Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Curval on September 17, 2002, 05:45:44 PM
-
The arguments between these two will never end. They are diametrically opposed "forces"..and for one very simple reason.
The liberal feels that the basic nature of man is "good".
The conservative feels that the basic nature of man is "bad".
I can provide many examples of the latter. Concrete solid physical examples.
Can the same be said for the former?
Discuss.
-
<<
The conservative feels that the basic nature of man is "bad".>>>
Then why do liberals think that man cannot be trusted with guns? Change 'nature of man' to 'nature of government', and you have a point. You do know that there is a difference between man and government, right?
ra
-
The liberal feels that the basic nature of man is "good".
I am a conservative and feel the same way - "man is good"
I also feel the "basic" man is stupid and lazy - what the dems/libs count on
-
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that do good, no, not one.
-
American liberal = Communist lite.
-
Originally Written By P.J. O'Rourke in the Book Parliament of potatos
But although this is a conservative book, it is not informed by any very elaborate political theory. I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat
God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriachal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.
Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatenting. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Clause
[/b]
-
"American liberal = Communist lite."
This has often been my experience at the college level. Some even forgo the "lite" part.
-
...but the conservatives that get elected are conservative in name only...except for john mCcain(et al)'s annual pork report, i cant think of anything amongst the rulers of america that aint big spending...FDR & WWII was where it all started. before that taxes were relativley small & gov't was week. even the conservative fringe candidates (buchanan, etc.) that run aren't into seriously cutting spending, just suffling it to their pet projects. taxes are getting to be nearly 50%, but it grows so subtly nobody gets angry.
...to sum up: all elected politicians take your $$$ & stab u in the back
-
Republicans are just a slightly less virulent strain of socialists than Democrats.
It's like the difference between eating toejam and eating toejam with chocolate syrup on it. The toejam with chocolate syrup tastes marginally better, but you are still eating toejam.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"American liberal = Communist lite."
and...
"American Conservative = Fascist Lite"
:p
-
It's like the difference between eating toejam and eating toejam with chocolate syrup on it. The toejam with chocolate syrup tastes marginally better, but you are still eating toejam.
i dont know about that...while i like chocolate syrup, i wouldn't put it on a steak - it would probably take terrible. so there is the very real possibility that toejam is 'better' w/out chocolate syrup.
i'm sure someone out there has cartman's mom's phone number so we can settle this issue
(http://members.lycos.co.uk/womenisers/southpark/cartmansmom.jpg)
-
Liberals are collectivists - tend to consider people as groups, deal with them as groups and believe that all actions should be collective.
Concervatives are undividualists - they believe in personal responcibility and personal actions. Obvioulsy they are at disadvantage politically as they not as good at organising.
Liberals tend to regulate economy but free morality. Conservatives tend to free economy but regulate morality.
Otherwise it's the same - Al Gore or George W. Gore - swap them overnight and you'd never notice.
miko
-
Debating over "politicians" that can give a rat's bellybutton about you, now THIS is funny!.
Karaya2
-
A Liberal is just a Radical with 2 kids and a mortgage.
Conservatives just suck.
I hope I have straightened out everyone on the proper definitions.
-
"...but the conservatives that get elected are conservative in name only..., i cant think of anything amongst the rulers of america that aint big spending"
Correct
What the spending is on then becomes the issue ...
National Defense or another $100 a month to every unemployed pregnant Opra/Springer watching democrat .. hmm
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
and...
"American Conservative = Fascist Lite"
:p
Ironically, Liberalism is closer to pure fascism than conservativism is....( you can do a search for examples on this BBS ;) )
Whats the at Churchill quote?
"Anyone who is not a liberal by the time they are 20, has no heart.
Anyone who is not a conservative by the time they are 30 has no brain"
[/b]
-
and what percent of the military budget is all of welfare two or four percent?
totaly missleading roadkill.
