The Conservative Cave
The Bar => Introductions & Subsequent Welcomes => Topic started by: Lex on June 20, 2013, 02:09:06 PM
-
Hi there everyone.
I'm Lex, or at least that's what my internet pseudonym is. I'm not a Conservative, but I figured I may as well post in as many political forums as possible in order to get different perspectives on issues and debate with different individuals on such issues.
Wait, you're not a Conservative? Then what are you? You might be asking this question, and to be honest I'm not sure I can answer this question. I don't know what I am. I can't sit down and look at an ideology and say "I believe in this, I share all of the ideas stated", it doesn't click for me. I just have my ideas and I share them, I don't care much for labels anyway. I'm sure one can ask me for an opinion on something and I'll give it, but I can't classify my opinions.
Anyway, I'm new here. I'll see you around the forums from time to time.
-
Welcome to the forum. If you are in to self discovery at all, this forum will be a powerful tool. All you will have to do is participate. Glad to have you. Enjoy the ride.
-
Welcome Lex! Just mind your manners & you'll be fine. We can actually discuss things rationally around these parts. :cheersmate:
-
Welcome Lex. How do you feel about Ron Paul?
-
Howdy.
KC
-
Welcome.
-
Welcome, Lex!
Uh....do you like peach cobbler?
:whistling:
-
Welcome, Lex!
Uh....do you like peach cobbler?
:whistling:
Peach cobbler=poorly made pie.
-
Peach cobbler=poorly made pie.
No, it's simply pie made in a hurried fashion. Without rolling pins and bench flour.
-
Hi there everyone.
I'm Lex, or at least that's what my internet pseudonym is. I'm not a Conservative, but I figured I may as well post in as many political forums as possible in order to get different perspectives on issues and debate with different individuals on such issues.
Wait, you're not a Conservative? Then what are you? You might be asking this question, and to be honest I'm not sure I can answer this question. I don't know what I am. I can't sit down and look at an ideology and say "I believe in this, I share all of the ideas stated", it doesn't click for me. I just have my ideas and I share them, I don't care much for labels anyway. I'm sure one can ask me for an opinion on something and I'll give it, but I can't classify my opinions.
Anyway, I'm new here. I'll see you around the forums from time to time.
Welcome, new guy.
So... you don't believe in labels, or classify your opinions. What do you believe in?
Here are a few questions for you, to help us sort it out.
1. Choose one:
a. The government knows what's best for me
b. I know what's best for me
2. Choose one:
a. I own the fruits of my labors (income, intellectual property, etc.), and the government is entitled to the smallest amount necessary to perform its essential functions
b. The government owns the fruits of my labors, and is entitled to take as much as it wants.
3. Choose one:
a. The government is a benevolent force
b. The government is not a benevolent force
4. Name the most important natural right, in your opinion.
5. List, in descending order, the four most important amendments to the US Constitution, in your opinion:
a.
b.
c.
d.
6. Explain the reason you chose the most important amendment (a) in question 4.
7. Choose one:
a. From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
b. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.
c. Yes, we can!
d. Get off my lawn!
8. Name the greatest US president.
9. Choose one:
a. bacon
b. beer
c. pie
d. boobiez
-
Boy, I'm glad they didn't have an entrance exam when I joined.
-
Welcome, new guy.
So... you don't believe in labels, or classify your opinions. What do you believe in?
Here are a few questions for you,...
::)
Bottom line: Do you like Peach Cobbler? If so you are in. If not- we shoot you and divide up your gear.
-
::)
Bottom line: Do you like Peach Cobbler? If so you are in. If not- we shoot you and divide up your gear.
He would have wanted me to have that Zippo.
-
::)
Bottom line: Do you like Peach Cobbler? If so you are in. If not- we shoot you and divide up your gear.
Bitchslapped for being late. I already asked him that question.
Pay attention.
-
9. Choose one:
a. bacon
b. beer
c. pie
d. boobiez
WTH? How can you choose just one?
Welcome, Lex!
-
Wooh! Glad I didn't have to take an exam either.
-
9. Choose one:
a. bacon
b. beer
c. pie
d. boobiez
I will have one of each.
(http://www.fwweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bacon-1024x754.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2M85gRbkjnI/UMJ4v2Us_EI/AAAAAAAAFH4/QkeHMRODs6k/s1600/beer.jpg)
(http://www.theculturebite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/peach-cobbler-cooked.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m8xcwhKhfbw/UC-ZKi91-rI/AAAAAAAAAEY/ldGKOlGGCWo/s1600/epic+tits.jpg)
-
I will have one of each.
(http://www.fwweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bacon-1024x754.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2M85gRbkjnI/UMJ4v2Us_EI/AAAAAAAAFH4/QkeHMRODs6k/s1600/beer.jpg)
(http://www.theculturebite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/peach-cobbler-cooked.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m8xcwhKhfbw/UC-ZKi91-rI/AAAAAAAAAEY/ldGKOlGGCWo/s1600/epic+tits.jpg)
Two of the last one for me.
-
Welcome Lex. How do you feel about Ron Paul?
Uh, oh, you had to bring that up..................
Welcome Lex.
.
-
Welcome, new guy.
So... you don't believe in labels, or classify your opinions. What do you believe in?
Here are a few questions for you, to help us sort it out.
1. Choose one:
a. The government knows what's best for me
b. I know what's best for me
2. Choose one:
a. I own the fruits of my labors (income, intellectual property, etc.), and the government is entitled to the smallest amount necessary to perform its essential functions
b. The government owns the fruits of my labors, and is entitled to take as much as it wants.
3. Choose one:
a. The government is a benevolent force
b. The government is not a benevolent force
4. Name the most important natural right, in your opinion.
5. List, in descending order, the four most important amendments to the US Constitution, in your opinion:
a.
b.
c.
d.
6. Explain the reason you chose the most important amendment (a) in question 4.
7. Choose one:
a. From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
b. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.
c. Yes, we can!
d. Get off my lawn!
8. Name the greatest US president.
9. Choose one:
a. bacon
b. beer
c. pie
d. boobiez
I like this. Its not an entrance exam its to help our newest member out.
Lex. take a moment and fill this out, don't bother being neutral, just pick answers you really like.
The result will be revealing.
I advise this test for one reason.
People who start off saying, "I don't like labels." always end up being liberals. Always.
and just so you know. Liberals who don't troll are treated nicely here. Always.
-
Welcome Lex. How do you feel about Ron Paul?
I don't really have a high opinion of Ron Paul, or the right-libertarian ideology as a whole. I appreciate their views, and their liking to freedom, but to think that the government should (and even could) be like it was back then is not based in reality. All governments inevitably expand, so if we were to have libertarians gain control, we'd see a short-lived libertarian state before it expands and becomes what it is today again. Rome went from republic, to dictatorship, to empire. Same with America, went from republic, now it's more of a representative democracy, and we'll see where we end up maybe within our lifetimes.
Welcome, new guy.
So... you don't believe in labels, or classify your opinions. What do you believe in?
Here are a few questions for you, to help us sort it out.
1. Choose one:
a. The government knows what's best for me
b. I know what's best for me
2. Choose one:
a. I own the fruits of my labors (income, intellectual property, etc.), and the government is entitled to the smallest amount necessary to perform its essential functions
b. The government owns the fruits of my labors, and is entitled to take as much as it wants.
3. Choose one:
a. The government is a benevolent force
b. The government is not a benevolent force
4. Name the most important natural right, in your opinion.
5. List, in descending order, the four most important amendments to the US Constitution, in your opinion:
a.
b.
c.
d.
6. Explain the reason you chose the most important amendment (a) in question 4.
7. Choose one:
a. From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
b. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.
c. Yes, we can!
d. Get off my lawn!
8. Name the greatest US president.
9. Choose one:
a. bacon
b. beer
c. pie
d. boobiez
These questions are a bit biased and objective. So I'll give my insight and answer the questions.
1. Choice B
I myself am a responsible individual. I know what's best for myself, and my family. However, we must acknowledge that the state (i.e, government) is essentially the father figure of society. Like father, like son. Like government, like society. On the individual level, we are free individuals, and (at least some of us) know what's best for ourselves. On a collective level, it's a different story.
2. Choice B
The government does has the right to take some fruits of my labor, but they definitely do not have the right to a majority of it. Especially if I'm actually a wage worker rather than someone who sits in an office and has profit produced for them by the workers. I believe that when it comes to taxation they can spend wherever they want it, not just the bare essentials. Again, referring to the answer in question one. The government is like the father figure for society. What would a family be like if they just provided clothes, food, water, and shelter for their children, and had no parenting? It wouldn't be the healthiest family. We need taxes to spend on other things than just the bare basics.
3. Choice A
Government is, overall, a benevolent force. On a case to case basis it certainly depends on the nature of the government and its leadership, but overall, definitely Choice A. Governments rose as a reaction to the primitive nature of man. Governments were established because the opposite was desired. They sought order in the midst of discord, they sought protection on the face of a violent world, and they sought a more stable society. Ultimately they made governments because they wanted certainty, they wanted to be certain that the next day they would have food, protection, shelter, etc., and governments facilitated the creation of culture, power of humanity, and made man the apex predator, the alpha males among alpha males. Look at us today, we are the goliaths now. This is why I see government as benevolent. It forged humanity's throne.
4. The right to live
Nobody is entitled anything. Be lucky you are here because of billions of years of evolutionary success.
5.
a. 1
b. 6
c. 2
d. 9
1st Amendment is most important to me because that's essentially the barebones and basics. You have the right to an opinion, right to speak your mind (no matter how stupid your dumb*** may be), right to believe in whatever God/Gods/things you wish, etc.
6th is second on the list because because it definitely helps in a court of law that your trial is fair.
2nd is third on the list because I love guns.
9th is on the list because natural rights are cool.
6.
Read question five, first amendment.
7. Choice N/A
I don't really think any of those are really viable in my opinion. Though I would go somewhere between A and B, and yes, I know A was said by Marx but to say all of his ideas were bad is a bit ignorant. Even if you vehemently disagree with Marxism, a broken clock is at least right twice a day. If we're going to delve deeper into economics, I think you'd find your views contradicting mine a bit in certain areas.
8. No one
Presidents are leaders, they lead the nation to greatness, but we must acknowledge they are only a cog in the national machine. Everybody else plays a part in the functions of this machine. Every man a cog, a bolt, a pulley, a motor, etc. I can certainly tell you who the worst are, but I can't tell you the best.
9. Boobiez
Out of that whole list, boobiez are perhaps the most beneficial to my health out of all of those. Bacon will give me cholesterol, beer will kill my brain cells and give me cirrhosis, and pie will give me diabetes. Boobs give me the pleasures that I enjoy without giving me bad health problems in old age.
Anyway, hope this helps. Peace out.
-
I don't really have a high opinion of Ron Paul, or the right-libertarian ideology as a whole. I appreciate their views, and their liking to freedom, but to think that the government should (and even could) be like it was back then is not based in reality. All governments inevitably expand, so if we were to have libertarians gain control, we'd see a short-lived libertarian state before it expands and becomes what it is today again. Rome went from republic, to dictatorship, to empire. Same with America, went from republic, now it's more of a representative democracy, and we'll see where we end up maybe within our lifetimes.
These questions are a bit biased and objective. So I'll give my insight and answer the questions.
1. Choice B
I myself am a responsible individual. I know what's best for myself, and my family. However, we must acknowledge that the state (i.e, government) is essentially the father figure of society. Like father, like son. Like government, like society. On the individual level, we are free individuals, and (at least some of us) know what's best for ourselves. On a collective level, it's a different story.
2. Choice B
The government does has the right to take some fruits of my labor, but they definitely do not have the right to a majority of it. Especially if I'm actually a wage worker rather than someone who sits in an office and has profit produced for them by the workers. I believe that when it comes to taxation they can spend wherever they want it, not just the bare essentials. Again, referring to the answer in question one. The government is like the father figure for society. What would a family be like if they just provided clothes, food, water, and shelter for their children, and had no parenting? It wouldn't be the healthiest family. We need taxes to spend on other things than just the bare basics.
3. Choice A
Government is, overall, a benevolent force. On a case to case basis it certainly depends on the nature of the government and its leadership, but overall, definitely Choice A. Governments rose as a reaction to the primitive nature of man. Governments were established because the opposite was desired. They sought order in the midst of discord, they sought protection on the face of a violent world, and they sought a more stable society. Ultimately they made governments because they wanted certainty, they wanted to be certain that the next day they would have food, protection, shelter, etc., and governments facilitated the creation of culture, power of humanity, and made man the apex predator, the alpha males among alpha males. Look at us today, we are the goliaths now. This is why I see government as benevolent. It forged humanity's throne.
