Ah, but that would be YOUR opinion. They consider their agenda very much "progress", meaning change for the better.
Ah, but that would be YOUR opinion. They consider their agenda very much "progress", meaning change for the better.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Precisely. They see it as exactly moving away from the decadence of the West, its debauchery and decline. It is change for the better. It is "progressive".
You know, names are so cool. You'd think that with a name like Democratic People's Republic of Korea, you'd be talking about South Korea - but it's the official name of North Korea. Yeah. Democratic. Republic. All that.
It's not like they're going to call it Oppressive Dictatorial Police-State of Korea, are they?
You know, just 'cause you find a mouse in the cookie jar, he doesn't become a cookie. Just because you call yourself "progressive" doesn't mean you're not likely to say things like:
"It's time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals."
and
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. "
jetmonkey
New Member
Stan:'Scuse me. [holds out a clipboard] Hello, we are selling magazine subscriptions for our community youth program. Would you like to help young people like us by purchasing a subscription of your choice?
Driver:Oh wow, you guys shouldn't be doing that. Don't you know what you're doing to the world?
Kyle:Wha- whataya mean?
Man 1:[wearing a guitar over his back] You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that they can make money. [the other man is busily eating chips]
Stan:Who are the corporations?
Woman 2:[a blonde with a psychedelic fish on her shirt] The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.
Stan:Are you serious?? We never heard that.
Driver:We just spent our first semester at college. Our professors opened our eyes. The government is using its corporate ties to make you sell magazines so they can get rich.
Kyle:Ugh! Those dirty liars! Kenny
Sonofa#####!) [throws down his shoulder tote] Man 2:[has finished his chips] This is a really nice town you have here. That's why the corporations are trying to use you to take it down.
Stan:Well... Well what do we do?
Driver:Just hang with us for a bit. We'll fill you in on everything you haven't been told. [Man 2 resumes eating chips]
Attachments
Trunk Monkey
Defender of the Blonde
I am all for Socialism. As long as I get to be in charge.
Last edited:
No no no...
In places like North Korea and Cuba the government makes decisions for the people and the people have no say in who makes up that government.
Here we decide what government we want, and if the members of said goverment don't act accordingly they are out of a job next election day. We decide what level we want our government involved in our lives. What was necessary 50 years ago may be useless now and vice versa.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Good. I want the government (local, state, federal) out of my life.
No more MVA, no more income tax, nothing!
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Good. I want the government (local, state, federal) out of my life.
No more MVA, no more income tax, nothing!
So we go back to toll roads instead of public roads?
No requirments for seatbelts or other safety standards for cars?
No postal service?
No patent office?
No standing Army?
No public schools? Oops! There goes your job kid, too bad no unemployment insurance either...
Hate to break it to you, but government is necessary. It's to what degree it's necessary and in what areas that is the real debate.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I think I understand you, but the examples you gave weren't the best.
- In this day and age, the postal service is mostly an anachronism.
- We didn't need laws for seatbelts before they came into use, and by the observable amount they are used, laws to create them were kind of pointless.
- We've had public roads throughout the world since at least Roman times. And we still have toll roads which serve no purpose except to provide state revenue, since they bring in far more money than is needed to maintain the roads.
- Unemployment insurance sure is nice - I wonder how I'd be if I had all that money set aside for the same purpose - except it was MINE?
- And a standing army is kind of nice, although the framers were AGAINST it, because it meant an armed, trained group of men were at the disposal of powerful men and potential national threats.
Me, I'm grateful for police and courts, fire, medical and rescue facilities, libraries and schools, public utilities and so forth. Infrastructure.
As a general principle, I'm more in favor of government encouraging, assisting, regulating or NOT interfering with the public solving its own problems. Some things, the mob handles poorly, like posse justice over rational thinking meted out by experienced jurists. Others, like charity, it does BETTER if not thwarted by the government but encouraged. Some things, like national highways, harbors, bridges and so forth, the public can't generally raise funds for - but smaller projects, the public does better as long as government doesn't thwart it.
The best government, governs least.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
(My responses are in bold)
So we go back to toll roads instead of public roads?
