The World's Most Perfect Political Post

[Essence]

Just to play the devil's advocate here... Does that mean that very few liberals don't do squat to help the poor?

Liberals support governmental aid to the poor, and likely thus view their tax money as part of their sacrifice on their neighbors' behalf.  I've found, upon further more detailed study than my above post, that liberals and conservatives actually donate almost identically to charity once once variables like income level and religiousness are controlled for. It's interestingly moderates who donate less than either extreme.

And now I've gotta go make dinner, more tomorrow.

[Ajit]

well it definitely bashed what it means to be conservative, thanks for that.

The writer of the article would like to think that this is representative of all conservatives.  As in there are only absolutes; you are either a extreme conservative or a liberal.  The writer acts like there is no moderate conservative.

You know who also deals in absolutes?  The Sith.  And they were the bad guys.

The title of the article should have been; "What extreme conservatives really want"

[gavsword]

Sorry for the anger in this post, a lot has just been frustrating about this week for me. I don't mean to insult people and if any do take offense for the following I apologize.

Yes this doesn't fit for all members of the party, but come on, do the conservatives on the forum have to use that argument every single time one of these threads come up?

Also, in current politics many conservatives are being outed as not being conservative enough, and there is a larger and larger push within that party to become more absolute in their ideals and beliefs. Moderate conservatives receive less funding in any sort of political race than extremists.

Show me a post that gives proof on what extreme liberals want, and my god if you say socialism or communism you need to get your head examined.

So not as bad as I made it out to be, it's just easier to PREPARE for the extreme and then DEAL with the moderate

Also essence do you have any objections to making this next weeks topic after cyber security?

[Ajit]

Yes this doesn't fit for all members of the party, but come on, do the conservatives on the forum have to use that argument every single time one of these threads come up?

As long as the assault/accusation is the same thing, of course I'll use the same defense..?  That's like asking "Whenever I shoot at you why do you insist on diving out of the way?  Why not one time you try to run into it?"

Also, in current politics many conservatives are being outed as not being conservative enough, and there is a larger and larger push within that party to become more absolute in their ideals and beliefs. Moderate conservatives receive less funding in any sort of political race than extremists.

Are we talking about conservatives or the GOP?  Two different things, right?  Parties have their issues.  The article here is trying to bucket all conservatives into what the GOP is leaning towards, although it is even an exaggeration for the GOP.  Also could I get a statistic on moderate conservatives receiving less funding?  In defense of the extremists of both left and right politics, they often get more funding when running because they yell change is coming and it excites people into action.

Show me a post that gives proof on what extreme liberals want, and my god if you say socialism or communism you need to get your head examined.

Wait, are you indicating that this article "gives proof" on anything?  This article is just a slanted misrepresentation of history and facts.

[truddy02]

I'm pretty hardcore libertarian and the part about conservatives wanting government to be like a father figure reminded me of a quote:

Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. – Andre Marrou

It seems to me that conservatives and liberals generally don't have much good to say about their own ideas.  Just bad things to say about the other side.  And generally both sides are right.  In my lifetime the best the economy has been was when Clinton was president and there was a republican congress.  With neither side really being able to push through everything they wanted the economy thrived.  That doesn't look too good for either side's ideas and "pet projects".  I don't want to be one to also just bash other ideas without promoting my own as good.  Libertarians really basically just have one idea.  Do want you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else in the process.  And I think that is a pretty good idea.

[Ajit]

I'm pretty hardcore libertarian and the part about conservatives wanting government to be like a father figure reminded me of a quote:

Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. – Andre Marrou

It seems to me that conservatives and liberals generally don't have much good to say about their own ideas.  Just bad things to say about the other side.  And generally both sides are right.  In my lifetime the best the economy has been was when Clinton was president and there was a republican congress.  With neither side really being able to push through everything they wanted the economy thrived.  That doesn't look too good for either side's ideas and "pet projects".  I don't want to be one to also just bash other ideas without promoting my own as good.  Libertarians really basically just have one idea.  Do want you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else in the process.  And I think that is a pretty good idea.

wow love that quote, *saves for future use*

Anyways yes more than ever I feel libertarian.  People should stop being offended so easily.  Just gain an overall sense of responsibility as well.