-
You guys are dividerers not uniterers.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whats the at Churchill quote?
"Anyone who is not a liberal by the time they are 20, has no heart.
Anyone who is not a conservative by the time they are 30 has no brain"
[/B]
Yeah, and Midnight just hit 45 :)
-
Originally posted by mietla
Yeah, and Midnight just hit 45 :)
Who's this Churchill guy? :p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Who's this Churchill guy? :p
The same guy who was accused of being drunk at a party by a female socialite. His response was "Yes, I am drunk..but you madame are ugly and tomorrow morning I will be sober.":D
-
The one with the American mother?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Who's this Churchill guy? :p
Smart bellybutton fatso with a cigar. Another exchange attributed to him
A lady came to him and said "If I were your wife I would poison your tea". He replied, "Madam, If I werre your husband, I would drink it"
-
The lady in question was Nancy Astor. The Astors were well known socialites between the wars (and in the imeediate post war era). It was common knowledge at the time that Lady Astor and Churchill cordially disliked each other.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Who's this Churchill guy? :p
Some guy that got a crapload of Canadians killed in WWI.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
...
totaly missleading roadkill.
no - that is what the media spews to the masses for the libs/dumacrats
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Some guy that got a crapload of Canadians killed in WWI.
Someone had to "thin the herds"...or we'd have a US border with a bunch of crack pots like yourself!
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
and what percent of the military budget is all of welfare two or four percent?
totaly missleading roadkill.
It's 2001. Defence 16%, add the rest of the "social" gunk. It's all wellfare: SS, medicare, medicaid "Means tested" entitlements, other "mandatory"
6+6+7+12+23 = 54%
(http://www.raf303.org/mietla/budget2001.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Someone had to "thin the herds"...or we'd have a US border with a bunch of crack pots like yourself!
There you go dividing again. :(
-
Originally posted by ra
<<
The conservative feels that the basic nature of man is "bad".>>>
Then why do liberals think that man cannot be trusted with guns? Change 'nature of man' to 'nature of government', and you have a point. You do know that there is a difference between man and government, right?
ra
Here, here! I agree with you, ra. At least as far as you've expressed yourself. I consider myself politcally conservative, and that's mainly how I distinguish myself from my liberal acquaintences. I think we'd all be better off if government would simply let us live out our lives and conduct our business with out interference from some pointy-headed beaurocrat. Live by the "golden rule", and you can't go wrong.
-
Is this the CSPAN thread? Wheres the picture of the boring "author" of his new boring book or the senator on the floor of Congress taking a nap?
-
miko2d wrote: "Otherwise it's the same - Al Gore or George W. Gore - swap them overnight and you'd never notice. "
I'd hate to think what kind of freakin mess we'd be in militarily and economically if that'd happened before 9/11/01.
-
Originally posted by Curval
The conservative feels that the basic nature of man is "bad".
Uhhhm, no.... conservatives feel that man is good (for one thing) but mostly can provide for himself without government assistance (or interferance).
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ironically, Liberalism is closer to pure fascism than conservativism is....( you can do a search for examples on this BBS ;) )
Whats the at Churchill quote?
"Anyone who is not a liberal by the time they are 20, has no heart.
Anyone who is not a conservative by the time they are 30 has no brain"
[/B]
...but he was also fat and ugly so who cares? :)
-
social security is not welfare no entitlement is . you cant lump in somthing a man works for for 40 years and PAYS for with social assistance I.E. WELFARE. or death benifits to a soldiers family either. but it is standard conservative TOTALY MISSLEADING roadkill.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
social security is not welfare no entitlement is . you cant lump in somthing a man works for for 40 years and PAYS for with social assistance I.E. WELFARE. or death benifits to a soldiers family either. but it is standard conservative TOTALY MISSLEADING roadkill.
Youa re surely joking, and you are surely clueless.