4. The right to live
Nobody is entitled anything. Be lucky you are here because of billions of years of evolutionary success.
5.
a. 1
b. 6
c. 2
d. 9
1st Amendment is most important to me because that's essentially the barebones and basics. You have the right to an opinion, right to speak your mind (no matter how stupid your dumb*** may be), right to believe in whatever God/Gods/things you wish, etc.
6th is second on the list because because it definitely helps in a court of law that your trial is fair.
2nd is third on the list because I love guns.
9th is on the list because natural rights are cool.
6.
Read question five, first amendment.
7. Choice N/A
I don't really think any of those are really viable in my opinion. Though I would go somewhere between A and B, and yes, I know A was said by Marx but to say all of his ideas were bad is a bit ignorant. Even if you vehemently disagree with Marxism, a broken clock is at least right twice a day. If we're going to delve deeper into economics, I think you'd find your views contradicting mine a bit in certain areas.
8. No one
Presidents are leaders, they lead the nation to greatness, but we must acknowledge they are only a cog in the national machine. Everybody else plays a part in the functions of this machine. Every man a cog, a bolt, a pulley, a motor, etc. I can certainly tell you who the worst are, but I can't tell you the best.
9. Boobiez
Out of that whole list, boobiez are perhaps the most beneficial to my health out of all of those. Bacon will give me cholesterol, beer will kill my brain cells and give me cirrhosis, and pie will give me diabetes. Boobs give me the pleasures that I enjoy without giving me bad health problems in old age.
Anyway, hope this helps. Peace out.
I graded your test. You're a liberal.
I gave you a failing grade; not because you are liberal, but because you don't know the difference between objective and subjective. The test was not biased, it was subjective, designed to elicit your opinions.
Do you really think of the Federal Government as your "Big Daddy"? Ask the Indians how that worked out for them.
And a bitchslap for "peace, out".
-
I graded your test. You're a liberal.
I gave you a failing grade; not because you are liberal, but because you don't know the difference between objective and subjective. The test was not biased, it was subjective, designed to elicit your opinions.
Do you really think of the Federal Government as your "Big Daddy"? Ask the Indians how that worked out for them.
And a bitchslap for "peace, out".
I may have used objective in the wrong sense, I was using it more to describe the nature of the answers. You had an obvious authoritarian and libertarian answer, an obvious capitalist and socialist answer to another, and an obvious conservative and liberal answer on another question.
Well if what I answered here makes me a liberal, so be it.
-
I may have used objective in the wrong sense, I was using it more to describe the nature of the answers. You had an obvious authoritarian and libertarian answer, an obvious capitalist and socialist answer to another, and an obvious conservative and liberal answer on another question.
Well if what I answered here makes me a liberal, so be it.
Welcome Lex,
I have no accusations to make :wink:
-
Well if what I answered here makes me a liberal, so be it.
You wrote one sentence which made it clear:
However, we must acknowledge that the state (i.e, government) is essentially the father figure of society.
We must acknowledge no such thing. I reject the idea completely.
The idea of Big Daddy government is exclusive to neoliberalism. "The State" is made up of elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats. Not one of them are elected or appointed because they are wiser, more just, or more honest than any Citizen. Not one of them are qualified to act in loco parentis, and the machine of the State certainly is not. Read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, particularly chapter 10, for a deeper discussion of this point.
That you excluded yourself from needing Big Daddy Government to run your life, but insisted it is necessary for others showed me that you are also an elitist. But the authoritarian collectivist (read "neoliberal") Hive does not permit the individual to opt out. It seeks to control everyone. What will you do when the State declares you to be a kulak and sends the lumpenproletariat for your head?
-
I will have one of each.
(http://www.fwweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bacon-1024x754.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2M85gRbkjnI/UMJ4v2Us_EI/AAAAAAAAFH4/QkeHMRODs6k/s1600/beer.jpg)
(http://www.theculturebite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/peach-cobbler-cooked.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m8xcwhKhfbw/UC-ZKi91-rI/AAAAAAAAAEY/ldGKOlGGCWo/s1600/epic+tits.jpg)
That is all kinds of mouth-watering.
:drool: :drool: :drool:
-
Poor girl has to sleep on her back
-
We must acknowledge no such thing. I reject the idea completely.
The idea of Big Daddy government is exclusive to neoliberalism. "The State" is made up of elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats. Not one of them are elected or appointed because they are wiser, more just, or more honest than any Citizen. Not one of them are qualified to act in loco parentis, and the machine of the State certainly is not. Read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, particularly chapter 10, for a deeper discussion of this point.
That you excluded yourself from needing Big Daddy Government to run your life, but insisted it is necessary for others showed me that you are also an elitist. But the authoritarian collectivist (read "neoliberal") Hive does not permit the individual to opt out. It seeks to control everyone. What will you do when the State declares you to be a kulak and sends the lumpenproletariat for your head?
Seeing the government as a "father figure" for society doesn't immediately make you a liberal. There are many ideologies which see the state as such. Liberalism in the modern, American sense is not the one ideology that has that view.
Also, you cannot deny the state has played a large part in the development of humanity. It's like saying the wheel wasn't essential to the creation of chariots and automobiles. It's just plain wrong.
Also, "neoliberalism" is not what you think it means. Shown by you saying authoritarian collectivists are neoliberals. Here is the definition.
"Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society." - Wikipedia, Neoliberalism
Calling neoliberalism authoritarian collectivization is like calling Ayn Rand a Marxist. The complete opposite is the case.
-
People who start off saying, "I don't like labels." always end up being liberals. Always.
Well if what I answered here makes me a liberal, so be it.
Yes. I am proven right once again.
BS given for trying to hide your liberal nature. (It's not like a 100 other trolls didn't say the exact same thing you did.)
-
Seeing the government as a "father figure" for society doesn't immediately make you a liberal. There are many ideologies which see the state as such. Liberalism in the modern, American sense is not the one ideology that has that view.
Also, you cannot deny the state has played a large part in the development of humanity. It's like saying the wheel wasn't essential to the creation of chariots and automobiles. It's just plain wrong.
Also, "neoliberalism" is not what you think it means. Shown by you saying authoritarian collectivists are neoliberals. Here is the definition.
"Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society." - Wikipedia, Neoliberalism
Calling neoliberalism authoritarian collectivization is like calling Ayn Rand a Marxist. The complete opposite is the case.
I used "neoliberalism" as a synonym for modern Progressivism, which is authoritarian collectivism. I stand corrected.
However, I stand by my characterization of Liberalism/Progressivism as the American political theory which places the State in loco parentis.
you cannot deny the state has played a large part in the development of humanity.
Strawman argument. Bitchslap for you.
You're still a liberal. Own it, as we as here at CC.
-
Oh boy this one is gonna be fun. :popcorn:
-
Seeing the government as a "father figure" for society doesn't immediately make you a liberal. There are many ideologies which see the state as such. Liberalism in the modern, American sense is not the one ideology that has that view.
Also, you cannot deny the state has played a large part in the development of humanity. It's like saying the wheel wasn't essential to the creation of chariots and automobiles. It's just plain wrong.
Also, "neoliberalism" is not what you think it means. Shown by you saying authoritarian collectivists are neoliberals. Here is the definition.
"Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalization, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector while increasing the role of the private sector in modern society." - Wikipedia, Neoliberalism
Calling neoliberalism authoritarian collectivization is like calling Ayn Rand a Marxist. The complete opposite is the case.
Big Dog and Mr. Mannn have already taken you to task for being the liberal you are -- not that that's a crime, btw. Once you recognize your disease, however, you can take steps to fix it. Spending some time here just might be the pill to fix that disease.
That said, I will take you to task for your "father figure" nonsense.
You're trying to look at the state as being a necessity. In any society, some organization is certainly bound to happen and is appropriate, so we won't debate that. I will point out, however, that the very essence of government is to restrict liberty.
That business of individual liberty is central to the point I want to make with you. Liberty is what enables us to succeed and to prosper without that "father figure" you love so dearly. Liberty is what makes us stronger as individuals and as individuals within a collective. Liberty is what I served to defend, and perhaps yourself as well. Liberty is what America is for and about.
There are balances we must maintain, of course. We can't have anarchy and we obviously can't have a police state.
Oops. Waitaminute. Police state...
IRS. Fast and Furious. Benghazi. NSA. EPA. And the list goes on and on and on.
People who think like you about "father figures" make excuses and otherwise pander to the shitstink scandals I just mentioned. You (collective you) turn a blind eye to these outrages because in your minds, it's acceptable for the government to behave in this manner.
People like you forget one basic, irrefutable fact: Governments are PEOPLE. Governments are FALLIBLE. Governments MUST BE RESTRICTED FROM TOO MUCH POWER.
-
What our n00b fails to understand is that:
" Man is not free unless government is limited".
What this country has achieved is not because of Government intrusion but despite it.
-
Why were the Articles of the Confederation thrown away? They weren't specific.
Why was the Constitution made? To be more specific on how the government should be run. It was to limit what it could and could not do. Some of the signers believed that the representatives should not have been paid and that they were in service to the people. Eventually majority of the signers believed that the government should be run by the people, and some believed that only wealthy and educated should vote because the common man was easily swayed.
-
What our n00b fails to understand is that:
" Man is not free unless government is limited".
What this country has achieved is not because of Government intrusion but despite it.
Well said. High five.
-
Welcome, Lex!
Uh....do you like peach cobbler?
:whistling:
Bwahahahaha!
-
What is the euphemism behind peach cobbler?
-
Poor girl has to sleep on her back
She's welcome to sleep on me... :wink:
-
She's welcome to sleep on me... :wink:
Hmm, I'm pretty sure she would sleep well with a doorknocker under her ass too
-
What is the euphemism behind peach cobbler?
Not euphemism, rather truth. Sometimes it is better to absorb knowledge slowly Grasshopper.
-
Hmm, I'm pretty sure she would sleep well with a doorknocker under her ass too
What is the euphemism behind doorknocker?
-
What is the euphemism behind peach cobbler?
Somethings, I don't want to ever know
-
What is the euphemism behind doorknocker?
It's hard to pretend no one his home when you skip the door part
-
Let's go back to this question:
2. Choose one:
a. I own the fruits of my labors (income, intellectual property, etc.), and the government is entitled to the smallest amount necessary to perform its essential functions
b. The government owns the fruits of my labors, and is entitled to take as much as it wants.
Your answer:
2. Choice B
The government does has the right to take some fruits of my labor, but they definitely do not have the right to a majority of it. Especially if I'm actually a wage worker rather than someone who sits in an office and has profit produced for them by the workers. I believe that when it comes to taxation they can spend wherever they want it, not just the bare essentials. Again, referring to the answer in question one. The government is like the father figure for society. What would a family be like if they just provided clothes, food, water, and shelter for their children, and had no parenting? It wouldn't be the healthiest family. We need taxes to spend on other things than just the bare basics.
Aside from the feel-good kum-ba-yah bullshit about government being our father, two things are worth noting.
1. You chose "The government owns the fruits of my labors, and is entitled to take as much as it wants." Say that sentence out loud. You just denied the natural right of property ownership. John Locke is going to rise from the dead and bitch-slap you.
Your first sentence contradicts that position, but you clearly stated that you believe you do not own your wage, savings, property, or any other benefits of productivity. They are the property of the government, to be allotted to you at their whim, or at their benevolence.
You are not just a subject, you are a slave.
2. You said, "I believe that when it comes to taxation they can spend wherever they want it, not just the bare essentials." Have you ever heard of the concept of government being "responsible stewards of the public trust"? Giving the government leave to spend our money (and make no mistake, it is money taken from us, the taxpayers, by force) "wherever they want" leads directly to waste, fraud, and abuse- since "they" want to spend our money that way.
Are you sure you want to stand by that position?
-
Somethings, I don't want to ever know
It's part of the CC culture. If you're going to spend much time here, it would behoove you to find out.
Hint: It is related to "beer, bacon, pie, and boobiez."
-
The framers carefully constructed the Constitution to ensure the govt. had no rights.
Once the govt. starts granting itself rights, it won't stop and, you are well and truly f*****!
-
Ok, The government is not benevolent, it's about control. Welfare is designed to hold people at the poverty level, that is why it isn't progressive. once you reach a certain income level the benefits stop. If it were progressive it would encourage people to get a job and as they made more money the benefits would adjust until the person is self sufficient. that is why the democrat party is always saying Republicans want to take the benefits away to scare the low income level citizens into voting for them.
