Liberal vs. Conservative

[Noysyrump]

Now instead of having the tendancy to derail almost every thread into right vs left I figured I'd just start a new one. Where we can bitch at each other about gun control, abortion, religion, global warming, hole in the ozone, or whatever.

I'd like to start it off with why I think those that call themselves "liberals" are morons in almost every aspect involving real life. And I challange all of you, not to flame me, but convert me. Try to explain, why is the left right (correct) and the right wrong. And I will attempt to do the same, but you know, reversed. Cause, Right is Right. who can argue with that.


First topic.

I was digging through a customers car a couple days ago (yes we do that for fun, sometimes there is nudie pics, guns, drugs, etc.) and I found a washington state registration form. Now on this form, was the charges to the vehicle owner, in order to register the vehicle. There was $64 in DMV fees. Then on top of that, they tagged on $100 for a monorail tax.

Seriosly, wtf. a 160% tax on this person on something she would never use. You know, because she actually owns a car. This is just one example of 'feel good' bullshit legislation set up by a liberal gov't that actually PUNISHES people that dont fall in line.

First off, I want to explain, we have similar things here in cali, but not this bad. The sphincter (sprinter) train is paid for from general fund. Not tagged onto people who obviosly wont use it. Yet even though they built this "perfect mass transit" system, NOONE FUCKING USES IT!!!

Millions of $$ wasted for some bullshit noone uses. Because some bleeding heart liberal wanted to feel good about getting mass transit up and running.

A conservative would have invested those millions into, guess what, new fucking roads. People want to drive. I want to go, from door to door, and not take 3 hours to do it (like on a bus). So instead of punishing people for not doing what you think is right, why not realize that cars are good and make it easier to drive.

Smart street signals could do away with stop and go trafic. More and better freeways could move more vehicles. And when trafiic keeps moving, IT USES LESS FUEL!!!!

So what I see as common sense, gets beat down in the courts by those same liberals who dont want a new freeway, because some goddamn duck breeding ground MIGHT be upset. Yet the very same river that is stopping a new freeway is crossed by that goddamned sphincter, that they all loved. I mean wtf? really.

Forgot to mention, the surfrider foundation, who stopped that freeway, did it to save an area of beach they all love to surf, even though the new freeway crossed the river east of the 5 freeway, that is already there, and the sphincter. so would have had NO EFFECT on that goddamn beach that they ALL DRIVE TO IN THEIR CARS!

[Spang]

Don't be a conservative.

Don't be a liberal.

Just be.

[Noysyrump]

Just be apathetic? Oh so you want to let them do to you, whatever the fuck they want and you dont care? Well fuck, I think that makes you dumber than them...

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Just be apathetic? Oh so you want to let them do to you, whatever the fuck they want and you dont care? Well fuck, I think that makes you dumber than them...

You don't have to be apathetic just because you aren't liberal or conservative. Just follow your own beliefs. Most people who don't swallow everything their party tells them have some beliefs on both sides of the spectrum, as well as some in the middle.

[Canelek]

Fuck off.


thanks

[Noysyrump]

I'm not talking about parties, I am talking about belief systems. If you have no belief systems, then this thread isnt for you.

Now yes its true, Liberals like the democratic party, and conservatives like the republican party. One of the most conservative presidents we had, was a democrat. Ronald Reagan. Until he switched parties because he saw that Liberals were taking over. And GWB strains to even appear conservative.

[Noysyrump]

Fuck off.


thanks

I got to say, your not furthering your cause any.

[Spang]

Just be apathetic? Oh so you want to let them do to you, whatever the fuck they want and you dont care? Well fuck, I think that makes you dumber than them...

Just be.

Ideas are better.

Watch Dogma.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

I'm not talking about parties, I am talking about belief systems. If you have no belief systems, then this thread isnt for you.

Now yes its true, Liberals like the democratic party, and conservatives like the republican party. One of the most conservative presidents we had, was a democrat. Ronald Reagan. Until he switched parties because he saw that Liberals were taking over. And GWB strains to even appear conservative.

I have my own belief system but it does not fall into the category of liberal or conservative. It is my own and no one else has the same one I'd say.

