If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(GOProud)   "The idea that someone who says they believe in limited government would support the government weeding out gay teachers and unmarried sexually active female teachers simply defies logic"   (goproud.org) divider line 107
    More: Obvious, limited government, GOProud, Jim DeMint, female teachers, teen suicides, sexes, logic, Department of Education  
•       •       •

2307 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2010 at 3:10 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2010-10-07 12:18:37 AM
There was a time, not long ago, when schools set standards. An unmarried schoolmarm was not to be seen in town without being escorted by either her father or a brother, a full brother.

Things seemed to work back then.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2010-10-07 12:31:13 AM
Most of the bozoes who claim to want limited governemnt also want to control just how and where it is limited. These people are hooples.
 
2010-10-07 12:47:08 AM
CDP: There was a time, not long ago, when schools set standards. An unmarried schoolmarm was not to be seen in town without being escorted by either her father or a brother, a full brother.

Things seemed to work back then.

Link (new window)


I can't believe that even a freeper would use "schoolmarm" unless said freeper is 95+. My grandmother had her 80th birthday this year, is racist and conservative as hell and would look at me funny if I ever said schoolmarm.
 
2010-10-07 12:55:15 AM
This is why I refuse to call Neocons and the Religious Right "Conservatives" because they are, at heart, radicals.

Most don't like the Constitution. They don't like our founding values. They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country. They want to socially engineer their perfect society, and they want to heavily tinker with the mechanisms of our economy, our domestic and foreign policy.

You cannot say you advocate good Republican values, and yet, want to abandon the portions of the Constitution you don't like. You can't advocate smaller government, yet want to jigger with monetary policy, increased surveillance, and limit the rights of individuals.

Republican. As in the defense and protection of the republic. Love it, or leave it.

Form your own radical party, and maybe leave the one that was formed to defend the republic, and all that it stands for. You cannot look at the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of freedom, and then demand we curb and limit immigration. You cannot say that you want limited government footprint, and then demand we interfere with folks' lives at home. You cannot say you want religious freedom, and demand that we limit the ones you don't like--either Islam, or Methodists who don't mind marrying gay couples.

You don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. You want to have your schools teach Creationism? Form your own. Stop looking to the government to enforce your religious beliefs. Teach that in your own schools, funded by your own donations, and stop asking that the rest of the taxpayers fall in line with your twisted and often conflicting views on Scripture. You have that freedom already. Take your kids out of public school, and form your own, but stop asking the government to back your religion, and fund your views.

You want to live that Libertarian ideal? Then do it yourself. Live the dream, and bootstrap yourself into that paradise, and fund it your own damn selves, and stop asking everyone else to do it with you. Form your own communities that are gated to keep out the riff raff, and form your own schools, your own businesses that you can staff however you want, and stop demanding that others fall in line with your radical beliefs.

Live the dream, instead of asking that it be subsidized. You farking cowards.
 
2010-10-07 02:52:06 AM
How was it Colbert put it? They want government to be small -- small enough to get into your bedroom.
 
2010-10-07 03:22:11 AM
So, why do these gay people support the GOP? I, too, support fiscal discipline, but I can't bring myself to align with a morally bankrupt party that goes against everything it is to be American. So, I take moderate, spineless hacks as my only alternative.

How do they do it?
 
2010-10-07 03:23:45 AM
It seems to me lately, "small government conservatism" means you want the government control everything you don't like, where as "big government liberalism" means you want the government control everything you do like.
 
2010-10-07 03:24:19 AM
oldebayer: Most of the bozoes who claim to want limited governemnt also want to control just how and where it is limited. These people are hooples.

What's a hoople? Is it a new word for "hypocritical asshole"? Lot's of "small government" hooples to go around.
 
2010-10-07 03:25:02 AM
Logic is not something I usually associate with the GOP. Reactionary maybe, but not logical.
 
2010-10-07 03:25:35 AM
Well, religious reactionaries were briefly paired with the limited-government types under the GOP's 'big tent' thingy. The idea that there are any of the actual conservatives left there nowadays is a complete fabrication, but a politically expedient one, so there you have it.
 
