The Conservative Cave
The Bar => Introductions & Subsequent Welcomes => Topic started by: curtis290 on September 30, 2010, 07:30:15 PM
-
Hello,
I'm new here. I joined because I want to have serious discussions with conservatives. I am far too conservative for liberals to even listen to me, and I make some conservatives look like granola-eating hippies. But I am disgusted by the American right's devotion to libertarian economic principles. American conservatism is a wide spectrum of political beliefs, with everything from paleocons to neocons. Some believe in an aggressive foreign policy, others don't. Some are very Christian and believe that our government should reflect our Christian heritage, others are atheists who only believe in individual rights. Some are intellectual, well-read, and believe in scholarship, others use their gut to form their political beliefs and are proud of being anti-academic and anti-intellectual.
Yet the one thing that EVERY American conservative has in common is their religious devotion to libertarian economic principles, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In Europe, for example, the Christian, socially-conservative parties are more "left-leaning" on economic issues, contrasted with the liberal parties (we'd call them libertarians), who are classical liberals that believe in liberal economics and individual freedom. Liberalism and capitalism have always had an uneasy relationship with Christianity, so I don't know why they go so well together in America. Why does EVERY American conservative have the same views on the market? Where's the ideological diversity? I am a proud, old-school conservative that believes in moral values and the military, but I'm no libertarian.
Now you could call me a lefty-socialist but I believe in markets just as much as you do. They are the most efficient way to get things done. However, I don't believe that they always know best. Uncontrolled markets are highly volatile, as proven by the Great Depression and the depression we're in now. The most volatile are financial markets, which need a lot of control. The government needs to ensure that Wall Street serves Main Street.
I believe in free markets, I just don't worship them. Just like all Republicans from the 30s-60s, I believe that a healthy state, prudent regulations, and protectionism are necessary for the long-term stability of an economy and to appease the working class. Let's not forget that Republicans in this era grew to accept the New Deal and agreed with the measures taken by the government during World War II that nowadays would be considered ’socialist’ by many Americans today. The threat of socialism seems impossible after the fall of the USSR, but let's not forget that socialism (not social democrats like Obama, I'm talking about Soviet-style socialism) was a serious force in American politics in the early 20th century, and grew very powerful during the Great Depression. If the working class is squeezed too hard they'll revolt, and we've seen this happen in many countries. In the economic climate that is soon to come, with unprecedented levels of unemployment, the poor in this country could turn dangerously radical. This is why the state must compromise with the poor: it's necessary for stability and order.
But most importantly, I think that economic efficiency is not nearly as important as our culture or our foreign policy. I believe that the economy can and should be sacrificed for the good of these things, as long as it doesn’t squeeze the working class too hard (something that government policy alone can ensure). I am an American and a Christian before I'm a capitalist. In the words of my 95-year-old grandfather, "our culture has gone to hell" and I agree with him wholeheartedly. And I believe that this is a direct result of liberalism and capitalism, and that the state has to do something about it. If American cultural conservatives claim to be Christians or warriors or people with values, why are they more concerned with economic efficiency than things that matter more than money? I'm afraid we're so addicted to our material comforts that we're unwilling to sacrifice them for anything worthwhile.
-
I don't think you are going to find what you are looking for here.
-
the economic climate that is soon to come, with unprecedented levels of unemployment, the poor in this country could turn dangerously radical. This is why the state must compromise with the poor: it's necessary for stability and order.
Huh? Elaborate please...
And welcome to CC.
-
Welcome to the Cave! :cheersmate:
If the working class is squeezed too hard they'll revolt, and we've seen this happen in many countries. In the economic climate that is soon to come, with unprecedented levels of unemployment, the poor in this country could turn dangerously radical. This is why the state must compromise with the poor: it's necessary for stability and order.
Are you referring to "civil unrest" here?
I don't think the gubberment should get involved and throw another "stimulus" package of the same magnitude that had passed the previous times, which haven't done a thing. Partially, because we were duped that this "stimulus" would "help" the economy. It did the exact opposite. We still have an economy in the crapper and a jobs picture that is bleak, not to mention the debt we incurred.
-
I believe that the economy can and should be sacrificed for the good of these things, as long as it doesn’t squeeze the working class too hard
Guess what? At 10 percent unemployment and an annual deficit running over 10 percent of GDP, with national debt rapidly approaching Greek levels (i.e., 100 percent of GDP), the "working class" isn't just getting squeezed, they're getting outright crushed.
Have a nice day.
Oh, and bitchslap for using the term neocon.
-
You post a meandering screed full of contradictions,okay for an introduction but please get specific as to issues.
What is your take on HCR,stimulus,foreign policy regarding terrorism...
Discussion is encouraged and it is a conservative site so there may be strong opinions voiced,please understand that goes with the territory and here you won`t be banned for expressing a liberal view.
You will be challenged on it,mostly in a civil manner as long as you do the same but not always.
So it goes and hope for a good discourse. :cheersmate:
-
Oops I didn't mean to post this here! I wanted to put it in politics. I tried to edit this but I couldn't figure it out. Sorry about that! I guess I'll just post it in the politics section.
Anyways, to introduce myself, I'm a first and foremost a cultural conservative, and I believe in an aggressive foreign policy. I believe in free markets, but that they are unstable and that a big state is necessary to temper the booms and busts of the business cycle and to appease the working class. If you want to know more about my views you can check out my blog, the link is in my signature. It only has one post right now and it's a very long one, but worth reading. In the future I'll write lots of short posts on specific topics.
I don't think you are going to find what you are looking for here.
That's a shame. There seem to be lots of different types of conservatives here: Christians, atheists, warhawks, pacifists, libertarians, cultural conservatives, law and order conservatives, paleoconservatives, old school conservatives, new school conservatives. And you're telling me that every single one has standard libertarian economic views? Is it really that homogenous? If so, that's too bad we have such little ideological diversity within such a large movement of people. Even the American left has people of all kinds. They have social conservatives as well as hippie liberals, social democrats as well as neoliberals who are very far to the right economically. If we're such a homogenous movement we're bound to run into troubles.
Huh? Elaborate please...
And welcome to CC.
What I meant is that unemployment is already at the highest levels since the Great Depression, and we've just spent trillions of dollars to bail out the economy without reforming it. This is only the beginning. The economy and unemployment will get much worse over the next few years, and when that happens, the poor will become increasingly radical. Thanks for the welcome!
Welcome to the Cave! :cheersmate:Are you referring to "civil unrest" here?
I don't think the gubberment should get involved and throw another "stimulus" package of the same magnitude that had passed the previous times, which haven't done a thing. Partially, because we were duped that this "stimulus" would "help" the economy. It did the exact opposite. We still have an economy in the crapper and a jobs picture that is bleak, not to mention the debt we incurred.
Thanks for the welcome! I guess you could say I'm referring to civil unrest. It sounds crazy, but let's not forget that in the last great depression, we were on the verge of a socialist revolution. We live in a a country that worships the free market, but that's because we've always done so well. I think we're in for some very rough times, and this is something that no one is used to. Only the elderly can remember the last depression, we've had nothing but economic growth since then. Now we're on the verge of another great depression, and people will be furious. At least in the 1930s, most people were used to low standards of living. But in this era, there is a lack of toughness and no one knows anything about sacrifice. No one is used to having to live in poverty, and this is already a reality for millions of Americans (1 in 7). It's only going to get worse, and I think many will turn to socialism. So yes, I think civil unrest will be a real concern in the next few years.
As for the solution, well, I'm not sure what should be done since Bush and Obama have really tied our hands with the deficits. Both Republicans and Democrats have screwed things up over the past decades and we had this coming to us. Had we run our government like I believe we should, we might not have had the boom of the 90s and 00s, but we certainly would not be going through this crisis. I strongly oppose the bailouts, and I don't like running up our debt.
We need to let our financial sector implode. It's grown to a size exponentially larger than it was 30 years ago, and none of this led to sustainable, long-term improvements in the real economy. It just led to a credit glut. And now it has become a huge parasite sucking up resources from the real economy. Obama, Bernanke, and Wall Street want to suck us dry of every dollar we have so we can feed this parasite, so the bankers can get their six figure bonuses.
We need higher tariffs and a commitment from our government to bring jobs home and to improve the real economy. We need the manufacturing sector to grow and return to the size it was before the age of neoliberalism. We need to make agriculture an important part of our economy again and to break up the corporate consolidation of our agricultural sector so that we can bring back the society of small farmers (you know, the one that this country was built on). And in this time of a depression we're going to need the federal government to create relief programs (not recovery) like it did in the Great Depression. I think we'll need to give out more unemployment benefits as well, especially food stamps, because there will be millions more unemployed Americans, and they need to survive somehow. If we don't want a socialist revolt than we're going to need to pander to the unemployed hungry masses.
Guess what? At 10 percent unemployment and an annual deficit running over 10 percent of GDP, with national debt rapidly approaching Greek levels (i.e., 100 percent of GDP), the "working class" isn't just getting squeezed, they're getting outright crushed.
Have a nice day.
Oh, and bitchslap for using the term neocon.
Yes, I agree that they're being crushed, which is why we need to worry about socialism. Wars are expensive, and they usually involve sacrificing our economy. This is especially true in a depression like this one. So government policy needs to ensure that the cost of war isn't forced onto the poor, who can't afford it. So first, we need a draft, so that our army doesn't only consist of the occasional idealist and a bunch of poor people who join because of lack of opportunities. And, other things remaining equal, we need to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for the War on Terror. In this economic climate, the poor can't afford to pay for a war, and we can't alienate them any more if we don't want a socialist revolution.
You post a meandering screed full of contradictions,okay for an introduction but please get specific as to issues.
What is your take on HCR,stimulus,foreign policy regarding terrorism...
Discussion is encouraged and it is a conservative site so there may be strong opinions voiced,please understand that goes with the territory and here you won`t be banned for expressing a liberal view.
You will be challenged on it,mostly in a civil manner as long as you do the same but not always.
So it goes and hope for a good discourse. :cheersmate:
OK. I'll wait until later to talk more about Health Care. It was a mess, and it continues to be a mess with Obama's insurance reform. I don't think it was a very substantial plan, and I don't things will be that much different, I do think some people try to make it out to be a bigger deal than it actually is because they dislike Obama. What I will say is that I strongly dislike Obama's plan, and I am outraged that the government has decided to force us to buy private ensurance.
Stimulus: the Wall Street bailouts were terrible. See above. I do think that the government is going to need to do what it has to to increase employment. This doesn't mean tax cuts. First, we have a deficit, and second, in this economy, tax cuts won't raise employment. I'm a bit of a Keynesian. As far as foreign policy regarding terrorism goes, it's been a disaster. There is a real lack of resolve on the part of our government and our public in fighting this war. Americans have forgotten what sacrifice means. In my grandparents' generation, they all fought in the war and served their country. This is a foreign concept to Americans in our liberal society of today, who are much more concerned with making money and being comfortable.
I understand that there will be strong opinions, bring it on! And thanks for saying I won't get banned. I got banned within ten minutes of my first post on conservativesforum.com because I accused the libertarians of lacking values. But you won't hear any liberal views from me! Check out my blog, I'm willing to bet that you're more liberal than I am. (: Thanks for the welcome and I look forward to discussing with you in the future!
-
Oops I didn't mean to post this here! I wanted to put it in politics. I tried to edit this but I couldn't figure it out. Sorry about that! I guess I'll just post it in the politics section.
I moved it here. If you want to post a specific topic in another part of the forum, you're welcome to do that. Please check ahead of time to make sure there isn't already an active topic covering the subject you would like to discuss.
Welcome to CC.
-
It is not neccessary to post the same thread twice. I felt your original post would be better suited to this part of the forum since it was your first one.
If you want to discuss what you think and what your opinions are, this would be the place to do it.
-
What is your view then on wealth redistribution as a Federal government policy?
-
Oh gosh would you look at that, another "real conservative."
:whatever:
-
It is not neccessary to post the same thread twice. I felt your original post would be better suited to this part of the forum since it was your first one.
If you want to discuss what you think and what your opinions are, this would be the place to do it.
Oh OK sorry about that. I thought I was losing my mind!
What is your view then on wealth redistribution as a Federal government policy?
I do not believe we should redistribute wealth for "equality's" sake. I don't believe in economic egalitarianism. That is the heart of socialism, which is the greatest evil known to mankind. However, I believe that capitalism inherently leads to great inequalities without a healthy state and without regulations, and these inequalities lead to social unrest. History proves this. If a large part of the population is living in poverty and they cannot eat, they may revolt. We haven't had to think about this in years, since we have been so successful and there hasn't been serious left wing movements here in decades. But the crisis will remind us of these realities. Remember, socialism became a serious force in American politics during the Great Depression of the 1930s. So redistribution is necessary for order and stability. Also, I believe that the wealthy in this country make too much. We have a huge deficit to pay off, not to mention a War on Terror that we are not nearly commited enough too (we need many more troops and much more funding for the military). I think the wealthiest should pay for these things. The poor certainly can't and the middle class is shrinking, not to mention very indebted. The wealthiest 5% in this country, however, holds 34% of its wealth, and they've done very well for themselves over the past few decades. No one needs a billion dollars, that's just an absurd amount of money. In this crisis we have better uses for that money other than villas in Tuscany.
Oh gosh would you look at that, another "real conservative."
:whatever:
Oh, are you a fake conservative? I know lots of those.
-
I believe in free markets, I just don't worship them. Just like all Republicans from the 30s-60s, I believe that a healthy state, prudent regulations, and protectionism are necessary for the long-term stability of an economy and to appease the working class. Let's not forget that Republicans in this era grew to accept the New Deal and agreed with the measures taken by the government during World War II that nowadays would be considered ’socialist’ by many Americans today. The threat of socialism seems impossible after the fall of the USSR, but let's not forget that socialism (not social democrats like Obama, I'm talking about Soviet-style socialism) was a serious force in American politics in the early 20th century, and grew very powerful during the Great Depression. If the working class is squeezed too hard they'll revolt, and we've seen this happen in many countries. In the economic climate that is soon to come, with unprecedented levels of unemployment, the poor in this country could turn dangerously radical. This is why the state must compromise with the poor: it's necessary for stability and order.
But most importantly, I think that economic efficiency is not nearly as important as our culture or our foreign policy. I believe that the economy can and should be sacrificed for the good of these things, as long as it doesn’t squeeze the working class too hard (something that government policy alone can ensure). I am an American and a Christian before I'm a capitalist. In the words of my 95-year-old grandfather, "our culture has gone to hell" and I agree with him wholeheartedly. And I believe that this is a direct result of liberalism and capitalism, and that the state has to do something about it. If American cultural conservatives claim to be Christians or warriors or people with values, why are they more concerned with economic efficiency than things that matter more than money? I'm afraid we're so addicted to our material comforts that we're unwilling to sacrifice them for anything worthwhile.