[Nick]

How can anyone "convert" you when you don't even appear to understand what a liberal actually is? (like most of the people on this board)

Answer: Go and read a few books instead of watching American television/embarrassing propoganda.

[Keverian FireCry]

You derailed your own thread in the initial post you retard. You ask liberals to convert you without flaming, while that very request is enveloped by an inferno of ignorant, divisive bullshit.

Why the fuck would anyone want to waste time trying to convert an asshole like you?

[Noysyrump]

How can anyone "convert" you when you don't even appear to understand what a liberal actually is? (like most of the people on this board)

Answer: Go and read a few books instead of watching American television/embarrassing propoganda.

Why then dont you tell us dumb americans that rule the world.

[Nick]

Having the capacity to invade shitty third world dictatorships doesn't actually translate into "ruling the world" unless you've been eating a few too many "freedom fries". The whole highhorse "we're number 1" thing is hilariously misguided, but I suppose it makes you feel safe in bed at night (and also allows the rest of us to have a laugh at your expense) - so gg i guess.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

RAWR........GRRRRRRRR.........ANGST.........

*translated*

[Nick]

I still haven't learned what books are yet I like to think my opinions are valid

*translated*

[Bagar-]

Fuck off.


thanks

[Noysyrump]

Ok since Nick has skirted the subject, I'll do it for him.

Liberalism or conservatism refers to the use of Gov't. As in liberal use of government compared to conservative use of government.

Liberalism believes, The gov't should provide its people with anything and everything they need. Such as health care, welfare (so they can have a home and food), and guidance so everyone can do good.

Conservatism believes, the gov't should provide the very basics only. National defense for harm done from external enemies as well as internal (police). Public education is in the best intrests of any society, and basic infrastructure, roads, water, etc. and thats about it. For all else, the individual is responsible for their own well beeing.

That beeing said, Obviosly providing everything to everyone isnt cheap, so it is offset with a multitude of taxation and/or decline in an affluent persons way of life, to raise up those not so well off.

Where as little govt requires marginal amounts of funding, and allows people a better chance of success (read wealth) at the expense of those unable or unwilling to fend for them selves beeing destitute.

I am not a rich person. 50k a year is doing well for me. But I want to use that money, to better my own life. not that of some 8 children having weffie that wont get a job. I want to pay for my own health insurance, so that I can Choose where I go, or what coverage i have. I dont want a 1 size fits all plan, that will end up costing me more for no chioce. See GB and canada for how great that works out. I want GM to be able to build the kind of cars that sell well, because they are good, not some govt mandated e85 piece of shit that costs 1000% more than they did in the 60s before the govt got involved. I want someone to invent the cool shit because that will make them hugely wealthy when everyone buys one (microsoft windows) not have the state tell me i must start buying $9 lightbulb filled with merkury instead of that $1 incandescent, because it will save the planet.

[Nick]

Liberalism believes, The gov't should provide its people with anything and everything they need. Such as health care, welfare (so they can have a home and food), and guidance so everyone can do good.

Since when did the world "liberal" = socialist?

You're simply wrong in your assumption.

[Noysyrump]

Having the capacity to invade shitty third world dictatorships doesn't actually translate into "ruling the world" unless you've been eating a few too many "freedom fries". The whole highhorse "we're number 1" thing is hilariously misguided, but I suppose it makes you feel safe in bed at night (and also allows the rest of us to have a laugh at your expense) - so gg i guess.

Didnt know zee jer-manz were a 3rd world country. Perhaps you would have prefered we didnt get involved? or perhaps saveing you from the empire that was the CCCP was a misguided venture? Dumb ass. just wallow in your lack of real world knowledge. be safe in your cant we all just get along attitude.

[Noysyrump]

Liberalism believes, The gov't should provide its people with anything and everything they need. Such as health care, welfare (so they can have a home and food), and guidance so everyone can do good.

Since when did the world "liberal" = socialist?

You're simply wrong in your assumption.

then explain what it means to you, believe i asked this already.