2010-10-07 03:26:32 AM
hubiestubert:

You don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. You want to have your schools teach Creationism? Form your own. Stop looking to the government to enforce your religious beliefs. Teach that in your own schools, funded by your own donations, and stop asking that the rest of the taxpayers fall in line with your twisted and often conflicting views on Scripture. You have that freedom already. Take your kids out of public school, and form your own, but stop asking the government to back your religion, and fund your views.


Funny thing is, you can get away with teaching almost ANYTHING in taxpayer-funded charter schools, at least those that are a part of Los Angeles Unified School District. I'm fairly sure that there are a few charter schools that DO teach Creationism as fact.

As far as I know, these are still "Public" schools and you're not required to pay tuition. The difference is, I think, that you have the choice of going to this charter school or that, unlike true public schools where you go to each school based on your address.

I think there was a big stink raised over a charter school in LAUSD that was teaching Aztec mathematics instead of a normal (ie USEFUL) math curriculum.
 
2010-10-07 03:26:59 AM
hubiestubert: This is why I refuse to call Neocons and the Religious Right "Conservatives" because they are, at heart, radicals.

Most don't like the Constitution. They don't like our founding values. They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country. They want to socially engineer their perfect society, and they want to heavily tinker with the mechanisms of our economy, our domestic and foreign policy.

You cannot say you advocate good Republican values, and yet, want to abandon the portions of the Constitution you don't like. You can't advocate smaller government, yet want to jigger with monetary policy, increased surveillance, and limit the rights of individuals.

Republican. As in the defense and protection of the republic. Love it, or leave it.

Form your own radical party, and maybe leave the one that was formed to defend the republic, and all that it stands for. You cannot look at the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of freedom, and then demand we curb and limit immigration. You cannot say that you want limited government footprint, and then demand we interfere with folks' lives at home. You cannot say you want religious freedom, and demand that we limit the ones you don't like--either Islam, or Methodists who don't mind marrying gay couples.

You don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. You want to have your schools teach Creationism? Form your own. Stop looking to the government to enforce your religious beliefs. Teach that in your own schools, funded by your own donations, and stop asking that the rest of the taxpayers fall in line with your twisted and often conflicting views on Scripture. You have that freedom already. Take your kids out of public school, and form your own, but stop asking the government to back your religion, and fund your views.

You want to live that Libertarian ideal? Then do it yourself. Live the dream, and bootstrap yourself into that paradise, and fund it your own damn selves, and stop asking everyone else to do it with you. Form your own communities that are gated to keep out the riff raff, and form your own schools, your own businesses that you can staff however you want, and stop demanding that others fall in line with your radical beliefs.

Live the dream, instead of asking that it be subsidized. You farking cowards.


Many of these arguments need to be levied against Democrats, the Green party, and any government that dares try to lecture us on how to govern ourselves as well.
 
2010-10-07 03:28:00 AM
Here's the deal- I don't think it's gay marriage that's the issue, it's gay sex. Conservatives understand the fact that the one, sure, way to ruin sex is marriage.
 
2010-10-07 03:29:48 AM
NewportBarGuy: So, why do these gay people support the GOP?

They're wealthy?

/Log Cabin Republicans
//Like Jews For Jesus
///Roaches For Raid
 
2010-10-07 03:32:41 AM
Naah. He's just trying to get rid of all government paid teachers. That's limited government. The gays and whores are just the ones popular with the lefty bloggers so they get their story mumbled out.
 
2010-10-07 03:38:59 AM
Obvious indeed.
 
2010-10-07 03:39:17 AM
hubiestubert: This is why I refuse to call Neocons and the Religious Right "Conservatives" because they are, at heart, radicals.

Most don't like the Constitution. They don't like our founding values. They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country. They want to socially engineer their perfect society, and they want to heavily tinker with the mechanisms of our economy, our domestic and foreign policy.

