not answer?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually I fear ignorance, I fear you Edward.

of course if conservatism was ignorant you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

Do you think no one noticed that the liberal needed to the change the subject when he could not answer?

If I'm the "liberal" you allude to, post the question by message number. I admit I don't spend all day or read every message - there are some I've learned to ignore, and you may well earn a place in that club.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually I fear ignorance, I fear you Edward.

So, how far under your covers do you hide when you see yourself in the bedroom mirror?

Oh, wait - you said you fear ignorance, not dishonesty and hypocirsy.

Never mind - carry on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually I fear ignorance, I fear you Edward.

of course if conservatism was ignorant you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

Do you think no one noticed that the liberal needed to the change the subject when he could not answer?

Dunno if you noticed, but he's been doing that since he started the topic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually I fear ignorance, I fear you Edward.

of course if conservatism was ignorant you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

Do you think no one noticed that the liberal needed to the change the subject when he could not answer?

Dunno if you noticed, but he's been doing that since he started the topic.

You lie! Post #33 got a response; and Edward the Ignorant repeats the lie.

What part of FU did you not understand?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not implying anything, I'm making a statement, here it is;

I can't help everyone by myself but many still need help.

The government is the best way to ensure old/poor don't starve and the best way to ensure help is available to all that need it.

It won't take all of your money to help, just a pittance.

I'm also declaring that I have no problem spending a bit of your money, along with mine, to help fellow Americans.

The only rebuttal to that so far is I'm a morality bigot and I accept that too. I don't really care as long as those that need help get it.

What evidence do you have that the government is the best way to help people? Why don't you and I actually discuss this issue specifically? You provide evidence that the government is the best way to provide assistance, and I will provide evidence that other options work better. Lets find out who can make a better case.

If I may, the answer depends on which government. In 1906 San Francisco had a massive earthquake followed by a fire. The US government was able to muster every tent in their arsenal and get them to The City within days. The Bush Administration never did get those trailers on line after Katrina.

Somethings require a massive influx of men, material and money. The few Americans who control massive amounts of money aren't going to part with it out of the goodness of their hearts. At times it will require the resources of the Federal Government.

The huge bureaucracy which is the Federal Government developed over the years to fix problems not fixable by the private sector. I want my meat and produce inspected by a bureaucrat, not an employee of those who profit in meat and produce sales.

I want my water supply maintained and inspected by those who are not paid by those who profit from its sale.

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts. When the clowns and fools running for the Republican Nomination learn that leadership is not placing blame on others, saying over and over "ain't it awful' and making promises in the wind, maybe there will be something to debate.

As for now there is nothing in the words of Libertarians or conservatives or Republicans but an ideological argument based on assumptions not proved or proven as failures.

If it depends on which government then it is pretty obvious that the government is not the best at responding, doesn't? The most interesting part of your post was that you chose to portray the way the government handled the 1906 response to the San Francisco earthquake as an example of the good that government can do. Apparently you think that a general instituting a dictatorship in a disaster area, without authority from his superiors, ignoring the constitution, and summarily executing hundreds of people, is a good thing.

I happen to disagree.

The Great Quake: 1906-2006 / As with Katrina, federal role caused discord - SFGate

As for the huge bureaucracy fixing problems not fixable by the private sector, can I point out that WalMart was able to get food and supplies to the affected area faster than the feds? It seems that, because their supply chain is extremely flexible, and they effectively have no bureaucracy, they can do a better job in responding to disasters than the agencies that are supposed to do the job because the private sector can't possibly respond.

Wal-Mart Way in Disaster Preparedness/Response: Policy Implications

Since my challenge to Nic, which you accepted, was specifically about proving the federal government is the best way to take care of people, and the two examples you provided are so completely wrong, I see no reason to even address the stawman arguments you threw up in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you have no hope of proving your side of the challenge. I will also point out that, despite the fact that you assumed all I could provide were ideological arguments that have already been debunked, what I actually provided were facts and analysis to prove that my points are based on reality.

Fell free to continue to make my point for me though, it saves me actually having to do anything myself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What evidence do you have that the government is the best way to help people? Why don't you and I actually discuss this issue specifically? You provide evidence that the government is the best way to provide assistance, and I will provide evidence that other options work better. Lets find out who can make a better case.