[Nick]

Having the capacity to invade shitty third world dictatorships doesn't actually translate into "ruling the world" unless you've been eating a few too many "freedom fries". The whole highhorse "we're number 1" thing is hilariously misguided, but I suppose it makes you feel safe in bed at night (and also allows the rest of us to have a laugh at your expense) - so gg i guess.

Didnt know zee jer-manz were a 3rd world country. Perhaps you would have prefered we didnt get involved? or perhaps saveing you from the empire that was the CCCP was a misguided venture? Dumb ass. just wallow in your lack of real world knowledge. be safe in your cant we all just get along attitude.

What "why can't we all just get along" attitude are you on about? I think people of your ilk are idiots, that's hardly a harmonious pro-socialist hippy attitude "buddy". As for the "HURF DURF we (for we read: "people I have no connection with but like to associate myself with) saved your ass in WW2" bullshit, way to completely shit on not only an entire generation of your own countrymen, but millions of other Europeans who fought and died to defend everyone from a fascist murderous maniacal regime. I'm sure it must really make you feel like a big man uncle sam to diminish their deaths in a futile and failed attempt to make a point on a message board.

Also, it's not my job to teach you what "liberal" means - it's your job to educate yourself on basic terms so you're capable of involving yourself in an informed discussion. Don't worry, this board isn't going anywhere, I'll wait.

[Tyek]

When did Midnyte create this Nosy character?


For the record, I don't follow any Liberal or conservative idiom. I look at each issue individually and decide what I think about it. I could care less what "liberals" or "Conservatives" think.

[Zaelath]

Forgot to mention, the surfrider foundation, who stopped that freeway, did it to save an area of beach they all love to surf, even though the new freeway crossed the river east of the 5 freeway, that is already there, and the sphincter. so would have had NO EFFECT on that goddamn beach that they ALL DRIVE TO IN THEIR CARS!

Well, I'll go ahead and pointlessly address your fact free opinion piece. This will be an entire waste of time, but what the hell.

Smart street signals could do away with stop and go trafic. More and better freeways could move more vehicles. And when trafiic keeps moving, IT USES LESS FUEL!!!!

What are these? Oh, right, something you made up out of whole cloth. I see.

The only way you can stop cars from stopping at intersections is to build freeway style "clover" intersections at every corner. Not only is this rediculously expensive and impractical, but it wouldn't stop the problem that most of the fucktards that whine about traffic are the ones that cause it by their agressive tailgating. Feel free to go and look up "standing traffic waves" to have this explained at the 5th grade level, though I'm sure you will disagree with it.

A conservative would have invested those millions into, guess what, new fucking roads. People want to drive. I want to go, from door to door, and not take 3 hours to do it (like on a bus). So instead of punishing people for not doing what you think is right, why not realize that cars are good and make it easier to drive.

If you have a mass transit system, the easiest way to make it fall out of use is to build new roads. And every city that has increased it's road capacity has also found that the congestion in that city only gets worse. It gets worse because you still need to find somewhere to park, you still need to find a solution to gridlock, and you never convince people like yourself that parking 5 minutes walk away from your destination is more efficient than circling the block for 20 minutes looking for a park. Here's a first google hit link for you on freeways v's congestion: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml it's a public transport users site, so it's got an agenda, but the logic is sound and if you care to look has been replicated by traffic engineers in every major city. But you won't read it so I guess that's rather a moot point.

All that said, I'm not "a liberal", and I don't give a shit about the duck ponds or the spinney badger, but I do know for a simple fact that a properly thought out mass transit rail system is *the* easiest way to get to, and around a metropolitan city. Monorails however tend to be bollocks. Oh and privatised mass transit is clearly stupid as you need to "encourage" people to use it so you can afford to run it properly, mean time tax payers have to subsidise it.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Liberalism believes, The gov't should provide its people with anything and everything they need. Such as health care, welfare (so they can have a home and food), and guidance so everyone can do good.

Since when did the world "liberal" = socialist?

You're simply wrong in your assumption.

Sorry little fella. That is exactly what a modern liberal believes in. You're correct if you mean the original definition of a liberal, but modern day liberalism is very closely associated with socialism. In fact, if you want to read a book that just might open your eyes or just maybe let you see a different perspective, try our Slouching Toward Gammorah. Amazing book.