You cannot say you advocate good Republican values, and yet, want to abandon the portions of the Constitution you don't like. You can't advocate smaller government, yet want to jigger with monetary policy, increased surveillance, and limit the rights of individuals.

Republican. As in the defense and protection of the republic. Love it, or leave it.

Form your own radical party, and maybe leave the one that was formed to defend the republic, and all that it stands for. You cannot look at the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of freedom, and then demand we curb and limit immigration. You cannot say that you want limited government footprint, and then demand we interfere with folks' lives at home. You cannot say you want religious freedom, and demand that we limit the ones you don't like--either Islam, or Methodists who don't mind marrying gay couples.

You don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. You want to have your schools teach Creationism? Form your own. Stop looking to the government to enforce your religious beliefs. Teach that in your own schools, funded by your own donations, and stop asking that the rest of the taxpayers fall in line with your twisted and often conflicting views on Scripture. You have that freedom already. Take your kids out of public school, and form your own, but stop asking the government to back your religion, and fund your views.

You want to live that Libertarian ideal? Then do it yourself. Live the dream, and bootstrap yourself into that paradise, and fund it your own damn selves, and stop asking everyone else to do it with you. Form your own communities that are gated to keep out the riff raff, and form your own schools, your own businesses that you can staff however you want, and stop demanding that others fall in line with your radical beliefs.

Live the dream, instead of asking that it be subsidized. You farking cowards.


This is why hubiestubert is respected by most people in the Politics tab and the Party Uber Alles jackasses here are not. Many of us here do not politically agree with everything hubiestubert believes in, but God damn it, we respect him. Why? Because he can articulate his position without resorting to behaving like a damned child. So, you dentists, Marine Core soldiers, dark furry creatures, here it is: You want the kind of respect that hubiestubert gets? Grow the fark up.
 
2010-10-07 03:44:02 AM
It was totally unsurprising to me to read about a Republican who is pushing big-government paranoia (essentially, exploiting class divisions to encourage the rejection of social programs) while simultaneously encouraging using government to coerce all Americans into conforming to radically conservative social values.

But I'm completely at a loss when it comes to understanding how people can even come to hold these points of view.

Anyways, I suspect that at some point we're going to see a teabagger actually propose building Skookum's famous re-education camps. It's a brave new world.
 
2010-10-07 03:45:59 AM
yarnothuntin: Here's the deal- I don't think it's gay marriage that's the issue, it's gay sex. Conservatives understand the fact that the one, sure, way to ruin sex is marriage.

Yes, it is about gay sex. But not the way you're stating. See, "marriage" is the Great Legitimizer. It turns that no-good creep who's slipping it to your beautiful daughter into your beloved son-in-law. It turns "living in sin" into "starting a new family". It is society's way of saying "we approve of this relationship". And by extension, it is society's way of saying "we approve of this kind of relationship". And those poor, hateful fools can't stand that. They can't stand that the government would tell them that there is no problem with homosexuals. They need their enemies, both external and internal, in order to function. It is part of the core of their Faith. Even when they have total control, as the Catholic Church did for much of the Middle Ages, they will find themselves faced with enemies, even if they have to invent them.
 
2010-10-07 03:47:21 AM
Ed Grubermann:
This is why hubiestubert is respected by most people in the Politics tab and the Party Uber Alles jackasses here are not. Many of us here do not politically agree with everything hubiestubert believes in, but God damn it, we respect him. Why? Because he can articulate his position without resorting to behaving like a damned child. So, you dentists, Marine Core soldiers, dark furry creatures, here it is: You want the kind of respect that hubiestubert gets? Grow the fark up.


I can't express myself that eloquently or clearly and i most certainly need to grow up some more, but his post made me love his brain intensely.

Which is why i avoid the politics tab. i'm either disgusted by the sea of trolls (on both sides of any issue) or out of my depth.
 
2010-10-07 03:48:54 AM
Eventually these "republicans" are going to admit that the democratic vote is actually in keeping with their best interests.
 
2010-10-07 04:02:04 AM
hubiestubert: This is why I refuse to call Neocons and the Religious Right "Conservatives" because they are, at heart, radicals.