You sound very elitist for a conservative. Most of us are "the working class" that you seem to think needs "appeased." And we are in revolt, something you should understand unless you've managed to miss all the news for a year or so now. We're also smart enough to know that capitalism is a system that only works well in a Christian country, and the combination of our Christian heritage and our capitalism created the wealth that purchased all the "material comfort" you disdain. We're also smart enough to know that the conservatives are the ones that sacrifice their own "material comfort" willingly to help others, instead of expecting Uncle Sam to do it with the tax money he steals from the rich. Maybe you need to rethink some of your talking points before trying to sign up with a conservative site. (again)
-
You sound very elitist for a conservative. Most of us are "the working class" that you seem to think needs "appeased." And we are in revolt, something you should understand unless you've managed to miss all the news for a year or so now. We're also smart enough to know that capitalism is a system that only works well in a Christian country, and the combination of our Christian heritage and our capitalism created the wealth that purchased all the "material comfort" you disdain. We're also smart enough to know that the conservatives are the ones that sacrifice their own "material comfort" willingly to help others, instead of expecting Uncle Sam to do it with the tax money he steals from the rich. Maybe you need to rethink some of your talking points before trying to sign up with a conservative site. (again)
Ma'am, I have worked in restaurants since I was 15 years old. I am from a small town in one of the poorest states in the country. Second, there are elitist conservatives and non-elitist conservatives, as well as elitist liberals and non-elitist liberals. I don't think 'elitist' is really a liberal or conservative label. The economic elite used to be Republican while the working class was Democrat, but that is beginning to change now (it's now the other way around). That is a recent development, however, so I find it very strange to be accused of being too 'elite' to be a conservative. True, the "academic elite" (if you want to call them that) tends to be liberal. But they're not in the discussion.
As far as the revolt goes, you're not really listening to what I'm saying (you'd have to read my blog to get the bigger picture). I'm talking about a serious revolt here, not some Tea Party movement. This crisis is only beginning. One in seven Americans lives in poverty. What happens when that becomes one in three? When tens of millions of Americans are homeless and can't feed themselves? This sounds impossible, but that's what happens in Great Depressions. They've occured about every 60-70 years since the beginning of capitalism. In the last Great Depression, we had 33% unemployment. Even though people were used to low standards of living and poverty (they were much poorer back then and didn't have the modern conveniences of today), they were on the verge of revolting. I'm not talking about a new political party, I'm talking about overthrowing the government. I'm talking about Soviet style socialism. This happens in places where the working class is squeezed too hard. Sure, the American working class is supportive of capitalism. But that's because the American working class has it very good compared to the past and compared to other countries. But when you can't get a job or eat, and neither can any around you, you won't be so supportive of capitalism. That's what happened in the 1930s.
Now as far as capitalism only working well in a Christian country, well I'm sorry but you're misinformed. What do you think of Japan and Korea? Japan in particular developed faster than any country in history from 1945-1975. In the 1980s they were technologically much more advanced than we were. There are many countries today that have done very well economically that are not Christian, and capitalism doesn't have to do with religion. If you believe so strongly in capitalism, than why do you think it only works in Christian countries? Second, Christianity originally opposed liberalism and capitalism. Remember that usuary (the charging of interest rates) was a sin, and the Catholic Church didn't even reconcile with capitalism until the end of the 19th century with Anno Domini. Capitalism and individualism corrode religious values, that is why we have religious revivalism. People get religious, then they lose their values because of our capitalistic, individualistic culture, then they feel empty because of this soulless lifestyle, and then they turn back to religion. It's a cycle. We can talk about it more later.
-
Ma'am, I have worked in restaurants since I was 15 years old. I am from a small town in one of the poorest states in the country. Second, there are elitist conservatives and non-elitist conservatives, as well as elitist liberals and non-elitist liberals. I don't think 'elitist' is really a liberal or conservative label. The economic elite used to be Republican while the working class was Democrat, but that is beginning to change now (it's now the other way around). That is a recent development, however, so I find it very strange to be accused of being too 'elite' to be a conservative. True, the "academic elite" (if you want to call them that) tends to be liberal. But they're not in the discussion.
Given your own terminology and attitude, you see yourself as above "the working class" and "the poor." Regardless of the rest of your spiel, your attitude sucks. I'm not terribly impressed with your logic, either.
As far as the revolt goes, you're not really listening to what I'm saying (you'd have to read my blog to get the bigger picture). I'm talking about a serious revolt here, not some Tea Party movement. This crisis is only beginning. One in seven Americans lives in poverty. What happens when that becomes one in three? When tens of millions of Americans are homeless and can't feed themselves? This sounds impossible, but that's what happens in Great Depressions. They've occured about every 60-70 years since the beginning of capitalism. In the last Great Depression, we had 33% unemployment. Even though people were used to low standards of living and poverty (they were much poorer back then and didn't have the modern conveniences of today), they were on the verge of revolting. I'm not talking about a new political party, I'm talking about overthrowing the government. I'm talking about Soviet style socialism. This happens in places where the working class is squeezed too hard. Sure, the American working class is supportive of capitalism. But that's because the American working class has it very good compared to the past and compared to other countries. But when you can't get a job or eat, and neither can any around you, you won't be so supportive of capitalism. That's what happened in the 1930s.
The Tea Party movement is legal, won't get anyone killed, and will work.
As you point out, our 1 in 7 that lives in poverty...doesn't. When our 1 in 3 lives in poverty, they still won't. What will happen, as has consistently happened, is that those counting will move the goal posts. And none of that changes the simple fact that capitalism is the system that created all this wealth. Every other system merely reduces the overall wealth of all, so the poorest end up with even less. The left is working frantically to destroy this country from the inside, but they have not yet managed to destroy education to the point that it will work.
Now as far as capitalism only working well in a Christian country, well I'm sorry but you're misinformed. What do you think of Japan and Korea? Japan in particular developed faster than any country in history from 1945-1975. In the 1980s they were technologically much more advanced than we were. There are many countries today that have done very well economically that are not Christian, and capitalism doesn't have to do with religion. If you believe so strongly in capitalism, than why do you think it only works in Christian countries? Second, Christianity originally opposed liberalism and capitalism. Remember that usuary (the charging of interest rates) was a sin, and the Catholic Church didn't even reconcile with capitalism until the end of the 19th century with Anno Domini. Capitalism and individualism corrode religious values, that is why we have religious revivalism. People get religious, then they lose their values because of our capitalistic, individualistic culture, then they feel empty because of this soulless lifestyle, and then they turn back to religion. It's a cycle. We can talk about it more later.
"Well" is the key word. In a Christian country, capitalism works well because true Christians use their wealth to help others. The leftists have done a huge amount of damage to the correct workings of our religion and our economic system, to the point that only another Great Revival could fix everything...but it's not hopeless by any means. All things are possible with God.
As for the Catholic church...I don't recall a single Catholic on the list of Founding Fathers. Several Christian ministers, and many more very strong and well educated Christians, but no Catholics. Imagine that...
-
... Now as far as capitalism only working well in a Christian country, well I'm sorry but you're misinformed. What do you think of Japan and Korea? Japan in particular developed faster than any country in history from 1945-1975. In the 1980s they were technologically much more advanced than we were.
OK, I KNOW that you're full of shit. Japan is nothing but a leech. They take OUR technology (or some other country's) and improve on it. That's the way they operate. The US developed the transistor. Japan put it to more practical use. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, Made in Japan was equivalent to "Made in China" in today's world. A good example is that I purchased a Pioneer Tuner Amp back in early 83 when I was in San Diego. That summer, I wound up on deployment and found that exact tuner amp over there in Japan. It actually cost more there than what I paid for it in the States, which is rare. It was touted (in Japan) as the newest and greatest for the price. BULLSHIT. That unit was at least seven months old in the States. I look at Japanese tech (and FYI, I've been into electronics in some form or fashion for 46 years) and all it is comprised of is industrial theft. Hell, if it wasn't for the US, they would probably still be fighting with their Katana.
The other thing is that they grew because the US HELPED them grow and rebuild after we nuked the shit out of them. Don't get me wrong; I like Japan and the Japanese culture. (just research that little rosette in my sig line), but they are far from being more technically advanced. In this millenium, they may have us beat because we have outsourced or shipped overseas many of our tech jobs. However, the "good stuff", which you probably have little experience with, is still here, under tight control. So....... don't make foolish statements like that. Perhaps you need to stick to washing dishes in the restaurants.....
-
BTW, WTF is a "non-liberal conservative"??
-
Given your own terminology and attitude, you see yourself as above "the working class" and "the poor." Regardless of the rest of your spiel, your attitude sucks. I'm not terribly impressed with your logic, either.
The Tea Party movement is legal, won't get anyone killed, and will work.
Wow. Where do you get the idea that I see myself as "above the working class?" I AM from the working class. I'm the first person from my family to attend college. I don't need to hear you tell me what I am and what I'm not. As for my attitude, where do you get off on telling me it sucks? First, could you even provide a reason, other than telling me that it does? Second, you're the one that started the name-calling. I simply write a friendly post here, explaining my beliefs, and I immediately get you telling me that I'm elitist with a bunch of condescending remarks without any real argumentation. And THEN you start making snide remarks about the largest sect of Christianity. I live in a Protestant area, and we are very respectful of the Catholic church, and they are of us. As far as I'm concerned, your attitude needs adjusting...very disappointing from someone who advertises herself so strongly as a Christian.
Your beloved Tea Party movement isn't going to attract the votes of the working class when unemployment reaches Great Depression levels and people are starving. We are in the midst of a global economic depression. We're in debt up to our eyeballs, our real economy hasn't seen serious improvements since the 1970s, we face competition from developing economies around the globe, and our parasitic financial sector has grown to huge proportions. Obama and Bernanke will screw up our economy more than the Tea Party, but there is nothing that anyone can do to change the fact that the next years are going to be very tough for us. This doesn't have to do with how competent our leaders are, it depends on global economic conditions outside of our control. This is how the business cycle works. We have periods of growth and recessions. Everyone once in a while we have booms and depressions. We have depressions routinely every 60 or so years. It happened in the 1870s, it happened in the 1930s, and after World War II and the economic realignment, it happened 60 years later.
As you point out, our 1 in 7 that lives in poverty...doesn't. When our 1 in 3 lives in poverty, they still won't. What will happen, as has consistently happened, is that those counting will move the goal posts. And none of that changes the simple fact that capitalism is the system that created all this wealth. Every other system merely reduces the overall wealth of all, so the poorest end up with even less. The left is working frantically to destroy this country from the inside, but they have not yet managed to destroy education to the point that it will work.
Now as for your remarks that there will be no socialist revolt if one in three live in poverty, how do you know this? And how can you say no one is turning to Socialism today???? Have you been watching the news? The crisis has only begun and we elected Obama as president, mainly because of the economy! I suppose you think he's a laissez capitalist. Now if we get Obama now, think of how bad it could be a few years down the line when the crisis bottoms out. I can't believe you are so confident that socialism will not be a concern for America in the next few years to come. Socialism made huge strides during the 1930s. People hadn't seen that kind of unemployment. They were starving. They were looking for answers. And there were socialist (union leaders usually) who were going around telling them that they could eat if we redistributed the wealth and took from the rich. This is what happens in poor countries. Who do you think participates in socialist rebellions, the rich? Do you think the wealthy Russians just wanted to give their possessions away? Often times the leaders themselves came from rich backgrounds, but the base of socialist movements is in the disenfranchised poor, especially during economic crises. No one would seriously disagree with me on this. You don't need to lecture me on the fact that everyone is worse off under a socialist system, I'm well aware of that. But that doesn't mean that people are allured to it during desperate times. It happened during the last Great Depression, it has happened all over the world throughout history, and I don't see why it won't happen this time around. Just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean the enemy has disappeared forever. And as far as our education system goes, you've been too far from it. Socialism is alive and well within the academy in the US, go to any university and they'll see that. Or open a history textbook.
"Well" is the key word. In a Christian country, capitalism works well because true Christians use their wealth to help others. The leftists have done a huge amount of damage to the correct workings of our religion and our economic system, to the point that only another Great Revival could fix everything...but it's not hopeless by any means. All things are possible with God.
As for the Catholic church...I don't recall a single Catholic on the list of Founding Fathers. Several Christian ministers, and many more very strong and well educated Christians, but no Catholics. Imagine that...
What are you talking about? Capitalism works well based on the complex interaction of a variety of the historical, social, political, geographical, and economic conditions of a country. Most of the poorest countries of the world are extremely religious, and the wealthiest tend to be atheist. How well capitalism works has nothing to do with religion. For example, Haiti has a very underdeveloped economy, no natural resources, and no goods that it can produce and sell on the market. It's going to be poor, even though it is very religious and I'm sure the wealthy there donate to charity. Now let's look at Japan. It is one of the wealthiest nations of the world, and developed as fast as any economy ever has in history. It is possibly the most atheist country in the world. Or how about Qatar or the UAE. They have become extremely wealthy because of oil in the region and the fact that they were able to develop as financial centers for the Middle East. Those are Muslim countries. The reason the US is so wealthy is because it is a huge nation with lots of natural resources. It was bound to be economically successful, whether or not we were religious. I can't believe I'm seriously having this discussion with you.
As far as true Christians giving their wealth away, most don't unless the state forces them to. It's sad, but that's how it is, unfortunately. Under the system of completely liberal, laissez-faire, free-market capitalism we had from the 18th century until the 1930s, most of the population lived in extreme poverty while a small few controlled all of the wealth. We were much more religious then than we are now, but it's not like charity seriously alleviated the living conditions of the vast majority of the poor. The wealthy tend to be very stingy when it comes to charity, even today in the US (the poor give much more to charity than the wealthy do in this country). We almost had socialist revolutions all over the world during this time period. It almost happened in western Europe several times during the 19th century, with governments eventually making large concessions to the working class movements. It happened in Russia, which was a very religious country but a very poor one. We learned the hard way that that type of capitalism leads to inequalities that could lead the poor to revolt, which is why the state is much, much larger than it was back in those days, and the economy is much more regulated.
As for your insinuating remarks on Catholics and the Founding Fathers, there were very few Catholics in America at that point, and they were strongly discriminated against. No one wanted them in government because people were convinced they'd take orders from the Papacy. That's why we didn't have a Catholic president until Kennedy in 1960. Even though Catholic-Protestant relations were cordial at this point (at least compared to earlier in our history), many Protestants were convinced he had to answer to the Vatican.