[Zaelath]

Sorry little fella. That is exactly what a modern liberal believes in. You're correct if you mean the original definition of a liberal, but modern day liberalism is very closely associated with socialism. In fact, if you want to read a book that just might open your eyes or just maybe let you see a different perspective, try our Slouching Toward Gammorah. Amazing book.

Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline is a 1996 book by former United States Court of Appeals judge Robert H. Bork. Bork's thesis in the book is that American and more generally Western culture is in a state of decline and that the cause of this decline is modern liberalism and the rise of the New Left. Specifically, he attacks modern liberalism for what he describes as its dual emphases on radical egalitarianism and radical individualism. The title of the book is a play on the last couplet of W. B. Yeats's poem The Second Coming: "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" Bork contends that the "rough beast of decadence … now sends us slouching towards our new home, not Bethlehem but Gomorrah."

Bork first traces the rapid expansion of modern liberalism that occurred during the Sixties, arguing that this legacy of radicalism demonstrates that the precepts of modern liberalism are antithetical to the rest of the American political tradition. He then attacks a variety of social, cultural, and political experiences as evidence of American cultural decline and degeneracy. Among these are affirmative action, increased violence in and sexualization of mass media, the legalization of abortion, pressure to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia, the decline of religion, and feminism. Bork, himself a failed nominee of President Ronald Reagan to the United States Supreme Court, also attacks that institution and argues that the judiciary and liberal judicial activism are catalysts for American cultural corruption.

In this light, Bork advocates an amendment to the United States Constitution which would allow Congressional supermajorities to override Supreme Court decisions.

Jesus Christ, that explains a lot...

[Nick]

Midnyte doesn't appear to understand the difference between "neoconservatives" and "everyone else on the planet who isn't a neoconservative" when defining "liberalism".

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Midnyte doesn't appear to understand the difference between "neoconservatives" and "everyone else on the planet who isn't a neoconservative" when defining "liberalism".

You make no sense.....as usual. When you define me as a neoconservative, should I then just disregard it solely because it comes from a liberal? You are silly stubborn young man. Waiting for you to grow up is getting painfully boring.

[Nick]

That's so fresh, what a clever boy you are to make up that joke and use it a thousand times.

[archeiron]

Liberalism believes, The gov't should provide its people with anything and everything they need. Such as health care, welfare (so they can have a home and food), and guidance so everyone can do good.

Since when did the world "liberal" = socialist?

You're simply wrong in your assumption.

Sorry little fella. That is exactly what a modern liberal believes in. You're correct if you mean the original definition of a liberal, but modern day liberalism is very closely associated with socialism. In fact, if you want to read a book that just might open your eyes or just maybe let you see a different perspective, try our Slouching Toward Gammorah. Amazing book.

By exclusion, does this mean that I am not a liberal?

[Noysyrump]

Had to post this.

Subject: PUPPIES


Hillary Clinton was in Iowa during the primary when she saw a young
boy sitting on a bench outside the convention center with a box of puppies
and a sign posted in the grass that read "Free - Democrat Puppies".

She smiled at him and proceeded inside.

A couple of weeks later in Nevada she's entering the convention center
when she sees the same boy on a bench with the box of puppies and a
sign that reads "Free - Republican Puppies".

Hillary stops to talk with the boy and call his bluff. She says, "I
know I saw you in Iowa a couple of weeks ago." The young man admits
that to be true. Hillary then says, "Well, back then those were
Democrat puppies."

The young boy says, "Yes, that's true, but now their eyes are open."

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

By exclusion, does this mean that I am not a liberal?

I have no idea what you are. I try not to label or pigeonhole people into such finite categories. I use terms such as liberal to define a way of thinking, such as you might use conservative to define me. I try not to take account past posts by people into account when a new thread is started. I try and treat each thread as it's own and judge each persons post without consideration who it comes from. I try.

