|
Posts:
814
Registered:
6/5/04
|
|
(1 of 112)
Conservatism vs. Liberalism?Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 12:43 AM
|
I get bored reading the same trite nonsense on this board. It amounts to nothing but trading barbs and spewing hatred. We make no progress this way. I think it?s time for civil discourse and a discussion of all the political issues. My personal view is that many people?leftists specifically?don?t understand what they?re talking about or advocating. Many don?t have the facts and their views are steeped in ignorance. So I think the question is long overdue. Why do we disagree on the issues? Is it merely difference of opinion at play here, or does ignorance also play a part?
I think it?s important that we find out through civil discourse with each other. Obviously there are some here incapable of such, and there are some who simply hate America. Those people know who they are and they need not bother replying to this post. But for all of those who can control their temper and embrace civility over acrimony, then please join in.
I?ve often wondered why we don?t all easily reach a consensus on certain issues. Certainly it is inevitable that we will disagree on some issues. Nonetheless, on most issues we as Americans should agree. I am of the belief that we disagree only because many people just don?t possess the facts and are plain ignorant.
Let me briefly explain my position as far as Conservatives and liberals are concerned. I once bought the line that the Democratic Party and liberals were ?for? the people. Thankfully, I?ve been able to escape that gross ignorance. I believe that liberals are controlled by an intellectual elite that wishes to impose their views on Americans because they know that they can?t win with a majority of Americans. So they attempt to impose their ideology instead of garnering support for it. I bought into the lies of Liberalism and a few years ago I was lucky to disabuse myself of such a silly political philosophy?if it can even be called that.
I?d personally like to see us more united as a country. It galls me to see Americans being as vicious as we sometimes are to each other, particularly at a period in our history where we face a nefarious threat from abroad. True, there are some people who will not allow their minds to be changed. Again, these people should avoid replying to this post.
I see liberalism as a failure in many regards. It makes little sense and it isn?t rooted in fact, but rather emotion and ignorance. Conservatives tend to speak and think in terms of reality and practicality; whereas liberals speak and think in terms of the theoretical, and what sounds pleasant to the ears.
Now sometimes too many of us, myself included, make the mistake of playing party politics. I should note that I?m a registered Republican. However, this does not impede my ability in any fashion whatsoever to criticize Republicans when I deem them to be in the wrong or not adhering to Conservative tenets. I?m a Conservative for the most part and seek to have the Conservative agenda enacted. Bush is Conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I?ve been critical of him for those liberal positions. But perhaps this is an extraneous digression. Back to why I?m a Conservative.
Conservatives support less federal government control over the lives of Americans. Liberals support bigger government with more control over the lives of its citizens. Conservatives believe that the federal government is ineffective in most regards. Liberals believe the federal government can solve all of our problems. This is where we go our separate ways.
It bears mentioning that Conservatives are not opposed to government. I hear that a lot from the left. They say we hate government. Not true. In the words of Ronald Reagan:
?So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has
a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check
and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and
those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention
to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not
smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
----------
That is the view to which Conservatives subscribe. Libertarians are the ones who represent the extreme form of individualism. I think individualism and self-reliance are good things for this country. I?m not alone. So did the Founding Fathers, who were classical liberals, meaning they?d be called Conservatives today.
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we had a right to the pursuit of happiness. What brings my joy doesn?t necessarily bring another person joy. We?re all individuals with different talents, different skills, and have different views of what brings happiness. The Founders supported individualism and advocated it. The government was to protect our rights, not infringe upon them or relegate us to a state of dependence on the government.
I believe that liberals would regret the day that liberalism was fully implemented in the United States. Why? Because I don?t think many of them understand the consequences of their actions or the inanity of the views they hold dear. If I thought they did believe this nonsense, then my post would obviously be a waste of time. The objective of this post is to change minds and possibly convert some to the other side.
I think what truly separates Conservatives and liberals are the respective groups? views of what freedom is. Both Conservatives and Liberals have a different definition for freedom. For instance, FDR believed that the government?s purpose was to ?protect? people from certain things such as unemployment, healthcare, etc. He believed that people weren?t truly free without these luxuries in life. Ergo, contemporary liberalism evolves from this view and it led to a greater role for government than the Founding Fathers had desired or intended.