[Essence]

You know, Truddy, I was a hardcore libertarian for most of my life.  Then, I read an absolutely non-political and thoroughly amazing book (that I will post the name of as soon as my wife wakes up and can remind me of) that essentially lays out the history of public-relations organizations and the incredible amount of lies and spin they generate in order to deceive the public into doing things that are grossly harmful -- all in the name of moar profit.  The libertarian philosophy, at least as regards business and the free market, fails humankind in the face of that level of manipulation, heartlessness, and greed.  (Not unlike communism, ironically!)

I think I'd still actually call myself "mostly libertarian" -- but at least on the economic side, I've learned first-hand that there is far too much willingness to bend the little guy over a barrel and stick it to him than any amount of laissez-faire government can control.  The entire economic disaster, for example, was created runaway Wall Street greed, which was allowed to get out of control due to deregulation and an agreement to keep some exotic, unregulated financial instruments entirely 'off-book'.  Libertarian philosophy's response is "well, lesson learned, they won't do it again" -- except they will, because the sickest part of the whole thing is that, from the banker's perspective, it worked.  They pocketed billions of dollars, got bailed out by the taxpayers, and are STILL giving themselves seven-digit bonus checks at the end of every quarter.

Sorry to say, libertarianism fails epically right there.

Which sucks, because I love almost everything else libertarians have to say.


(...still waiting to have someone answer me and tell me what conservatives REALLY want!)

[OldTrees]

You know, Truddy, I was a hardcore libertarian for most of my life.  Then, I read an absolutely non-political and thoroughly amazing book (that I will post the name of as soon as my wife wakes up and can remind me of) that essentially lays out the history of public-relations organizations and the incredible amount of lies and spin they generate in order to deceive the public into doing things that are grossly harmful -- all in the name of moar profit.  The libertarian philosophy, at least as regards business and the free market, fails humankind in the face of that level of manipulation, heartlessness, and greed.  (Not unlike communism, ironically!)

I think I'd still actually call myself "mostly libertarian" -- but at least on the economic side, I've learned first-hand that there is far too much willingness to bend the little guy over a barrel and stick it to him than any amount of laissez-faire government can control.  The entire economic disaster, for example, was created runaway Wall Street greed, which was allowed to get out of control due to deregulation and an agreement to keep some exotic, unregulated financial instruments entirely 'off-book'.  Libertarian philosophy's response is "well, lesson learned, they won't do it again" -- except they will, because the sickest part of the whole thing is that, from the banker's perspective, it worked.  They pocketed billions of dollars, got bailed out by the taxpayers, and are STILL giving themselves seven-digit bonus checks at the end of every quarter.

Sorry to say, libertarianism fails epically right there.

Which sucks, because I love almost everything else libertarians have to say.

Sorry to say but libertarianism cannot fail unless implemented. Those bailouts were not the response of libertarians. The unheeded outcry against bailouts was the libertarian reaction. If the banks suffer for what they did, if their risky investments affected them and not just everyone else then they would be less inclined to do it again.

It is true that libertarianism requires a more responsible individual then exists in the USA and thus is not practical at this time. Eventually the consumers will learn their power and at that time I hope they use it.

PS: The crisis was fairly complex:

[truddy02]

You know, Truddy, I was a hardcore libertarian for most of my life.  Then, I read an absolutely non-political and thoroughly amazing book (that I will post the name of as soon as my wife wakes up and can remind me of) that essentially lays out the history of public-relations organizations and the incredible amount of lies and spin they generate in order to deceive the public into doing things that are grossly harmful -- all in the name of moar profit.  The libertarian philosophy, at least as regards business and the free market, fails humankind in the face of that level of manipulation, heartlessness, and greed.  (Not unlike communism, ironically!)

I think I'd still actually call myself "mostly libertarian" -- but at least on the economic side, I've learned first-hand that there is far too much willingness to bend the little guy over a barrel and stick it to him than any amount of laissez-faire government can control.  The entire economic disaster, for example, was created runaway Wall Street greed, which was allowed to get out of control due to deregulation and an agreement to keep some exotic, unregulated financial instruments entirely 'off-book'.  Libertarian philosophy's response is "well, lesson learned, they won't do it again" -- except they will, because the sickest part of the whole thing is that, from the banker's perspective, it worked.  They pocketed billions of dollars, got bailed out by the taxpayers, and are STILL giving themselves seven-digit bonus checks at the end of every quarter.

Sorry to say, libertarianism fails epically right there.

Which sucks, because I love almost everything else libertarians have to say.


(...still waiting to have someone answer me and tell me what conservatives REALLY want!)

