Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Socialists are not lazy. They work very hard trying to figure out ways to pay for their needs and wants with other people's money.I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.
Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.
The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.
But, of course on the flipside, you cons have no trouble labeling us as lazy socialists.
That is just politics.
Yes. Actually they are. When you do business with those corporations you are picking them to be the winner of your money and that of other consumers. You are in a very real sense indeed voting for them.
Actually . . . they are neither democratic nor populist. They are run by owners and stock holders, not the people. "Winner of your money"? Which megaoil corporation did you vote to be the winner of your money? Think this through, please.
Read the whole text and put it into context, Allie. You never do that well.
I doubt you'll find any conservatives who support handouts for corporations. Liberals are the ones who support that. The UAW bailout and Solyndra are the proof.
How can CEO's take money of out of the hands of workers that never belonged to the workers in the first place?
Oooh, "the UAW bailout and Solyndra are the proof".
Yeah...
Because the Wall Street bailouts never happened, to the tune of 600 billion dollars, right?
Or is it, that George W Bush isn't a "conservative"?
I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.
Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.
The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.
And I simply can't agree with that. Or it seems to me at least that a logical action is a matter of perspective. If you give people enough to survive I guess that is logical from the perspective that it keeps you from being bothered by them. Whether it is logical in terms of actually improving their lives is another matter. Another similar example to the above would be a parent who has a drug addict child. The child demands money claiming it's for food. An addict will guilt you into it, beg, cheat, cheat steal etc. to get the money for their fix. They may genuinely not have the money to buy food, that doesn't mean because you give it to them, that's what it's going to get spent on. If the parent gives them the money they do it to esuage their own guilt. They convince themselves it's going to food when they know better or because they convince themselves if they don't they're a bad parent that doesn't care. And all you're really doing is prolonging the problem. From a certain perspective their is a certain logic to that action in the sense that it is an efficient way to make YOU feel better. But it is most certainly not logical from the perspective of actually helping the addict.
Can't agree with what? All I did was say it's based on logic, and explained the logic. You responded with a long paragraph describing why you disagree with that logic.
But you do agree that it constitutes logic nonetheless?
Yes and no. It is logical as a means of making yourself feel better. That same action is not logical in terms of it's effectiveness in actually helping people.
You're an idiot.
God, why you guys make me call you names?
Unfortunately it's true. Look at your policies for a second. Everything you do is about making you and others FEEL good. Paying for everyone's health care sounds like the compassionate thing to do. Giving people money to buy food FEELS like the compassionate thing to do.
The reality is liberals are enablers and hypocrites. They think they help people by paying for the stuff which really only enables the behavior that put people in the bad positin they're in to begin with and they are hypocrites because they demand other people's money to do the helping instead of simply doing it themselves.
No, see... It's really not. If you want to discuss those specific policies I'm happy to do so... In another thread or privately.
The feeling may be an attract-er to the Democratic party for some people, but the policies are not feelings based, they're rooted in logic. Welfare programs have existed for thousands of years. When you help others, you help yourself. Bread and circus in Rome for example. If you give them enough to survive, they don't come lookin for what you've got, and it's cheaper than hiring the guns to control them, and with a better return for the aggregate.
Those labels in my opinion only stick tentatively, but if you're gonna try to stick them, Grunt has them backwards. Liberalism is based on logic, whereas conservatism is based more in tradition and religion as guiding principles.
That's just the way it is - Unlike Grunt I'm not trying to stick them as a perceived pejorative, I'm just stating what is.
The most infuriating thing to conservatives when arguing with liberals is complexity. Conservatives tend to try to boil everything down to simplicity, the argument always starts when someone says "it's not that simple or clearcut."
You mean like the way anyone receiving public assistance is a welfare cheat and all union workers are lazy, overpaid slobs?
This response will be the basis for the thread "what makes liberals annoying #2" But for now, all I can say is this is not a response to the thread and it is typical of the way Liberals try and turn the discussion away from the real issue into a matter of loaded rhetoric that totally ignores the topic at hand. which will be "What makes liberals annoying #3"
I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.
Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.
The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.
If you are actually for completely limited government, then you are not a "Conservative", you are a Libertarian.
True.
Utter nonsense. Leftists demand governmental control of cultural and moral matters. Leftists use to the implied violence to the state to silence those who would dare pray on sacred government grounds. They use the state to force people to perform weddings for homosexuals, to regulate what games people can play.
American leftists seek to micro-manage every aspect of the lives of the subjects under the rule of the government.
True, Libertarians are the ONLY political group that wants government out of social issues.
I suspect, however, that you are in fact a Conservative, and therefore are not simply in favor of general "limited government", which is why you find it so difficult to talk to your polar opposite, a Liberal.
Obamabots and most democrats are not "liberals," you are leftists. The ideals of Marx, Mao and Mussolini are the motive power of the American left, not the ideals of Mason, Jefferson and Franklin.
Where it gets muddied in the minds of the unschooled, however, is that Mason, Jefferson, and Franklin were classical liberals which is emulated almost 100% by modern day Tea Partiers, aka modern American conservatives. They were not liberal in the way that modern American liberals conduct and describe themselves at this time.