It would help if they maintained those roads and were keeping our infrastructure secure. Instead, we have bridges collapsing in rush hour in major cities.
No requirments for seatbelts or other safety standards for cars?
Safety standard and "enviromentally friendly" standards are two different things.
No postal service?
I use Gmail and SOMD.us email (there's your plug, Vrai
). As far as packages, they always come to me through FedEx or DHL.
No patent office?
Doesn't affect me since I haven't invented anything. :shrug:
No standing Army?
Again, didn't say that.
No public schools? Oops! There goes your job kid, too bad no unemployment insurance either...
Well, it would help if the State was funding those public schools.
Hate to break it to you, but government is necessary. It's to what degree it's necessary and in what areas that is the real debate.
I don't need them to protect me from myself. Protect me from foriegn countries that want to kill us. Keep our roads safe. Keep our bridges safe. They need to deal with the real things the government was put in place to deal with in the first place.
So we go back to toll roads instead of public roads?
It would help if they maintained those roads and were keeping our infrastructure secure. Instead, we have bridges collapsing in rush hour in major cities.
No requirments for seatbelts or other safety standards for cars?
Safety standard and "enviromentally friendly" standards are two different things.
No postal service?
I use Gmail and SOMD.us email (there's your plug, Vrai
). As far as packages, they always come to me through FedEx or DHL.No patent office?
Doesn't affect me since I haven't invented anything. :shrug:
No standing Army?
Again, didn't say that.
No public schools? Oops! There goes your job kid, too bad no unemployment insurance either...
Well, it would help if the State was funding those public schools.
Hate to break it to you, but government is necessary. It's to what degree it's necessary and in what areas that is the real debate.
I don't need them to protect me from myself. Protect me from foriegn countries that want to kill us. Keep our roads safe. Keep our bridges safe. They need to deal with the real things the government was put in place to deal with in the first place.
Ah Andy, you forget that a standing Army was not originally authorized by our Constitution!
Neither were Interstate Highways.
Or public schools.
But as time marched on we needed those things, and officials that were elected by the majority created those laws and agencies. When they become obsolete we'll do away with them. We are not the same country we were 230 years ago. What makes this country what it is is the framework set forth in our Constitution that allows us to adapt accordingly without any major upheavels.
Neither were Interstate Highways.
Or public schools.
But as time marched on we needed those things, and officials that were elected by the majority created those laws and agencies. When they become obsolete we'll do away with them. We are not the same country we were 230 years ago. What makes this country what it is is the framework set forth in our Constitution that allows us to adapt accordingly without any major upheavels.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Mostly the areas most conservatives I know react to - they don't want the government out there trying to change the way they live their lives. Actually a lot of liberals see this intrusion as well but they blame Republicans for it.
I've tried to frame this many times unsuccessfully, but it seems to me that to socialists or liberals, the government itself IS the face of the nation and its society and culture.
If you want flowers planted at the entrance to the town, you petition the town government if you're a liberal.
If you're a conservative, you get some friends, you plant them yourself, and you tell the town government to leave you alone.
That's the massively simplified version. I remember discussing such things with a Swedish woman I used to know. She insisted that homeless people were not a problem in Sweden (they actually are, but) and if they were, the government takes care of it. I answered, how convenient, when someone is suffering, you hand the government your money and tell them to make it go away so you don't have to look at it. She'd answer, at least they get taken care of and I answered it doesn't make you more compassionate, but less.
It's why I favor the idea of government deductions for charity. It's essentially saying, look, if you're going to be spending all that money helping those in need, you're going to do it better than we do, and that kind of defeats the purpose of us trying to do it. Keep that money, it's better spent your way. We're not going to DISCOURAGE this behavior by taxing the crap out of you with what you have left.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Fwiw...
...conservatives are about one thing; a conservative society devoid of radical actions, usually on the part of government, local, state and/or federal that leads, inevitably, to unintended consequences.
When things tend to stay the same, or at least evolve and change slowly and in a conservative fashion, people can adjust relatively comfortable. When things change radically, it throws all sorts of things up in the air and makes for often harsh and difficulty, unnecessarily so, adjustments for people, business and society as a whole.