I would for sure be interested in reading that book if you come up with the name.  It's important to be aware of the ideas of people that are different from your own.  I have to say that Old Trees is right on about the recent financial crisis.  The government bailout is probably the most uncapitalistic (not really a word I know) thing that the government has done in recent memory.  There was also some outright fraud that led to the collapse (betting money you don't have is fraud)  but many of those involved are protected by the corporate veil (which is also an idea that is not really in the true heart of capitalism)  and the company takes the hit rather than the people that were truly responsible.  Add to it that the corporations ended up not being held responsible at all and actually bailed out.  This is not a case of capitalism gone bad but truly a refusal of actual capitalism.  I'm also a realist and not totally oblivious to consequences.  I understand that if tomorrow we suddenly a purely libertarian government there would be absolute chaos.  I would just like to see the government head in the direction of more freedom both socially and economically.   

[Essence]

The book is called "Trust Us, We're Experts". 

And Truddy, saying libertarianism can't fail unless implemented is like saying I can't prove that a schematic won't create a working machine until I build a prototype.  It's utterly false. 

It wasn't the bailouts that caused financial hell on earth.  It was the derivatives industry -- an industry that, according to libertarian principles, should go unregulated (like everything else).  It was precisely that lack of regulation that allowed the financial collapse to happen.  The bailouts were simply the final knife in the back of the common man.

linky (http://micmn.com/tier-5-and-unemployment-extension-discussion-part-3-the-wall-street-elite/7754/)

It is true that libertarianism requires a more responsible individual then exists in the USA and thus is not practical at this time. Eventually the consumers will learn their power and at that time I hope they use it.

Almost.  The problem with libertarianism isn't that is requires the common man to be more responsible than he currently is -- it's that it requires EVERY MAN to be more responsible than the common man currently is.  In a completely libertarian society (not unlike a completely socialist society), a single greedy asshole who is willing to abuse the system kills the *entire* system.  The socialists had Lenin and Stalin and Mao.  The libertarians, if that philosophy were to be implemented right now, would have Archer-Daniels-Midland, Halliburton, and Glaxo-Smith-Kline.

[OldTrees]

The book is called "Trust Us, We're Experts". 

And Truddy, saying libertarianism can't fail unless implemented is like saying I can't prove that a schematic won't create a working machine until I build a prototype.  It's utterly false. 

It wasn't the bailouts that caused financial hell on earth.  It was the derivatives industry -- an industry that, according to libertarian principles, should go unregulated (like everything else).  It was precisely that lack of regulation that allowed the financial collapse to happen.  The bailouts were simply the final knife in the back of the common man.

It is true that libertarianism requires a more responsible individual then exists in the USA and thus is not practical at this time. Eventually the consumers will learn their power and at that time I hope they use it.

Almost.  The problem with libertarianism isn't that is requires the common man to be more responsible than he currently is -- it's that it requires EVERY MAN to be more responsible than the common man currently is.  In a completely libertarian society (not unlike a completely socialist society), a single greedy asshole who is willing to abuse the system kills the *entire* system.  The socialists had Lenin and Stalin and Mao.  The libertarians, if that philosophy were to be implemented right now, would have Archer-Daniels-Midland, Halliburton, and Glaxo-Smith-Kline.

You might want to also note the actions the government took around the deregulation that appeared to reduce the risk to the people dealing in these risky transaction and was reemphasized afterward with the bailouts.

I would disagree how who libertarianism requires to be responsible. If most of the consumers were responsible then the corporations would be held accountable. However I am probably using a stronger meaning to the word responsible than you are. However we both agree that those that would need to be responsible are not and thus a sudden shift would be disastrous.

[Glitch]

A long, long time ago, a great man named Abraham Lincoln had a great idea.  A government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Skip forward a few hundred years you have a government of the career politicians, by the political parties, for the corporations.

Everyone.  EVERYONE.  Is guilty.

The fact that threads like this exist mean that people in the nation have been bifurcated into two sides mindlessly screaming at each other while everyone gets rich.  Everyone but the people.  The people get caught in the crossfire.  Accusing "republicans" of causing it simply means you're part of the problem.  If you honestly believe that your side is right and there's is at fault, you're a tool.



What do I suggest?

The hell if I know.  Republicans are rich assholes, democrats don't get anything done, even with a super-majority, and are content to sit there and scream "Republicans are assholes!" until the election comes around.  The tea party is insane.  I don't know what to do.

But there's something I've always believe.  Blame is the antithesis of success.  Maybe it's time we forget who started it, and /someone/ steps up to finish it.