-
Big Dog and Mr. Mannn have already taken you to task for being the liberal you are -- not that that's a crime, btw. Once you recognize your disease, however, you can take steps to fix it. Spending some time here just might be the pill to fix that disease.
That said, I will take you to task for your "father figure" nonsense.
You're trying to look at the state as being a necessity. In any society, some organization is certainly bound to happen and is appropriate, so we won't debate that. I will point out, however, that the very essence of government is to restrict liberty.
That business of individual liberty is central to the point I want to make with you. Liberty is what enables us to succeed and to prosper without that "father figure" you love so dearly. Liberty is what makes us stronger as individuals and as individuals within a collective. Liberty is what I served to defend, and perhaps yourself as well. Liberty is what America is for and about.[1]
There are balances we must maintain, of course. We can't have anarchy and we obviously can't have a police state.
Oops. Waitaminute. Police state...[2]
IRS. Fast and Furious. Benghazi. NSA. EPA. And the list goes on and on and on.
People who think like you about "father figures" make excuses and otherwise pander to the shitstink scandals I just mentioned.[3] You (collective you) turn a blind eye to these outrages because in your minds, it's acceptable for the government to behave in this manner.
People like you forget one basic, irrefutable fact: Governments are PEOPLE. Governments are FALLIBLE. Governments MUST BE RESTRICTED FROM TOO MUCH POWER.
[1]
Liberty requires responsibility.
A majority of people are not exactly the most rational, responsible, and intelligent people in the world here. Surely some liberty is certainly necessary, but we shouldn't have the wants of the few (i.e, individuals) go above the needs of the many (i.e, the nation.)
You serving in a foreign country and shooting at hajis isn't really protecting liberty, or me for that matter. Fighting terrorists in the Homefront, that protects me. Not the US's neo-imperialist invasion of foreign countries simply because they didn't bow to our will.
Also, America being founded upon liberty certainly depends on where you look. On an ideological basis, they advocated classical liberalism, basically enlightenment-era ideology from Europe. However, you look at what the US government did, and you can very much see how this country contradicted its own principles, and especially a lot in contemporary times (even before Obama got into office, sorry.)
[2]
You think this is a police state? You haven't seen anything yet, my friend. Why did you add the EPA in there? Do you consider environmental regulations a part of the evil police state machine?
[3]
Nice strawman. I detest these schemes, and absolutely shit policy (i.e, Fast and Furious, giving guns to Mexican cartels isn't really a good idea, that's like giving bombs to the Mujahideen.) It's the constant conservative fallacy to call anybody who doesn't fall into their narrow views a liberal, and to assume that they like all the opposite things conservatives do to make it easier to attack their views.I used "neoliberalism" as a synonym for modern Progressivism, which is authoritarian collectivism. I stand corrected.[1]
However, I stand by my characterization of Liberalism/Progressivism as the American political theory which places the State in loco parentis.
Strawman argument. Bitchslap for you.[2]
You're still a liberal. Own it, as we as here at CC.[3]
[1]
The modern American Progressivism is probably one of the farthest things from authoritarian collectivism, and this is a strawman in order to make it easier to attack. Progressives still want the same capitalism you do.
[2]
So, the establishment of order in society did not contribute to the advancement of culture, technology, writing systems, civilizations, and more due to the acquisition of agricultural surplus and the establishment of permanent settlements? Well then, I'm guessing African tribes in stateless societies should be burgeoning superpowers today, yes?
[3]
Again, calling me a liberal is a strawman. You have to go deeper than "if you have views contradictory to mine you're a liberal." By your standards, any single person who does not advocate for smaller government and individual liberty is a liberal. You'd be calling Julius Evola, a traditionalist, who proclaimed he was an anti-fascist, but also anti-democratic, a liberal, and that would be quite wrong to the highest degree.
-
[1]
Liberty requires responsibility.
A majority of people are not exactly the most rational, responsible, and intelligent people in the world here. Surely some liberty is certainly necessary, but we shouldn't have the wants of the few (i.e, individuals) go above the needs of the many (i.e, the nation.)
You serving in a foreign country and shooting at hajis isn't really protecting liberty, or me for that matter. Fighting terrorists in the Homefront, that protects me. Not the US's neo-imperialist invasion of foreign countries simply because they didn't bow to our will.
Also, America being founded upon liberty certainly depends on where you look. On an ideological basis, they advocated classical liberalism, basically enlightenment-era ideology from Europe. However, you look at what the US government did, and you can very much see how this country contradicted its own principles, and especially a lot in contemporary times (even before Obama got into office, sorry.)
[2]
You think this is a police state? You haven't seen anything yet, my friend. Why did you add the EPA in there? Do you consider environmental regulations a part of the evil police state machine?
[3]
Nice strawman. I detest these schemes, and absolutely shit policy (i.e, Fast and Furious, giving guns to Mexican cartels isn't really a good idea, that's like giving bombs to the Mujahideen.) It's the constant conservative fallacy to call anybody who doesn't fall into their narrow views a liberal, and to assume that they like all the opposite things conservatives do to make it easier to attack their views.
[1]
The modern American Progressivism is probably one of the farthest things from authoritarian collectivism, and this is a strawman in order to make it easier to attack. Progressives still want the same capitalism you do.
[2]
So, the establishment of order in society did not contribute to the advancement of culture, technology, writing systems, civilizations, and more due to the acquisition of agricultural surplus and the establishment of permanent settlements? Well then, I'm guessing African tribes in stateless societies should be burgeoning superpowers today, yes?
[3]
Again, calling me a liberal is a strawman. You have to go deeper than "if you have views contradictory to mine you're a liberal." By your standards, any single person who does not advocate for smaller government and individual liberty is a liberal. You'd be calling Julius Evola, a traditionalist, who proclaimed he was an anti-fascist, but also anti-democratic, a liberal, and that would be quite wrong to the highest degree.
I'm calling you a liberal strawman.
Do you like pie?
-
Sounds like we've got a college kid trying to use us as an experiment.
Ok n00b you ate trying to claim you're not a lib...how do you feel about current proposals on:
Immigration reform.
Obamacare.
Social Security reform.
Energy independence.
Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Not asking for a college dissertation on them like you've been doing with your previous responses. Just short concise answers on why you are for/against the above issues.
-
Sounds like we've got a college kid trying to use us as an experiment.
Ok n00b you ate trying to claim you're not a lib...how do you feel about current proposals on:
Immigration reform.
Obamacare.
Social Security reform.
Energy independence.
Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Not asking for a college dissertation on them like you've been doing with your previous responses. Just short concise answers on why you are for/against the above issues.
Good luck with the concise radioguy. This commie is on a roll.
-
Surely some liberty is certainly necessary, but we shouldn't have the wants of the few (i.e, individuals) go above the needs of the many (i.e, the nation.)
Oh, stick around. We're going to have fun with you.
You'd be calling Julius Evola, a traditionalist, who proclaimed he was an anti-fascist, but also anti-democratic, a liberal, and that would be quite wrong to the highest degree.
Julius Evola's name shows up twice in one week. Are you running a sock puppet, new meat?
-
Again, calling me a liberal is a strawman. You have to go deeper than "if you have views contradictory to mine you're a liberal." By your standards, any single person who does not advocate for smaller government and individual liberty is a liberal. You'd be calling Julius Evola, a traditionalist, who proclaimed he was an anti-fascist, but also anti-democratic, a liberal, and that would be quite wrong to the highest degree.
You are a liberal. You tried to deny and deflect, but you are liberal. Embrace it.
Julius Evola was an Italian. Trying to shoehorn him into a discussion of 21st century American politics is a strawman argument of the worst order.
Damn, you suck at this. Maybe you should come back next year, after a couple of 200 level PoliSci classes.
-
[1]
Liberty requires responsibility.
A majority of people are not exactly the most rational, responsible, and intelligent people in the world here. Surely some liberty is certainly necessary, but we shouldn't have the wants of the few (i.e, individuals) go above the needs of the many (i.e, the nation.)
Some liberty? Who decides how much? The government? You DO realize we fought a war 238 years ago over thus issue don't you?
And what do you think is driving your fellow Liberal Socialists in DC? The agenda politics of small special interest groups trying to force the majority to accept lifestyle choices and policies they don't want.
So what you claim You don't want is EXACTLY what we have going on right now.
]You serving in a foreign country and shooting at hajis isn't really protecting liberty, or me for that matter. Fighting terrorists in the Homefront, that protects me. Not the US's neo-imperialist invasion of foreign countries simply because they didn't bow to our will.
My shooting terrorists in a foreign country is the VERY reason we don't have to fight them on the Homefront you nitwit. Taking the fight to them IS the reason why until two months ago there hadn't been a successful attack on U.S. Soil in 12 years.
The fact you start tossing out that "neo imperialism" bullshit not only shows how very little you know about the subject...but also solidifies for all to see that you are nothing more that a Liberal troll.
-
You are a liberal. You tried to deny and deflect, but you are liberal. Embrace it.
Julius Evola was an Italian. Trying to shoehorn him into a discussion of 21st century American politics is a strawman argument of the worst order.
Damn, you suck at this. Maybe you should come back next year, after a couple of 200 level PoliSci classes.
Ever notice how Liberals go WAY out of their way to deny what they are outside their little caves while Conservatives like you and I aren't ashamed about who we are and what we stand for no matter where we are or who we are with?
-
A majority of people are not exactly the most rational, responsible, and intelligent people in the world here. Surely some liberty is certainly necessary, but we shouldn't have the wants of the few (i.e, individuals) go above the needs of the many (i.e, the nation.)
Quite frankly I am greatly relieved that we have Lex around do make these decisions for us.
You think this is a police state? You haven't seen anything yet, my friend.
And isn't that, my friend, the point?
-
I think our new friend got lost trying to find Stormfront. I'm sure the National Socialists there would be more to his liking.
-
Lex my good friend. I would take your arguments much more seriously if I knew more about you.
1. What is your age?
2. What (in general terms) is your occupation?
3. What did you pay in federal income tax last year? Please include EIC if appropriate.
4. I reiterate (banned word) do...you...like...pie?
-
A majority of people are not exactly the most rational, responsible, and intelligent people in the world here. Surely some liberty is certainly necessary, but we shouldn't have the wants of the few (i.e, individuals) go above the needs of the many (i.e, the nation.)
Ok where do you draw the line? yes there are idiots in the world. Lets use James Gandolphini as an example? Died of a heart attack. His last meal is highly publicized because it is viewed as excess. could he have taken better care of himself? sure... is it the government's place to regulate him from himself? No.
-
I think our new friend got lost trying to find Stormfront. I'm sure the National Socialists there would be more to his liking.
He is quite the little fascisti.
-
It's part of the CC culture. If you're going to spend much time here, it would behoove you to find out.
Hint: It is related to "beer, bacon, pie, and boobiez."
Don't drink, bacon & pie hardly ever, boobiez, I'll look at my own -I'm interested in political discourse, not what's it's like to have a penis
-
Quite frankly I am greatly relieved that we have Lex around do make these decisions for us.
I'm trying to remember who wrote the book "Great masterminds in U.S. History "
Oh wait...
And isn't that, my friend, the point?
This n00b is supporting the police state and the expansion there of and doesn't seem to realize it.
-
Lex my good friend. I would take your arguments much more seriously if I knew more about you.
1. What is your age?
2. What (in general terms) is your occupation?
3. What did you pay in federal income tax last year? Please include EIC if appropriate.
4. I reiterate (banned word) do...you...like...pie?
Excellent use of a banned word while still remaining true to it's status. Maybe the lib will feel comfortable here under the assumption that this is a forum that limits free speech.
-
Yikes. This welcome thread grew quite a bit!
:popcorn:
-
Yikes. This welcome thread grew quite a bit!
:popcorn:
You're welcome. And thank you for noticing.
-
Yikes. This welcome thread grew quite a bit!
:popcorn:
I know! I can't wait for the case to go to the jury...oops, wrong thread. I thought this was the George Zimmerman trial thread :wink:
-
Don't drink, bacon & pie hardly ever, boobiez, I'll look at my own -I'm interested in political discourse, not what's it's like to have a penis
Keep your genitalia to yourself (and appropriate significant others) please. I thought penis was a banned word unless capitalized.
-
Keep your genitalia to yourself (and appropriate significant others) please. I thought penis was a banned word unless capitalized.
'Penis' is banned but not 'boobiez' -lol
-
'Penis' is banned but not 'boobiez' -lol
You're getting right into the spirit of it. Good work. Keep it up.