Moreover, Conservatives and Liberals both seemingly have different ideas of what constitutes equality. Conservatives believe in equality of rights. They believe individuals have rights and those rights should be used to better our lives. Liberals believe in equality of outcomes. So what our differences really amount to is different conceptions of what really represents freedom and a good society. That accounts for our difference in opinion on the many political issues.
For example, Conservative support economic growth because that engenders opportunities for people to seize and better themselves. Liberals support economic redistribution.
Also, I don?t doubt the sincerity of some liberals. Some are good people, but just confused. Take poverty as an issue to work with here. They believe that poverty is a problem, as do Conservatives. But we differ on the policy that should be adopted in order to counter poverty. Again, this is likely due to the different views our respective philosophical camps take on human nature and society in general. So probably better to define those things before we tackle the political issues that arise from human nature. In the end, liberals may find that Conservative policies actually produce genuine and effective results in combating such societal ills as poverty. But they often argue from a point of emotion rather than logic.
In his book, ?Worth The Fighting For,? John McCain says the following:
?Government should be restrained from unnecessarily aggregating power at the expense of individual liberty. But it must not shrink from its duty to be the highest expression of the national will and the last bulwark against all assaults on our founding ideals. Some conservatives believe the federal government cannot be trusted with a leading role in the building of a great nation.
?But our greatness depends upon our patriotism, and our patriotism is hardly encouraged when we cannot take pride in the highest public institutions, institutions that should transcend all sectarian, regional, and commercial conflicts to fortify the public?s allegiance to the national community.
?For different reasons, these extremes in liberal and conservative thought give less value to the duties inherent in American citizenship. Liberals focus on wants, and conservatives focus on rights. But neither emphasizes the obligations of a free people to the nation that protects our rights and makes it possible for us to satisfy our wants.?
Though not totally true, much of what McCain observes is rooted in truth. Conservatives are patriots and do support love of country and its history. Conservatives SEEK TO IMPROVE our institutions because we believe they are gradually becoming impediments to what the founders intended. Take public schools for example. They?re an unmitigated mess. Again, as Ronald Reagan said, Conservatives want to make government work for us and not over us. We should determine the path for our nation, not a bunch of pretentious elitists who think that collectivism should trump individualism. Another thing that I think McCain gets wrong is that Conservatives do understand the obligations of a free people to out nation. We support a strong military and advocate individual rights. As Adam Smith argued, the pursuit of individual rights worked to the advancement of society as a whole.
For those of you who have read Tocqueville?s ?Democracy in America,? he argues that obsession with equality naturally leads to the erosion of liberty due to its lack of exercise by the people. However, he argued for a balance. Too much liberty obviously has its downsides. This, Conservatives are cognizant of, which is why we are not Libertarians.
Tocqueville observed an America distinctly different from anything in aristocratic Europe. He saw far more equality, which was refreshing considering the class systems of Europe. Tocqueville saw equality in terms of equality of opportunity. Today, liberals argue that equality must be achieved through class warfare and redistribution of wealth. Tocqueville didn?t see it that way. He saw an America where religion proved a stabilizing force, where freedom was visible, and where people had the ability to climb the social ladder. Nevertheless, he did note that success in life was not solely determined by one?s hard work. Hard work played the overriding part in one?s success, but without society?s institutions success would not have been a viable prospect. I agree with Tocqueville, and I believe most Conservatives do. However, we should keep in mind that it is the free market and corporations that represent the institutions that serve as a springboard for our success in life. Not the government. The government exists to protect those freedoms and opportunities, not stifle them. Tocqueville also argued that general interests would have to be linked with private interests. This, to encourage people to become politically involved on the local level. I couldn?t agree more with that.
Here are my positions on the issues:
I support a large-standing military.
I oppose obtaining permission from the UN, France, or other world organizations to defend America and its citizens.
I support extremely low taxes. I?d like to see tax reform by way of a national sales tax or a flat tax.
I support the gradual phasing out of welfare.
I oppose minimum wage hikes.
I support an elimination of the corporate income tax.
I support an end to the death tax.
I?m opposed to Affirmative action and reparations for slavery.
I support school vouchers to force public schools to compete for money in educating America?s youth.
I believe patriotism is a good thing.
I support globalization, as it is good for America and the people of Third World nations.
I support free trade.
I?m opposed to gay marriage.
I support the acknowledgment of God in the public realm.