In addition...you Arch, I still consider the druid I had many fun adventures with online in EQ and WoW. I don't remember or recall any specific stance you have taken that might be in disagreement with mine, nor do I care. I would gladly play along side anyone on these boards and put aside the stuff said on these boards. Life is too short for all the bitter hatred and posturing that some choose to do on these boards.

[Noysyrump]

Heh, Teenybloke was one of my favorite gnome buddies in game, yet here, we seem to hate each other.

[Noysyrump]

SUPERPOWERS - Spend at least $100 billion to assert themselves globally.
$370 billion - United States

MAJOR POWERS - Spend at least $10 billion to assert themselves regionally.
$67 billion - China
$50 billion - Russia*
$45 billion - Japan, France
$42 billion - United Kingdom
$35 billion - Germany
$28 billion - Italy
$18 billion - Saudi Arabia
$16 billion - India, S Korea, Australia**
$12 billion - Turkey
$11 billion - Brazil
* Russia estimate from globalsecurity.org.
** a misplaced decimal point in the CIA Fact Book under-represents Australia's defense budget by a factor of 10.

MIDDLE POWERS - Spend at least $1 billion to assert themselves locally.
$9 billion - Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Isreal
$7 billion - Taiwan
$6 billion - Mexico
$5 billion - Greece, Sweden, N Korea
$4 billion - Singapore, Argentina, Iran, Norway
$3 billion - Belgium, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, S Africa
$2 billion - Kuwait, Switzerland, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Czech Republic
$1 billion - Finland, Thailand, Malaysia, Venezuela, UAE, Austria, Jordan, Indonesia, Libya, New Zealand, Hungary

MINOR POWERS - Spend at least $100 million on their own security.
$900 million - Bangladesh, Romania
$800 million - Yemen, Syria, Peru, Philippines
$700 million - Qatar, Iceland
$600 million - Ecuador, Serbia, Vietnam, Bahrain, Croatia, Ukraine
$500 million - Sudan, Cuba, Nigeria, Lebanon, Sri Lanka
$400 million - Slovakia
$300 million - Cyprus, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Tunisia, Botswana, Ethiopia
$200 million - (12 countries)
$100 million - (24 countries)

MINNOWS - Spend less than $100 million on their own security.
(rest of the world)"

Discuss.

[Bagar-]

Seems like we've wasted a good 370 billion dollars. What a shame.

[Forthe]

A self proclaimed conservative boasting about fiscal irresponsibility? You must be one of those socially conservative\fiscally liberal types better know as neocons.

Even if you are a nationalistic sheep who is "strong on defence" how do you justify that kind of spending when the majority of other countries on the upper part of that list are allies? Especially in light of the fact that you are currently spending about the same amount servicing debt ($430 billion - 2007) as you do on the official defense budget ($439 billion - 2007).

[Markulas]

man both groups are pushing each other so far to one side or another it's disgusting. I get mail from the DNC and RNC casting the other party as fanatical and radical at every talking point.

Another great example is the modern environmental movement. When you think of the people who represent the environmental agenda who do you picture? I think of a upper middle class male who lives nowhere near nature trying to protect ("save") some piece of shit rodent that normal people just don't care about. However, my viewpoint, along with others, is skewed from other environmental issues that are important. There is no real discussion about one of our many unsustainable processes (overpopulation, trash, oil, water, etc.) or chemical toxins that are affecting our collective health. Meanwhile, Global climate change debate continues to further divide people and go nowhere while some of the proposals, that most people agree upon, are not implemented.

I will not make a futile attempt to place blame(?) for this polarization because simply everyone is at fault. But what is needed is a movement that recognizes the harmful effects of perceived division. A movement that helps to create solutions to universal problems. And a movement that doesn't let the vocal few further create a nonproductive polarized environment.

interesting stuff to read-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/art ... mmons.html

[Wulfran]

It makes me laugh to see the US social conservatives (which is all these so called "conservatives" are) attack "liberals" and accuse them of being unpatriotic, un-American, etc when your country was founded because of and based on political liberalism. Liberalism in its most basic form means an evolution of gov't from a system where power is concentrated in a small group to a more broad group. Thats why our gov't forms are referred to as "liberal democracies", be they the republican model like the US or France uses or the constitutional monarchy and parliamentary of most of the British Commonwealth.