Of course SS is welfare. You probably also believe that the "Social Security Solvency Lock-Box" presented in a dark color really exits, and that someone really counts all the money you put there, just to give it all back to you (plus 12%/year compound interest) when you retire, don't you?
Dude, it is a scam, a giant Ponzzi scheme. If you ever try to implement you'll wind up in jail, but of course government passes GO, collects $200 and gets a Get Free Out Of Jail card every time.
So, where, "In Your Opinion" 2 trillion + dollars really goes?
$2 T / years = $63,419 /sec mind you.
The feds can give a full year's salary to a lazy bum watching Oprah/Springer all day long.... every second. This means 3600 * 24 * 365 = 31,536,000 (31+ millions) full time bums a year. I mean full support, the bums don't even wipe their ass, feds do everything.
BTW, could you live on $64,000 for each member of your family? Say tax free $256,000 for your family of 4, none of you even knowing what work is?
I hoped you could, enjoy.
I know I did not subtract the 16% for a defense spending so my numbers are not really accurate, but I just wanted to give you a rough idea of of a size of this thing.
Yeah, right "roadkill" :(
-
And I didn't even touch the 19% of a Non-defence Discretionary spending, because I suspect (but I can't prove it) it is secretly spend for a stealth tax relief for the people who work for a living.
-
Bah.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
social security is not welfare no entitlement is . you cant lump in somthing a man works for for 40 years and PAYS for with social assistance I.E. WELFARE. or death benifits to a soldiers family either. but it is standard conservative TOTALY MISSLEADING roadkill.
I agree with you on the death benifits for a soldiers family. However, it's a sad fact that social security is an entitlment begun by FDR which long ago usurped it's original stated purpose. It is no longer a way to put money aside for the day you retire, or need in case of an emergency/hardship. I'm paying for my parents' benifits today, and my children will be paying for me tomorrow. And the "lock box" is a myth. ( know you didn't mention that, thought I'd throw that in.) Why should I EXPECT someone else to pay my way (i.e. take care of me) when I'm old? In a benevolent society, that's the right thing to do, but I should appreciate it when it happens, not CLAIM IT AS A RIGHT.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Republicans are just a slightly less virulent strain of socialists than Democrats.
It's like the difference between eating toejam and eating toejam with chocolate syrup on it. The toejam with chocolate syrup tastes marginally better, but you are still eating toejam.
This statement is the most brilliant in regards to the ongoing Poly Sci debates I have ever seen.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
"Republicans are just a slightly less virulent strain of socialists than Democrats.
It's like the difference between eating toejam and eating toejam with chocolate syrup on it. The toejam with chocolate syrup tastes marginally better, but you are still eating toejam."
OK, guess I got a little too serious in my last post. The above is closer to the mark.
Hey!, how 'bout those La7's. Ain't they great planes, or what?
(slimm deftly, and with amazing conversational dexterity, changes the subject.)
-
speaking of toejam it remind me of an old Goulag joke :
Igor (the optimist ) : we will soon eat toejam :(
Vladimir (the pessimist) : we won't have enougth for all of us
:D
-
Liberals want to control your public life. Conservatives want to control your private life.
Take your choice.
-
Liberals believe conservatives shouldn't try to legislate morality.
Conservatives believe liberals shouldn't try to legislate morality.
Liberals believe the Park Service should fight wildfires in order to preserve our national forests.
Conservatives believe the Park Service should not fight wildfires in order to preserve our national forests.
Liberals believe the government should regulate the economy in order to ensure more prosperity for the working man.
Conservatives believe the government should not regulate the economy which will ensure more prosperity for the working man.
Liberals believe the tax rate should be fair.
Conservatives believe the tax rate should be fair.
Now, can't you all see how "similar" the two political philosophies are? Why all the arguing?
Or is "the devil in the details?"
:rolleyes:
Regards, Shuckins
-
Typical Liberal
-
Typical Conservative:
-
What is Hans Solo then? He was way cooler than Luke...and he got the girl.