Most don't like the Constitution. They don't like our founding values. They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country. They want to socially engineer their perfect society, and they want to heavily tinker with the mechanisms of our economy, our domestic and foreign policy.

You cannot say you advocate good Republican values, and yet, want to abandon the portions of the Constitution you don't like. You can't advocate smaller government, yet want to jigger with monetary policy, increased surveillance, and limit the rights of individuals.

Republican. As in the defense and protection of the republic. Love it, or leave it.

Form your own radical party, and maybe leave the one that was formed to defend the republic, and all that it stands for. You cannot look at the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of freedom, and then demand we curb and limit immigration. You cannot say that you want limited government footprint, and then demand we interfere with folks' lives at home. You cannot say you want religious freedom, and demand that we limit the ones you don't like--either Islam, or Methodists who don't mind marrying gay couples.

You don't want a gay marriage? Don't have one. You want to have your schools teach Creationism? Form your own. Stop looking to the government to enforce your religious beliefs. Teach that in your own schools, funded by your own donations, and stop asking that the rest of the taxpayers fall in line with your twisted and often conflicting views on Scripture. You have that freedom already. Take your kids out of public school, and form your own, but stop asking the government to back your religion, and fund your views.

You want to live that Libertarian ideal? Then do it yourself. Live the dream, and bootstrap yourself into that paradise, and fund it your own damn selves, and stop asking everyone else to do it with you. Form your own communities that are gated to keep out the riff raff, and form your own schools, your own businesses that you can staff however you want, and stop demanding that others fall in line with your radical beliefs.

Live the dream, instead of asking that it be subsidized. You farking cowards.


I do believe that this post requires a soundtrack.
This should work. (new window)
 
2010-10-07 04:46:06 AM
ToeKnee666: Eventually these "republicans" are going to admit that the democratic vote is actually in keeping with their best interests.

That would require a modicum of reason.
 
2010-10-07 04:46:13 AM
House of Tards: CDP: There was a time, not long ago, when schools set standards. An unmarried schoolmarm was not to be seen in town without being escorted by either her father or a brother, a full brother.

Things seemed to work back then.

Link (new window)

I can't believe that even a freeper would use "schoolmarm" unless said freeper is 95+. My grandmother had her 80th birthday this year, is racist and conservative as hell and would look at me funny if I ever said schoolmarm.


My mom went to rural one room schools through 8th grade, complete with quaintly stereotypical stories about walking miles to school in the snow and being chased by a bull when cutting across a farmer's field, and the only time I've ever heard the word "schoolmarm" come out of her mouth was when I was little and she was reading story books about the olden days of the 1800s.

/she says one room schoolhouses weren't nearly so quaint as people think
/granted, quaint as it sounds, my mom's stories are from the '50s
 
2010-10-07 05:16:36 AM
This calls for a compromise: we ban the homos from public education on the condition that we also ban the fundies from public office.
 
2010-10-07 05:24:02 AM
Ed Grubermann: yarnothuntin: Here's the deal- I don't think it's gay marriage that's the issue, it's gay sex. Conservatives understand the fact that the one, sure, way to ruin sex is marriage.

Yes, it is about gay sex. But not the way you're stating. See, "marriage" is the Great Legitimizer. It turns that no-good creep who's slipping it to your beautiful daughter into your beloved son-in-law. It turns "living in sin" into "starting a new family". It is society's way of saying "we approve of this relationship". And by extension, it is society's way of saying "we approve of this kind of relationship". And those poor, hateful fools can't stand that. They can't stand that the government would tell them that there is no problem with homosexuals. They need their enemies, both external and internal, in order to function. It is part of the core of their Faith. Even when they have total control, as the Catholic Church did for much of the Middle Ages, they will find themselves faced with enemies, even if they have to invent them.


Way to over think the joke there genius.
 
2010-10-07 05:26:31 AM
hubiestubert: They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country.