OK, I KNOW that you're full of shit. Japan is nothing but a leech. They take OUR technology (or some other country's) and improve on it. That's the way they operate. The US developed the transistor. Japan put it to more practical use. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, Made in Japan was equivalent to "Made in China" in today's world. A good example is that I purchased a Pioneer Tuner Amp back in early 83 when I was in San Diego. That summer, I wound up on deployment and found that exact tuner amp over there in Japan. It actually cost more there than what I paid for it in the States, which is rare. It was touted (in Japan) as the newest and greatest for the price. BULLSHIT. That unit was at least seven months old in the States. I look at Japanese tech (and FYI, I've been into electronics in some form or fashion for 46 years) and all it is comprised of is industrial theft. Hell, if it wasn't for the US, they would probably still be fighting with their Katana.
The other thing is that they grew because the US HELPED them grow and rebuild after we nuked the shit out of them. Don't get me wrong; I like Japan and the Japanese culture. (just research that little rosette in my sig line), but they are far from being more technically advanced. In this millenium, they may have us beat because we have outsourced or shipped overseas many of our tech jobs. However, the "good stuff", which you probably have little experience with, is still here, under tight control. So....... don't make foolish statements like that. Perhaps you need to stick to washing dishes in the restaurants.....
Thanks for your condescending remarks. First, your anecdotal evidence really doesn't mean anything. I have friends who have actually been to Japan, and they are blown away by it. They said it was like stepping into the future. And anyways, it doesn't mean much to bring up personal experience when we're comparing global economic processes. You do that with evidence, and I don't mean to be pretentious, but I've studied the Japanese economy pretty extensively. It is true that Japan made it as the 'China' of the 1950s-1970s. But by the 1980s they were doing very well in the high-tech sector. Who makes your TV? The two best PC brands of laptops are far and away Sonys and Toshibas. They are much better than Dell and Hewlett-Packard. Which country has the strongest and most extensive wireless internet system in the world? Korea. Obviously the US helped Japan a lot after World War II (mostly to prevent the possibility of a socialist revolution), but for Pete's sake it had been completely leveled in the war and had lost a generation of its people. So it's not like they weren't starting without any disadvantages. It was on its own by the 1950s and did extremely well for itself without US help.
But what is the point here anyway? I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about which economy was more advanced, ours or theirs. I simply brought up Japan as an example of an atheist country that has done well economically. Mrs. Smith thought that only Christian countries did 'well' economically, so I brought up Japan, as the most obvious counter-example. So what is your point? Do you think only Christian countries do well economically? Do you think Japan is a Christian nation? Or do you think that the Japanese economy has not been successful over the past 60 years? If not, than how about some other non-Christian examples? Hong Kong? Korea? UAE (Dubai in particular)? Qatar? Any of the Scandinavian countries (which are all extremely atheistic)? I don't really see the point you're trying to make here, other than picking out one sentence from all of what I've written here that has very little to do with any of my contentions and trying to be argumentative about it so that I have to waste all of this time writing this pointless response.
BTW, WTF is a "non-liberal conservative"??
For a better explanation, check out my blog. All I'll say now is that the use of 'liberal' and 'conservative' in American political discourse isn't very accurate and are used differently in history and throughout the world. Liberalism comes from political and economic philosophy of the Enlightenment with guys such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Smith, Ricardo, etc. (obviously not a homogeneous ideology but there is a converging underlying set of ideals here). If I had to define liberalism in the most basic sense, it would be 'a political-economic philosophy characterized by the individual being the unit of analysis.' It begins with the development of capitalism and the rise of the middle class is followed by individual rights, proceduralism, parliamentary government, secularism, and eventually, democratic practices come from such a system. Almost all Americans are liberals. The social conservatives in this country tend to be less liberal than a lot of Democrats that worship individual freedom, to the point where it endangers our national security and approves the most morally reprehensible acts (homosexuality, for example). But they still are really liberals when it comes down to it. Take a look at my blog, all I have on it is one really long essay (a sort of manifesto outlining my beliefs), but if you have 15 minutes or so to sit down and read it I'd love to discuss it more with you.
-
The "Pimp my blog" section is Here (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/board,43.0.html)
-
Wow. Where do you get the idea that I see myself as "above the working class?" I AM from the working class. I'm the first person from my family to attend college. I don't need to hear you tell me what I am and what I'm not. As for my attitude, where do you get off on telling me it sucks? First, could you even provide a reason, other than telling me that it does? Second, you're the one that started the name-calling. I simply write a friendly post here, explaining my beliefs, and I immediately get you telling me that I'm elitist with a bunch of condescending remarks without any real argumentation.
Yes. YOU signed on with a long screed explaining exactly how much smarter you are than "the working class" and "the poor." Your whole OP was full of name calling and condescension. How weird that you might get called on it. :lmao:
And THEN you start making snide remarks about the largest sect of Christianity. I live in a Protestant area, and we are very respectful of the Catholic church, and they are of us. As far as I'm concerned, your attitude needs adjusting...very disappointing from someone who advertises herself so strongly as a Christian.
All I said was that they weren't here for the founding. Their attitude toward capitalism is pointless.
Your beloved Tea Party movement isn't going to attract the votes of the working class when unemployment reaches Great Depression levels and people are starving. We are in the midst of a global economic depression. We're in debt up to our eyeballs, our real economy hasn't seen serious improvements since the 1970s, we face competition from developing economies around the globe, and our parasitic financial sector has grown to huge proportions. Obama and Bernanke will screw up our economy more than the Tea Party, but there is nothing that anyone can do to change the fact that the next years are going to be very tough for us. This doesn't have to do with how competent our leaders are, it depends on global economic conditions outside of our control. This is how the business cycle works. We have periods of growth and recessions. Everyone once in a while we have booms and depressions. We have depressions routinely every 60 or so years. It happened in the 1870s, it happened in the 1930s, and after World War II and the economic realignment, it happened 60 years later.
Now as for your remarks that there will be no socialist revolt if one in three live in poverty, how do you know this? And how can you say no one is turning to Socialism today???? Have you been watching the news? The crisis has only begun and we elected Obama as president, mainly because of the economy!
The economy? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Obama was elected for one reason, and one reason only...the color of his skin. It had absolutely nothing to do with anything else.
I suppose you think he's a laissez capitalist. Now if we get Obama now, think of how bad it could be a few years down the line when the crisis bottoms out. I can't believe you are so confident that socialism will not be a concern for America in the next few years to come. Socialism made huge strides during the 1930s. People hadn't seen that kind of unemployment. They were starving. They were looking for answers. And there were socialist (union leaders usually) who were going around telling them that they could eat if we redistributed the wealth and took from the rich. This is what happens in poor countries. Who do you think participates in socialist rebellions, the rich? Do you think the wealthy Russians just wanted to give their possessions away? Often times the leaders themselves came from rich backgrounds, but the base of socialist movements is in the disenfranchised poor, especially during economic crises. No one would seriously disagree with me on this. You don't need to lecture me on the fact that everyone is worse off under a socialist system, I'm well aware of that. But that doesn't mean that people are allured to it during desperate times. It happened during the last Great Depression, it has happened all over the world throughout history, and I don't see why it won't happen this time around. Just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean the enemy has disappeared forever. And as far as our education system goes, you've been too far from it. Socialism is alive and well within the academy in the US, go to any university and they'll see that. Or open a history textbook.
I'm well aware of the leftists pervading our educational system. Or did you not notice my remark about them destroying education? ::)
What are you talking about? Capitalism works well based on the complex interaction of a variety of the historical, social, political, geographical, and economic conditions of a country. Most of the poorest countries of the world are extremely religious, and the wealthiest tend to be atheist. How well capitalism works has nothing to do with religion. For example, Haiti has a very underdeveloped economy, no natural resources, and no goods that it can produce and sell on the market. It's going to be poor, even though it is very religious and I'm sure the wealthy there donate to charity. Now let's look at Japan. It is one of the wealthiest nations of the world, and developed as fast as any economy ever has in history. It is possibly the most atheist country in the world. Or how about Qatar or the UAE. They have become extremely wealthy because of oil in the region and the fact that they were able to develop as financial centers for the Middle East. Those are Muslim countries. The reason the US is so wealthy is because it is a huge nation with lots of natural resources. It was bound to be economically successful, whether or not we were religious. I can't believe I'm seriously having this discussion with you.
The Soviet Union has lots of natural resources and no religion. They have never been anywhere near as rich as the US because they have both the wrong economic system and a very weak Christian base. The Muslim countries are very rich...now, yet the majority of their people live in barbaric conditions because of their religion.
How well capitalism works has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with Christianity.
As far as true Christians giving their wealth away, most don't unless the state forces them to. It's sad, but that's how it is, unfortunately. Under the system of completely liberal, laissez-faire, free-market capitalism we had from the 18th century until the 1930s, most of the population lived in extreme poverty while a small few controlled all of the wealth. We were much more religious then than we are now, but it's not like charity seriously alleviated the living conditions of the vast majority of the poor. The wealthy tend to be very stingy when it comes to charity, even today in the US (the poor give much more to charity than the wealthy do in this country).
But the Christians do not tend to be very stingy. Even today, the majority of all charity is given by Christians, in Christian institutions. Before the government interventions, Christians built and ran much of our healthcare system, and charity was a huge part of the reason. Christians are the reason that capitalism has worked for our country, not the falsely-labeled "secularist" government or the natural resources.
We almost had socialist revolutions all over the world during this time period. It almost happened in western Europe several times during the 19th century, with governments eventually making large concessions to the working class movements. It happened in Russia, which was a very religious country but a very poor one. We learned the hard way that that type of capitalism leads to inequalities that could lead the poor to revolt, which is why the state is much, much larger than it was back in those days, and the economy is much more regulated.
That kind of capitalism? I take it you mean a non-capitalist system?
As for your insinuating remarks on Catholics and the Founding Fathers, there were very few Catholics in America at that point, and they were strongly discriminated against.
At the time our nation was founded? :lmao:
Mrs. Smith thought that only Christian countries did 'well' economically, so I brought up Japan, as the most obvious counter-example.
No, I said that only Christians do well with capitalism. And I said it in less than 500 words. But do keep trying to impress everyone with you inability to make a succinct point.
all of what I've written here that has very little to do with any of my contentions and trying to be argumentative about it so that I have to waste all of this time writing this pointless response.
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
Oh, are you a fake conservative? I know lots of those.
Yep, I got my membership card off the internet........
-
Listen up, DUmb****....... I WAS in Japan in the 1980s. Were you?? They were far from being " technologically much more advanced than we were." (YOUR words, not mine.) Trust me on this, they weren't. As far as electronics, again, I assert that Japan only "steals" technology and improves on it. THAT is the Japanese way. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the Japanese and their customs. I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
BTW, most Scandinavian Countries (of which there are only four), are NOT atheists. Apparently you have little knowledge of Viking or Norse religions.
As far as your blog, I think that you are a pretentious moron. Most "bloggers" tell something about themselves. Hell, you have ONE blog post!! :rotf: :rotf: You don't bother to tell someone how old you are, your history, nada.
The one thing I can agree with you & grandfather on is that our culture has gone to hell, but ask yourself WHY?? It is not because people are not Christians. People do NOT have to be Christians to be a Conservative. I know of many Buddhists, Muslims and even Atheists that are Conservatives. Liberalism, as defined in today's world, is our downfall. Our founding fathers were "Liberals". However, they didn't even remotely resemble today's "Liberals" (that should read: "Progressives")
Formerlurker: :II:
-
Little long winded, ain'cha, Curtis?
I agree with the above. Not only did I feel like I read a book after your OP, I felt insulted-like you feel as if you're above the common man, or something.
Didn't start off on the right foot, kid.
Welcome to the Cave. Enjoy your time here.
-
Go take a shower, Rev. You'll feel a bit more clean after reading his diatribe.
IMO, (and FWIW), Curtis' post & his blog seem as if there is some college student out there attempting to justify why he should be a Conservative and all the while, bashing Conservatives. Is this some sort of self-flagellation??
-
Go take a shower, Rev. You'll feel a bit more clean after reading his diatribe.
IMO, (and FWIW), Curtis' post & his blog seem as if there is some college student out there attempting to justify why he should be a Conservative and all the while, bashing Conservatives. Is this some sort of self-flagellation??
More like self-flatulence.
-
Go take a shower, Rev. You'll feel a bit more clean after reading his diatribe.
IMO, (and FWIW), Curtis' post & his blog seem as if there is some college student out there attempting to justify why he should be a Conservative and all the while, bashing Conservatives. Is this some sort of self-flagellation??
Probably should. I almost feel like I've been DUmpster diving.
-
Geeze....why does this sound like a "member" that we had here a while ago:
We need higher tariffs and a commitment from our government to bring jobs home and to improve the real economy. We need the manufacturing sector to grow and return to the size it was before the age of neoliberalism. We need to make agriculture an important part of our economy again and to break up the corporate consolidation of our agricultural sector so that we can bring back the society of small farmers (you know, the one that this country was built on). And in this time of a depression we're going to need the federal government to create relief programs (not recovery) like it did in the Great Depression. I think we'll need to give out more unemployment benefits as well, especially food stamps, because there will be millions more unemployed Americans, and they need to survive somehow. If we don't want a socialist revolt than we're going to need to pander to the unemployed hungry masses.
Welcome to CC Curtis........however something is telling me that you won't be here for long........
A bit of advice......unless someone is paying you by the word, I would suggest that you confine your posts and responses to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 - 40 words. Your lengthy diatribes are simply too wordy and boring to wade through, and instead of leaving the reader with the impression that you are erudite, they tend to make our eyes glaze over from sheer tedium.......
You don't want to wade in to the area of farming, and the economy, unless you actually know what you are talking about in some depth.
You seem to be very concerned about a revolt......perhaps you have forgotten that this was exactly how this country was formed........since we've done it before, I suppose that (God forbid) we can do it again, however I sincerely doubt that the "poor" are going to have much to do with it.........most of the "poor" can't get off their asses long enough to collect their welfare checks........revolt.......not very likely......
doc
-
Geeze....why does this sound like a "member" that we had here a while ago:
Welcome to CC Curtis........however something is telling me that you won't be here for long........
A bit of advice......unless someone is paying you by the word, I would suggest that you confine your posts and responses to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 - 40 words. Your lengthy diatribes are simply too wordy and boring to wade through, and instead of leaving the reader with the impression that you are erudite, they tend to make our eyes glaze over from sheer tedium.......
IOW--you sound like vesta, only stupider, noob.
-
Yes. YOU signed on with a long screed explaining exactly how much smarter you are than "the working class" and "the poor." Your whole OP was full of name calling and condescension. How weird that you might get called on it. :lmao:
Where did I say I was smarter than the working class and the poor? All I said was that in times of crisis, the hungry masses sometimes turn to socialism. This is pretty standard stuff in history. No one will seriously disagree with me here. Unless you think socialism comes from the wealthy? As for condescension, you were the one that called me elitist and have been name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, you've been more condescending than me.