-
Han Solo is a Libertarian.
-
Originally posted by popeye
Liberals want to control your public life. Conservatives want to control your private life.
Take your choice.
That's not really true. Both parties would stop me from growing certain herbs in my backyard. The Democrats want to restrict what kind of toys (e.g. firearms) that I own. Hell Al Gore's wife is one of the biggest proponents of music censorship. The Democratic thought police would have me punished worse for committing crimes against someone I hate than someone I didn't hate. I'd call all of those things regulation of my private life. Don't kid yourself, the Democrats are after total control of your thoughts, finances, and behavior. They need you to be totally dependent on the nanny state. Then you have no choice but to participate in their ponzi schemes per Mietla's explanation above.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
conservatives feel that man is good (for one thing)
The idea that conservatives view the inherant nature of man as "bad" is not my theory, and it is not a judgement on the character of any conservatives per se.
It is merely an extension of philospohical and political "thought" that began with the Greek philosophers and thrived more recently during the "enlightenment" period which lasted from approximately from 1750 until the Rennaissance.
Toad (or perhaps Elfenwolf) could probably elaborate more on the specific architechs of this theory. Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, Hume, Hobbes, Kant etc, etc, etc....I read it all in University so the details are a bit fuzzy;)
Fact is that it is a well known and accepted precept of politics today.
But, hey...if someone wants to challenge me I'll dig out my old school notes and I'll gladly use it as an excuse to refamiliarise.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Han Solo is a Libertarian.
What is that? A cross between a liberal and a librarian?:)
-
Democrats are sometimes accused of arguing Republicans would like to end Social Security. Using Mietla’s post and many like it, a case could be made that Republicans in fact would end it if they could. Seniors vote in large numbers so that is a viable campaign strategy for Democrats to use.
Social Security is not a welfare program. People pay into it all their working life. Bill Gates will receive a Social Security check the same as a dock worker. But by denigrating Social Security as some kind of welfare, it makes it easier to end it.
Consider the alternative. Lets say a person worked all their life but it wasn’t a top end job. and didn’t have enough of a paycheck to save. Or maybe they did have a top end job or business and was able to get a 401k.. Now for illustration purposes, lets say they have a major recession and that person looses the value of the 401k... What happens then?.. What does the compassionate conservative say to the 65 year old who can’t really work anymore?.. Gosh old fella we’d like to help you but... we just can’t.. you have to go live in the homeless shelter or on the street.
Be advised privatization of Social Security is the method the Republicans will use to end all Social Security which is their true agenda as Mietla admitted too.
-
Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt, the baby boom generation will kill it once they have all retired. Finding a replacement is unavoidable. 'Ending' it or 'Saving' it is just terminology. It is a ponzi scheme, pure and simple. The sooner we get people off it and onto something solvent, the better.
I wish more people knew how much they really pay into Social Security.
ra
-
most people reading this will probably never collect (social security unless it is reorganized [age requirement raised or benefit amount cut]). the broke geezer w/ no job could be taken care of financially by a charity or his/her family, except the gov't takes half of most people's $$$ and spends it on the people who bribe congresspeople & presidents. this explains why real economic growth roughly matches population growth (per capita growth being nonexistent). they'll let you have just enough to survive & pay taxes
http://www.geocities.com/thornton_46/jlaws.html
-
"It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory. Many liberals are "pro-choice" only about killing unborn babies. Not about owning guns, driving large cars, wearing fur, smoking cigarettes, privately investing a portion of their Social Security taxes, saying the unedited (by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit) Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on and on. "
George Will
And that pretty much sums it up.
-
Originally posted by ra
I wish more people knew how much they really pay into Social Security.
ra
They tell you up front how much they're taking; most people just don't want to know.