-
'Penis' is banned but not 'boobiez' -lol
Please let's not forget the bacon, beer, and pie. The first two, especially.
-
Lex my good friend. I would take your arguments much more seriously if I knew more about you.
1. What is your age?
2. What (in general terms) is your occupation?
3. What did you pay in federal income tax last year? Please include EIC if appropriate.
4. I reiterate (banned word) do...you...like...pie?
Good questions.
.
-
Don't drink, bacon & pie hardly ever, boobiez, I'll look at my own -I'm interested in political discourse, not what's it's like to have a penis
Balls, you say?
Besides, it's peach cobbler- not gross pie.
-
What is the euphemism behind peach cobbler?
Bitch slapped for asking questions.
-
Peach cobbler=poorly made pie.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WpsbDZ6C8Pc/Tt0GmqowBbI/AAAAAAAABGQ/agIIPqQzsvY/s1600/Shocked%2BBaby.jpg)
(http://0.tqn.com/d/civilliberty/1/0/J/1/-/-/firingsquad500.jpg)
-
I may have used objective in the wrong sense, I was using it more to describe the nature of the answers. You had an obvious authoritarian and libertarian answer, an obvious capitalist and socialist answer to another, and an obvious conservative and liberal answer on another question.
Well if what I answered here makes me a liberal, so be it.
You objectify her boobiez. You subjectify them with your love.
It's really not that hard to figure out.
-
'Penis' is banned but not 'boobiez' -lol
Peniz is spelled differently.
-
Bitch slapped for asking questions.
Hey! I thought I should ask. You can never tell when something is or isn't a euphemism here sometimes.
-
Hey! I thought I should ask. You can never tell when something is or isn't a euphemism here sometimes.
Be patient Grasshopper, all will be revealed.
-
Hey! I thought I should ask. You can never tell when something is or isn't a euphemism here sometimes.
Dutch does that to everyone. Especially around his birthday and he's reminded how old he really is.
Gotta remember he was Elvis' Platoon Sergeant.
-
Dutch does that to everyone. Especially around his birthday and he's reminded how old he really is.
Gotta remember he was Elvis' Platoon Sergeant.
I went to have a haircut at the Fort where Elvis got his first military haircut. The barber chair he sat in for his first military haircut is still ther on display.
-
Dutch does that to everyone. Especially around his birthday and he's reminded how old he really is.
Gotta remember he was Elvis' Platoon Sergeant.
I was on point recon for Moses.
-
I was on point recon for Moses.
Old soldiers never die. They just smell that way.
-
Old soldiers never die. They just smell that way.
Outer Security for Operation Evict Eden...
(http://quest4belonging.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wgart_-art-m-michelan-3sistina-1genesis-4sin-04_3ce4.jpg)
Me... just off to the left... wearing ghilli suit...
(http://www.john-tom.com/AirsoftPaintball/Camouflage/DayCamo/SniperCamo/DSC05898.jpg)
-
Sounds like we've got a college kid trying to use us as an experiment.
Ok n00b you ate trying to claim you're not a lib...how do you feel about current proposals on:
Immigration reform.
Obamacare.
Social Security reform.
Energy independence.
Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Not asking for a college dissertation on them like you've been doing with your previous responses. Just short concise answers on why you are for/against the above issues.
Nice ad hominem attack. Anyway, I'll ignore that and give my positions on the subjects above.
Immigration Reform
I'll just talk about the immigration problem in general.
Immigration is one of the biggest problems in this country today. Here's how we can fix it.
- Simplify the citizenship acquisition process.
- Offer a path to citizenship for current non-criminal immigrants in the country.
- Establish more infrastructure to deter illegal immigrants from entering the US.
- Allocate more funds to border security.
First off, simplifying the citizenship acquisition process means that potential legal immigrants won't have to wait years to gain entry into the United States. Secondly, offering a path to citizenship for the current immigrants (who are non-criminal) will enable us to tax them. Drawing revenue for which we could eventually pay the next two things on the list off. Thirdly, establishing more infrastructure to deter illegal immigrants (and other undesirable elements such as drug cartels) to deter them such as fences, more border checkpoints, motion sensors, cameras, drones to watch the border, etc. will help in keeping other illegals from getting in. Lastly, allocating more funds to border security (such as Border Patrol) will enable them to expand and be able to defend our border and apprehend immigrants who got past the infrastructure.
I bet you were looking for me to say "Nobody's illegal", but I'm not a hippy or an OccuTard. Sorry to disappoint.
Obamacare
I am in favor of healthcare for those who can't afford it, but Obamacare isn't a perfect policy, and it definitely should not be done in a recession. We should focus on paying off our debt first.
Social Security reform
No privatization. Privatizing Social Security makes it fall into the hands of the few, for the purpose of bringing profit to these few people. Social Security is meant to help the populace, not draw profits. So I believe it should stay in public hands.
Energy Independence
I believe the United States should definitely make efforts to become independent in regards to energy. We don't want to fall to the feet of foreign oil cartels. However I believe we shouldn't pollute our environment trying to get our hands on oil. Fracking isn't exactly the most beneficial to the environment, and the Tar Sands? Forget about it. We should look into green alternatives instead of trying to please a few oil barons here. We should stick with nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric energy.
Abortion
Ban after the first trimester, there can be exceptions though such as the pregnancy later becomes a danger to the mother's life, or if certain circumstances prevented them from getting an abortion in the first trimester. The circumstances better be something good too, not just "I was lazy and didn't feel like going until now" or "I changed my mind" or some other bullshit.
Gay Marraige
I don't see the point in not letting them get married to be honest. It's just a word. Let them eat cake and toss each others' salads.
On another topic, holy shit this thread got huge.
-
I think our new friend got lost trying to find Stormfront. I'm sure the National Socialists there would be more to his liking.
Not even a week on here and I get called a National Socialist. Lol.
-
I see you live in New York. Is that city or just the state?
For the NYC mayor. Who do you support, Weiner or that Dyke...dang forget her name. or who else?
-
mmigration Reform
I'll just talk about the immigration problem in general.
Immigration is one of the biggest problems in this country today. Here's how we can fix it.
Simplify the citizenship acquisition process.
Offer a path to citizenship for current non-criminal immigrants in the country.
Establish more infrastructure to deter illegal immigrants from entering the US.
Allocate more funds to border security.
Here's how can also fix it.
Close the border...for good.
I am in favor of healthcare for those who can't afford it, but Obamacare isn't a perfect policy, and it definitely should not be done in a recession. We should focus on paying off our debt first.
I'm glad that we agree on this. Obamacare is going to collapse under it's own weight.
No privatization. Privatizing Social Security makes it fall into the hands of the few, for the purpose of bringing profit to these few people. Social Security is meant to help the populace, not draw profits. So I believe it should stay in public hands.
I feel you brother but I think that you need to look at the history of this thing to see how it is failing.
The social safety net is not workable in it's current form.
I believe the United States should definitely make efforts to become independent in regards to energy. We don't want to fall to the feet of foreign oil cartels. However I believe we shouldn't pollute our environment trying to get our hands on oil. Fracking isn't exactly the most beneficial to the environment, and the Tar Sands? Forget about it. We should look into green alternatives instead of trying to please a few oil barons here. We should stick with nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric energy.
You know, I might be on board with this until I took a helicopter ride around Indianapolis.
465 runs around the boarder of Indy, Have you ever seen so many cars in your life? We are going to need gasoline and diesel for the foreseeable future.
I haven't even mentioned what bio fuels do to existing fuel systems.
Ban after the first trimester, there can be exceptions though such as the pregnancy later becomes a danger to the mother's life, or if certain circumstances prevented them from getting an abortion in the first trimester. The circumstances better be something good too, not just "I was lazy and didn't feel like going until now" or "I changed my mind" or some other bullshit.
I'm not sure we are too much apart on this.
I don't see the point in not letting them get married to be honest. It's just a word. Let them eat cake and toss each others' salads.
NO. They can shag each other as much as they want. They can have civil unions as far as I am concerned.
But marriage, NO.
-
Lex claims not to be a liberal, but he's been spouting every talking point the party has.
-
Not even a week on here and I get called a National Socialist. Lol.
I'm sorry, I must have you confused with someone else (http://www.facebook.com/brosef.stalin.35).
-
Not even a week on here and I get called a National Socialist. Lol.
My first week or so, someone called me Humpty Dumpty; wasn't he fat? -which is worse?
-
My first week or so, someone called me Humpty Dumpty; wasn't he fat? -which is worse?
I can't but notice that you are still here.
I'm assuming that it was not fatal.
-
I can't but notice that you are still here.
I'm assuming that it was not fatal.
I'm still here but I was never here in the first place.... :rimshot:
-
Nice ad hominem attack. Anyway, I'll ignore that and give my positions on the subjects above.
Immigration Reform
No body wants to secure the border FIRST, so it's a no go. (SEE Reagan amnesty failure)
Obamacare
I am in favor of healthcare for those who can't afford it, but Obamacare isn't a perfect policy, and it definitely should not be done in a recession. We should focus on paying off our debt first.
Pie in the sky.
Social Security reform
No privatization. Privatizing Social Security makes it fall into the hands of the few, for the purpose of bringing profit to these few people. Social Security is meant to help the populace, not draw profits. So I believe it should stay in public hands.
Look into the federal "thrift savings plan", best possible model. "Public hands" are full of waste and fraud.
Energy Independence
I believe the United States should definitely make efforts to become independent in regards to energy. We don't want to fall to the feet of foreign oil cartels. However I believe we shouldn't pollute our environment trying to get our hands on oil. Fracking isn't exactly the most beneficial to the environment, and the Tar Sands? Forget about it. We should look into green alternatives instead of trying to please a few oil barons here. We should stick with nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric energy.
You don't have the facts to support your conclusions.
Abortion
Ban after the first trimester, there can be exceptions though such as the pregnancy later becomes a danger to the mother's life, or if certain circumstances prevented them from getting an abortion in the first trimester. The circumstances better be something good too, not just "I was lazy and didn't feel like going until now" or "I changed my mind" or some other bullshit.
It's killing a baby.
Gay Marraige
I don't see the point in not letting them get married to be honest. It's just a word. Let them eat cake and toss each others' salads.
Why isn't civil unions enough ? :thatsright:
-
Why do people insist that they get health care and not have to pay for it ?
-
Why do people insist that they get health care and not have to pay for it ?
Why would they not do such a thing?
-
Why would they not do such a thing?
Most doctors don't want to treat patients for free. It used to be that you could pay them in chickens or some form of barter. Now doctors invest huge amounts in education and even more to set up their practices to pay off their debt. They like it when their "customers" pay for services rendered, so they can pay off debt, and have enough money left over to have a decent chance at the American dream. Otherwise if doctors had to provide all their services for free, and somehow tap into some other income source to pay debt, and living expenses, they might not want to be doctors. They might want to be some other professional that did earn enough.
-
I'm sorry, I must have you confused with someone else (http://www.facebook.com/brosef.stalin.35).
Lol. Do you seriously think I actually believe half the crap I say on that profile?
-
Nice ad hominem attack. Anyway, I'll ignore that and give my positions on the subjects above.
Immigration Reform
No body wants to secure the border FIRST, so it's a no go. (SEE Reagan amnesty failure)
Obamacare
I am in favor of healthcare for those who can't afford it, but Obamacare isn't a perfect policy, and it definitely should not be done in a recession. We should focus on paying off our debt first.
Pie in the sky.
Social Security reform
No privatization. Privatizing Social Security makes it fall into the hands of the few, for the purpose of bringing profit to these few people. Social Security is meant to help the populace, not draw profits. So I believe it should stay in public hands.
Look into the federal "thrift savings plan", best possible model. "Public hands" are full of waste and fraud.
Energy Independence
I believe the United States should definitely make efforts to become independent in regards to energy. We don't want to fall to the feet of foreign oil cartels. However I believe we shouldn't pollute our environment trying to get our hands on oil. Fracking isn't exactly the most beneficial to the environment, and the Tar Sands? Forget about it. We should look into green alternatives instead of trying to please a few oil barons here. We should stick with nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric energy.
You don't have the facts to support your conclusions.
Abortion
Ban after the first trimester, there can be exceptions though such as the pregnancy later becomes a danger to the mother's life, or if certain circumstances prevented them from getting an abortion in the first trimester. The circumstances better be something good too, not just "I was lazy and didn't feel like going until now" or "I changed my mind" or some other bullshit.
It's killing a baby.
Gay Marraige
I don't see the point in not letting them get married to be honest. It's just a word. Let them eat cake and toss each others' salads.