I do not believe Libertarians are the only ones who truly want limited government. Libertarians too often do not want states or local communities to be able to legally form the sort of society they wish to have if that should involve restriction of anything such as prostitution, drugs, adult bookstores, nudie bars or whatever. Libertarians are also far to willing to restrict religious displays and activities based on what I believe is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. There are exceptions, most notably such as my heroes Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, et al. who embody the very best of libertarianism (little 'L") and the very best of Classical Liberalism as is manifested in modern American conservatism.
Modern American Conservatives want the federal government to provide the national defense (which would include national security), to promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not a targeted few--and to recognize and secure iour rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
Read the whole text and put it into context, Allie. You never do that well.
"Context" isn't a magic wand that allows you to wave away the facts.
Read the whole text and put it into context, Allie. You never do that well.
"Context" isn't a magic wand that allows you to wave away the facts.
Context forces you, bripat, to do something you don't like: face the facts. Tuff.
Can't agree with what? All I did was say it's based on logic, and explained the logic. You responded with a long paragraph describing why you disagree with that logic.
But you do agree that it constitutes logic nonetheless?
Yes and no. It is logical as a means of making yourself feel better. That same action is not logical in terms of it's effectiveness in actually helping people.
You're trying to square a circle and make it fit your preconcieved notion of what a liberal is. You've got it wrong and it doesn't fit. But that's cool. Carry on.
What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? Ill tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
-Lawrence ODonnell Jr.
Read the whole text and put it into context, Allie. You never do that well.
"Context" isn't a magic wand that allows you to wave away the facts.
Context forces you, bripat, to do something you don't like: face the facts. Tuff.
True.
Utter nonsense. Leftists demand governmental control of cultural and moral matters. Leftists use to the implied violence to the state to silence those who would dare pray on sacred government grounds. They use the state to force people to perform weddings for homosexuals, to regulate what games people can play.
American leftists seek to micro-manage every aspect of the lives of the subjects under the rule of the government.
True, Libertarians are the ONLY political group that wants government out of social issues.
Obamabots and most democrats are not "liberals," you are leftists. The ideals of Marx, Mao and Mussolini are the motive power of the American left, not the ideals of Mason, Jefferson and Franklin.
Where it gets muddied in the minds of the unschooled, however, is that Mason, Jefferson, and Franklin were classical liberals which is emulated almost 100% by modern day Tea Partiers, aka modern American conservatives. They were not liberal in the way that modern American liberals conduct and describe themselves at this time.
I do not believe Libertarians are the only ones who truly want limited government. Libertarians too often do not want states or local communities to be able to legally form the sort of society they wish to have if that should involve restriction of anything such as prostitution, drugs, adult bookstores, nudie bars or whatever. Libertarians are also far to willing to restrict religious displays and activities based on what I believe is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. There are exceptions, most notably such as my heroes Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, et al. who embody the very best of libertarianism (little 'L") and the very best of Classical Liberalism as is manifested in modern American conservatism.
Modern American Conservatives want the federal government to provide the national defense (which would include national security), to promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not a targeted few--and to recognize and secure iour rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
You keep making this same false argument. If there is one constant in this universe, it is human nature. You are confusing political beliefs with personality traits. Modern science is discovering that there are even physical differences in the brains of liberal and conservatives. If you are going to try to hijack liberalism, then you need to describe what conservatives were before they became liberals. And did they just evaporate?
Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan
Where it gets muddied in the minds of the unschooled, however, is that Mason, Jefferson, and Franklin were classical liberals which is emulated almost 100% by modern day Tea Partiers, aka modern American conservatives. They were not liberal in the way that modern American liberals conduct and describe themselves at this time.
I do not believe Libertarians are the only ones who truly want limited government. Libertarians too often do not want states or local communities to be able to legally form the sort of society they wish to have if that should involve restriction of anything such as prostitution, drugs, adult bookstores, nudie bars or whatever. Libertarians are also far to willing to restrict religious displays and activities based on what I believe is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. There are exceptions, most notably such as my heroes Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, et al. who embody the very best of libertarianism (little 'L") and the very best of Classical Liberalism as is manifested in modern American conservatism.
Modern American Conservatives want the federal government to provide the national defense (which would include national security), to promote the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare and not a targeted few--and to recognize and secure iour rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have.
You keep making this same false argument. If there is one constant in this universe, it is human nature. You are confusing political beliefs with personality traits. Modern science is discovering that there are even physical differences in the brains of liberal and conservatives. If you are going to try to hijack liberalism, then you need to describe what conservatives were before they became liberals. And did they just evaporate?
Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan
I am hijacking nothing. I am using definitions as I understand them and can defend them. Buchanan, apparently a student of Hayek, is using the classical deifnition of conservative rather than agreeing (with me) that modern American conservatism and classical liberalism are virtually indistinguishable. Classical liberalism bears no resemblance to the ideology of modern day liberal Americans. It would be interesting to debate him on the terms. In this CATO book report, there are elements of a debate that are interesting:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-13.pdf
I haven't read Buchanan's book but my curiosity is peaked. I will check it out.
Read Wikipedia's definition of Classical liberalism. For a wiki article, they do a pretty good job with this topic.
Context forces you, bripat, to do something you don't like: face the facts. Tuff.