Your Social Security Tax Dollars (http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/socsecbf/socsecbf.html)
"Almost all American workers pay Social Security taxes. If you take a look at your pay stub--the part that shows how much is taken out for various taxes and benefits each pay period--you'll see deductions for Social Security and Medicare. On some pay stubs it's called FICA, which stands for "Federal Insurance Contributions Act," the law that authorized payroll deductions for Social Security.
The tax rate of 7.65 percent covers both Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security part of the tax is 6.20 percent of gross wages, up to $80,400 in the year 2001. The Medicare tax is 1.45 percent of all earnings.
Employers match a worker's Social Security tax payment. Self-employed people pay Social Security taxes equal to the combined employee/employer tax, although half of their tax is deductible as a business cost.
So we're looking at 7.65% of 80,400 or $6150 a year from the Employeee AND, of course, another 7.65% of 80,400 or $6150 a year from the Employer.
$12,300. This year. Until they raise the tax rates.
It may be a Ponzi scheme but if so it's a Ponzi with roots in the basic "redistribution of wealth" gameplan you see so often.
-
Originally posted by DamnedBuzzard
"It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory. Many liberals are "pro-choice" only about killing unborn babies. Not about owning guns, driving large cars, wearing fur, smoking cigarettes, privately investing a portion of their Social Security taxes, saying the unedited (by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit) Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on and on. "
George Will
And that pretty much sums it up.
I'll forgo using someone elses quote on this one:
Conservatives want to limit your ability to control your body, limit your ability to save your environement, limit your freedom of and FROM religion, limit your freedom of speech and assembly especially if you are not "one of us".
arrrg, there's more but I have to go.
-
Social Security should never have been made compulsory. Period. The American worker ought to have the option of investing this money in private retirement programs or IRA's instead of having it stuck in a government program of largesse that is used by Democrats as a carrot to control the vote of the elderly.
And please, don't tell me that the Democrat's do not use it in that fasion. Every time a Republican proposes a bill to reform Social Security Democratic leaders rub their hands together gleefully and start estimating how many new seats in Congress they can pick up in the next election after they "warn" the elderly.
My Social Security taxes would buy me more "security" if I were allowed to put it into my teacher retirement program. Much more.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Be advised privatization of Social Security is the method the Republicans will use to end all Social Security which is their true agenda as Mietla admitted too.
It isn't enough you misquote people from professional articles; now you have to misquote people from the BBS.
Mietla called Social Security what he believed it to be (and arguably is)- welfare. He explained why it was flawed. He hinted at why it might fail. HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS A CONSERVATIVE GOAL TO END SOCIAL SECURITY. You once again have inserted words in someone's mouth to fit your agenda.
Trouble is, I can't tell why you do it for sure- lack of intelligence, single-minded pursuit of an agenda, or downright dishonesty.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It may be a Ponzi scheme but if so it's a Ponzi with roots in the basic "redistribution of wealth" gameplan you see so often.
I really don't know a whole lot about social security so I can't comment on that...
But I love the term "redistribution of wealth"...
Also known as "Take from those who do...and give it to those who won't".
-
Conservative - Least government is best government.
Liberal - Let us do that for you.
-
Kieran how is paying for something your entire working life a form of welfare? Mieta: “He explained why it was flawed. He hinted at why it might fail....” Oh the sky is falling! Kieran it’s worked for 60 years and works for other civilized countries there’s lots of different ways to shore up social security. New immigrants come into this country all the time and pay into it. The argument that too many baby boomers will retire and not enough young people will be around to take up the slack is fallacy. Its Republican spin.
True HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS A CONSERVATIVE GOAL TO END SOCIAL SECURITY no... I said it. Conservatives have NEVER liked social security and will use every kind of trickery in the book to end it including looting the 600 billion in the SS trust fund then saying see?.. we don’t have enough to continue Social Security. BTW prior to Bush, the trust fund was solvent till 2035.
the broke geezer w/ no job could be taken care of financially by a charity or his/her family
Translated: let em’ eat dogfood.