Why isn't civil unions enough ?
Problem with securing the border first is we just don't have the funds right now. So we tax the current immigrants once they are legal residents, so we can at least get some funds before we endeavor on allocating funds to securing our border.
No facts, eh? Okay then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96AEzQYangE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCq015rc_lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwwVo3CEFAQ
Killing a baby. It's a hard decision, although, it's not yours to make. Are you the mother? Or do you want the government to be so small it can fit into womens' private parts?
What's the point of restricting homosexuals to just Civil Unions? I don't get it. There's nothing special about a word.
-
Lol. Do you seriously think I actually believe half the crap I say on that profile?
I forgot... school is out for the summer and children are free to roam around unsupervised.
Whatever you say, guy.
-
I forgot... school is out for the summer and children are free to roam around unsupervised.
Whatever you say, guy.
Hmmm...implying I'm a child. Kind of an insult, doesn't really make you look all that better.
Here's how can also fix it.
Close the border...for good.
I'm glad that we agree on this. Obamacare is going to collapse under it's own weight.
I feel you brother but I think that you need to look at the history of this thing to see how it is failing.
The social safety net is not workable in it's current form.
You know, I might be on board with this until I took a helicopter ride around Indianapolis.
465 runs around the boarder of Indy, Have you ever seen so many cars in your life? We are going to need gasoline and diesel for the foreseeable future.
I haven't even mentioned what bio fuels do to existing fuel systems.
I'm not sure we are too much apart on this.
NO. They can shag each other as much as they want. They can have civil unions as far as I am concerned.
But marriage, NO.
I'm glad I have some agreeing points with at least one person here. Anyway I shall comment.
Closing the borders for good? Seems a bit too radical. We should pick and choose who gets into the nation more carefully. Not just letting anyone who can speak a little English in. Let the educated come here, engineers, doctors, etc. We can always use more of them.
I agree that Social Security is indeed failing these days, but we shouldn't fully put it in private hands. If we put it in private hands, they're going to be using Social Security for profit. Social Security wasn't meant to be used for profit.
Sure we're going to still have to use oil. America has become dependent on it, but in places where we don't need to use oil and other dirty energy-producing resources we should strive to replace it with more efficient and environmentally (and human) friendly energy (like for providing power to our nation's cities and suburbs.) Eventually with the increasing prevalence of greener alternatives I think we as Americans can shake off our oil addiction.
May I ask why can't they have gay marriage? A word isn't that big of a deal. No matter the traditional definition.
-
Hmmm...implying I'm a child. Kind of an insult, doesn't really make you look all that better.
I'm not the one setting up Nazi/Third Reich Facebook pages, boy. Also, nice email address. Makes you look little more than a racist caricature.
-
I'm not the one setting up Nazi/Third Reich Facebook pages, boy. Also, nice email address. Makes you look little more than a racist caricature.
I'm totally confused; is this a game played between DU and here?
-
I'm totally confused; is this a game played between DU and here?
Did you bother to read the thread?
-
Did you bother to read the thread?
Sorry, I block my ears when it reads too much like a fight; I'm not sure if it a difference of opinion because conservatives do have diverging views on social issues
-
So Lex how is saying you sound like a college kid an ad hominem attack on you?
That's called making a personal observation.
Learn what the words really mean before you'd use them next time ok?
-
Lex every answer you gave to the questions I asked are right from the Liberal talking points sheet for the most part.
So much so that they read like a cut and paste job at first glance.
You say that Social Security would be ripe for graft and fall into the wrong hands if even a portion of it were privatized.
But isn't that what's happened to it in public hands? Politicians use it as general fund money and have keft the nation with a pile.of IOUs in return.
And you somehow see this as the safer option?
Oh and I have rhe TSP. I'm doing what's called diversifying. Because its not wise to think I'll only be able to live on my military retirement check alone.
But even IRAs are under threat of nationalization. Just like with the Social Security trust find the Libs see a giant.pool of money they could be spending so they're gonna try to take it from us.
So I ask again do you STILL think your money is safer in the hands of a politician or career burrecrat?
As for immigration...like with guys how about we enforce the current laws before we go reinventing the wheel? All that is happening now is an attempt to pander for the votes of people that broke numerous laws in the first place to get here.
If we don't respect our borders why should anyone else?
Why is it right for me to pay for someone's health care that is too lazy to get it on their own?
Especially when hospitals are already required to treat someone regardless of whether they can pay or not.
I'm in Germany right now and I can tell you solar and wind won't power a country unless you dot the entire landscape with windmills and solar panel farms.
Fracking and drilling existing deposits in the U.S. would put OPEC out of business. But you Libs don't want that. Gotta have the evil oil companies to run against every four years.
Libs are only against big oil on their own soil.
While you Libs are blocking expiration and drilling here your friends in DC are giving big $$$$$ to South American countries to aid their drilling efforts.
Oh and the "Cartel" as you put it...isn't even close to being who we import the majority of our oil from.
Killing a baby is wrong no matter what trimester you want to do it.
You'll understand that when you become a parent.
Gay marriage serves no other purpose than to destroy yet another tradition of this country and is another shot across the bow by the radical minority trying to force the majority to accept their deviant lifestyle.
If that weren't the case they'd be happy with civil unions.
-
Lex thinks it's okay for mothers to kill their kids.
-
Lex is such a clever little undergrad. Of course he wants the entitlement train to keep rolling. He plans to ride it over the cliff, after he bleeds mommy & daddy dry.
-
I'm totally confused; is this a game played between DU and here?
Liberals like to troll here and try to bait us into saying something they see as racist so they can have their "gotcha" moment and prove their theory about Conservatives = racists is indeed true.
So we simply tell the trolling ball bags that we're not Stormfront...a Neo Nazi hate site and tell them to go there if they want to troll racists.
As for DU v. CC. They hate the fact we repost and mock their Liberal idiocy. We can't go there to challenge their lies and distortions directly because we'd be banned and they can't come here for the same reason. So The DUmpster is the next best thing.
The owners of DU strictly forbid independent thinking and won't even allow the name of this place to be mentioned over there. Anyone who does mention here or Conservative Underground risks being banned from DU for doing so.
-
Liberals like to troll here and try to bait us into saying something they see as racist so they can have their "gotcha" moment and prove their theory about Conservatives = racists is indeed true.
So we simply tell the trolling ball bags that we're not Stormfront...a Neo Nazi hate site and tell them to go there if they want to troll racists.
As for DU v. CC. They hate the fact we repost and mock their Liberal idiocy. We can't go there to challenge their lies and distortions directly because we'd be banned and they can't come here for the same reason. So The DUmpster is the next best thing.
The owners of DU strictly forbid independent thinking and won't even allow the name of this place to be mentioned over there. Anyone who does mention here or Conservative Underground risks being banned from DU for doing so.
Should we add that libs are welcome here, and not harassed, as long as they are honest about owning their liberalism/socialism/progressivism ?
-
Should we add that libs are welcome here, and not harassed, as long as they are honest about owning their liberalism/socialism/progressivism ?
I think it's obvious already. But to put any Liberal fears to rest it wouldn't hurt to toss it out there.
-
My shooting terrorists in a foreign country is the VERY reason we don't have to fight them on the Homefront you nitwit. Taking the fight to them IS the reason why until two months ago there hadn't been a successful attack on U.S. Soil in 12 years.
The fact you start tossing out that "neo imperialism" bullshit not only shows how very little you know about the subject...but also solidifies for all to see that you are nothing more that a Liberal troll.
I know it's a bit late but I gotta say something here.
You shooting terrorists in a foreign country is not a reason we don't have to fight them here. Terrorists are not centralized in a few countries. They're everywhere. You going into Afghanistan doesn't exactly aid the fight against terrorism, the Taliban aren't going anywhere, the terrorists are crossing borders and bombing other countries, but that's okay because at least we're not getting attacked, right?
"You have a different view on the war than me. You are instantly a troll." Regarding my imperialism statement. See what a general in the military says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQJcMmPmsY
I don't mind if you fly the flag, but don't use it as a blindfold.
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25jxrIfOoW0[/youtube]
-
I know it's a bit late but I gotta say something here.
You shooting terrorists in a foreign country is not a reason we don't have to fight them here. Terrorists are not centralized in a few countries. They're everywhere. You going into Afghanistan doesn't exactly aid the fight against terrorism, the Taliban aren't going anywhere, the terrorists are crossing borders and bombing other countries, but that's okay because at least we're not getting attacked, right?
"You have a different view on the war than me. You are instantly a troll." Regarding my imperialism statement. See what a general in the military says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQJcMmPmsY
I don't mind if you fly the flag, but don't use it as a blindfold.
You don't get to tell Radioguy or any of the rest of us who served what to do with the flag.....PUNK
-
Barry Goldwater wanted to fix social security in 1964 but the democrats used that to scare people to death and not vote for him......and they are still using it to scare people. Retirees and the whole nation/economy would be better off today if they had elected Barry Goldwater.
In '64 I was old enough to get into the MARINES but not old enough to get into the voting booth.....the democrats changed that. Not that they were concerned about the voting rights of 18 year olds but they were concerned about building their voter base and what better way to do it at that time than to enlist the votes of draft dodgers like Bill Clinton.
-
Should we add that libs are welcome here, and not harassed, as long as they are honest about owning their liberalism/socialism/progressivism ?
If Lex chooses to admit he's from the DU and still post, why doesn't he just say so?
BTW, Lex if you have wandered into enemy territory, I'd rather discuss, than fight
-
If Lex chooses to admit he's from the DU and still post, why doesn't he just say so?
BTW, Lex if you have wandered into enemy territory, I'd rather discuss, than fight
Have you seen his fb page? Look at that, then reconsider.
-
Have you seen his fb page? Look at that, then reconsider.
I don't ever touch Facebook
-
If Lex chooses to admit he's from the DU and still post, why doesn't he just say so?
because he's a coward...
There have been others from DU, they were quite open about it, and they did fine.
So again, Lex is a coward.
-
I know it's a bit late but I gotta say something here.
You shooting terrorists in a foreign country is not a reason we don't have to fight them here
Then what is the reason? I didn't realize you were a military affairs expert or had served.
I await your keen first hand insight.
Terrorists are not centralized in a few countries.
Yes they are. Claiming that they aren't is utter bullshit and shows a lack of any real world knowledge of where the terrorist organizations are and who sponsors them.
Here allow me to educate you just a little bit:
Countries with large terrorism presence
Terrorists have long found refuge in countries and in many cases worked hand in hand with the local governments. Today several countries continue to attract terrorists for training and consipiring their attacks. The host countries do not try to disassociate themselves fully from their ties to terrorism and in some cases continue to provide tacit support and use terror to accomplish broader objectives. Some of the countries with significant terrorist operations include:
Afghanistan
Afghanistan became the hotbed of Islamic terror activities in the mid-1990s. With the radical Taliban government establishing control, several radical Islamic (mostly Sunni) terror organizations used Afghanistan as their training and operational base. Al Qaeda was the broad umbrella organization that recruited terrorists from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia and around the world, training them in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of the terrosist groups still operating in the region include Al Qaeda, Al-Jihad, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Islamic Group, Armed Islamic Group, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Iran
Iran has long been an active sponsor of Islamic terrorism, including accusations of it supporting subversive activities in Iraq. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Several terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC have been provided funding, safehaven, training, and weapons in Iran.
Iraq
Since the US led invasion of Iraq, the country has fallen into a violent spiral. The presence of US troops has attracted Islamic terrorists from the Middle-East and around the world. Al-Qaeda is believed to have established a toe-hold in the country along with various splinter groups. Some of the other terror organizations active in Iraq include Ansar al-Islam, Al-Faruq Brigades, Al-Mahdi Army, Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front (JAMI), Jamaat al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad, Jaysh Muhammad and Kurdistan People’s Congress (KHK).
Pakistan
Pakistan has long been a staging ground and planning centre for Islamic terrorists operating in South Asia. After the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom, thousands of terrorists were either killed or driven out of Afghansistan, mostly finding refuge in Pakistan. Pakistan and its secret service (ISI) have also been accused of training and funding several terrorist groups operating in Indian Kashmir and the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The links have long been clear, since the the terrorist groups based in Pakistan operate in plain sight and have a distinct Afghan and Indian focus. The massive leak of U.S. Intelligence data on the Wikileaks website further showed the complicity of the Pakistani state with terrorist groups, used to establish a (false) state of deniability.