Derpa lerpa doo


There's a word for "changing the country to fit an ideal." It's called Progress. The ideals ar ethings like "Ending slavery" and stuff like that. New Stuff. Conservative look to history only to model how to improve things, not waht to move back to. No one wants to return to the Thomas Jeffersons' "Sex and the Single Slave Owner" days.

Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation. Wealth redistribution stagnates long term good for short term feel good. Socialism robs our grandchildren to pay for us.

Conservatives understand that social spending is making this tradeoff and sometimes it is necessary. Liberals simply deny it and deny tradeoffs are ever made. Conservative use the principle of least government as method to accomplish this greater good. It is not a desire to return to anything. It's a desire to use the known method to progress society at it's fastest possible pace.

Here's the fundamental question: Do we take money away from the company that is researching the cure for cancer and give it to people that want that money to live in the present. In the U.S., that is not a life or death choice for either one for the vast majority of the budget. It's a choice of comfort vs. progress. Families make the same choice when they choose whether to get new cars or save for college and what the percentage is for both. Both are necessary.

Conservatives recognize the choices and often chose near term pain (lower social spending, lower taxes, wealth strata) for long term gain (overall progress of society, better technology/efficiency, more long term food production, cheaper energy). Liberals deny there is even a choice being made. Liberals think it is possible to do it all immediately. In reality, when we do the near term stuff like single payer healthcare, tax on the wealthy, massive government hiring, etc, we slow down long term progress. that's just a fact.
 
2010-10-07 05:38:51 AM
notn: Logic is not something I usually associate with the GOP american politics. Reactionary maybe, but not logical.

fixed!

/just sayin'
//and no, not a gopper
 
2010-10-07 05:40:31 AM
Well see, there'd be less of them. Limited govt in the classroom. Sounds like a great idea.
 
2010-10-07 05:46:18 AM
Chimperror2: In reality, when we do the near term stuff like single payer healthcare, tax on the wealthy, massive government hiring, etc, we slow down long term progress. that's just a fact.

please explain how "stuff" like an efficient healthcare system is "near term" and is "comfort" and not "progress".
 
2010-10-07 05:51:58 AM
wtf is it with these idiots and gay people? Obsess much?
 
2010-10-07 05:57:20 AM
Old enough to know better: wtf is it with these idiots and gay people? Obsess much?

wanna have some fun?

go over to conservapedia. look up "homosexual" and count how many pages it takes up. then look up "heterosexual" and count how many sentences it takes up.
 
2010-10-07 06:12:00 AM
Chimperror2:
Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation.


Free market capitalism, before being restricted drastically, tended to lead to people getting paid less then necessary to survive and support their families, and tended to lead to lots of people contracting "fell into meat grinder or acid vat" syndrome. That, in my book, comes nowhere close to "the greatest good".
 
2010-10-07 06:17:57 AM
cptjeff: Chimperror2:
Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation.

Free market capitalism, before being restricted drastically, tended to lead to people getting paid less then necessary to survive and support their families, and tended to lead to lots of people contracting "fell into meat grinder or acid vat" syndrome. That, in my book, comes nowhere close to "the greatest good".


Shhhhh, OSHA, the USDA, the EPA, the NTSB, and the FDA are nothing more than Fartbamfart's soshulist black ops.

Don't you remember Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Inspiring tale of bootstrappiness done right.
 
2010-10-07 06:44:59 AM
cptjeff: Chimperror2:
Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation.

Free market capitalism, before being restricted drastically, tended to lead to people getting paid less then necessary to survive and support their families, and tended to lead to lots of people contracting "fell into meat grinder or acid vat" syndrome. That, in my book, comes nowhere close to "the greatest good".


Also the "free market" in food production in the Victorian era before government standards agencies intervened led to "raspberry jam" that was coloured sugar water with hand carved wooden "pips", alum, sawdust and other floor sweepings found as major ingredients in 90% of all bread checked, and poisonous lead compounds added to watered down milk to make it look creamy among thousands of other issues.