All I said was that they weren't here for the founding. Their attitude toward capitalism is pointless.
The beginnings of capitalism predate the US. The batle between Christianity and capitalism was a long one, and didn't involve just the Catholics. Remember, in England the Anglican church was also very opposed to many of the 'capitalist' laws that led to the very rapid commercialization of the countryside and the disenfranchisement of the poor.
The economy? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Obama was elected for one reason, and one reason only...the color of his skin. It had absolutely nothing to do with anything else.
You might *THINK* that, but the polls wouldn’t agree. Most people that voted for Obama cite the economy. Now you might be right that race had more to do with it than people want to talk about (I agree), but again you’re not listening to my point. I’m telling you that this country is moving leftward, and that even though the crisis has just begun we vote in Obama. I guess you think everything is just hunky-dorey now don’t you? That the threat of socialism isn’t there? If you think Obama is socialist, wait a few years, something a lot worse is coming around the corner.
Yes. YOU signed on with a long screed explaining exactly how much smarter you are than "the working class" and "the poor." Your whole OP was full of name calling and condescension. How weird that you might get called on it. :lmao:
Where did I say I was smarter than the working class and the poor? All I said was that in times of crisis, the hungry masses sometimes turn to socialism. This is pretty standard stuff in history. No one will seriously disagree with me here. Unless you think socialism comes from the wealthy? As for condescension, you were the one that called me elitist and have been name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, you've been more condescending than me.
All I said was that they weren't here for the founding. Their attitude toward capitalism is pointless.
The beginnings of capitalism predate the US. The batle between Christianity and capitalism was a long one, and didn't involve just the Catholics. Remember, in England the Anglican church was also very opposed to many of the 'capitalist' laws that led to the very rapid commercialization of the countryside and the disenfranchisement of the poor.
I'm well aware of the leftists pervading our educational system. Or did you not notice my remark about them destroying education? ::)
You said due to our education system, socialism is an impossibility in this country. I think you’re dead wrong. Wait a few years until the crisis bottoms out, and when you have tens of millions without food and a bunch of teachers and professors going around telling people socialism will save them, you’ll finally appreciate that socialism is a real threat in this country.
The Soviet Union has lots of natural resources and no religion. They have never been anywhere near as rich as the US because they have both the wrong economic system and a very weak Christian base. The Muslim countries are very rich...now, yet the majority of their people live in barbaric conditions because of their religion.
There’s some really poor analysis here. First, the Soviet Union fell in 1991, I guess you didn’t hear about that. As for Russia in 1917, when the revolution happened, it was a devoutly religious country. But it was a very poor one as well. It was the agrarian backwater of Europe, it hadn’t really industrialized and it was far behind technologically. There was a socialist revolt because the masses were starving. The 1920s was marked by civil war, creating further setbacks. Then there was NEP (essentially state capitalism), and the economy improved. But then in the 1930s, Stalin declared an end to this and they moved to socialism, which hurt the economy. Then there was World War II, which took a greater toll on the USSR than any other country. Much of it was destroyed and it lost a whole generation of people. In 1945 it was essentially a third world country. But from 1945-1965, its economy developed as fast as any in history. By the 1950s and early 60s they were beating us in the space race. They were viewed as a threat to our existence, and the US had to do everything it could to prevent the spread of socialism to other countries that wanted to imitate it. I guess your memory is short, but back in the day socialism was considered a very capable enemy. Of course it almost disappeared during the last few decades in the heyday of neoliberalism, naturally, but it will be back with this economic crisis. And we need to stop it at all costs, before it grows into something we cannot fight.
As for the Middle East, it depends on the country. Countries with oil and no other resources tend to only make the wealthiest a lot of money without helping the rest of the economy. Most of the Middle East is poor. However, Qatar and the UAE are extremely wealthy, mainly because of the growth of financial centers there.
But you’re getting me side-tracked, what is your point???? I’m making the very simply argument that economics is based on economics, NOT CHRISTIANITY. A country will be successful due to its economic policies and the resources it has. That is why there are poor and rich Christian countries in this world, and poor and rich atheist countries. I can’t believe you’re still making this argument, it’s embarrassing.
How well capitalism works has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with Christianity.
But the Christians do not tend to be very stingy. Even today, the majority of all charity is given by Christians, in Christian institutions. Before the government interventions, Christians built and ran much of our healthcare system, and charity was a huge part of the reason. Christians are the reason that capitalism has worked for our country, not the falsely-labeled "secularist" government or the natural resources.
You’re really just making yourself look bad. So Christianity isn’t a religion? As for the Christians being stingy, I didn’t say Christians were stingy, I said rich Christians are stingy. As far as the healthcare system goes, it’s funny you mention it, Catholics mostly ran the Christian healthcare system. Anyway, healthcare was much less advanced during that time and did not require much in terms of resources. Most people lived in poverty in the 19th century, so you can’t seriously argue that Christianity alone can alleviate poverty. Why do you think the poor in poor countries, Christian countries turn to socialism? Because they think it will feed them, not because of its superiority as an ideology. But WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS? The US was economically successful because of its natural resources and its history and the toughness of its pioneers, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS CHRISTIAN. Do you think the settlers out west relied on Christian charities when things went wrong? No, they were self-reliant. I’m a devout Christian and I think your argument is ludicrous. Libertarians, can you back me up on this? Or do you people all think that the economy of a country depends on its religion? That only Christian countries can be successful economically? I can’t believe we’re actually having this discussion.
That kind of capitalism? I take it you mean a non-capitalist system?
Nope, I mean a capitalist system we used from the 1930s to the 1970s. The capitalist economy we had until the 1930s was much different than the one we have today. It was a very different economy, so the state was infinitely smaller (understandably so) and there were far fewer regulations (understandably so). That is the politico-economic system usually characterizing the earlier stage of capitalism. All I’m saying is if we went back to the way our state operated from say 1830-1930 in today’s economy, it would be catastrophic. I don’t think anyone would seriously disagree with me.
At the time our nation was founded? :lmao:
Yes, this nation was founded as a Protestant nation. Most Catholics came in the Italian, Irish, and German waves of immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Are you seriously making the argument that Catholics would have been welcome in the political system? The Freemasons and Founding Fathers were extremely anti-Catholic. Read a history book.
No, I said that only Christians do well with capitalism. And I said it in less than 500 words. But do keep trying to impress everyone with you inability to make a succinct point.
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
No, you made an idiotic argument in under 500 words. I’ve never met anyone that seriously made the argument that only Christians do well with capitalism. I guess you think Japan and Korea and Hong Kong and Qatar and the UAE and the atheist Scandinavian countries and India and China (fastest growing economies of the past two years) and Malaysia and Singapore are all Christian countries? And look at all of the poorest countries in the world. The African countries are now mostly Christian (it’s the fastest growing Christian region in the world) and Latin America is exclusively Christian, yet they’re some of the poorest in the world. You’re the one that is advancing this idiotic argument. But if you do believe that, then why do you think only Christians do well with capitalism? It sounds to me like you don’t have very much faith in capitalism as an economic system, if it can do well with only one religion.
Listen up, DUmb****....... I WAS in Japan in the 1980s. Were you?? They were far from being " technologically much more advanced than we were." (YOUR words, not mine.) Trust me on this, they weren't. As far as electronics, again, I assert that Japan only "steals" technology and improves on it. THAT is the Japanese way. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the Japanese and their customs. I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
No, but my father was, as well as many people I know. Again, you act like you’re an expert on the Japanese economy, which you clearly aren’t. You make the claim that their high-tech sector only steals from us without any evidence to back it up other than a personal story. But why are we talking about this? The discussion was whether or not non-Christian countries can be successful economically. You apparently think Japan is economic failure, which is very ignorant, or that Japan is Christian, which is also ignorant. So what is your argument?
BTW, most Scandinavian Countries (of which there are only four), are NOT atheists. Apparently you have little knowledge of Viking or Norse religions.
Lord almighty. I almost peed my pants laughing. I have to thank you for that post, I haven’t laughed that hard and that long in years. You are probably the most ignorant person I have ever run into on the internet. Do you seriously, seriously think that people in Scandinavia still believe in Norse religions? Do you seriously think that they are not atheist countries? Sweden is the most atheist country in the world, do a search on google. Please. Just stop writing. You’re embarrassing yourself.
As far as your blog, I think that you are a pretentious moron. Most "bloggers" tell something about themselves. Hell, you have ONE blog post!! :rotf: :rotf: You don't bother to tell someone how old you are, your history, nada.
Yeah, I have one post because I just started it the other day. I work full time and don’t have the time to spend hours on the internet talking to idiots such as yourself that don‘t take the time to consider what other people are saying. And as for my personal life, I can’t disclose it, my views are radical enough that if someone found out about them it could jeopardize my professional life at some point in the future. Just read the blog.
The one thing I can agree with you & grandfather on is that our culture has gone to hell, but ask yourself WHY?? It is not because people are not Christians. People do NOT have to be Christians to be a Conservative. I know of many Buddhists, Muslims and even Atheists that are Conservatives. Liberalism, as defined in today's world, is our downfall. Our founding fathers were "Liberals". However, they didn't even remotely resemble today's "Liberals" (that should read: "Progressives")
Formerlurker: :II:
If you had read my blog or taken the time to consider what I’ve written, you’d realize that we’re in agreement. And yes, I realize that you don’t have to be a Christian to be a Conservative, I’m not retarded. I agree with you as far as liberalism goes. The founding fathers were “liberals,†what we call “liberals†today are (usually) progressives. What we call conservatives are classical liberals (for the most part). So Democrats are usually liberal progressives, and Republicans are liberal republicans. So what is your argument? As for me, I think Republicans are too liberal. Check out my blog, I don’t have room to explain it here.
Little long winded, ain'cha, Curtis?
I agree with the above. Not only did I feel like I read a book after your OP, I felt insulted-like you feel as if you're above the common man, or something.
Didn't start off on the right foot, kid.
Welcome to the Cave. Enjoy your time here.
Thanks for the welcome. I really don’t get where I’m insulting the common man. All I’m saying is that the threat of socialism is growing, and that in a few years, when this crisis really gets bad, it’s going to be a serious threat to our nation. I’m not talking about Barrack Obama socialism, I’m talking about something that signifies the end of civilization as we know it. And I’m pretty sure the wealthy won’t be the base of this movement. Not sure how that is condescending. As for being long-winded, I’ll work on it.
Geeze....why does this sound like a "member" that we had here a while ago:
Welcome to CC Curtis........however something is telling me that you won't be here for long........
A bit of advice......unless someone is paying you by the word, I would suggest that you confine your posts and responses to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 - 40 words. Your lengthy diatribes are simply too wordy and boring to wade through, and instead of leaving the reader with the impression that you are erudite, they tend to make our eyes glaze over from sheer tedium.......
You don't want to wade in to the area of farming, and the economy, unless you actually know what you are talking about in some depth.
You seem to be very concerned about a revolt......perhaps you have forgotten that this was exactly how this country was formed........since we've done it before, I suppose that (God forbid) we can do it again, however I sincerely doubt that the "poor" are going to have much to do with it.........most of the "poor" can't get off their asses long enough to collect their welfare checks........revolt.......not very likely......
doc
OK, I’ll try and keep things shorter (after this post :) ). But there’s not much you can do in 20-40 words as far as intelligent thought goes. I do know what I am talking about as far as the economy goes, though that might not be evident since I have to keep my posts short. Check out my blog. As far as farming goes, I might not be an expert in it, but if we’re going to talk about efficiency in agriculture, go ahead, I’ll even let you win. As I explain in my blog, economic efficiency isn’t that important to me. Our culture is.
As far as revolt goes, it almost happened in the 1930s. And it’s funny you talk about the poor and their welfare checks, and I am the one being accused of talking down to the common man. Oh well. Anyways, it’s these poor, the ones “collecting their welfare checks,†so to speak, that I’m worried about. We’ve been so prosperous for such a long time that socialism seems like a dream, but that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. People have had it so good for so long that when things start getting real bad, they might take the most desperate measures. It’s something that we need to be a lot more worried about right now.
I find the reaction I’m getting very amusing. If I came on here, and said I was an atheist Minarchist who believed in individual rights and small government, and my signature said “Keep the government out of the boardroom and the bedroom,†I’m sure I would’ve been welcomed with open arms. If I came on as a Christian who only talked about social issues and was very opposed to individual rights on some moral issues, I’d be welcomed with open arms. But since I came here as a Christian whose economic views resemble those of the Republicans from the late 1940s-1970s more than the modern day Republicans, people are outraged that I even post here. You people worship libertarian economics much more than I thought. How are we supposed to fight the War on Terror with a tiny state? Our military needs at least twice the funding and three times the troop levels, and all you’re talking about is small government and tax cuts? I think a lot of you people aren’t as Christian as you claim to be when it comes to politics. All you’re really concerned with is lower taxes and less government presence. If we’re Christians, than why are we so concerned with world things such as economic efficiency? Isn’t our culture much more important? We have that common ground but you can’t even see it because you’re too busy getting worked up about my economic views. If our political party system resembled that of a typical European country, and you had to choose between Christian Social Democrats and some atheist liberal party (libertarian economic views), which would you choose? I’d choose the Christian Social Democrats, because making the state Christian and cleaning up our culture is more important to me than economics. But I think you people would vote for the atheist liberals, just to get your tax breaks. I care about our culture and our forreign policy more than anything. I don't want to see our nation become a slave to neoliberal economics. And I don't think that libertarianism and the liberal state are going to enable us to make the changes we need.
-
... attempting to justify why he should be a Conservative and all the while, bashing Conservatives. Is this some sort of self-flagellation??
Also known as Meghan McCain Syndrome.
-
Also known as Meghan McCain Syndrome.
I'm more conservative than both of you. If you don't believe me, read my blog. I'm just not a libertarian. I'm an old-school conservative.
-
I'm more conservative than both of you. If you don't believe me, read my blog. I'm just not a libertarian. I'm an old-school conservative.
Wait a minute...are you just making this up as you go along.
Back when I asked you about wealth redistribution you said you were for a certain level of that since capitalism is just unfair and society needed redistribution for civil peace.
You have been all over the board with positions from your opening post.
Do you know what you believe or don`t you?
-
One more thing...
Making the claim that you are more conservative then others and having exhibited a level of arrogance is all I need to know to suspect you are a useless entity to achieving any political goals or gains.
What do you do to work towards anything or do you just sit around and complain about everyone?