Honestly, my political sympathies do reside in some of the more traditional conservative stances, such as small gov't and fiscal responsibility... but neither party in the US is offering that. At least the Democrats are more honest about it, and not touting a misleading banner while trying to institute a Christian-based version of Sharia law.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Honestly, my political sympathies do reside in some of the more traditional conservative stances, such as small gov't and fiscal responsibility... but neither party in the US is offering that. At least the Democrats are more honest about it, and not touting a misleading banner while trying to institute a Christian-based version of Sharia law.

lol

Honest? HAHAHA

Obama, Clinton and McCain all plan on staying in Iraq until it is secure and helping the Iraqis take over upon leaving. However, McCain phrases it without the negative attitude. He says we are staying until it is safe and secure. Obama and Clinton say we must get out of Iraq and will start bringing home troops right away and have "plans" to be out of Iraq by 2014 or so. Ummm, yeah, once it's secure? lol

You guys are funny. Even they know how important it is, but they play on your negative attitudes to make you think they agree with you.


Wulf, I agree with your idea of a conservative.

[Sylvus]

Honestly, my political sympathies do reside in some of the more traditional conservative stances, such as small gov't and fiscal responsibility... but neither party in the US is offering that. At least the Democrats are more honest about it, and not touting a misleading banner while trying to institute a Christian-based version of Sharia law.

lol

Honest? HAHAHA

I don't think you read what he wrote correctly. He isn't saying that an individual Democrat is more honest than an individual Republican. He's saying that the current Republican party, which has always claimed to be about fiscal responsibility and small government, is being more dishonest about what they stand for as a party than the Democrats, who have traditionally been viewed as bigger gov't and more spending. The parties are quite a bit more similar than either of them would like to admit.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Honestly, my political sympathies do reside in some of the more traditional conservative stances, such as small gov't and fiscal responsibility... but neither party in the US is offering that. At least the Democrats are more honest about it, and not touting a misleading banner while trying to institute a Christian-based version of Sharia law.

lol

Honest? HAHAHA

I don't think you read what he wrote correctly. He isn't saying that an individual Democrat is more honest than an individual Republican. He's saying that the current Republican party, which has always claimed to be about fiscal responsibility and small government, is being more dishonest about what they stand for as a party than the Democrats, who have traditionally been viewed as bigger gov't and more spending. The parties are quite a bit more similar than either of them would like to admit.

Yeah, thanks for trying to read my mind, but I understood him completely. My reply stands as is as one easy to digest example.

[Siji]

Why waste time trying to convert someone? Especially idiots.

You're right, just keep building those roads.. you know, the ones that are basically outdated before they're completed. Because after all, there's unlimited space to build an infinite amount of pavement and parking spaces. Give me a 8 lane highway outside my front door bitch! Don't forget the infinite amount of money to maintain those roads, the infinite amount of dependence on mid-east countries for oil, and unlimited atmosphere to handle all of the emissions. A mass transit system that's cleaner and more efficient? Fuck that!

[Sylvus]

Yeah, thanks for trying to read my mind, but I understood him completely. My reply stands as is as one easy to digest example.

My bad. I had assumed that since you replied to a statement that Wulfran didn't even make you had misunderstood what he was saying. I forgot that it was SOP. Carry on.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Yeah, thanks for trying to read my mind, but I understood him completely. My reply stands as is as one easy to digest example.

My bad. I had assumed that since you replied to a statement that Wulfran didn't even make you had misunderstood what he was saying. I forgot that it was SOP. Carry on.

Man, you are thick. Wulf brought up they're honesty, I countered. Go fuck yourself already and spend time talking about the topic instead of calling me out.

[Sylvus]

Yeah, thanks for trying to read my mind, but I understood him completely. My reply stands as is as one easy to digest example.

My bad. I had assumed that since you replied to a statement that Wulfran didn't even make you had misunderstood what he was saying. I forgot that it was SOP. Carry on.

Man, you are thick. Wulf brought up they're honesty, I countered. Go fuck yourself already and spend time talking about the topic instead of calling me out.