Lack of environmental regulation led to companies poisoning almost every river in the industrial world at one point, as well as the groundwater in many places is still tainted or even deadly, and choking smogs from factories and power plants killed hundreds of thousands.

It isn't as if companies have learned better over time - every place where there is a gap in legislation and the same shiat starts happening again - the only thing that has improved is government intervention, legislation, inspection, and that the costs and fines have risen to the point that they do act as a deterrent more than they used to.

Every time it has been left to itself the free market has shown that its preference is to be fine with killing, stealing and poisoning things if it helps to make a quick buck. If anyone considers this to be the greatest good, they are pretty warped.
 
2010-10-07 06:45:49 AM
cptjeff: Chimperror2:
Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation.

Free market capitalism, before being restricted drastically, tended to lead to people getting paid less then necessary to survive and support their families, and tended to lead to lots of people contracting "fell into meat grinder or acid vat" syndrome. That, in my book, comes nowhere close to "the greatest good".


Also, everybody ignores the fact that in order for free market capitalism to work according to the models and for the market to function at optimum efficiency, everyone has to start out with a completely level playing field. If inequality is one of the starting conditions, the market is broken from the beginning. We've never had a level starting point, so the unregulated market cannot possibly function in a way that avoids children running looms and people falling into vats of acid (or, in the case of my great-grandfather, without stacks of feed falling and crushing him to death in a factory accident).

In a perfect world, none of the problems with capitalism would happen, but in a perfect world, Marxism would work equally as well. Problem is we don't live in a perfect world, so in order for everybody to have a nice life, we have to take bits from both.
 
2010-10-07 07:29:36 AM
They don't support limited government, they are the idiot branch of the Republican party duped into thinking they are libertarians for the purpose of getting the vote out this election. Real libertarians despise the Beck Tea-Party, these people are the same witless sheep that destroyed the Republican party and are now looking to bring that success to the libertarians.

/froth
 
2010-10-07 07:39:57 AM
NewportBarGuy: So, why do these gay people support the GOP? I, too, support fiscal discipline, but I can't bring myself to align with a morally bankrupt party that goes against everything it is to be American. So, I take moderate, spineless hacks as my only alternative.

How do they do it?


My guess is a lot of them live under morally bankrupt Democratic state and local governments. And just because a state came around on same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're not incompetent shiats otherwise. Hello there, Massachusetts.

New York would have a same-sex marriage law on the books now, but it's a few Democratic state senators who are holding up the works.
 
2010-10-07 07:44:13 AM
stoli n coke: Don't you remember Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Inspiring tale of bootstrappiness done right.

As long as the bootstraps were ground fine enough, you couldn't tell them from the rest of the sausage.
 
2010-10-07 07:53:30 AM
Gulper Eel: NewportBarGuy: So, why do these gay people support the GOP? I, too, support fiscal discipline, but I can't bring myself to align with a morally bankrupt party that goes against everything it is to be American. So, I take moderate, spineless hacks as my only alternative.

How do they do it?

My guess is a lot of them live under morally bankrupt Democratic state and local governments. And just because a state came around on same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're not incompetent shiats otherwise. Hello there, Massachusetts.

New York would have a same-sex marriage law on the books now, but it's a few Democratic state senators who are holding up the works.




The real answer is hard core dyed in the wool neo-liberals think economic freedom is a substitute for social freedom. The law is besides the point if you can afford to flaunt it. Also consider this ideology considers economic circumstance to be an arbitrator of merit. Thus if you can't afford to flaunt the law, it's because you don't deserve to.
 
2010-10-07 08:07:42 AM
NewportBarGuy: So, why do these gay people support the GOP? I, too, support fiscal discipline, but I can't bring myself to align with a morally bankrupt party that goes against everything it is to be American. So, I take moderate, spineless hacks as my only alternative.

How do they do it?


They check their self-loathing at the door, methinks.
 
2010-10-07 08:19:41 AM
DarnoKonrad: The real answer is hard core dyed in the wool neo-liberals think economic freedom is a substitute for social freedom. The law is besides the point if you can afford to flaunt rewrite it.