-
But there’s not much you can do in 20-40 words as far as intelligent thought goes. I do know what I am talking about as far as the economy goes, though that might not be evident since I have to keep my posts short.
Dunno.......we have some fairly intelligent members here who seem to manage it just fine. And should you continue to pimp your one-post blog, this thread is likely to end up in the cellar of that forum.
If your intent is to "school" us on economics, we have another entire forum devoted to that subject......perhaps you might want to read some of the member's contributions prior to attempting to demonstrate your knowledge (or lack therof).......on that subject.
doc
-
I think that you are confusing our members here with the fact that they ARE for a smaller, more effective government and a strong and effective military. Our Government is bloated. I'm referring to the various civilian department employees. I doubt that ANYBODY on this forum will argue with that. Then you have our Congress and Senate, who get retirement & medical benefits for life without completing some twenty years of service. We wont even get into their incessant pay raises. Then, we have a President who thinks it's his duty to go off campaigning and jet-setting around the country on the taxpayer's dime.
I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that our members here realize the importance of a strong military, realize the fact that they are under-funded and underpaid, and are restricted by superfluous rules of engagement that not only hinder them in prosecuting a war, but put them in harm's way.
I also doubt that there are very many long term members here that condone the Government bailing out the banks, the auto makers, or the unions. IMO, that is NOT the Government's job.
Our bloated Government exists not only on a Federal level, but at ALL levels of Government. They realize that they can pass an initiative of almost any kind and that the taxpayers will pick up the tab.
Lastly, are you MORE Conservative than many here?? Maybe. Maybe not. I would like to see our country run by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and leave it at that. However, we are not. We are being inundated with bullshit laws, taxes that are depressing and the Government is running rampant over our lives.
-
My head hurts. :rofl:
-
Quote from: BattleHymn on Today at 01:30:40 pm
Also known as Meghan McCain Syndrome.
I'm more conservative than both of you. If you don't believe me, read my blog. I'm just not a libertarian. I'm an old-school conservative.
Yes, Meghan. I'm sure you are. :lmao:
You're so damn conservative, that you can't show how you are conservative, but you have to tell us.
Sir, you can tell me a watermelon is blue on the inside until you cut it open, but that does not make it so.
-
Wait a minute...are you just making this up as you go along.
Back when I asked you about wealth redistribution you said you were for a certain level of that since capitalism is just unfair and society needed redistribution for civil peace.
You have been all over the board with positions from your opening post.
Do you know what you believe or don`t you?
Nope. Just because I'm an old-school conservative and not a libertarian does NOT mean I'm all over the board. I might seem all over the board to you, but it's because I have a different collection of ideas than most modern-day Republicans. As for what I believe in, I know exactly what I believe in. I believe that social issues and foreign policy are the most important things we have to worry about. And that the economy can and should be sacrificed for the good of our culture and foreign policy. As for wealth distribution, it is out of necessity. As I said before I don't believe in economic egalitarianism. But obviously purely laissez-faire capitalism leads to great inequalities (look at any economy before the 1930s). And when there are great inequalities, a socialist revolution becomes a serious possibility. As far as the wealthy go, yeah, I don't think anyone should be making a billion dollars. That's too much money for one person, and we have much better uses for that money...such as paying off our debt and spending what we need to on the military. But as I've stated before, economic efficiency isn't all that important to me. Our nation, its culture, its people, and our military are much more important to me than that. I think our economy should serve these things, not the other way around.
One more thing...
Making the claim that you are more conservative then others and having exhibited a level of arrogance is all I need to know to suspect you are a useless entity to achieving any political goals or gains.
What do you do to work towards anything or do you just sit around and complain about everyone?
No. I just had to say it because I'm accused of not being a conservative. As for what I'm doing, we'll talk in a couple of years. I just graduated from college but I'll do my best to make an impact. It'll just take a little bit of time.
Dunno.......we have some fairly intelligent members here who seem to manage it just fine. And should you continue to pimp your one-post blog, this thread is likely to end up in the cellar of that forum.
If your intent is to "school" us on economics, we have another entire forum devoted to that subject......perhaps you might want to read some of the member's contributions prior to attempting to demonstrate your knowledge (or lack therof).......on that subject.
doc
Nope. No serious ideas can be communicated in 20-40 words. That's why people write books. Maybe you don't read though. Reading has become very unpopular in the information age, with the internet and cell phones no one is used to sitting down and actually reading anymore. As for my blog, I won't mention it again (I only did because that way I don't have to write long posts, I can just tell people to check out my ideas there rather than having to explain them), I posted something over in the blog forum. And yes, at some point I will go over to the economics forum. I've studied quite a bit of economics, but just because I'm not a diehard libertarian doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
I think that you are confusing our members here with the fact that they ARE for a smaller, more effective government and a strong and effective military. Our Government is bloated. I'm referring to the various civilian department employees. I doubt that ANYBODY on this forum will argue with that. Then you have our Congress and Senate, who get retirement & medical benefits for life without completing some twenty years of service. We wont even get into their incessant pay raises. Then, we have a President who thinks it's his duty to go off campaigning and jet-setting around the country on the taxpayer's dime.
I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that our members here realize the importance of a strong military, realize the fact that they are under-funded and underpaid, and are restricted by superfluous rules of engagement that not only hinder them in prosecuting a war, but put them in harm's way.
I also doubt that there are very many long term members here that condone the Government bailing out the banks, the auto makers, or the unions. IMO, that is NOT the Government's job.
Our bloated Government exists not only on a Federal level, but at ALL levels of Government. They realize that they can pass an initiative of almost any kind and that the taxpayers will pick up the tab.
Lastly, are you MORE Conservative than many here?? Maybe. Maybe not. I would like to see our country run by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and leave it at that. However, we are not. We are being inundated with bullshit laws, taxes that are depressing and the Government is running rampant over our lives.
I guess I just don't see what you disagree with me on. I agree the bureacuracy is bloated and needs to be cleaned up. As far as politicians go, there is a good reason they get pay for the rest of their lives. If they didn't, they'd have to work afterwords, which creates a conflict of interest. They'd serve the needs of some narrow interest group and then get handed a cushy position on some company's board of directors (which still happens, but at least they wouldn't need to). Remember, back in the day, we hardly paid our congressmen, which is because they all made their money doing other things, and served those interests while they were in congress. Making sure they're financially set during and after their terms means they're financially independent and less likely to be serving other peoples' interests. This is a minor point though.
I agree with you on the military. Our troops and veterans need better pay and benefits. But most importantly, I don't think we're serious enough about the War on Terror. We need a much better funded military with even better technology and better training for our troops. We need to double its budget and most importantly, we need many more soldiers if we want to win this war. We need a draft and to at least triple the amount of troops we have.
So you're upset with Washington? I am too. We need a new system that's not weighed down by bickering among interest groups and back-room, party politics. I have more to say about that but don't have room to explain it here. There are other places though where you can find out about my solutions. (:
Yes, Meghan. I'm sure you are. :lmao:
You're so damn conservative, that you can't show how you are conservative, but you have to tell us.
Sir, you can tell me a watermelon is blue on the inside until you cut it open, but that does not make it so.
Are you willing to double the size of our military budget and triple the amount of our personnel with a draft? Are you willing to seriously pursue a Christian state? I'm not talking about just banning abortion or gay marriage or allowing prayer in schools and putting the Bible on the front lawn of the city council. I'm talking about changes a lot more radical than that. Are you willing to seriously clean up Washington and our far too liberal judicial system? To take "extra-legal" measures to do so?
-
You have expressed positions that don`t follow any pattern of Conservatism,much to the opposite as far as social order and economic theory.
Tell me one conservative thing in saying As far as the wealthy go, yeah, I don't think anyone should be making a billion dollars. That's too much money for one person,
You are at this point an over educated fool who has a much higher regard for your intelligence then your writings would lead others to have.
When you have lived a few years more of actual life perhaps you will understand.
Lastly he doesn`t need me to defend or speak for him but trust me on at least one thing...Doc has more intelligence in his little finger then you have displayed and you would be very wise to offer an apology.
-
I'm more conservative than both of you. If you don't believe me, read my blog. I'm just not a libertarian. I'm an old-school conservative.
Thank God--a post that doesn't drivel, doesn't pontificate, yet is full of 100 percent pure concentrated bullshit.
On second thought, it DOES drivel. Bitchslap for your being a tool. Oh, and you've yet to demonstrate any ACTUAL CONSERVATIVE HABITS OR TENDENCIES.
Lew Rockwell and the Ron Paul forums be thataway: ------------------------->
-
1.)I disagree with you on the condescending tone that you've approached members of our forum.
2.) Are you unfamiliar with the 1st Amendment?? Apparently you are!! This Nation wasn't founded to be entirely Christian. In the beginning, it WAS that way, but there are other religions that have just as good, if not better morality as Christianity. You need to face that fact.
3.) While TVDOC doesn't like to brag, I would like to take the time to point out that he possesses a PhD in Physics(?) of some flavor. Your insults aren't getting you in the good graces of the staff OR the general membership. Perhaps I might recommend that you sit back, read, watch and learn about our members here. While we don't all walk or think in lockstep, we are generally in the same book.
4.) Finally, if you don't change your condescending tone, I will wager a bet that your stay here will be limited.
-
I'm more conservative than both of you. If you don't believe me, read my blog. I'm just not a libertarian. I'm an old-school conservative.
So are you saying you are a loyalist?
-
No, but my father was, as well as many people I know. Again, you act like you’re an expert on the Japanese economy, which you clearly aren’t. You make the claim that their high-tech sector only steals from us without any evidence to back it up other than a personal story. But why are we talking about this? The discussion was whether or not non-Christian countries can be successful economically. You apparently think Japan is economic failure, which is very ignorant, or that Japan is Christian, which is also ignorant. So what is your argument?
Show me WHERE the Japanese actually invented anything over the last century?? Airplanes?? Hardly. Transistors?? Nope Robots?? Guess again!! Ohh, that's right, you know EVERYTHING!! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Lord almighty. I almost peed my pants laughing. I have to thank you for that post, I haven’t laughed that hard and that long in years. You are probably the most ignorant person I have ever run into on the internet. Do you seriously, seriously think that people in Scandinavia still believe in Norse religions? Do you seriously think that they are not atheist countries? Sweden is the most atheist country in the world, do a search on google. Please. Just stop writing. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Apparently you know little or nothing about the Tuetonic culture. There is a movement afoot that is trending back towards their original religions. People lie. They lie all of the time. I submit to you that YOU are the one who is embarrassing themselves. It is quite evident by the contentious posts you've made and the replies you've received.
-
You have expressed positions that don`t follow any pattern of Conservatism,much to the opposite as far as social order and economic theory.
Tell me one conservative thing in saying
You are at this point an over educated fool who has a much higher regard for your intelligence then your writings would lead others to have.
When you have lived a few years more of actual life perhaps you will understand.
Lastly he doesn`t need me to defend or speak for him but trust me on at least one thing...Doc has more intelligence in his little finger then you have displayed and you would be very wise to offer an apology.
Nope. There is more to conservatism than tax cuts and small government. I also believe that the social order is much more important than the economy, which makes you all probably more liberal than me. Second, as for my comment about the billionaires, it was a hyperbole. My point is that we need a lot of money, to pay off this deficit and to fight the War on Terror. The wealthy can afford to pay it, they’ve had a lot in terms of tax cuts over the past 30 (especially last 10) years. So I say raise their taxes. This doesn’t make me a non-conservative. I mean, HW raised taxes after promising not to. Does that make him a Democrat? Thanks for your condescending remarks.
Thank God--a post that doesn't drivel, doesn't pontificate, yet is full of 100 percent pure concentrated bullshit.
On second thought, it DOES drivel. Bitchslap for your being a tool. Oh, and you've yet to demonstrate any ACTUAL CONSERVATIVE HABITS OR TENDENCIES.
Lew Rockwell and the Ron Paul forums be thataway: ------------------------->
You obviously have paid no attention to anything I’ve said. I’m considering YOU GUYS for being too libertarian. Even though I’m a social conservative through and through, the fact that I’m not a libertarian is infuriating to many of you. Because it seems like that’s all you guys care about, libertarian economics.
1.)I disagree with you on the condescending tone that you've approached members of our forum.
2.) Are you unfamiliar with the 1st Amendment?? Apparently you are!! This Nation wasn't founded to be entirely Christian. In the beginning, it WAS that way, but there are other religions that have just as good, if not better morality as Christianity. You need to face that fact.
3.) While TVDOC doesn't like to brag, I would like to take the time to point out that he possesses a PhD in Physics(?) of some flavor. Your insults aren't getting you in the good graces of the staff OR the general membership. Perhaps I might recommend that you sit back, read, watch and learn about our members here. While we don't all walk or think in lockstep, we are generally in the same book.
4.) Finally, if you don't change your condescending tone, I will wager a bet that your stay here will be limited.
1. My condescending tone has been used for you and Mrs. Smith. That was after Mrs. Smith accused me of being elitist as well as wrote a bunch of nonsense. Then you said that I was ‘full of shit’ and a ‘dumb****.’ So who the **** ARE YOU to say I’m the one being condescending?
2. I don’t care about the first amendment. This is a Christian nation. It was founded and populated by Christians. What other religions have a better morality than Christianity?
3. My remark to TVDOC was entirely in jest. If he has a PhD I’m sure he’s very smart. Nonetheless, it was a kind of stupid comment to say that anything intelligent can be explained in 20-40 words. That’s a few sentences. As I said before, there is a reason people write books. Granted, there’s no room for books here, but I think 20-40 words is pretty short for a political forum.
4. Your condescending tone has been much, much worse than mine, and you’re giving me a terrible impression of the people that are here.
So are you saying you are a loyalist?
Nope. But my favorite time period in American history, the golden era, was from the 1930s to the mid 1960s. My favorite Republican presidents were Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, and to a lesser extent, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. But since their economic views would clash with yours, I take it you wouldn’t consider them conservatives?
-
Show me WHERE the Japanese actually invented anything over the last century?? Airplanes?? Hardly. Transistors?? Nope Robots?? Guess again!! Ohh, that's right, you know EVERYTHING!! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Apparently you know little or nothing about the Tuetonic culture. There is a movement afoot that is trending back towards their original religions. People lie. They lie all of the time. I submit to you that YOU are the one who is embarrassing themselves. It is quite evident by the contentious posts you've made and the replies you've received.
Why....are....you....still....talking....about....this? What does this have to do with the discussion? Mrs. Smith said only Christian countries did well under capitalism, I brought up the example of Japan and how successful they've been. So do you think Japan is a Christian country? Or do you think that they have not been successful economically? If you don't think they were, could you please find me another country with those kind of growth rates during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s?