You can take posts from here and other places and put them in an AARP newsletter, it wouldn’t be lying to warn seniors about the Republican agenda.
Trouble is, I can't tell why you do it for sure- lack of intelligence, single-minded pursuit of an agenda, or downright dishonesty.
Kieran your a sheep nodding it’s head in agreement to everything Rush says or Steve and Edie on Fox and Friends. You disagree with anything anyone says you call them names. I have a hard time believing your any kind of teacher. You don’t even fly in Aces High so why are you even on this board? Wouldn’t you be more comfortable at Free Republic or the Concerned Citizens Council?
But I love the term "redistribution of wealth"...
Also known as "Take from those who do...and give it to those who won't".
It's not though Curval give to those that won't.. They did! they paid for the seniors that came before them during their working life.
-
10bears...
I wasn't actually trying to comment on Socal Security...merely the expression "redistribution of wealth", in general.
-
10Bears: Translated: let em’ eat dogfood.
How about this advice - let them save for retirement and actually have a child or two to work in economy and care for them in old age.
Curval: I wasn't actually trying to comment on Socal Security...merely the expression "redistribution of wealth", in general.
Doesn't using your tax money to breed underclass bother you? Redistribution can be a static process. Directed dysgenic breeding of humans is not only immoral and blasphemous, but it is a strong positive-feedback process.
Anyway, last elections I voted for Gore, George W. Gore
miko
-
Social Security is just another income redistribution system like pretty much all other government spending.
To quote Dennis Hopper from TCM 2 "BRING IT ALLLLLLLL DOWN!!!"
-
Miko..my parents effected the best possible tax planning on my behalf. I was conceived and born in a tax free juristiction. So, the answer to your question is no, it doesn't really bother me. But your point is well taken.
-
Personally, I am leaning more towards "dishonest" than the other two examples.
FWIW, I am not arguing with you regarding the feasibility of SS- I pointed out that you put words in Mietla's mouth, which you have now admitted- nothing more.
You have made yet another blanket generalization about conservatives that shores up my "ignorant" assessment- I am a moderate conservative that is not against SS, nor do I want to see it end. I hope to someday collect some. It still doesn't change that it can arguably be described as welfare, or that it is in serious jeapordy.
If you are a liar I will call you one. If you cannot even quote someone on this board correctly I will call you on it. I don't call you names because I disagree with you- I am giving you the label you have earned. The way you charactarized Mietla was not the way he posted- he gave you straight figures and data, nothing more. You dishonestly turned it into something else.
Yes, I knew there was no benevolent reason for you to ask about my handle and what I flew under. Pray tell, what does that have to do with anything we discuss? Yup, I knew you would throw out the "you don't even fly here, why do you post?" comment. Predictable. We are discussing politics, not AH in the OT. Do I have to fly to have an opinion there? Nope? 'Nuff said.
-
'Employer matching contributions'. What a total scam. There would be a revolt if the average tax payer understood that 'matching contributions' are priced into wages and salaries. Every one of us pays 100% of our social security contributions, without exception.
ra
-
"There is no free lunch."
-
Originally posted by ra
'Employer matching contributions'. What a total scam. There would be a revolt if the average tax payer understood that 'matching contributions' are priced into wages and salaries. Every one of us pays 100% of our social security contributions, without exception.
ra
Of course. Corporations and business pay no taxes, they just collect them from the customers and deliever them to the government.
-
mietla,
I'm not sure how you meant that, but you are absolutely right. A tax on employers is really a tax on employees, a tax on producers is really a tax on consumers.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
'Employer matching contributions'. What a total scam. There would be a revolt if the average tax payer understood that 'matching contributions' are priced into wages and salaries. Every one of us pays 100% of our social security contributions, without exception.
ra
Some of us (self employed) do and know it. Oppresive as hell but what're ya gonna do? Thinking of retiring in Mexico.