Pakistani groups have been aligned with Al Qaeda, based in Pakistan and have been responsbile for numerous terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and have expanded their sights to Europe and North America. Some of these terror groups include Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Al Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Jaferia, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Al Badr, Harkat ul-Ansar, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, Jamaat ul-Fuqra and Muslim United Army.
Syria
Even as Syria continues to reduce its presence in Lebanaon, it also continues to fund and host Palestinian and possibly Iraqi terrorist organizations. HAMAS, the PIJ, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine continue to operate from Syria.
Sudan
The African country of Sudan been a training hub and safe haven for members of several of the more violent international terrorist and radical Islamic groups of the last decade. Among the terror groups known to have operated from Sudan are Hezbollah (Party of God), Palestine Islamic Jihad, Abu Nidal Organization, HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) and several smaller Islamic insurgent groups operating regionally in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, and Tunisia.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/state/countries.php
Now...you were saying?
You going into Afghanistan doesn't exactly aid the fight against terrorism, the Taliban aren't going anywhere, the terrorists are crossing borders and bombing other countries, but that's okay because at least we're not getting attacked, right?
Had we not gone to Afghanistan...the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have executed their other 9/11 style attacks the had in the works for the U.S.
We saw what they wanted to continue to do with their attacks in Bali, London and Madrid.
Since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter...how many attacks has al-Qaeda been able to pull off outside the Afghanistan/pakistan area?
"You have a different view on the war than me. You are instantly a troll."
You have no clue about war, what it takes to be a soldier and you toss out platitudes taught in the safety of a classroom.
THAT is what makes you a troll.
Regarding my imperialism statement. See what a general in the military says.
Could you have tried any harder to take a statement out of context? He's talking about keys to what will help them survive and prosper you ball bag.
Quit using Media Matters as your source. It just makes you look stupid.
You sound like those idiots that think the only reason we went back into Iraq was for their oil.
How did THAT work out for us
I don't mind if you fly the flag,
Yes you do. You mind very much...you can't stand people like me.
but don't use it as a blindfold.
People like you would allow our enemies to use it as a noose.
-
If Lex chooses to admit he's from the DU and still post, why doesn't he just say so?
Because the DU members that lurk here would report him faster than you can say "Wallaby" and Lex would not be able to log into his DU account anymore.
-
Lex
The government does has the right to take some fruits of my labor, but they definitely do not have the right to a majority of it. Especially if I'm actually a wage worker rather than someone who sits in an office and has profit produced for them by the workers.
Exactly what's the difference between the "wage worker" and "someone who sits in an office and has profit produced for them by the workers" when it comes to taxes? What's the point in "especially" distinguishing between these two groups?
.
-
Lex is an occupooper. Emphasis on poop.
-
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3372/rbq4.jpg)
-
I gotta take this test...
1. Choose one:
b. I know what's best for me
2. Choose one:
a. I own the fruits of my labors (income, intellectual property, etc.), and the government is entitled to the smallest amount necessary to perform its essential functions
3. Choose one:
b. The government is not a benevolent force
4. Name the most important natural right, in your opinion.
Liberty/freedom
5. List, in descending order, the four most important amendments to the US Constitution, in your opinion:
a. 1st
b. 2nd
c. 4th
d. 5th
6. Explain the reason you chose the most important amendment (a) in question 4.
Without those freedoms, everything else is moot.
7. Choose one:
b. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.
8. Name the greatest US president.
Ronald Reagan
9. Choose one:
b. beer
-
Taylor, welcome to CC.
Concise, direct answers. I like that.
Lex, you menstrual clot. See how easy it is to answer questions directly?
-
Okay guys I might as well come out of the closet.
I am a communist Neo-Nazi agent who has been tasked by the NSA (and Obama specifically) to infiltrate conservative groups and make them all into communist Neo-Nazis. You guys are smarter than I thought and I failed to convert you to the loving embrace of CommuNazism. I must tell my Fuhrer I failed. :(
Now excuse me as I got and put on my Nazi beanie and smoke some ganja with the Democratic Party. :stoner:
-
You don't get to tell Radioguy or any of the rest of us who served what to do with the flag.....PUNK
I was using that as a figure of speech to say "Don't let your patriotism blind you." Some people are certainly blinded by their patriotism, most of you are pretty bright though.
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3372/rbq4.jpg)
Terrorists want to kill us because they feel like we've wronged them, and we have in a way. We put our hands up everybody's asses, and we expect them not to react to it. Turns out we pissed off ultra-fundamentalists, and bombing their countries and having collateral damage rack up isn't really going to help us in having a better PR with the Middle Eastern world.
Exactly what's the difference between the "wage worker" and "someone who sits in an office and has profit produced for them by the workers" when it comes to taxes? What's the point in "especially" distinguishing between these two groups?
The wage worker produces profit, they are the lifeblood of the economy. Without them, the business owners wouldn't be making such profits. What the business owners do (i.e, owners) is they hire the wage workers specifically for producing profit for themselves. While granted the business owner definitely has done work such as investing money, managing risks in the market, etc. We shouldn't look at the business owner as the almighty and all-powerful source of the creation of wealth, they just suck up the profits produced by the ones who actually produce the profit: the workers. So the workers shouldn't be taxed heavily, rather those who absorb the profits from their labor.
Then what is the reason? I didn't realize you were a military affairs expert or had served.
I await your keen first hand insight.
Yes they are. Claiming that they aren't is utter bullshit and shows a lack of any real world knowledge of where the terrorist organizations are and who sponsors them.
Here allow me to educate you just a little bit:
http://www.terrorism-research.com/state/countries.php
Now...you were saying?
Had we not gone to Afghanistan...the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have executed their other 9/11 style attacks the had in the works for the U.S.
We saw what they wanted to continue to do with their attacks in Bali, London and Madrid.
Since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter...how many attacks has al-Qaeda been able to pull off outside the Afghanistan/pakistan area?
You have no clue about war, what it takes to be a soldier and you toss out platitudes taught in the safety of a classroom.
THAT is what makes you a troll.
Could you have tried any harder to take a statement out of context? He's talking about keys to what will help them survive and prosper you ball bag.
Quit using Media Matters as your source. It just makes you look stupid.
You sound like those idiots that think the only reason we went back into Iraq was for their oil.
How did THAT work out for us
Yes you do. You mind very much...you can't stand people like me.
People like you would allow our enemies to use it as a noose.
I'm not an expert, but I'm not saying that terrorism (of all sorts) is centralized into certain areas. Certainly certain organizations and even certain trends of terrorist fighters (e.g, Islamic terrorism) are centralized and operating in certain areas, but terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon. Example, you fighting Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan is not going to help the US with homegrown terrorists. Certainly it will prevent organizations from attacking us (for a while at least) but it's not going to stop the homegrown lone wolves who are pissed off for the same exact reasons Al-Qaeda and other organizations are. May I ask how your actions in Afghanistan would've stopped people like Tsarnaev and other lone wolves who are already in this country and were later radicalized?
-
The wage worker produces profit, they are the lifeblood of the economy. Without them, the business owners wouldn't be making such profits. What the business owners do (i.e, owners) is they hire the wage workers specifically for producing profit for themselves. While granted the business owner definitely has done work such as investing money, managing risks in the market, etc. We shouldn't look at the business owner as the almighty and all-powerful source of the creation of wealth, they just suck up the profits produced by the ones who actually produce the profit: the workers. So the workers shouldn't be taxed heavily, rather those who absorb the profits from their labor.
You realize, of course, that these "profit-sucking" business owners, in order to hire the wage workers, had put in years--sometimes DECADES--of 100-hour weeks to get to the point where they could hire "wage workers"? That they missed holidays, sacrificed EVERYTHING, to get to the point where these "wage workers" could earn anything?
Your posts show you have no experience in life at all. Did you ever work as a kid? Paper route? McDonalds? Do you have any idea about the real world?
You're an inexperienced kid. Get some miles on you. Then, maybe you get to lecture.
-
I was using that as a figure of speech to say "Don't let your patriotism blind you." Some people are certainly blinded by their patriotism, most of you are pretty bright though.
just a tip, don't use figures of speech, just say what you mean.
There is a lot of ways that I could use what you are saying against you by using figures of speech.
Terrorists want to kill us because they feel like we've wronged them, and we have in a way. We put our hands up everybody's asses, and we expect them not to react to it. Turns out we pissed off ultra-fundamentalists, and bombing their countries and having collateral damage rack up isn't really going to help us in having a better PR with the Middle Eastern world.
I suppose it needs to be asked. What should we do?
Withdraw from the world?
The wage worker produces profit, they are the lifeblood of the economy. Without them, the business owners wouldn't be making such profits. What the business owners do (i.e, owners) is they hire the wage workers specifically for producing profit for themselves. While granted the business owner definitely has done work such as investing money, managing risks in the market, etc. We shouldn't look at the business owner as the almighty and all-powerful source of the creation of wealth, they just suck up the profits produced by the ones who actually produce the profit: the workers. So the workers shouldn't be taxed heavily, rather those who absorb the profits from their labor.
What exactly would you do without job producers? I can see that you some measure of animosity towards them and are a confirmed member of the working class.
Good for you, as God I just pushed the button and called all of the job producers to heaven, now what?
-
Honestly, I think this is getting kind of ridiculous.
If I had my druthers Lex would start a thread on a single subject and stick to it.
Not in this thread but a new thread, claim your place as a member of the cave and make your case, one issue at a time.
-
just a tip, don't use figures of speech, just say what you mean.
There is a lot of ways that I could use what you are saying against you by using figures of speech.
I suppose it needs to be asked. What should we do?
Withdraw from the world?
What exactly would you do without job producers? I can see that you have some measure of animosity towards them and are a confirmed member of the working class.
Good for you, as God I just pushed the button and called all of the job producers to heaven, now what?
We should make efforts to stray from our interventionist foreign policy in favor of more isolationist policies. That'll definitely give less people reasons to hate us.
If God pulled the job producers out of the world. First, atheists would convert to Christianity after seeing undeniable proof that God exists. Second, the economy would go to shit. The economy as of today depends on both the working class and the employing members of the higher classes. One cannot exist without the other in today's system. The working class is reliant on the employing class for providing their wages, and the employing class is reliant on the working class to produce their profits. Unless we see the rise of workers' cooperatives and allocation of the means of production to the working class from the employing class (which I very highly doubt, especially today) the economy will fail, and we'd be in shit city.
-
I'm waiting, start a thread and choose a subject.
I will be right there.
-
You realize, of course, that these "profit-sucking" business owners, in order to hire the wage workers, had put in years--sometimes DECADES--of 100-hour weeks to get to the point where they could hire "wage workers"? That they missed holidays, sacrificed EVERYTHING, to get to the point where these "wage workers" could earn anything?
Your posts show you have no experience in life at all. Did you ever work as a kid? Paper route? McDonalds? Do you have any idea about the real world?
You're an inexperienced kid. Get some miles on you. Then, maybe you get to lecture.
I do realize that business owners are not all born wealthy, and I do admire those who work hard and long, but business owners do suck profit from the workers. At first that might have not been the case (ex. Microsoft and Apple started in garages, a metal label I'm a fan off had its start in a garage too and later expanded to be immensely popular), but later on it definitely transitioned to that: the owners exploiting the workers for profit. Those are simply the functions of the modern capitalist classes that one cannot deny. It's a result of the socioeconomic hierarchy. They may have worked their ass off to get higher in the economic hierarchy, but that doesn't change the fact they exploit workers for profit now.
-
I'm waiting, start a thread and choose a subject.
I will be right there.
That's actually a good idea.
-
I agree!
-
I agree!
Problem is now I can't think of any subjects to bring up. Shit.
-
Problem is now I can't think of any subjects to bring up. Shit.
Really?
Don't be a douche,
-
Problem with securing the border first is we just don't have the funds right now. So we tax the current immigrants once they are legal residents, so we can at least get some funds before we endeavor on allocating funds to securing our border.
No facts, eh? Okay then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96AEzQYangE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCq015rc_lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwwVo3CEFAQ
Killing a baby. It's a hard decision, although, it's not yours to make. Are you the mother? Or do you want the government to be so small it can fit into womens' private parts?
What's the point of restricting homosexuals to just Civil Unions? I don't get it. There's nothing special about a word.
Lex, Lex, Lex, come now really ???? propaganda videos ??? :rotf:
SEE;
http://www.cst.net/geoscience/oil-business/127-gasland-director-josh-fox-admits-hiding-facts-from-film
"BEN FRANKLIN DISCOVERS "BURNING WATER" IN 1764"
http://www.cst.net/geoscience/oil-business/99-ben-franklin-discovers-qburning-waterq-in-1764
.
