Hermit Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 In other words you wanted to divert all those funds into liberal social welfare programs, to further establish a federal welfare state. I know man,.. can you believe that liberal-progressive shit?! I mean why in the world would anyone choose to support federal social welfare programs that help those less-fortunate among us when they could choose instead to support federal corporate welfare programs and tax cuts for the wealthy that further enrich those most-fortunate among us? Wtf are those dumbass progressives thinking? [] It seems to me it's a simple matter of values, principles, and priorities. Liberal/progressive/democratic values and priorities are rooted in "I am my brother's keeper; a rising tide lifts all boats; social conscientiousness" principles, whereas conservative/reactionary/republican values and priorities are rooted in "Screw everybody else (who isn't my friend); as long as my boat (and my friends' boat) doesn't run aground, it's all good afaic" principles. Good-hearted, caring, and generous.. or.. cold-hearted, selfish, and greedy. To each, his/her own. Personally, I have more appreciation and respect for the good-hearted, caring, and generous among us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonham Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 No one pwns like Hermit pwns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Here is the problem with the current administration (well, one problem of many)...they actually aren't conservative at all when it comes to fiscal policy. A former surplus has been squandered, the deficit has ballooned, Bush hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like. So it's not really a matter of true conservative policy. You're actually not saying "I don't want a trillion dollars of taxpayer money being spent by the government", you're saying "I don't want a trillion dollars of taxpayer money being spent on things I don't like". Trillion dollars on a useless and damaging war? No problem. Trillion dollars on useless loser poor people? No way. I'm not for a "welfare state". But what do you define as a welfare state? Are you limiting it to welfare, specifically? What "social programs" are OK? What is a good use of taxpayer money? How about rebuilding the Gulf Coast, which still looks like a war zone years after Katrina? Is that a good use of a trillion dollars? Seems like that would be better than war, but hey, why would we want to improve anything within our own borders? And don't give me any of this crap about spending in Iraq being for the good of our nation's security. It has nothing to do with that. As you said before Steve, the terrorists did not represent any formal government. Al Queda was aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan, so we went in there and kicked their ass. No one had a problem with that, including me. But taking that turn into Iraq while we were at it was ridiculous. We succeeded in alienating ourselves in the world community, pissing off the Middle East which already hated us, and riling up a beehive of hatred and terrorism. After the rationale used to justify the war was proven to be bogus, the administration started using the "bad guy defense"..."Saddam was a bad guy, so getting rid of him was good". Well, there are lots of bad guys, bad countries, bad goverments...North Korea, Iran, Darfur...we didn't go and attack any of them, did we? Iraq had nothing to do with our national security, as far as threats go, they were insignificant. Terrorists and Al Queda were as much as a threat to Saddam's secular government as anyone else, he hated them and fought them. And to use the excuse, "see all the terrorists we're fighting in Iraq now? Clearly that's a hotbed of terrorism", is circular logic. It's only a beehive of terrorism now because we are there. And now the Taliban and Al Queda has regrouped in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose...so that original attack on Afghanistan was all for nothing, wasn't it? I'm all for protecting America, fighting terror, etc, but Iraq is not a good example of how to do it, and not a good use of resources. Fighting terror is a political issue, and the solution is good police work and intelligence, not war. When England foiled the airline terrorism plot last year, it was through good police work and work on the part of their intelligence community. You don't fight a nameless, faceless enemy like Al Queda with armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Here is the problem with the current administration (well, one problem of many)...they actually aren't conservative at all when it comes to fiscal policy. A former surplus has been squandered, the deficit has ballooned, Bush hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like. So it's not really a matter of true conservative policy. You're actually not saying "I don't want a trillion dollars of taxpayer money being spent by the government", you're saying "I don't want a trillion dollars of taxpayer money being spent on things I don't like". Trillion dollars on a useless and damaging war? No problem. Trillion dollars on useless loser poor people? No way. Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose...so that original attack on Afghanistan was all for nothing, wasn't it? I'm all for protecting America, fighting terror, etc, but Iraq is not a good example of how to do it, and not a good use of resources. Fighting terror is a political issue, and the solution is good police work and intelligence, not war. When England foiled the airline terrorism plot last year, it was through good police work and work on the part of their intelligence community. You don't fight a nameless, faceless enemy like Al Queda with armies. You are absolutely correct to highlight the failure of the administration to maintain a conservative fiscal policy. The overall political execution of their foreign policy has been catastrophic. However, when assessing the value of spending a trillion dollars on the occupation of Iraq, bear in mind the cost of failing to secure of 1/3 of the world's oil reserves. A trillion dollars up front to secure the lifeblood of US society and captalist sytem for the next 50 to 75 years is arguably a bargain. During the Cold War, US defense spending was 7.5% of GDP (gross domestic product, otherwise known as economic output). Currently, it is roughly only 4% of GDP. States have within their powers the ability to request national disaster areas status, and in so doing can obtain an infusion of federal relief funding. The Gulf Coast region has received over $11 Billion. Much existing devestation is the result depopulation - the insured received their settlements and have elected to relocate outside of the affected areas. I spent some time in New Orleans last October. The downtown area (business district, etc) was thriving, but the residential areas remained decimated. The Afghanistan Campaign is not for nothing. Overthrowing the Taliban has allowed the Asian Development Bank to proceed with it's plans for the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. It will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India, thus directly supporting the emerging energy needs of that volitile region, promoting a higher standard of living thus more stable societies. It was the Taliban's refusal to allow the pipeline which sealed the deal on their fate. Respectfully, the suggestion that terrorism is chiefly a matter for police and intelligence services reflects the failed national security policies of the 1980s and '90s. It is a duty of free societies to preserve their way of life. The scourge of terror necessitates the use of military force, to include preemptive strikes, to defeat this ideology. Freedom isn't free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Matt,.. you made some really good points,.. to which I'd like to add that it seems to me that right wing conservatives/republicans equate "social programs" and "welfare" with "socialism". It is a black-and-white issue for them; they do not see shades of gray. They consider welfare programs a direct threat to democracy.. a direct threat to capitalism.. and, most importantly to them, a direct threat to their own personal wealth. They are paranoid. I believe in federally funded social programs, but I am certainly NOT a socialist; I'm a capitalist and a humanist. I believe that democracy and capitalism and social conscientiousness can work hand-in-hand-in-hand to create a society in which the wealthy are entitled to their wealth, and yet also in which the less-fortunate among us are not left cold, sick, and hungry. I believe in the middle path. I believe in regulated capitalism combined with limited federal social programs combined with government fiscal responsibility combined with a healthy dose of libertarianism. I retain most of what I earn, and I'm also quite willing to give back to society a chunk of what I earn so that those less-fortunate than I can receive much-needed assistance. I'm not bitter about it at all. I consider it my membership fee for the privilege of being in this club we call "American society" (in which so many of us live like 'kings and queens').. this club we call "Global society" (in which so many of us live like peasants, or worse).. this greater collaborative entity we call "Humanity" (in which we are all.. economic and social status notwithstanding.. fundamentally the same). Identifying myself with the greater collective Humanity brings out the best of my personal humanity... and helps me realize my innate potential to feel and embody genuine love and compassion for all beings. Yes,.. even for selfish, greedy conservatives (how miserable they must be, you know? ..desperately trying to cling to every last dollar. ..the "poor" things. ). I am my brother's keeper. Does that mean my brother should get to be a freeloader (a welfare system abuser)? No, absolutely not. Do I recognize and accept the reality that there will be freeloaders/abusers of any social system, be it public or private sector? Yes, I do. I think reasonable measures should be taken to guard against and reduce freeloading, but I do not let my condemnation of freeloading get in the way of my doing my part to help the less-fortunate among us get their basic needs (and then some) met. Do I think government should be responsible for solving and/or addressing every social problem? No, of course not. Do I think an unfettered free-market (privatized) system would be a better way to address social problems like poverty and health care? No, absolutely not. I believe in a middle way. I believe in government fiscal responsibility; I believe in personal responsibility; and I believe that government programs, funded by taxpayer dollars, in conjunction with private sector service providers is the most effective and cost efficient way of addressing large scale social problems like poverty and healthcare. "Conservatives", on the other hand, are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. In their desperate (Scrooge-like) attempt to cling to every last dollar they make.. and to "ensure" that their precious income doesn't fall into the hands of freeloaders.. they're willing to stand by and watch as the truly less-fortunate among us.. men, women, and CHILDREN alike... go cold, hungry, and sick. And they justify it (to themselves.. to their atrophied consciences) under the guise of a rejection of "socialism". Like I said before.. liberalism-progressivism-democratic and conservativism-reactionaryism- republicanism is primarily a difference of values, principles, and priorities. [..and paranoia. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 "Conservatives", on the other hand, are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. In their desperate (Scrooge-like) attempt to cling to every last dollar they make.. and to "ensure" that their precious income doesn't fall into the hands of freeloaders.. they're willing to stand by and watch as the truly less-fortunate among us.. men, women, and CHILDREN alike... go cold, hungry, and sick. And they justify it (to themselves.. to their atrophied consciences) under the guise of a rejection of "socialism". Well the conservative mentality is sink or swim, that if you cannot better your circumstances, then you must suffer the consequences. It's an attitude several Asian Governments have. The notion that Governments should play a larger social welfare role grew out of the social reform movement of the 19th century in Europe, a period in time when you had a very large working class population living in abject poverty and squalor and working for very little money. But then there were a lot of manufacturers in USA and Europe who decided they could relive the old days by sending their factories over to Indonesia where once again people could work 14 hours a day for pittance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The notion that Governments should play a larger social welfare role grew out of the social reform movement of the 19th century in Europe, a period in time when you had a very large working class population living in abject poverty and squalor and working for very little money. ...those reforms resulted in a very large non-working populace now living on the dole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainsbarre Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 ...those reforms resulted in a very large non-working populace now living on the dole. well, at least they're not 12 year old children dying in a one of the materials factory when one of the looms crushed them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 In other words you wanted to divert all those funds into liberal social welfare programs, to further establish a federal welfare state. Hell no...I'm as anti-tax as they come. My point was, the government takes our money and uses it to put people in space?? If anything, that shows how fucking stupid the government is. My name is wanna be drummer, and I do not approve of taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricmage Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Stop acting like a stalker or you're going on the ignore list. You'll get no responses from me. However, if anyone else would like to ask similar questions, feel free. Acting like a stalker huh? You are one paranoid moron. Although I do make an attempt to respond to posts that are ignorant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Hell no...I'm as anti-tax as they come. My point was, the government takes our money and uses it to put people in space?? If anything, that shows how fucking stupid the government is. Space exploration is important to the advancement of our society. Imagine life without satellites, for example. Space shuttle missions were instrumental to delivering payloads in direct support of them as well as facilitating various experiments. It's worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Space exploration is important to the advancement of our society. Imagine life without satellites, for example. Space shuttle missions were instrumental to delivering payloads in direct support of them as well as facilitating various experiments. It's worthwhile. Indeed. This very internet you see before your eyes would not exist otherwise. You could kiss your Zep live downloads goobye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricmage Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 This "Bonham" character is trying to blast your intelligence because he is a liberal scumbag who is offended by anything not liberal. I think that the feminisization of the western world has created a population full of gutless men. Wow. It's radicals like you who destroy the world with your ignorance. I'm thinking that the bullet that missed you was a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Alright, let's have some fun. Here is probably the best online IQ test available, which yields scores very comparable to real-life tests. At least it will give a directional, apples-to-apples comparison of the folks arguing in this thread. With all the "superior intellect" talk being thrown around, I'd like to see how the subjects here stack up. Anyone care to put up? IQ Test If anyone cares to post their score, or a screen shot of the result, it would be interesting... I know this is all subjective, but I couldn't resist: Hell, I scored a 148 when I was 12! Considering how I've spent the last 30 years, I'm pleasantly surprised! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Soul Man Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I know this is all subjective, but I couldn't resist: Hell, I scored a 148 when I was 12! Considering how I've spent the last 30 years, I'm pleasantly surprised! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 It was just a bit of silly fun. I wasn't trying to prove anything. I keep hearing people saying they're of superior intellect here. I don't know why they feel the need to do so. It's all so stupid. That's what I was trying to point out the absurdity of. I'm just saying, Hey, we're not all cretins here. I don't need a party. Thanks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Hi all, It was just a bit of silly fun. I wasn't trying to prove anything. I keep hearing people saying they're of superior intellect here. I don't know why they feel the need to do so. It's all so stupid. That's what I was trying to point out the absurdity of. I'm just saying, Hey, we're not all cretins here. I don't need a party. Thanks though. No,thank you Eve,.....always,... How are ye mate? KB,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Hi all, No,thank you Eve,.....always,... How are ye mate? KB,... Nice to see you KB! Just dodging weird shots from unexpected corners, y'know? You know me mate, just answering questions and trying to be cordial, as always. It's a wider world, I guess. Any chance you making the west coast (yeah, Americer ) for Robert and Alison in June? I'd love to buy you a pint (or three). Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Space exploration is important to the advancement of our society. Imagine life without satellites, for example. Space shuttle missions were instrumental to delivering payloads in direct support of them as well as facilitating various experiments. It's worthwhile. Sending a rover to Mars or sending a ship to Jupiter is not worth while. Think of life without it...oh wait, it's the same NASA doesn't do shit. The only thing I like about it is that it recently started tracking asteroids in case one of them is on a collision course with us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 This is one wandering thread, but I agree about the waste in space exploration - especially in these times of the mess on earth. Maybe if there are times when all seems well, like 50 years ago in the U.S.A., then it provides a thrill or accomplishment for some. I don't usually fret about science fiction disasters coming true, but the chance of bringing back some organism that we are vulnerable to seems like a real possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Space exploration? Well, I guess that's our only plausible solution short of human culling or mass sterilization. A friend once hypothysized that humans are a planet killing parasite. We once lived on Mars. Once the greenhouse destroyed the atmosphere there, we started over on Earth, and just before we've finished raping this planet, we'll out of necessity find a way to occupy another. And then another, and so on. And it's been going on for eons. But like I said, that's just an idea a friend had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 We're definetly planet killing parasites, but fortunately (for the rest of the universe) only able to survive here. If worldwide governments gave supportive incentives to keep populations down, we might have a chance for a future. I'd say it's too late, anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 We're definetly planet killing parasites, but fortunately (for the rest of the universe) only able to survive here. If worldwide governments gave supportive incentives to keep populations down, we might have a chance for a future. I'd say it's too late, anyway... One of the main problems in the world today is that we (well the West, no offense to anyone else) don't reproduce enough. Socialist governments are spending money left and right, but they don't have enough of a younger generation to help pay for the old ones...oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 One of the main problems in the world today is that we (well the West, no offense to anyone else) don't reproduce enough. Socialist governments are spending money left and right, but they don't have enough of a younger generation to help pay for the old ones...oh well I've chosen not to reproduce (some might say I'm doing the world a favor ). I want neither the responsibility for raising a child, nor do I want that child to feel obligated to feed me when I'm olde and falling apart. Hell, I'm still raising myself! It's an ongoing process. Anyway, that's just my personal decision. Thankfully, my mate feels the same way. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against parents who bring beautiful children into the world, filled with hope. I'm just not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderguy Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Well, I have always had a weakness for both babies and women. That might explain why I am married with four children, plus it would have been five except for the one we lost.......................... Some people would say I am a masochist!...................... Yeah, What can I say, I think babies are beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.