You're the one who is not talking about the topic, even though you "understood him completely". Wulf was speaking to how he felt the Republican party was being more dishonest about who they were, as they claim fiscal responsibility and do not practice it. He implied that the Democratic party also does not practice fiscal responsibility, but does not claim that they are. Hence his statement that he feels the Republican party is being less honest. You countered that by offering your opinions about specific instances where individual Democrats were not being honest or have this general air of negativity, and that's not at all what anyone was talking about. He was talking about "liberal" vs. "conservative" as they pertain to this thread and are (often incorrectly, in his opinion) applied to the US political parties, and your reply was in no way relevant to anything that he said. Was that by design?

I wasn't calling you out in my initial reply, I was trying to get you on the same page as those of us who have the ability to comprehend the written word. Since you seem to lack either the desire or ability to get on that page, I will kindly invite you to go fuck yourself as well.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Wow. Just wow. Have a nice day.

[Animale]

I believe in the power of people, AND the government, to help better their fellow man. I believe that, in many situations, the government is better suited to do this as it ultimately has more resources at its disposal. That isn't to mean that the Rockefeller (or Objectivist) means of achieving the greater good is not without merit. Unfortuntely, history has shown us that, with a few notable exceptions (Howard Hughes, Bill Gates, Rockefeller, etc.) relying upon the generosity of the rich is usually not a very good bet.

I feel that the good that government can do far outweighs the bad in most cases - although we need to keep a firm eye upon it and build STRONG checks and balances to prevent abuse.

The example I know best is, of course, in my own field of governmental science funding. In terms of scientific progress, that has been set up in the form of the NSF, DoEnergy, DoEducation, NIH, etc. Through their peer review processes, a vibrant scientific community in the U.S. has flourished since the mid 1950's. However, with the pulling back of our government from funding basic science research that began with Reagan in the 1980's (due to the "small government" model), that vibrancy is in danger of fading and moving overseas. The focus on the "product in 5-years" model that is demanded in industrial and military research has begun to cripple scientific progress... and I lay the fault for that directly upon the fiscal conservative who lacks the vision to understand that investing in science pays off in the long run for the economy. The problem is, of course, that they will not immediately see the benefits when in office and thus cannot crow about concrete success (both sides are guilty of this), but the conservative is, by far, the worst offender in this game.

This lack of vision is startling in many so-called fiscal conservatives, who don't hesitate to build prisons although spending money on social programs (education, youth programs) has been shown to be many times more effective in preventing crime. So, if they actually cared about spending less money in government, they would focus on the highest cost/benefit situation... where only a baseline amount is spent on prisons (always necessary of course) with the lions share of crime-prevention dollars being spent on social programs (in many forms be it walking beat cops to drug preventions programs to youth basketball leagues) that prevent crime in the first place. But prisons are sexy to those "tough on crime," so they continue to be built (and filled) at record rates while programs that are proven to lower crime rates flounder under the pressure of fiscal constraint.

Anyway, I think that the power of the government to do good is underestimated by many, and in a drive to save money we end up costing us more in the long run - be it in the concrete like crime rates in the inner cities or in the more abstract as in scientific advancement across disciplines.

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You're a socialist.

[Zaelath]

You're a socialist.

And you're a cretin. I know which way I'm leaning.

Besides, get the fuck out of the 50's.

[Animale]

You're a socialist.

Oooo... another insightful one-liner from the ministry of truth.

I'm not a socialist economically by any means, but that doesn't mean that taking bits and pieces of "socialist" practices is a bad idea in a free-market economy. From the scientific side of things, governmental support of basic research is basically a subsidy for our entire economy. Compare that to, say, crop subsidies or trade tariffs which only help individual portions of our economy.

I feel that the cost/benefit of scientific research spending lies FAR on the benefit side. Basically, for lower total cost, we can invest in science to improve our economy... or buy technology from the countries that are investing in basic science at a later date. Our choice, hope we don't make the wrong one!

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Wasn't meant to be funny or witty. I was just saying based on what you said, you are a socialist. That's all.