-
I do realize that business owners are not all born wealthy, and I do admire those who work hard and long, but business owners do suck profit from the workers. At first that might have not been the case (ex. Microsoft and Apple started in garages, a metal label I'm a fan off had its start in a garage too and later expanded to be immensely popular), but later on it definitely transitioned to that: the owners exploiting the workers for profit. Those are simply the functions of the modern capitalist classes that one cannot deny. It's a result of the socioeconomic hierarchy. They may have worked their ass off to get higher in the economic hierarchy, but that doesn't change the fact they exploit workers for profit now.
So much BULL, not worth or actually, not possible to set you straight on this at all. :thatsright:
.
-
How do you feel about fundamentalist Christians?
-
Lex, you are wildly misinformed if you think US policy causes terrorism. Muslims have been at war with all other religions since time immemorial. You don't understand islam at all. Another thing, try to be less condescending. You can only truly condescend from a higher plane, and it's embarrassingly obvious that you're not anywhere near that as of yet.
-
The wage worker produces profit, they are the lifeblood of the economy. Without them, the business owners wouldn't be making such profits. What the business owners do (i.e, owners) is they hire the wage workers specifically for producing profit for themselves. While granted the business owner definitely has done work such as investing money, managing risks in the market, etc. We shouldn't look at the business owner as the almighty and all-powerful source of the creation of wealth, they just suck up the profits produced by the ones who actually produce the profit: the workers. So the workers shouldn't be taxed heavily, rather those who absorb the profits from their labor.
Stick with me since I'm the one who asked the question.
We have a progressive tax system, so I'm not seeing the issue.
And every business I've witnessed worth anything takes all levels, from top management to the floor worker, to make it go. They all have their part to play. To single out the "wage worker," as you called them, as needing not to be taxed heavily implied to me that the "someone who sits in an office and has profit produced for them by the workers" should be taxed heavily. Was that a misunderstanding on my part?
Just out of interest, let's say the wage worker and the office sitter make the same income. Should one be taxed more heavily than the other?
I'm asking because there's way too many individuals out there who hold this odd position that without wage workers then the owners are nothing. They hold this notion that somehow the wage workers are getting a raw deal because "well they're the ones getting their hands dirty producing, but the owners make the lions share of the money for really doing nothing." There seems to be no thought whatsoever that the wage worker agreed to do X work for X pay. It's a very convoluted way of viewing the world, one that needs to be shoved aside as being the worthless viewpoint it is.
.
-
..... but business owners do suck profit from the workers. ... the owners exploiting the workers for profit... but that doesn't change the fact they exploit workers for profit now.
That type of viewpoint isn't valid from where I stand. The worker is given a job to do and is paid for that work based upon an agreed wage (I'm hiring for this job, this is what it pays, I'm offering the job to you, do you want it?). If its exploitation, it certainly one of the oddest forms of exploitation since the worker agreed to the terms. You can't agree to the terms and then complain you're being used if everyone is doing what they said they would do. Well, I guess you can but it doesn't really mean much.
But yes, a business is open in order to make a profit. Exploiting workers? If one means "to make productive use of," then I agree, that's the whole point of hiring people, to make productive use of their work and, in turn, pay them as you both have agreed. If one means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage," well it's hard to take advantage of someone when you told them what the job entailed and pay them accordingly as you both agreed.
.
-
Good companies know how to profit share as well. It's just good business. Profit sharing is income to the workers over and above what they agreed to be compensated. But if you're an occupooper you would be ignorant to the fact.
-
Lex, you are wildly misinformed if you think US policy causes terrorism. Muslims have been at war with all other religions since time immemorial. You don't understand islam at all. Another thing, try to be less condescending. You can only truly condescend from a higher plane, and it's embarrassingly obvious that you're not anywhere near that as of yet.
The Tsarnaev brothers bombed Boston as a response to the US's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and attack of Muslims, according to a CBS news video.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57584771/boston-bombings-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-left-note-in-boat-he-hid-in-sources-say/
I don't see much bias here so it's just information.
A Muslim thinker and author named Sayyid Qutb thoroughly influenced Osama bin Laden and his mentor (who took over Al-Qaeda after the death of Osama), in one of Qutb's writings he wrote "To restore Islam, he said a vanguard movement of righteous Muslims was needed to establish 'true Islamic states', implement sharia, and rid the Muslim world of any non-Muslim influences, such as concepts like socialism and nationalism." It is clear that Osama would see the US intervening in the Middle East as a non-Muslim influence in the Muslim world. Osama also saw the US's increasing prevalence in the Arab world as a desecration of the holy land, and the US's deployment during the Persian Gulf War also inspired his hatred of the US. So it can be said our foreign policy is influenced Osama to adopt his radical anti-American ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Ideology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Gulf_War_and_the_start_of_U.S._enmity
Most Muslims are not radical Jihadists, Salafists, or Wahhabists. These days Islam is for the most part followed by a majority of non-radical believers, and in the West it is very much filled with mostly non-radical followers. Christianity has a pretty bad history of attacking non-believers too. Spanish Inquisition come to mind? How about the Northern Crusades which attacked pagans? All religions have a history of attacking non-believers, and all Abrahamic religions today have radical offshoots which are pretty hostile to non-believers. TL;DR?: Scapegoats.
Regarding the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's a pretty large cause here which can be summed up in two words: "Shock" and "Awe". We bombed their country to shit, and we invaded. So obviously you're going to get people who are pissed off that you bombed their country. I'm sure the same would happen if China started to bomb us. We'd get pissed too. No matter what the goals of the Chinese are.
How do you feel about fundamentalist Christians?
I don't like fundamentalist Christians at all. Then again I don't like fundamentalist religion as a whole. It's assuming that there is one "truth", that it's black and white. There's no black and white, just varying shades of gray.
-
Lex, you must put forth some effort into critical thinking. Have you ever heard of the term "Taqiyya" ? The same situation occurs in our society, to wit when a lib asserts something, the mere assertion doesn't make it true. In order to find truth, you must develop a spirit of discernment that sees through the layers and layers of lies the deceit, the propaganda.
Now if you are already aware that lib sources are very suspect, and you think it will be simple to shun the truth for the goal of misleading those of us here, good luck. Too many of us have spent a great deal of our lives wading through the deceit of liberalism, and recognize almost all of it at first sight.
-
Lex, you must put forth some effort into critical thinking. Have you ever heard of the term "Taqiyya" ? The same situation occurs in our society, to wit when a lib asserts something, the mere assertion doesn't make it true. In order to find truth, you must develop a spirit of discernment that sees through the layers and layers of lies the deceit, the propaganda.
Now if you are already aware that lib sources are very suspect, and you think it will be simple to shun the truth for the goal of misleading those of us here, good luck. Too many of us have spent a great deal of our lives wading through the deceit of liberalism, and recognize almost all of it at first sight.
Casting swine before pearls. Just another college boy showing how much smarter he is than the conservative neanderthals.
-
Casting swine before pearls. Just another college boy showing how much smarter he is than the conservative neanderthals.
I'm quite inclined to agree. Hi 5 !
-
I'm not an expert, but I'm not saying that terrorism (of all sorts) is centralized into certain areas.
You were insinuating that it wasn't centralized and I showed you that...yes it is.
Certainly certain organizations and even certain trends of terrorist fighters (e.g, Islamic terrorism) are centralized and operating in certain areas, but terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon.
Yet all of the terrorism today is being generated and supported by specific groups originating from Islamic countries.
Example, you fighting Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan is not going to help the US with homegrown terrorists.
The acts of terrorism attempted since 9/11 have one common thread.
Can you tell me what that is?
Certainly it will prevent organizations from attacking us (for a while at least) but it's not going to stop the homegrown lone wolves who are pissed off for the same exact reasons Al-Qaeda and other organizations are.
Where do you think those alleged "lone wolves" get their training and indoctrination from? Do you realize that there is not really such a thing as a "lone wolf" terrorist? That's an invention of the left and idiot Libs like to you to try and downplay how much radical Islam and it's practitioners HATE anything and anyone that is not Muslim?
May I ask how your actions in Afghanistan would've stopped people like Tsarnaev and other lone wolves who are already in this country and were later radicalized?
Our fighting terrorism away from our shores allowed us to capture a treasure trove of information about how interconnected the terrorist networks are. Do you think we wouldn't have ever known that al-Qaeda and the Taliban send their fighters to Chechnya to battle harden them before they come back to fight us?
Tsarnev...that is a failure at the bureaucrat level. We knew who they were and what they were up to. Yet because this administration refuses to actively pursue known threats within our borders no one who could have prevented the Marathon Bombings did so.
Talk about a case of LIHOP.
Your lack of knowledge on this is glaring n00b. You're doing nothing more than regurgitating what some idiot professor has told you. And it's making you look really stupid.
-
Lex...not even your college profs allow you to use Wiki as a source because of it's lack of credibility.
Same applies here.
-
That type of viewpoint isn't valid from where I stand. The worker is given a job to do and is paid for that work based upon an agreed wage (I'm hiring for this job, this is what it pays, I'm offering the job to you, do you want it?). If its exploitation, it certainly one of the oddest forms of exploitation since the worker agreed to the terms. You can't agree to the terms and then complain you're being used if everyone is doing what they said they would do. Well, I guess you can but it doesn't really mean much.
But yes, a business is open in order to make a profit. Exploiting workers? If one means "to make productive use of," then I agree, that's the whole point of hiring people, to make productive use of their work and, in turn, pay them as you both have agreed. If one means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage," well it's hard to take advantage of someone when you told them what the job entailed and pay them accordingly as you both agreed.
"Finally, the [classical] liberal state came to offer us economic slavery, saying to the workers, with tragic sarcasm: 'You are free to work as you wish; no one can compel you to accept specified conditions. Since we are the rich, we offer you the conditions that please us; as free citizens, you are not obliged to accept them if you do not want to; but as poor citizens, if you do not accept them you will die of hunger, surrounded of course by the utmost liberal dignity.'"- Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, What the Falange Wants
-
"Finally, the [classical] liberal state came to offer us economic slavery, saying to the workers, with tragic sarcasm: 'You are free to work as you wish; no one can compel you to accept specified conditions. Since we are the rich, we offer you the conditions that please us; as free citizens, you are not obliged to accept them if you do not want to; but as poor citizens, if you do not accept them you will die of hunger, surrounded of course by the utmost liberal dignity.'"- Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, What the Falange Wants
Can you describe an alternative?
-
"Finally, the [classical] liberal state came to offer us economic slavery, saying to the workers, with tragic sarcasm: 'You are free to work as you wish; no one can compel you to accept specified conditions. Since we are the rich, we offer you the conditions that please us; as free citizens, you are not obliged to accept them if you do not want to; but as poor citizens, if you do not accept them you will die of hunger, surrounded of course by the utmost liberal dignity.'"- Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, What the Falange Wants
And in typical Liberal fashion you quote the founding member of the Spanish National Socialist Party.
Tell me...how successful was this Spanish Socialist?
-
Can you describe an alternative?
Lex doesn't want/see an alternative. His only answer is to follow Marx.
-
I really don't have a problem with what Jose is saying because it's true.
To paraphrase he is saying yeah I got the money so I am starting a business, if you don't like the way I run my business look elsewhere for employment.
I got no problem with that, the problem I do have is that I don't know if I am agreeing with Jose or disagreeing with him.
-
I really don't have a problem with what Jose is saying because it's true.
To paraphrase he is saying yeah I got the money so I am starting a business, if you don't like the way I run my business look elsewhere for employment.
I got no problem with that, the problem I do have is that I don't know if I am agreeing with Jose or disagreeing with him.
This should help you decide:
The political canon of Falange resembled that of Italy's Partito Nazionale Fascista. It shared its dislike of Marxism and its contempt for democracy. It sought to bridge the gap between patriotism and Marxist internationalism by rejecting the concept of class warfare while conceding the exploitation of the working class under capitalism. Primo de Rivera proposed that the creation of a hierarchical trade-union hegemony under Falangist control would guarantee the robust protection of every honest worker. Additionally the Falangist platform called for extensive agrarian reforms, for the nationalization of the banking system and for the suppression of all political parties. Until the desired establishment of one-party rule Falange preferred the formalities of a liberal democracy
Sounds like Obama and the Liberal Democrats...and you're not sure if you disagree with it?
And how in Gods name can you possibly agree with the rantings of a National Socialist and consider yourself a Conservative?
-
This should help you decide:
Sounds like Obama and the Liberal Democrats...and you're not sure if you disagree with it?