As for your second part, do you seriously think people actually practice norse religion? And believe in it? I'm sure there are a few wackos out there that do, but can you seriously say that a large part of the population actually does? I've never heard anyone try and claim that, and if we went and asked a Scandinavian about what you had to say, they would've died laughing. Sweden is the most atheist country in the world, look it up on google. The other Scandinavian countries are also extremely atheist, as atheist as anywhere in the world. It is no surprise that they are also some of the most socialist in the world. Again, I was having the ridiculous discussion with Mrs. Smith about non-Christian countries and capitalism, and I brought up the Scandinavian countries. So what do you have to say? Do you think that only Christian countries can do well under the capitalist system? If so, why? What do you think about all of my other examples?
-
Perhaps I might recommend that you sit back, read, watch and learn about our members here. While we don't all walk or think in lockstep, we are generally in the same book.
THANK YOU!!! :cheersmate: :cheersmate:
Someone finally said it. I wasn't going to get involved with this post, but the OP should really read some of the threads/posts and topics on this forum and then understand where we stand. :hi5:
-
Aren`t you a clever little one,you seem to think that you can espouse what borders on Marxisim and by calling it conservative it is.
Wrong.
Nope. There is more to conservatism than tax cuts and small government. I also believe that the social order is much more important than the economy, which makes you all probably more liberal than me. Second, as for my comment about the billionaires, it was a hyperbole. My point is that we need a lot of money, to pay off this deficit and to fight the War on Terror. The wealthy can afford to pay it, they’ve had a lot in terms of tax cuts over the past 30 (especially last 10) years. So I say raise their taxes. This doesn’t make me a non-conservative. I mean, HW raised taxes after promising not to. Does that make him a Democrat? Thanks for your condescending remarks.
Yes,yes it does...get rid of government handouts and programs then no more taxes are needed,can`t grasp any part of that you are not at all conservative.
You obviously have paid no attention to anything I’ve said. I’m considering YOU GUYS for being too libertarian. Even though I’m a social conservative through and through, the fact that I’m not a libertarian is infuriating to many of you. Because it seems like that’s all you guys care about, libertarian economics.
You have not even the first clue what the Libertarian party stands for or are just a liar...my guess the latter.
Paulism is a blight on the body politic,it is the fantasy equivalent of Socialism,most here know that and a little research on your part would have found that.
2. I don’t care about the first amendment. This is a Christian nation. It was founded and populated by Christians. What other religions have a better morality than Christianity?
Well isn`t that just quaint.
I do though and as a Christian understand that the first amendment wasn`t to to abandon religion or Christianity but not proscribe a particular one.
You should have spent some of your recent college time studying the intent of the founders.
You are in my opinion a troll pretending to be a conservative,you have no rational thought process and that is demonstrated by your random and contradictory outbursts.
-
Nope. But my favorite time period in American history, the golden era, was from the 1930s to the mid 1960s. My favorite Republican presidents were Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, and to a lesser extent, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. But since their economic views would clash with yours, I take it you wouldn’t consider them conservatives?
EPA and OSHA make it impossible to see Nixon as anything other than a liberal republican.
Ford at least told New York to drop dead when it purposely destroyed its economy.
-
I believe that social issues and foreign policy are the most important things we have to worry about. And that the economy can and should be sacrificed for the good of our culture and foreign policy.
Well.....earlier, you used Japan as an example, and the Imperialist prewar leaders of that country used that exact philosophy.........it didn't end well for them, did it.
As far as the wealthy go, yeah, I don't think anyone should be making a billion dollars. That's too much money for one person, and we have much better uses for that money...such as paying off our debt and spending what we need to on the military. But as I've stated before, economic efficiency isn't all that important to me
So let me see if I have this straight........you believe that if some individual has the brains and tenacity to make him/herself a billionaire, that wealth should be stripped from that person and used for "more important purposes"? Have I got that right? Then continuing,
And when there are great inequalities, a socialist revolution becomes a serious possibility.
It sounds to me like your "socialist revolution" has already begun (theoretically) by the thrust of your own words..........if stripping the wealth of those who earned it, and using it for "other purposes", as well as "pandering to the proletariat", is your concept of conservatism, we are eons apart, politically.....
I'm talking about changes a lot more radical than that. Are you willing to seriously clean up Washington and our far too liberal judicial system? To take "extra-legal" measures to do so?
Goodness.......prickly little prole, our new revolutionary..........this sounds very similar to the drivel spouted by Islamic radicals........I think I can speak for the bulk of us, that we stand for the rule of law, regardless of how perverted it may have become, our concept of change must lie within its boundaries.
I'm gonna take a SWAG, and classify you as a rather young and naive person, that has been exposed to just enough education to be dangerous......unfortunately untempered by experience, common sense, and wisdom.......
doc
-
Goodness.....
the golden era, was from the 1930s to the mid 1960s
"The Golden Era??? Which includes:
The Great Depression
World War Two
The Korean Conflict
And two recessions
I would suggest that you retake that history class......this must be what passes for modern education in American history.....I want a refund on my property taxes....
doc
-
Aren`t you a clever little one,you seem to think that you can espouse what borders on Marxisim and by calling it conservative it is.
Wrong.
Yes,yes it does...get rid of government handouts and programs then no more taxes are needed,can`t grasp any part of that you are not at all conservative.
You have not even the first clue what the Libertarian party stands for or are just a liar...my guess the latter.
Paulism is a blight on the body politic,it is the fantasy equivalent of Socialism,most here know that and a little research on your part would have found that.
Well isn`t that just quaint.
I do though and as a Christian understand that the first amendment wasn`t to to abandon religion or Christianity but not proscribe a particular one.
You should have spent some of your recent college time studying the intent of the founders.
You are in my opinion a troll pretending to be a conservative,you have no rational thought process and that is demonstrated by your random and contradictory outbursts.
And Carl knocks one out of the park!!! :hi5: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Nope. But my favorite time period in American history, the golden era, was from the 1930s to the mid 1960s. My favorite Republican presidents were Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, and to a lesser extent, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. But since their economic views would clash with yours, I take it you wouldn’t consider them conservatives?
Did you actually PASS your American History class?? Teddy Roosevelt was the beginning of modern day Progressivism..... sheesh....
If you can actually comprehend what you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt
-
oh, for heaven's sake. why are we still feeding this guy? every reply he makes increases his google index score because he put his silly little blog URL in his sig.
I quit reading his shit when I saw the phrase "economic egalitarianism". first of all, it's redundant. second of all, it makes it clear that this little princess just had his first few classes in philosophy 101, and suddenly thinks that he understands the world.
somebody needs a hobby. or a girlfriend. or a phukpuppet. but he definitely needs something.
-
oh, for heaven's sake. why are we still feeding this guy? every reply he makes increases his google index score because he put his silly little blog URL in his sig.
I quit reading his shit when I saw the phrase "economic egalitarianism". first of all, it's redundant. second of all, it makes it clear that this little princess just had his first few classes in philosophy 101, and suddenly thinks that he understands the world.
somebody needs a hobby. or a girlfriend. or a phukpuppet. but he definitely needs something.
Perhaps Vesta could arrange a meet for him with her daughter??
-
His long winded replies made me sleepy remind me to read his posts the next time I need to go to sleep quick
-
Curtis.....you will simply have to forgive me for "cherry picking" your posts, however, they are far too uninteresting to really read in their entirety......speaking of reading, the reason that I'm sorta piecemealing this is that I'm in the middle of The History of the English Speaking Proples, by Winston Churchill, and I find it far more fascinating than your rambling, somewhat incoherent posts.....you DID suggest that I should broaden my reading interests, didn't you?
However, I couldn't let this gem pass unchallenged:
Now let's look at Japan. It is one of the wealthiest nations of the world, and developed as fast as any economy ever has in history. It is possibly the most atheist country in the world.
It looks like you failed World History as well as the American version......since you are such an authority on Japan, you should know that the native Japanese are over 90% either Shinto, Taoist, or Buddist, and as a people they are deeply religious......not unlike us, it is rooted in their culture.
They may not be Christian, but they are far from atheist.....
Care to try again?
doc
-
Well, darn. I was going to actually reply to some of curt's crap, but I actually have a life and I see he hasn't manage to decrease his word count at all. I'm not going to spend all the time it'll take to wade through his "pointless replies." :lmao: Although I have to admit, the one line where he admitted it was priceless. :rotf:
So, hey, curt, whenever you get around to reading some instead of lecturing, maybe you should start with Who Really Cares (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285987874&sr=1-1). It a very modern book, so won't provide all the knowledge you've somehow managed to miss. I know that, since you're so extra smart, you care about starting with facts instead of assumptions, right? I'd be glad to point you to some of my favorite books, and I've no doubt that many others here can contribute to your efforts. We'd love to see you get an actual education before you write another lecture. :-)
-
Listen up, DUmb****....... I WAS in Japan in the 1980s. Were you?? They were far from being " technologically much more advanced than we were." (YOUR words, not mine.) Trust me on this, they weren't. As far as electronics, again, I assert that Japan only "steals" technology and improves on it. THAT is the Japanese way. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the Japanese and their customs. I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
BTW, most Scandinavian Countries (of which there are only four), are NOT atheists. Apparently you have little knowledge of Viking or Norse religions.
As far as your blog, I think that you are a pretentious moron. Most "bloggers" tell something about themselves. Hell, you have ONE blog post!! :rotf: :rotf: You don't bother to tell someone how old you are, your history, nada.
The one thing I can agree with you & grandfather on is that our culture has gone to hell, but ask yourself WHY?? It is not because people are not Christians. People do NOT have to be Christians to be a Conservative. I know of many Buddhists, Muslims and even Atheists that are Conservatives. Liberalism, as defined in today's world, is our downfall. Our founding fathers were "Liberals". However, they didn't even remotely resemble today's "Liberals" (that should read: "Progressives")
Formerlurker: :II:
I have a thing for Scandinavian culture. You are absolutely right, many non-religious are conservative. Religion and being conservative is correlated, but not strongly.
-
THANK YOU!!! :cheersmate: :cheersmate:
Someone finally said it. I wasn't going to get involved with this post, but the OP should really read some of the threads/posts and topics on this forum and then understand where we stand. :hi5:
It's pretty clear where you stand. Small government and tax cuts is about all you guys care about. Even though I'm a social conservative through and through that believes we need to do a lot more to win the War on Terror, I'm considered some sort of heretic because I don't buy into the libertarian economic dogma. As I said before, there's a diverse group of people here, but you all have the same thing in common: you think that those who don't buy into Friedmanite economics don't belong here. That's why everyone thinks I'm not a true conservative, even though when guys like Friedman came about in the 60s people thought they were crazy radicals.
Aren`t you a clever little one,you seem to think that you can espouse what borders on Marxisim and by calling it conservative it is.
Wrong.
Yes,yes it does...get rid of government handouts and programs then no more taxes are needed,can`t grasp any part of that you are not at all conservative.
You have not even the first clue what the Libertarian party stands for or are just a liar...my guess the latter.
Paulism is a blight on the body politic,it is the fantasy equivalent of Socialism,most here know that and a little research on your part would have found that.
Well isn`t that just quaint.
I do though and as a Christian understand that the first amendment wasn`t to to abandon religion or Christianity but not proscribe a particular one.
You should have spent some of your recent college time studying the intent of the founders.
You are in my opinion a troll pretending to be a conservative,you have no rational thought process and that is demonstrated by your random and contradictory outbursts.
Wow. So you think that taxes are borderline Marxist? Taxes for the wealthy were much higher during the 40s, 50s, and 60s. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't mind if they went back to those levels. Do you think we were a Marxist state back then? Someone has to pay for the deficits racked up by Bush and Obama and for the War on Terror, and I think right now the wealthy are the only ones that can afford to. And I think it will especially be necessary when the socialist revolution starts gaining steam. They will gain popularity by pointing to how much more the wealthy have than they used to (back before the 80s). Without a return to the type of society we had in the 50s and early 60s, socialism will become a real possibility when this depression starts kicking in. Oh, and by the way, the bailouts come from Bernanke, who is a modern-day version of your beloved Milton Friedman. He did is dissertation on Friedman's work on the Great Depression, and his ideas are right out of Friedman's book.
As for the Libertarians, from what it sounds like, you guys share a lot of their views on economics. Though (I'm hoping) you guys differ from them on social issues, individual rights, and foreign policy, you seem to have the same economic views. Smaller government and less taxes, especially for the wealthy, are always the answer, and if you disagree, than you're a Marxist. Even though I am staunch social conservative who believes in a much stronger military, you guys all think I'm completely ideologically opposed to you because of a few disagreements on economic issues (which I've said time and time again, doesn't matter all that much to me, it's an issue of practicality, not ideology, and I think our culture and foreign policy are much more important than our economy). To me you guys sound like Libertarians. I'm the one that despises Friedmanite libertarianism, I think it has too much influence in the Republican party. They're defecting now, but I don't see how you guys are fundamentally different on economic issues, other than that since the Libertarian party is a small party it is more radical in its laissez-faire economic principles.
As for my beliefs, I've been pretty clear in what I believe, and no one is really listening. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that my beliefs are 'irrational' or 'incoherent.'
And as far as the 1st Amendment goes, I very well understand what the founding fathers meant. I just think they got it wrong. They wrote in a time of atheism (before the great revival in the late 18th century), and they didn't realize how important religion would be to this country. We are a Christian nation, whether or not the Constitution says so.
EPA and OSHA make it impossible to see Nixon as anything other than a liberal republican.
Ford at least told New York to drop dead when it purposely destroyed its economy.
Yes, as I said before, the modern day Republicans have become far more libertarian on economic issues. That worked in the heyday of neoliberalism and the global credit glut, but now that we're in the beginning of a Depression with a socialist revolution around the corner, we're going to have to be a little more realistic.
Well.....earlier, you used Japan as an example, and the Imperialist prewar leaders of that country used that exact philosophy.........it didn't end well for them, did it.
So let me see if I have this straight........you believe that if some individual has the brains and tenacity to make him/herself a billionaire, that wealth should be stripped from that person and used for "more important purposes"? Have I got that right? Then continuing,
It sounds to me like your "socialist revolution" has already begun (theoretically) by the thrust of your own words..........if stripping the wealth of those who earned it, and using it for "other purposes", as well as "pandering to the proletariat", is your concept of conservatism, we are eons apart, politically.....
Goodness.......prickly little prole, our new revolutionary..........this sounds very similar to the drivel spouted by Islamic radicals........I think I can speak for the bulk of us, that we stand for the rule of law, regardless of how perverted it may have become, our concept of change must lie within its boundaries.