I support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Guns are not evil.
I?m opposed to socialized medicine. (Just look at Britain and Canada)
I?m opposed to the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada.
I believe we need tort reform.
I believe in the death penalty.
I support sex education in public schools.
I?m pro-choice, albeit reluctantly. (I do support such restrictions as 24-hour waiting periods and parental notification)
I?m opposed to school prayer.
I support medicinal marijuana.
I think that evil exists in the world and that military force is sometimes required to achieve peace. As Eisenhower said, ?We are going to have peace, even if we have to fight for it.?
I think feminism is crazy.
I?m opposed to liberal judges rewriting the Constitution to suit their views.
I detest multiculturalism.
I think the border with Mexico should be sealed. Military should police the border with the border police. No more water stations. Severe quota should be imposed. We have enough people here. If liberals truly cared about the environment, they?d support this.
I don?t like France.
I support Israel.
I support a missile defense shield.
I support a significant reduction in government regulations on business.
I believe in terrorist profiling.
I believe that global warming is a farce for the most part.
I believe that society is not responsible for the actions of criminals.
I know that Bush won the 2000 election fair and square.
My favorite President is Ronald Reagan.
I think Bill Clinton was one of the worst Presidents this country has ever suffered.
I believe the Vietnam war was winnable.
I believe in strict discipline in public schools. Kids should have school uniforms.
I support drilling for oil in Alaska.
I support alternative sources of energy.
I support many other things, but doggone it, I?m just too tired to write them down.
We should be talking to each other instead of yelling at each other. But for the troublemakers, avoid issuing insults. Consider yourselves warned!
Take care.
|
|
|
Posts:
621
Registered:
8/21/03
|
|
(2 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 2:14 AM
|
Well i thought i put a narrow view of liberal ideology:
Liberal Ideology
You have entered the non-interactive section of the website of the Liberal Party.
Click here to enter that section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adpated from: http://fp.enter.net/~haney/liberalism.htm
Compiled by Premier Demerzel
The following shall serve as the basis of Liberal ideology, unless otherwise stipulated by the Liberal Party Leader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Liberals Stand For
Civil rights
All people are equal under the law. Any type of discrimination based on the immutable factors of race, ethnicity, species or gender is not only inconsistent with a free society, but is immoral as well.
Universal public education
Equality of opportunity requires all Imperials to have access to a basic education consistent with maintaining informed citizenship and the ability to participate fully in society.
Tolerance of Differences
Because we are all unique beings, with different skills, needs, and wants, we must respect the life choices of others as long as their life choices do not infringe on the rights enjoyed by other citizens.
A Social Safety Net
Recognizing that circumstances beyond mortal control play a part in all our lives, a basic social safety net shall be available to all who need it, not as a permanent lifestyle, but rather as a helping hand to get back on one's feet.
Employees' Rights
We spend most of our lives working. Work is the foundation of our economy and a major part of the glue holding together communities. The employee is an equal business partner with the employer, and as such, has the right to collectively bargain for terms of employment.
Environmental Protection
Contrary to some people's opinions, it is possible to both protect the environment and sustain economic growth. We support taking all reasonable and responsible steps to protect the environment and the species contained therein.
Strong Families
The family is the primary social unit in the Empire It must be respected, and encouraged in all its forms. Government should make policy with this in mind.
Responsibility
With rights come responsibilities. Exercising our rights means taking responsibility for our actions, and their effects on others.
Free Enterprise
The capitalist economic system is the most efficient solution to providing for peoples' wants and needs. Government's role is that of a regulator, not a controller of industry, and any regulation must only be for the good of society as a whole, and not for the benefit of any one entity.
Rule of Law
Law is the framework in which society operates. There can be no society without justice. Justice means that those who commit crimes must be made to answer for them, and that the criminal code is fair and wisely constructed. When criminal actions go unpunished, respect for the law weakens. The law applies to all, including all agents of the government.
...most importantly, Progress
Progress is what Liberalism really means; moral progress, economic progress, and social progress to benefit all humanity. This represents the path towards a better world. At its heart, Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Liberalism is Not
Liberalism is not socialism
...socialism is the Government owning everything. No liberal would ever advocate such a disastrous idea!
Liberalism is not communism
...communism is everybody owning everything equally, without any government at all. Nobody advocates such a wild experiment!