And how in Gods name can you possibly agree with the rantings of a National Socialist and consider yourself a Conservative?
Context is everything isn't it? I guess my nuance translator is on the fritz.
-
Context is everything isn't it? I guess my nuance translator is on the fritz.
Yeah it is. ANd our n00b purposely left out the important bits and only included the romantic image of the hero fighting for the worker.
Marx and Lenin did the same thing. It was only when you took a closer look at their plans that you realized they were anything but in the best interest of the people they claimed to stand up for.
-
Lex...not even your college profs allow you to use Wiki as a source because of it's lack of credibility.
Same applies here.
Hey, I resent that -my writing is referenced in Wiki.
-
I have observed wiki to be very slanted. I totally discount all wiki references now.
-
I have observed wiki to be very slanted. I totally discount all wiki references now.
As do I, when I saw the aforementioned reference :wink:; It was a topic I knew nothing about
-
Hey, I resent that -my writing is referenced in Wiki.
LOL! Then I would say that your writing referenced in Wiki is the only thing that you can be 100% certain of as far as accuracy. :-)
-
LOL! Then I would say that your writing referenced in Wiki is the only thing that you can be 100% certain of as far as accuracy. :-)
Or....not.
-
Or....not.
I need to reread it sometime but it brought in a ton of unwanted attention -I'd love to write about it but alas, I need to stay anon.
-
Hey, I resent that -my writing is referenced in Wiki.
There are useful writings in Wikipedia....
...in the references under the main article.
-
There are useful writings in Wikipedia....
...in the references under the main article.
Hmm, that was my case
-
I need to reread it sometime but it brought in a ton of unwanted attention -I'd love to write about it but alas, I need to stay anon.
I wish I had chosen that path back when I was younger. Trying to put the Genie back in the bottle is damn near impossible.
-
I wish I had chosen that path back when I was younger. Trying to put the Genie back in the bottle is damn near impossible.
Yes, that is so true but warning people doesn't make them wary -I did not heed it myself.
I can only say that the social media and government collaboration, will be continuously perfected and will make any privacy effort moot.
One day, we will all have our own wiki page and guess what? If you are the subject, they don't let you edit it because you "not an expert" on yourself.
-
"Finally, the [classical] liberal state came to offer us economic slavery, saying to the workers, with tragic sarcasm: 'You are free to work as you wish; no one can compel you to accept specified conditions. Since we are the rich, we offer you the conditions that please us; as free citizens, you are not obliged to accept them if you do not want to; but as poor citizens, if you do not accept them you will die of hunger, surrounded of course by the utmost liberal dignity.'"- Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, What the Falange Wants
Cute, but no cookie.
The above gives the impression that the rich dictate the terms; that one is free to do as one chooses, but the only choices are to accept or die. That world is a little too black and white and disregards the various shades of gray that existed then, and that exist now.
Funny how there's millions of us who aren't "the rich" and yet we have lived for centuries without the above having entrapped us. For me, I have no animosity towards the rich. They can do what they want and I'll do what I want. Anytime our paths have crossed, we either worked out what was mutually beneficial or we shook hands and parted ways.
Your little statement at the beginning of (paraphrased) "I don't know where I stand politically" wasn't honest. If you want to believe you're a slave to this corporate oligarchy you believe exists, then good luck and best to you.
.
-
And in typical Liberal fashion you quote the founding member of the Spanish National Socialist Party.
Spanish National Socialist Party? First off, you don't know anything about Falangism if you call it a National Socialist party. Falangism did have a racial hierarchy, but Francisco Franco did not persecute others of "inferior" races, and actually promoted race-mixing. Franco's regime fought against Marxists, anarchists, and other communists, so I think calling them Falangists socialists is quite retarded. Jose may have had criticisms of capitalism, but that doesn't mean he advocated the complete opposite economic system. If you think it does then I ask you to research Francoist Spain.
-
If you hate fundamentalist Christians, you're going to looooove me.
First, What's wrong with them?
Second, Why the hate from the party of tolerance?
Third, If the left is so tolerant why do fundamentalists need to change?
-
Spanish National Socialist Party? First off, you don't know anything about Falangism if you call it a National Socialist party. Falangism did have a racial hierarchy, but Francisco Franco did not persecute others of "inferior" races, and actually promoted race-mixing. Franco's regime fought against Marxists, anarchists, and other communists, so I think calling them Falangists socialists is quite retarded.
No idiot. YOU are the retard.
Spanish Falangism in the Falange's original manifesto called the Twenty-Seven Points declared Falangism to support: the unity of Spain and the elimination of regional separatism; the establishment of a dictatorship led by the Falange; utilizing violence to regenerate Spain; promoted the revival and development of the Spanish Empire; a social revolution to create: a national syndicalist economy that creates national syndicates of both employees and employers to mutually organize and control the economic activity, agrarian reform, industrial expansion, respect for private property with the exception of nationalizing credit facilities to prevent capitalist usury.[5] It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers as illegal acts.[6] Falangism supports the state to have jurisdiction of setting wages.
And the sources:
^ Stanley G. Payne. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. Pp. 263.
^ Martin Blinkhorn. Fascists and Conservatives: The Radical Right and the Establishment in Twentieth-Century Europe. Reprinted edition. Oxon, England, UK: Routledge, 1990, 2001. Pp. 10
^ a b Stanley Payne. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Pres, 1995. Pp. 261.
^ Sheelagh M. Ellwood. Spanish fascism in the Franco era: Falange Española de las Jons, 1936-76. Macmillan, 1987. Pp. 99-101.
^ a b Hans Rogger, Eugen Weber. The European Right. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA: University of California Press; London, England, UK: University of Cambridge Press, 1965. Pp. 195.
^ a b Benjamin Welles. Spain: the gentle anarchy. Praeger, 1965. Pp. 124.
Take it up with the authors.
Jose may have had criticisms of capitalism, but that doesn't mean he advocated the complete opposite economic system.
Again...from the experts:
On October 29, 1933, he launched Falange Española ("Spanish Phalanx"), a nationalist party inspired by Fascism.
If you think it does then I ask you to research Francoist Spain.
I've studied plenty about it. And what I've read does nothing to change what I said.
You're wrong.
-
^Impossible for a lib to admit.
-
Trying to make sense to a liberal is :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
-
If you hate fundamentalist Christians, you're going to looooove me.
First, What's wrong with them?
Second, Why the hate from the party of tolerance?
Third, If the left is so tolerant why do fundamentalists need to change?
Good luck getting Lex to respond. He can only regurgitate what was pumped in by his professors.
-
Good luck getting Lex to respond. He can only regurgitate what was pumped in by his professors.
Why bother with him?
-
No idiot. YOU are the retard.
And the sources:
^ Stanley G. Payne. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. Pp. 263.
^ Martin Blinkhorn. Fascists and Conservatives: The Radical Right and the Establishment in Twentieth-Century Europe. Reprinted edition. Oxon, England, UK: Routledge, 1990, 2001. Pp. 10
^ a b Stanley Payne. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin Pres, 1995. Pp. 261.
^ Sheelagh M. Ellwood. Spanish fascism in the Franco era: Falange Española de las Jons, 1936-76. Macmillan, 1987. Pp. 99-101.
^ a b Hans Rogger, Eugen Weber. The European Right. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA: University of California Press; London, England, UK: University of Cambridge Press, 1965. Pp. 195.
^ a b Benjamin Welles. Spain: the gentle anarchy. Praeger, 1965. Pp. 124.
Take it up with the authors.
Again...from the experts:
I've studied plenty about it. And what I've read does nothing to change what I said.
You're wrong.
In the first quote you posted, it stated that (1) Falangism respects private property except in the cases of credit facilities, which would still mean the means of production (a.k.a capital) are still in private hands, and (2) a national syndicalist economy that creates national syndicates of both employees and employers to mutually organize and control the economic activity (i.e, compromising to meet the needs of the nation's economy.)
Capitalism is defined as:
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
According to what you posted, Falangists fit that role. They may have used capitalism for the benefit of the nation, but private owners still very much profited, and the means of production were still in private hands.
-
^What point are you trying to prove ?
-
^What point are you trying to prove ?
He's trying...and failing to prove that his little Nationalist Socialist hero...and the Socialist ideas it promotes...isn't what we all know it to be.
He's fallen in love with the romantic terms and isn't seeing what they really mean.
-
Falange [ˈfælændʒ (Spanish) faˈlanxe]
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the Fascist movement founded in Spain in 1933; the one legal party in Spain under the regime (1939-75) of Francisco Franco (1892-1975), the Spanish general and statesman
Fa•lange (ˈfeɪ lændʒ, fəˈlɑn heɪ)
n.
the fascist party in power in Spain during the Franco regime.
[< Sp, short for Falange Española Tradicionalista Traditionalist Spanish Phalanx]
Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun
1.
Falange - the Spanish Nazi party under Franco
national socialism, Naziism, Nazism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Falangists
Go ahead and continue to deny reality if you want. You'll just make yourself look foolish.
-
Falange - the Spanish Nazi party under Franco
national socialism, Naziism, Nazism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Falangists
Ah, now I see why Hitler liked Franco so much....enough so that he sent the Condor Legion there for "training".
-
(http://www.lletres.net/pla/falange.jpg)
Spanish Nazis.
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130420001437/lyricwiki/images/f/f5/BluesBrothers.jpg)
I hate those guys.
-
Falange [ˈfælændʒ (Spanish) faˈlanxe]
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the Fascist movement founded in Spain in 1933; the one legal party in Spain under the regime (1939-75) of Francisco Franco (1892-1975), the Spanish general and statesman
Fa•lange (ˈfeɪ lændʒ, fəˈlɑn heɪ)
n.
the fascist party in power in Spain during the Franco regime.
[< Sp, short for Falange Española Tradicionalista Traditionalist Spanish Phalanx]
Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun
1.
Falange - the Spanish Nazi party under Franco
national socialism, Naziism, Nazism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Falangists
Go ahead and continue to deny reality if you want. You'll just make yourself look foolish.
You're the one denying reality here. You pull definitions to suit your agenda (specifically the one saying they were a Nazi party, sorry but not all fascists are Nazis.) First off, National Socialism isn't Socialism either, just in name. They still had respect for private property. Not to mention the link from Freedictionary says it was a fascist party, not a Nazi party. There's no denying they were fascist, indeed they were, but to call them Nazi? That's an incorrect definition and I'm sure if you talk to an actual Falangist, you'll see that they aren't National Socialists.
-
I'm not sure what's going on in this enormous thread, but
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
sounds like an excellent plan to me.
-
You're the one denying reality here. You pull definitions to suit your agenda (specifically the one saying they were a Nazi party, sorry but not all fascists are Nazis.) First off, National Socialism isn't Socialism either, just in name. They still had respect for private property. Not to mention the link from Freedictionary says it was a fascist party, not a Nazi party. There's no denying they were fascist, indeed they were, but to call them Nazi? That's an incorrect definition and I'm sure if you talk to an actual Falangist, you'll see that they aren't National Socialists.
Heh, "they still had respect for private property"
Well then, good on them!
-
You're the one denying reality here. You pull definitions to suit your agenda (specifically the one saying they were a Nazi party, sorry but not all fascists are Nazis.) First off, National Socialism isn't Socialism either, just in name. They still had respect for private property. Not to mention the link from Freedictionary says it was a fascist party, not a Nazi party. There's no denying they were fascist, indeed they were, but to call them Nazi? That's an incorrect definition and I'm sure if you talk to an actual Falangist, you'll see that they aren't National Socialists.
Lex...I'm not the one make up these definitions. Experts in the field are writing these definitions that are accepted and deemed credible. They are the ones who have done the research talked to and studied the Falangist movement from it's beginning until now. If you or one of your pointy headed profs who has never done anything other than shove propaganda into the heads of young unknowing college kids like you have a problem with those expert definitions...take it up with the experts.
I'm sure they'll be willing to hear from a second year college kid like yourself just how wrong they are.
:whatever:
-
Lex, why don't you get outta this introduction area and post something somewhere else for this?
-
Lex, why don't you get outta this introduction area and post something somewhere else for this?
Word up.
-
Quite a large topic for a Welcome post.
-
Quite a large topic for a Welcome post.
I know and who the heck is going to have the guts to make one now? I admit, I'm afraid to do so
-
I know and who the heck is going to have the guts to make one now? I admit, I'm afraid to do so
I'd say let HIM do that.
Generally, n00bs post a short intro post in this forum, then after the hello, how-are-yous, opens one or more topics for discussion. In that area is generally where the "meat" is, rather than in this forum.
-
Welcome to CC, Lex.