I'm gonna take a SWAG, and classify you as a rather young and naive person, that has been exposed to just enough education to be dangerous......unfortunately untempered by experience, common sense, and wisdom.......
doc
Considering how small and underdeveloped Japan was, they did pretty well for themselves, didn't they? Anyways, you're comparing two entirely different scenarios. The US is the largest economy in the world and the world's superpower. We can be an empire, and we already are (though not doing a very good job of it at the moment). But thanks to liberal society, there's a real lack of resolve in pursuing these national goals.
If you think that raising taxes for the wealthy back to their 1990s levels, or even their 1970s levels, is a "socialist revolution" than you're in for a real bad day in a few years when the real socialist revolution comes about. We need to work more towards the society we had in the 1950s and early 1960s as far as economic policy goes if we don't want a revolution. And stop turning taxes into an ideological debate. It's not one of ideology, it's one of practicality. There are already taxes on the wealthy, and they are taxed a higher portion of their income than the poor in just about any country in the world. The question is how much more, and I'm sure none of you could come to an exact agreement on this. So does that mean the guy that thought they should be taxed 6% instead of 5% is some kind of heretical Marxist? That he is infringing on their right to make money? But all I was saying is that I don't really care if someone who is making 1.2 billion dollars right now gets a tax hike and only makes 1.05 billion dollars. They aren't at the top of my priority list right now. Do you know what is? Cleaning up American culture, fighting the War on Terror, and paying off the deficits.
As for your remarks on the rule of law and Islamic countries, it's pretty clear that the rule of law isn't getting things done right now, and that's going to become very clear in the next few years to come as the Depression really kicks in to full swing. And anyways, how can you talk about the rule of law at a time like this? When millions of unborn children are killed every year? While our culture slowly disintegrates and we lose the very values that make life worth living, all in the name of liberalism, individual freedoms, and profit?
Goodness.....
"The Golden Era??? Which includes:
The Great Depression
World War Two
The Korean Conflict
And two recessions
I would suggest that you retake that history class......this must be what passes for modern education in American history.....I want a refund on my property taxes....
doc
I included the 1930s because that was when the Golden Generation got through the Great Depression without a socialist revolution. It was one of the most traumatic times in American history. But they were tough and knew the meaning of sacrifice, and the same people were all willing to give their life in service of their country during World War II. As far as World War II goes, how can you not include that? That was the beginning of our Golden Age! We won that war and emerged from it for the first time as the World's undisputed superpower! It got our economy going to unprecedented levels of activity after its worst depression and modernized the state and military at an extremely rapid pace. It was the greatest event in American history. As for the Korean conflict, we didn't win it because China joined the war, but the public was still recovering from World War II and wasn't willing to fully commit on it. Remember, this was right at the beginning of the Cold War, before people knew of the importance of stopping the spread of communism. As for the two recessions, there's going to be a couple recessions if you look at a few decades, but the period from 1945-1965 saw the greatest growth rates in our history even while we paid down the highest debt in our history (and afterwards had big surpluses), and we were the undisputed economic power of the world. On top of that, the family unit was still intact, we still were religious, and society hadn't descended into liberal moral relativism (that begin in the 1960s). So yeah, it was our golden era. When people talk about a return to old-fashioned, American values, what do you think they're referring to?
And Carl knocks one out of the park!!! :hi5: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Did you actually PASS your American History class?? Teddy Roosevelt was the beginning of modern day Progressivism..... sheesh....
If you can actually comprehend what you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt also marked the beginning of our expansionary foreign policy, and he was a true warrior. He's also Harvey Mansfield's favorite American political leader, so I don't need to hear that he's not a true conservative. His policies, that were considered "progressive" at the time, would not be considered so at all now. He wanted to break up the big monopolies that existed back then and slightly improved workers' rights (which was necessary at the time to keep socialism from becoming a serious force). During that age of total laissez-faire capitalism (which corresponded to the time, it was obsolete long ago), even George W. Bush would look like a progressive.
oh, for heaven's sake. why are we still feeding this guy? every reply he makes increases his google index score because he put his silly little blog URL in his sig.
I quit reading his shit when I saw the phrase "economic egalitarianism". first of all, it's redundant. second of all, it makes it clear that this little princess just had his first few classes in philosophy 101, and suddenly thinks that he understands the world.
somebody needs a hobby. or a girlfriend. or a phukpuppet. but he definitely needs something.
Economic egalitarianism is 'redundant?' Can you read? How do the definitions economic and egalitarian have anything to do with each other? Economic egalitarianism refers to the idea that we should redistribute wealth for redistribution's sake, because everyone deserves the same. It's a dangerous idea, one at the heart of socialism. Second, I never took any Philosophy courses, only Political Philosophy. If you haven't taken the time to read what I've said than why bother commenting on it?
Curtis.....you will simply have to forgive me for "cherry picking" your posts, however, they are far too uninteresting to really read in their entirety......speaking of reading, the reason that I'm sorta piecemealing this is that I'm in the middle of The History of the English Speaking Proples, by Winston Churchill, and I find it far more fascinating than your rambling, somewhat incoherent posts.....you DID suggest that I should broaden my reading interests, didn't you?
However, I couldn't let this gem pass unchallenged:
It looks like you failed World History as well as the American version......since you are such an authority on Japan, you should know that the native Japanese are over 90% either Shinto, Taoist, or Buddist, and as a people they are deeply religious......not unlike us, it is rooted in their culture.
They may not be Christian, but they are far from atheist.....
Care to try again?
doc
Well I'm sorry I'm not as good of a writer as Winston Churchill. As for your Japan comment, first of all, I was responding to Mrs. Smith's claim that only 'Christian' capitalist economies do well, and I was mentioning successful non-Christian economies. I take it that you agree with her then? If not, than why bother responding to such a minor detail within the midst of all this discussion? Second, you're wrong again. First of all, Shintoism, Taoism, and Buddhism (at least Zen Buddhism, which is what the Japanese practice) are ALL atheistic religions. They don't believe in a 'God' (from the Greek theos) the way we do. They believe in spirits, especially of animals and their ancestors, but they are non-theistic religions. Second, most people in Japan are nominally Buddhist or Shinto but don't actually believe in it. I've had this confirmed to me by SEVERAL Japanese people. They do it because they identify with it as a part of their culture, history, and tradition. It has a lot more to do with tradition than actual belief. If you ask most Japanese if they actually believe in spirits or the utility of their rituals, they'll tell you it's all a bunch of superstition. But they do it anyway because it's a part of who they are.
I have a thing for Scandinavian culture. You are absolutely right, many non-religious are conservative. Religion and being conservative is correlated, but not strongly.
Again, I never said that you had to be religious to be conservative. Thor pulled that out of his ass.
-
do we have a policy about URLs in sigs? russian spammers do the same thing. they register and post a few times in a lot of sites, trying to get their URL in the google index because our site happens to be well indexed by google.
-
DOC, just like he stated that Scandinavian people are atheists..... I suppose he never heard of Asatru.
In Scandinavia, the Swedish Asatru Society formed in 1994, and in Norway the Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost formed in 1996 and Foreningen Forn Sed formed in 1999. They have been recognized by the Norwegian government as a religious society, allowing them to perform "legally binding civil ceremonies" (i. e. marriages). In Denmark Forn Siðr also formed in 1999 (and recognized by the state in 2003[36]) and in Sweden Nätverket Gimle formed in 2001, as an informal community for individual heathens. Nätverket Forn Sed formed in 2004, and has a network consisting of local groups (blotlag) from all over the Sweden.
Ãsatrúarfélagið was recognized as an official religion by the Icelandic government in 1973, for its first 20 years it was led by farmer and poet Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson. As of 2008, it had 1,270 members, corresponding to 0.4% of the Icelandic population.
In Sweden, the Swedish AsatruSociety (Sveriges asatrosamfund) formed in 1994. In Denmark Forn Siðr formed in 1999, and was officially recognized in 2003[42] The Norwegian Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost formed in 1996; as of 2005, the fellowship has some 200 members. Foreningen Forn Sed formed in 1999 and has been recognized by the Norwegian government as a religious organization.
A small religion, but undergoing a renaissance. Hardly to the level of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
And then:
Sweden was pagan before the 11th century, when the country underwent Christianization. From the Protestant Reformation in the 1530s until 2000, the country was officially Lutheran, with the Church of Sweden (Swedish: Svenska kyrkan) having the status of state church. As of 2009, 71.3% of the Swedes were members of the church, a drop of nearly 2% compared to 2008.[1] Less than 4 percent of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2 percent are regular attendees.[2]
Nominal religion in Norway is mostly Protestant (Evangelical-Lutheran) with 78.9% belonging to the state Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway.[1] Early Norwegians, like all of the people of Scandinavia, believed in Norse paganism; the Sámi having a shamanistic religion[citation needed]. Due to the efforts of Christian missionaries, Norway was gradually Christianized in a process starting at approximately 1000 AD and which was substantially finished by 1150AD. Prior to the Reformation, Norwegians were part of the Catholic Church with the conversion to Protestantism occurring in 1536. Islam is now the second largest religion due to recent migration trends although the census shows that there are more people with no religious beliefs.[citation needed] Christianity is growing fast in Norway due to Christian immigration, for example people from Poland, Ethiopia and the Philippines. However, Islam is growing faster as a result of the Church of Norway getting fewer new members. Orthodoxy is the fastest-growing religion in Norway with a rate of 231.1% compared to Islam's 64.3% from 2000 to 2009.[2]
By the end of 2007, 82.1%[4] of the Danish population were members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church which dropped to 81.5 % in 2008 [5]. However, similar to the rest of Scandinavia, North-west Europe and Britain, only a small minority (less than 10 % of the total population) attends churches for Sunday services. In Copenhagen, membership of the Danish state church dropped to 65% in 2008.
Most Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (79.7%). [3] With approximately 4.3 million members,[3] the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world, although its membership has recently been on the decline by one percent annually .[4] The second largest group - and a rather quickly growing one - of 17.7%[5] of the population is not religious . A small minority belong to the Finnish Orthodox Church (1.1%). Other Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church in Finland are significantly smaller, as are the Muslim, Jewish and other non-Christian communities (totaling 1.3%). The main Lutheran and Orthodox churches are constitutional national churches of Finland with special roles in ceremonies and often in school morning prayers. Politicians to Lutheran Church assemblies are selected in church elections every four years.
And just to cover ALL bases......
About 283,000 Icelanders (89.3% of the population) are members of Christian congregations, of which most (251.331 people or 79.1%) are members of the Church of Iceland. According to a 2004 survey[3] 69.3% of the total population claimed to be "religious," whereas 19.1 per cent said they were "not religious" and 11.6 per cent were unable to state whether or not they were religious. Of those who said they were religious, 76.3 per cent said that they were Christian, while 22.4 per cent said that they "believed in their own way".[4]
The prevailing religion in Greenland is Protestantism and Greenland is an independent diocese in the Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church with a bishop appointed by Denmark.
However, there are other religions and faiths of beliefs such as the Roman Catholic Church, New Apostolic Church, the Evangelic Ebenezer, Bahá’Ã's and Jehovas Witnesses.
Since idjit said "Scandinavia"... the stats are a little difficult to look up, but..... it sure seems to me that while they're not a church going people, on the whole, they are FAR from being "atheists".....
-
Well, darn. I was going to actually reply to some of curt's crap, but I actually have a life and I see he hasn't manage to decrease his word count at all. I'm not going to spend all the time it'll take to wade through his "pointless replies." :lmao: Although I have to admit, the one line where he admitted it was priceless. :rotf:
So, hey, curt, whenever you get around to reading some instead of lecturing, maybe you should start with Who Really Cares (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285987874&sr=1-1). It a very modern book, so won't provide all the knowledge you've somehow managed to miss. I know that, since you're so extra smart, you care about starting with facts instead of assumptions, right? I'd be glad to point you to some of my favorite books, and I've no doubt that many others here can contribute to your efforts. We'd love to see you get an actual education before you write another lecture. :-)
My response to you wasn't that much longer than your post. And naturally my response will take longer, because you raised questions and objections. Usually answers and responses take a few more words than questions and objections. Go to the second page, 3rd post. That's where you'll find it. I even wrote this in a separate post so you wouldn't have to a read through a some [gasp] paragraphs.
-
do we have a policy about URLs in sigs? russian spammers do the same thing. they register and post a few times in a lot of sites, trying to get their URL in the google index because our site happens to be well indexed by google.
Presently, we do allow personal URLs in people's sig lines, just not commercial links (advertising, etc).
-
Thor,
I have spoken to many Scandinavians about this. They are officially members of the church but they never attend services. They are a part of the church mainly for tradition and because it's a state church. Few people there seriously believe in religion, and Sweden is considered the most atheist country in the world. I can't believe I'm having this discussion with you, I have spoken with many Christian conservatives and they all agree that Scandinavia is the most atheist region in the world, and, uncoincidentally, the most socialistic. Anyways, why...are...you...still...talking...about...this. This was brought up in response to Mrs. Smith's point that only Christian capitalist economies are successful. So I take it that you agree with her? If not, than why are we wasting time discussing this?
-
do we have a policy about URLs in sigs? russian spammers do the same thing. they register and post a few times in a lot of sites, trying to get their URL in the google index because our site happens to be well indexed by google.
We've allowed a single link in a member's signature at this point. Members are allowed a single thread related to their blog in the appropriate section (spamming the rest of the forum with links to said blog are flushed pretty quickly).
-
Second, you're wrong again. First of all, Shintoism, Taoism, and Buddhism (at least Zen Buddhism, which is what the Japanese practice) are ALL atheistic religions.
You are incorrect.....I suggest that you study those religions......and I too know several Japanese, and if you suggested that their religion was "superstition", you would likely be next posting from an emergency room.....
doc
-
do we have a policy about URLs in sigs? russian spammers do the same thing. they register and post a few times in a lot of sites, trying to get their URL in the google index because our site happens to be well indexed by google.
Don't worry, from the looks of it no one has gotten past the first paragraph.
You are incorrect.....I suggest that you study those religions......and I too know several Japanese, and if you suggested that their religion was "superstition", you would likely be next posting from an emergency room.....
doc
So you actually think that those religions are theistic? Where is the personal God? I've read in many places that it is a mistake to label any of those religions 'theistic.' Also, it depends on the generation...young Japanese don't actually believe in Shinto spirits, unless they're in some very small, traditional village. Again, why...are...we...talking...about...this? This was in response to Mrs. Smith's comment that only Christian capitalist economies are successful. I brought up Japan because IT'S NOT CHRISTIAN. So why are you bringing this up? Why are we wasting time with this off-topic discussion? Do you agree with? Since Japan isn't Christian, as you have stated, than I'm assuming you think it is not a successful capitalist economy?
-
Don't worry, from the looks of it no one has gotten past the first paragraph.