FTFY. The truly skilled crook knows enough to buy himself the legislators to ensure what he does is perfectly legal.

Either way, finding ways around the law is hardly unique to people of means.
 
2010-10-07 08:22:11 AM
oldebayer: hooples

Thanks! I love learning new words.
 
2010-10-07 08:28:10 AM
Gulper Eel: New York would have a same-sex marriage law on the books now, but it's a few Democratic state senators who are holding up the works.

Is this one of those cases where 95% of the Democrats are voting for something while 0% of the Republicans are voting for it, but it's the 5% of Dems voting "Nay" that are at fault?
 
2010-10-07 08:28:29 AM
oldebayer: Most of the bozoes who claim to want limited governemnt also want to control just how and where it is limited. These people are hooples.

Most bozoes who claim to want "smaller government," only want it limited in the areas they don't like, but want the government expanded in the areas they do. Which is no different from ANYONE. Everyone wants the parts of government they disagree with smaller, and don't mind the size of the parts the agree with.

So what's the real difference between most "small government" conservatives (tea baggers) and normal people? One group are liars.
 
2010-10-07 08:31:57 AM
Gulper Eel: DarnoKonrad: The real answer is hard core dyed in the wool neo-liberals think economic freedom is a substitute for social freedom. The law is besides the point if you can afford to flaunt rewrite it.

FTFY. The truly skilled crook knows enough to buy himself the legislators to ensure what he does is perfectly legal.

Either way, finding ways around the law is hardly unique to people of means.




In some cases, but my point is really aimed at people who truly truly believe the market is a substitute for civil governance. And there are plenty of people like that. It's generally the same attitude royalty had. Except the divine writ of sovereignty is bestowed by the invisible hand of capitalism instead of God.

Kings would lop homosexuals heads off all day long whilst simultaneously raping their manservant with no apparent contradiction in their minds because they have a divine right peons lack by virtue of their unworthiness.

More farked up still, is there are plenty of peons that will buy into that theory as well -- as clearly illustrated by poor people that will happily give tax breaks to the rich out of some twisted ethos.

Or the caste systems in India, or any other social system where a large underclass support a tiny affluent minority.
 
2010-10-07 08:36:37 AM
Chimperror2: hubiestubert: They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country.

Derpa lerpa doo

There's a word for "changing the country to fit an ideal." It's called Progress. The ideals ar ethings like "Ending slavery" and stuff like that. New Stuff. Conservative look to history only to model how to improve things, not waht to move back to. No one wants to return to the Thomas Jeffersons' "Sex and the Single Slave Owner" days.

Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation. Wealth redistribution stagnates long term good for short term feel good. Socialism robs our grandchildren to pay for us.

Conservatives understand that social spending is making this tradeoff and sometimes it is necessary. Liberals simply deny it and deny tradeoffs are ever made. Conservative use the principle of least government as method to accomplish this greater good. It is not a desire to return to anything. It's a desire to use the known method to progress society at it's fastest possible pace.

Here's the fundamental question: Do we take money away from the company that is researching the cure for cancer and give it to people that want that money to live in the present. In the U.S., that is not a life or death choice for either one for the vast majority of the budget. It's a choice of comfort vs. progress. Families make the same choice when they choose whether to get new cars or save for college and what the percentage is for both. Both are necessary.

Conservatives recognize the choices and often chose near term pain (lower social spending, lower taxes, wealth strata) for long term gain (overall progress of society, better technology/efficiency, more long term food production, cheaper energy). Liberals deny there is even a choice being made. Liberals think it is possible to do it all immediately. In reality, when we do the near term stuff like single payer healthcare, tax on the wealthy, massive government hiring, etc, we slow down long term progress. that's just a fact.


First off: We don't have a free market. We have an subsidized market, with heavy backing to certain players. The "free market" is often code for "no regulation" or "lower taxes" when a truly free market has regulation to maintain a level playing field, so that everyone is free to compete.