If I may, the answer depends on which government. In 1906 San Francisco had a massive earthquake followed by a fire. The US government was able to muster every tent in their arsenal and get them to The City within days. The Bush Administration never did get those trailers on line after Katrina.

Somethings require a massive influx of men, material and money. The few Americans who control massive amounts of money aren't going to part with it out of the goodness of their hearts. At times it will require the resources of the Federal Government.

The huge bureaucracy which is the Federal Government developed over the years to fix problems not fixable by the private sector. I want my meat and produce inspected by a bureaucrat, not an employee of those who profit in meat and produce sales.

I want my water supply maintained and inspected by those who are not paid by those who profit from its sale.

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts. When the clowns and fools running for the Republican Nomination learn that leadership is not placing blame on others, saying over and over "ain't it awful' and making promises in the wind, maybe there will be something to debate.

As for now there is nothing in the words of Libertarians or conservatives or Republicans but an ideological argument based on assumptions not proved or proven as failures.

If it depends on which government then it is pretty obvious that the government is not the best at responding, doesn't? The most interesting part of your post was that you chose to portray the way the government handled the 1906 response to the San Francisco earthquake as an example of the good that government can do. Apparently you think that a general instituting a dictatorship in a disaster area, without authority from his superiors, ignoring the constitution, and summarily executing hundreds of people, is a good thing.

I happen to disagree.

The Great Quake: 1906-2006 / As with Katrina, federal role caused discord - SFGate

As for the huge bureaucracy fixing problems not fixable by the private sector, can I point out that WalMart was able to get food and supplies to the affected area faster than the feds? It seems that, because their supply chain is extremely flexible, and they effectively have no bureaucracy, they can do a better job in responding to disasters than the agencies that are supposed to do the job because the private sector can't possibly respond.

Wal-Mart Way in Disaster Preparedness/Response: Policy Implications

Since my challenge to Nic, which you accepted, was specifically about proving the federal government is the best way to take care of people, and the two examples you provided are so completely wrong, I see no reason to even address the stawman arguments you threw up in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you have no hope of proving your side of the challenge. I will also point out that, despite the fact that you assumed all I could provide were ideological arguments that have already been debunked, what I actually provided were facts and analysis to prove that my points are based on reality.

Fell free to continue to make my point for me though, it saves me actually having to do anything myself.

You wouldn't know a straw man if it tickled you on the tummy, so don't use terms you don't understand.

"In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down."

That said I, as usual offered an opinion without lying. You on the other hand offer this, "Apparently you think that a general instituting a dictatorship in a disaster area, without authority from his superiors, ignoring the constitution, and summarily executing hundreds of people, is a good thing."

Some lotters were shot on sight, hundreds of people executed is utter bull shit.

As aftershocks jarred and fires spread on the morning of April 18, 1906, an increasingly unnerved population started to panic. Hundreds massed at the Ferry Building in an attempt to escape the city. The tense disarray and lack of order stirred the growing crowds. In anticipation of the looting, violence, and disorder that would come, Brigadier General Frederick Funston, acting commander of the of the Pacific Division, immediately ordered Presidio troops into San Francisco. With this military presence came a bold proclamation from Mayor Eugene Schmitz:

"The Federal Troops, the members of the Regular Police Force and all Special Police Officers have been authorized by me to KILL any and all persons found engaged in Looting or in the Commission of Any Other Crime."

Schmitz's infamous edict authorized the U.S. Army to maintain order in the streets; however, the Mayor was not authorized to permit the shooting of civilians. Nevertheless, army troops worked amidst the chaos to maintain law and order, close saloons, and evacuate residents. By the second day, Army and Navy forces were joined by the police and the California National Guard—as well as bands of armed civilians—in an effort to quell violence in the city. The presence of military within the city both enforced and undermined the city government's authority. Neither Mayor Schmitz nor General Funston advocated martial law, but without an organized center of control, the various groups issued and followed contrasting orders.

Presidio of San Francisco - 1906 Earthquake: Law Enforcement (U.S. National Park Service)

 

[Foxfyre]

No, a straw man is a misrepresentation of he opponents position or a false representation of the opponent's position and is generally constructed to divert from the opponents position. The straw man is easily attacked when the opponent's position may be bullet proof.

 

[The T]

No, a straw man is a misrepresentation of he opponents position or a false representation of the opponent's position and is generally constructed to divert from the opponents position. The straw man is easily attacked when the opponent's position may be bullet proof.

(And armed with a flamethrower)...