So you actually think that those religions are theistic? Where is the personal God? I've read in many places that it is a mistake to label any of those religions 'theistic.' Also, it depends on the generation...young Japanese don't actually believe in Shinto spirits, unless they're in some very small, traditional village. Again, why...are...we...talking...about...this? This was in response to Mrs. Smith's comment that only Christian capitalist economies are successful. I brought up Japan because IT'S NOT CHRISTIAN. So why are you bringing this up? Why are we wasting time with this off-topic discussion? Do you agree with? Since Japan isn't Christian, as you have stated, than I'm assuming you think it is not a successful capitalist economy?
Successful, yes. Why?? Because we made them so.
I think you need to take a religious philosophy class. Perhaps you have an apocalypse.
-
economies are successful. I brought up Japan because IT'S NOT CHRISTIAN. So why are you bringing this up? Why are we wasting time with this off-topic discussion?
You stated, and I quote...."Japan is one of the most atheist nations in the world....."
I said that you are wrong....and you are......then you moved on to Scandinavia, and Thor posted statistics that again proved that you are full of crap.......neither he nor I mentioned Christianity in context, we are simply pointing out the plethora of errors in your rambling screeds......not even a genius like yourself can see into the hearts and minds of the populations of these areas, and measure their faith in whatever they believe.....to continue to try to do so just makes you look more foolish.
If you prefer to (figuratively) die the "death of a thousand cuts", by continuing to post inane generalities, anecdotal remarks, erroneous statements, and general nonsense, our night shift is checking in, and I'm certain they can entertain you for a few hours....
doc
-
Thor,
I have spoken to many Scandinavians about this. They are officially members of the church but they never attend services. They are a part of the church mainly for tradition and because it's a state church. Few people there seriously believe in religion, and Sweden is considered the most atheist country in the world. I can't believe I'm having this discussion with you, I have spoken with many Christian conservatives and they all agree that Scandinavia is the most atheist region in the world, and, uncoincidentally, the most socialistic. Anyways, why...are...you...still...talking...about...this. This was brought up in response to Mrs. Smith's point that only Christian capitalist economies are successful. So I take it that you agree with her? If not, than why are we wasting time discussing this?
Because you're ****ING WRONG!!!
-
We're allowing you to remain just for the sheer entertainment of our general membership. I doubt that you'll make it through the weekend.
-
We're allowing you to remain just for the sheer entertainment of our general membership. I doubt that you'll make it through the weekend.
you are cutting him more slack than he deserves. I suspect that once he realizes that his sig is URL free, he will disappear.
-
Yes, as I said before, the modern day Republicans have become far more libertarian on economic issues. That worked in the heyday of neoliberalism and the global credit glut, but now that we're in the beginning of a Depression with a socialist revolution around the corner, we're going to have to be a little more realistic.
Dude, you are not making any sense. If we are on the verge of a socialist revolution it is because hardly any body in elected office has stood up to it. We tolerated a little bit here and a little bit there and then we let a true Marxist get elected after years of socialism-lite brought about an economic collapse and he went to town accelerating the process.
If there had been enough elected conservatives holding the line all this time we would not be here.
If we are on the verge of a socialist revolution, your ideology will only hasten it.
-
Successful, yes. Why?? Because we made them so.
I think you need to take a religious philosophy class. Perhaps you have an apocalypse.
OK, we helped out Japan from 1945-1955, can you please cite evidence of how we 'made' them successful from 1955-1980s, when they had some of the highest growth rates in history? Second, we helped them because they were levelled in the war. Especially in light of this, their economic achievements are more amazing. But why are you talking about this? What about Korea? They've made amazing strides over the past few decades. I take it though you agree with Mrs. Smith and you think that only Christian economies do well. Could you please provide some reasoning for this?
Second, again, do you think Zen Buddhism, Shintoism, and Taoism are 'theistic' religions? Could you please cite a serious religious scholar who thinks so?
You stated, and I quote...."Japan is one of the most atheist nations in the world....."
I said that you are wrong....and you are......then you moved on to Scandinavia, and Thor posted statistics that again proved that you are full of crap.......neither he nor I mentioned Christianity in context, we are simply pointing out the plethora of errors in your rambling screeds......not even a genius like yourself can see into the hearts and minds of the populations of these areas, and measure their faith in whatever they believe.....to continue to try to do so just makes you look more foolish.
If you prefer to (figuratively) die the "death of a thousand cuts", by continuing to post inane generalities, anecdotal remarks, erroneous statements, and general nonsense, our night shift is checking in, and I'm certain they can entertain you for a few hours....
doc
Again, those religions AREN'T THEISTIC. Second, I didn't say that everyone in Scandinavia is an atheist, I said it was the MOST atheistic country in the world. Do you disagree with this? If so, be sure and give me an example of a country more atheistic than Scandinavia.
You're the one that looks foolish here. You've ignored my arguments in their entirety, instead wasting time quibbling on a couple of tiny facts that have nothing to do with my beliefs or any of my arguments. Japan was brought up as an example of a non-Christian country that did well economically. This was in response to Mrs. Smith's claims that only Christian nations have done well economically. In terms of all of the 'Christian' countries (historically Christian), the Scandinavian ones are the most atheist. Yes, they all belong to the church, but hardly any of them go to Church. This indisputable. So I don't see them as true Christians. As a Christian, just because you show up to weddings and funerals of your church and say that you belong to it does NOT mean you believe in God. Do you think that there are other countries with even less participation in the Church than the Scandinavian ones? Please cite an example. Again, this really has nothing to do with any of my arguments, none of which you've really made any worthwhile responses to, all you've done is try and split hairs on a few unimportant facts that really don't have anything to do with what I'm saying. For someone with a PhD you are quite difficult to have a serious discussion with. If you want to actually talk about some of my ideas, than let's do it, otherwise, stop wasting time arguing with semantics that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I can't believe I'm seriously having arguments over how 'theistic' Japanese religious culture is and how religious Scandinavians are (as any Scandinavian or informed Christian will tell you, they aren't religious). What does this have to do with any of our discussions?
-
in fact, japan did poorly economically UNTIL they westernized. and that includes western religion.
-
in fact, japan did poorly economically UNTIL they westernized. and that includes western religion.
WE, if I remember correctly, you lived in Japan for a while, didn't you??
Curtis, another forum troll once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti........
-
Japan routinely ignored international copyright and patent laws. Many of the engines used to power their post-war civilian and military vehicles were originally used under license from Chevrolet and BMW.
-
WE, if I remember correctly, you lived in Japan for a while, didn't you??
indeed, I did. and it was nothing like the place that he describes.
-
Dude, you are not making any sense. If we are on the verge of a socialist revolution it is because hardly any body in elected office has stood up to it. We tolerated a little bit here and a little bit there and then we let a true Marxist get elected after years of socialism-lite brought about an economic collapse and he went to town accelerating the process.
If there had been enough elected conservatives holding the line all this time we would not be here.
If we are on the verge of a socialist revolution, your ideology will only hasten it.
Thank you for getting to the topic at hand. But you're not seeing what I'm saying. I don't think socialism isn't present right now. But when this crisis really gets in full swing, it will be a serious force in politics. I'm not talking about social democracy. I'm talking about a revolution. I'm talking about one in three people being unemployed and millions without basic necessities. Since we're so used to prosperity, it'll be hard on people, and some will turn to socialism.
Second, socialism lite isn't the cause of this depression. First, on economic issues, both Republicans and Democrats over the past few decades are much more free-market oriented than they used to be. LBJ would look like a socialistic by our standards, and Nixon would look like a Democrat. Second, recessions and depressions happen every once in a while. It's part of the business cycle, and you'll find this in any standard econ textbook. This one was caused by a variety of complex global economic factors that are too complicated to get into now, although I go more into in my blog. In one sentence, giant, unsustainable asset bubbles were blown in the post Bretton Woods economic regime of the neoliberal era (1980s-2000s), with floating exchange rates, free trade, easy credit, and the growth of the financial sector and transnational capital. Anyways, we have depressions about every 60 years, one in the 1870s, one in the 1930s, and in the post WW2 era, one in the 2000s.
in fact, japan did poorly economically UNTIL they westernized. and that includes western religion.
If you think Japan is a Christian nation than you don't know much about Japan. Anyways, since this was a part of the 'only Christian nations do well economically' debate, than I guess you're with Mrs. Smith? You think that only Christian countries do well in a capitalist economic system? I guess you don't have a lot of faith in capitalism then, do you. Also, the comments on the cars are funny in light of the American auto sector. If their products are so terrible, why are there so many Japanese cars in the US? I think it's because our best and brightest are too busy playing with numbers on Wall Street instead of producing real goods, like cars and computers.
Japan routinely ignored international copyright and patent laws. Many of the engines used to power their post-war civilian and military vehicles were originally used under license from Chevrolet and BMW.
OK. But what does that have to do with Japan of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? Does it change the fact that they had the highest growth rates in world history? And why are you in on this discussion? Are you with the Mrs. Smith crowd, that thinks capitalism only does well in Christian countries? I guess you don't have much faith in capitalism then. So then, what about all of these non-Christian countries? Should they give up on capitalism? Do you think they should turn to socialism?
indeed, I did. and it was nothing like the place that he describes.
And when were you there? The 1980s? Everyone that I've talked to that's been there since then has painted a completely different picutre than you. But I guess you don't think it's a successful country. So tell me, what are your standards for an economically successful country? Or do you think it's a Christian country? Because from all your debating, I'm assuming you're with Mrs. Smith. Why else would you quibble with small facts that don't have anything to do with my real arguments.
-
OK. But what does that have to do with Japan of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? And why are you in on this discussion?
I'm in this dicussion becuase I want to be. You got a ****ing problem with that?
-
I'm in this dicussion becuase I want to be. You got a ****ing problem with that?
dude. do him. he isn't even a decent chew toy.
-
OK. But what does that have to do with Japan of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? Does it change the fact that they had the highest growth rates in world history? And why are you in on this discussion? Are you with the Mrs. Smith crowd, that thinks capitalism only does well in Christian countries? I guess you don't have much faith in capitalism then. So then, what about all of these non-Christian countries? Should they give up on capitalism? Do you think they should turn to socialism?
I don't know who the **** you THINK you are, but this is a forum and every member is allowed to participate. If you have a problem with that, then you'll be on your way. You have NO say so as to who posts where on this forum.
-
this has ceased to be a discussion.
it's time to do the deed.
-
It's gone....... buh bye, troll...... run along and find another playground......
-
Buh bye!
-
OK. But what does that have to do with Japan of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? And why are you in on this discussion?
OHHH :lmao:!
I've never seen a meaty treat be as brash as that before.
Just another case of more balls than brains, I guess.
-
If this is what gets turned out of college these days then a whole crap load of money is bring wasted.
Every long winded post contradicting an earlier one or even an earlier part of the current one. :mental:
I know you are gone Curtis but college was a breeze,this was day one in the school of hard knocks and it doesn`t get any easier.
-
OHHH :lmao:!
I've never seen a meaty treat be as brash as that before.
Just another case of more balls than brains, I guess.
And not much in the way of balls.
I love how we got the blanket accusation of being libertarians, yet canvassing most of the more regular members (you know, the ones that DON'T run off all butt-hurt when called on their bullshit) you'll find that they're anything BUT. I've stated time and again why I have serious disagreements with libertarian philosophy. Ditto formerlurker, DOC, and a whole host of others.
Ah, but we get the noobs in here claiming they're the **true** conservatives.
Got it.
-
I missed the fun, but did manage to wade through about 80% of the troll's posts. God, somebody give me an Excedrin.
Regarding Japan, a huge reason for their manufacturing capability/quality exceeding the US auto industry's has very much to do with Dr. W. Edwards Deming. His and other's principals of quality were largely rejected by the US industry in the Fifties, but embraced by the Japanese. It took awhile, but the Japs started doing things right...
As to religion, since when do religions have to be theistic anyway? If I want to worship my computer monitor, who's going to tell me that's not a religion if that's what I embrace? Our little chew toy flamed out far too fast. I would've liked to engage him on a couple of those things...
-
Boy he really blew his wad early huh? :rofl:
-
Thank you for getting to the topic at hand. But you're not seeing what I'm saying. I don't think socialism isn't present right now. But when this crisis really gets in full swing, it will be a serious force in politics. I'm not talking about social democracy. I'm talking about a revolution. I'm talking about one in three people being unemployed and millions without basic necessities. Since we're so used to prosperity, it'll be hard on people, and some will turn to socialism.
Second, socialism lite isn't the cause of this depression. First, on economic issues, both Republicans and Democrats over the past few decades are much more free-market oriented than they used to be. LBJ would look like a socialistic by our standards, and Nixon would look like a Democrat. Second, recessions and depressions happen every once in a while. It's part of the business cycle, and you'll find this in any standard econ textbook. This one was caused by a variety of complex global economic factors that are too complicated to get into now, although I go more into in my blog. In one sentence, giant, unsustainable asset bubbles were blown in the post Bretton Woods economic regime of the neoliberal era (1980s-2000s), with floating exchange rates, free trade, easy credit, and the growth of the financial sector and transnational capital. Anyways, we have depressions about every 60 years, one in the 1870s, one in the 1930s, and in the post WW2 era, one in the 2000s.
Actually, a good deal of the bubble was caused by non-free market factors, including socialism-lite. One of the big factors in the housing bubble was the government, under threat of force, compelled financial institutions to make loans to people that the financial institutions knew couldn't pay them back. In order to protect themselves, the financial institutions created these confusing swaps which may have been completely worthless, I confess I don't totally understand these products.
And then it just came out in the past few days that the Federal Reserve has been manipulating the market since the crash of 1987 trying to prevent the business cycle and creating such bubbles as the tech bubble and the housing bubble.
Under such manipulations, it can hardly be called a free market at this point.
The only thing that can really "save us" right now is moving back toward a free market. Without the valuation of a free market, nobody actually knows what anything is actually worth.
-
And not much in the way of balls.
I love how we got the blanket accusation of being libertarians, yet canvassing most of the more regular members (you know, the ones that DON'T run off all butt-hurt when called on their bullshit) you'll find that they're anything BUT.
I originally came over here just to read the DUmpster, but decided to join and stop lurking, BECAUSE of the non-libertarian leanings here.
-
Boy he really blew his wad early huh? :rofl:
Crap....I went to bed too early, and missed the application of the hammer.......
doc
-
In retrospect, I should have allowed the little moron to hang around for at least the weekend. :thatsright:
-
In retrospect, I should have allowed the little moron to hang around for at least the weekend. :thatsright:
Nah.....I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, so if you hadn't done last night, I probably would have this morning.....just because I need the practice......
doc
-
Rush gets seminar callers...we get seminar posters.