We don't have that. It would be nice if we did, because a level playing field allows free competition, without interference by some players to freeze out others who might threaten their market position. If anything, the recent financial crisis has illustrated the need for not just regulation, but actual enforcement of said regulation, because if folks had NOT been asleep at the wheel, we could have avoided the outright looting of the taxpayers. And our children wouldn't be footing the bill for such lack of oversight and abandoning of responsibility.

Second, you cannot demand lesser imprint, while interfering with those pesky "inalienable rights" and seek to limit the rights of citizens. It simply is not compatible.

Third, good Conservative policy is NOT not about "lower taxes" it is "efficient taxes" and efficient spending. Not lower. But a shifting policy that looks to long term health of the nation. That sometimes means higher taxes, sometimes lower, but a policy that shifts with conditions. To demand a constant policy is to stagnate, and abandon anything that responsive to the real world.

If we are to claim to be the Party of Responsibility, we need to accept some. Not pass off short comings in policy as being the fault of "Liberals" but accept when we screw up. Accept responsibility for our actions. Accept responsibility for our future.

Progress? You want progress? Then perhaps we need to stop trying to legislate morality. We cannot make any progress while trying to strip citizens of rights. We cannot make progress while shackling our markets to only a tiny number of players, and call that a "free market" or competition. We cannot make progress abandoning the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of religion--which is not served by backing only some religions--and we cannot make progress while shackling our children with an orgy of deficit spending to pay for the privilege of assisting only some players in our markets, and ignore the long term health of those markets. We cannot make progress by limiting education, and shackling education policy to boards that have no respect for said education, or science.

The ideal that is sought is one that looks through cheery and rosey glasses at a time that has never existed, but imagined to have existed before those pesky reforms that sought to bring fairness for our citizens. When you look to "reforms" that allow discrimination, that subsidize efforts to limit education, you are not looking to progress. You are looking to limit possibilities, and return to a time that is pure fiction. It is just as goofy as hipsters who think that roots rock was the BEST time in music.

Open possibility, open rights equally, and promote competition of ideas, competition in our markets, and you make progress, and that means that maybe some folks aren't comfortable with the changes, as folks abandon some practices that are no longer effective--yes, lower taxes as a mantra is NOT workable, nor is it efficient--as much as some religions fail to deliver what folks need, and then seek to get the government to deliver to them what they have failed to do and serve their congregations. The mantra that you cant, is one that fears competition. It fears new ideas, and seeks to preserve a status quo that allows for no substantive growth. That isn't progress, and it undermines the long term health of the republic and its people. It fails to deliver on the promise of society, and even retract it for some.

Stagnation is hardly progress, and trying to prettify it with patriotism and jingoistic cheerleading doesn't serve the nation, or the party. It only shackles us to an agenda that seeks to limit social growth and slave our futures to what amounts to economic feudalists, and reverse anything looking like fair competition.
 
2010-10-07 08:52:56 AM
Chimperror2: hubiestubert: They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country.


Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation. Wealth redistribution stagnates long term good for short term feel good. Socialism robs our grandchildren to pay for us.[Citation Needed]
 
2010-10-07 08:57:41 AM
oldebayer: These people are hooples.

Someone send them a basketball court immediately!!
 
2010-10-07 09:01:43 AM
VulpesVulpes: Chimperror2: hubiestubert: They want to change the nation to fit an ideal that has never existed in this country.


Here's a truism that has been proved over and over again: Free market capitalism that allows wealth to find it's place in society rather than being directed by government/kings/dictators provides the greatest good for society generation over generation. Wealth redistribution stagnates long term good for short term feel good. Socialism robs our grandchildren to pay for us.[Citation Needed]




And it's very easy to refute using examples like the G.I. Bill which was one of the largest wealth redistribution schemes in history, giving millions of Americans education and a higher living standards.

Free market capitalism has a proven track record of failure as sure as centrally planned economies do. Both lead to a tiny elite ruling over a massive underclass.

Mixed economies that use the prosperity of the least common denominator as a metric are the striking innovation of the last 100 years -- outpacing all of human history in terms of wealth and equity.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report