Best example, the Civil War. To a conservative, it was unnecessary and wasteful and achieved change in a radical fashion that lead to all sorts of bad things whereas had the war been avoided by continual compromise and discussion, change would likely have been not so violent, not so costly and in an entirely much more productive fashion albeit much slower.
Slave owners wanted things their own way, right now, as they saw slavery slowly dying. Abolitionists wanted slavery dead as soon as possible. Everyone else, the vast majority, didn't see what the big deal was as long as it didn't affect them. Until the clash came.
When it was over, the slave class was destroyed and lost absolutely everything. The abolitionists got the technical end to slavery. Everyone in the middle bled and lost and paid for the clash and weren't much sure what was won or lost other than the knowledge that life as they knew it, North and South, was gone forever. And slaves ended up with something they vaguely knew they wanted, freedom, but in a fashion that left them completely unprepared to deal with it in a society completely unprepared for them to have it.
The ugliness of the post war years, reconstruction, virtual slavery, bitterness, strife, displacement, exodus, deeply colored ideas of hope and dreams of the future. It took a long, long time to see that what came of it was remotely worth the price.
Conservatives like steady government and society so that people may take advantage of opportunities as they learn and grow whereas 'progressives' and modern liberals want constant radical upheaval in the name of some perceived justice, never mind that transformations often leave those who 'need' this help completely lost as to what to do with the change.
...conservatives are about one thing; a conservative society devoid of radical actions, usually on the part of government, local, state and/or federal that leads, inevitably, to unintended consequences.
When things tend to stay the same, or at least evolve and change slowly and in a conservative fashion, people can adjust relatively comfortable. When things change radically, it throws all sorts of things up in the air and makes for often harsh and difficulty, unnecessarily so, adjustments for people, business and society as a whole.
Best example, the Civil War. To a conservative, it was unnecessary and wasteful and achieved change in a radical fashion that lead to all sorts of bad things whereas had the war been avoided by continual compromise and discussion, change would likely have been not so violent, not so costly and in an entirely much more productive fashion albeit much slower.
Slave owners wanted things their own way, right now, as they saw slavery slowly dying. Abolitionists wanted slavery dead as soon as possible. Everyone else, the vast majority, didn't see what the big deal was as long as it didn't affect them. Until the clash came.
When it was over, the slave class was destroyed and lost absolutely everything. The abolitionists got the technical end to slavery. Everyone in the middle bled and lost and paid for the clash and weren't much sure what was won or lost other than the knowledge that life as they knew it, North and South, was gone forever. And slaves ended up with something they vaguely knew they wanted, freedom, but in a fashion that left them completely unprepared to deal with it in a society completely unprepared for them to have it.
The ugliness of the post war years, reconstruction, virtual slavery, bitterness, strife, displacement, exodus, deeply colored ideas of hope and dreams of the future. It took a long, long time to see that what came of it was remotely worth the price.
Conservatives like steady government and society so that people may take advantage of opportunities as they learn and grow whereas 'progressives' and modern liberals want constant radical upheaval in the name of some perceived justice, never mind that transformations often leave those who 'need' this help completely lost as to what to do with the change.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
One thing I've noticed regarding Socialism. As more entitlements are created, revenues are needed to provide these entitlements. Taxation goes up. However, the entitlements NEVER go away. Same thing with government agencies. When do you think the Department of Homeland Security will be abolished?
Just take a look at what has happened here in Maryland in just one year, to fund entitlements for one city, because our all-knowing governor wants to take care of us, 'cause he knows best. NOT!
As far as tolls go, how many times over has the Nice Bridge been paid for?
Just take a look at what has happened here in Maryland in just one year, to fund entitlements for one city, because our all-knowing governor wants to take care of us, 'cause he knows best. NOT!
As far as tolls go, how many times over has the Nice Bridge been paid for?
When I refered to tolls I meant the old toll roads, as in privatly owned and maintained, that predated modern highways.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
The answer didn't answer the question. Isn't Northern Virginia running toll roads out to Dulles? Privately built and maintained?
Our government has control of us and oppresses us. Dead is dead. The only difference the cause of your death makes is to the living. Either way you have died for a cause.
Most of the human race is in China. Guess what they aren't free.