Liberalism is not radicalism
?. radicalism embodies the need for revolution for change to occur. Liberals are a pragmatic lot who see no need for upheaval to carry out their reforms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is conservatism?
Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? - Abraham Lincoln
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Conservatives Stand For
Limited civil rights
In general, discrimination based on race is wrong, but private businesses should be allowed to discriminate if they want. Civil rights laws are an overstepping of government authority.
No public education
Education is not a right. The government should provide each family a credit so their child may attend the private or religious school of their choice.
Limited tolerance of Differences
In general, any behavior or way of living that is different from the majority is suspect. Minorities may be tolerated if they make a concerted effort to fit in and hide themselves. This limited tolerance does not extend to species who had supported the Rebellion, who ought to face severe social and legal sanction.
No Social Safety Net
A social safety net of any type is not necessary. It is each individual's responsibility, not the Government's, to look out for themselves and deal as best they can with whatever circumstances or bad luck they may encounter. Religious charities ought to provide any needed social services.
Limited Employees' Rights
An employer may set the conditions of employment however he or she wishes. The employee has the choice to take it or leave it. Under no circumstances should employees organize for better working conditions. Individual employees may simply quit if they do not like their place of employment.
No Environmental Protection
Protecting the environment is simply not needed. It is more important to sustain expanding economic growth at all costs. It is simply a waste of resources to protect the environment. The free market will protect our air and water.
Limiting Families
The traditional nuclear family (working father, stay-at-home mother, children) is to be encouraged at all costs. Other forms of family do not deserve any respect or legal protection.
Free Enterprise
The capitalist economic system is the most efficient solution to providing for peoples' wants and needs. Government has no role in the economy except to get out of the way.
...most importantly, Order
Conservatism is based on order. Traditions should continue. It is the responsibility of people in society to live in such a way that society stays ordered. Ordered Christian liberty is what America should encourage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs that is incapable of walking forward." Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945; U.S. statesman, 32nd President of the United States)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Posts:
17,964
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(3 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 6:38 AM
|
> I think it?s time for civil discourse >and a discussion of all the political >issues.
This would be a nice idea, except for a couple of problems. The first is that you ask for "civil discourse" and yet you packed your post with every standard insult for liberals that you always use.
No doubt, should anyone call you on it, as I am now, you'll try to explain it away by saying "I wasn't trying to be insulting--I was merely giving my opinion." You and I both know the truth about that, Mario.
Second, you have trotted out every standard misapprehension and misconception used by the right wing to diminish or dismiss left-wing thought; in other words, what you have intentionally sought to do is to put any left-wingers on the defensive, and force them to address your misstatements before they even begin to explain their beliefs. If you truly wished for civil discourse, you would simply have asked for it, stated your positions, and then waited for others to state theirs. Once all the beliefs were put on the table, each person could ask the "why" and "how" came to believe what he did--but you chose not to do this.
Next, you ask for civil discourse, but write this:
"I once bought the line that the Democratic Party and liberals were ?for? the people. Thankfully, I?ve been
able to escape that gross ignorance."
Now, can you understand the effect this has on other posters? Speaking only for myself, and to be perfectly blunt, I don't intend to tolerate a twenty-something kid telling me that my beliefs, which I have spent more than twice as many years acquiring and refining as he has been alive, are ignorant. This is a hallmark of conservatve thought--that anyone who doesn't think along party lines is ignorant, or unpatriotic, or somehow evil. Intolerance of differing opinion is one of the major failures of conservative ideology.
Since you haven't been where I've been, nor experienced what I've experienced, please tell me what monumental arrogance gives you the ability to A$$ume that your judgement and beliefs are somehow superior to mine?
The funniest thing about your whole post is that you wrote it as you did, intentionally insulting, thinking that some liberal would charge in, righteously outaged at the number of insults you levied at anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. You aren't even aware, in the depths of your own rigid adherence to ideology, that we can see you coming a mile away.:D
It was a rather adolescent attempt to establish moral superiority by making your opponents angry...'cept that, like me, they're probably having as big a laugh as I did.:D
Just so we're straight on where you're really coming from, I edited out for your enjoyment everything that wasn't directly insulting to liberals--and the results are below:
My personal view is that >many people?leftists specifically?don?t >understand what they?re talking about >or advocating. Many don?t have
> the facts and their views are steeped >in ignorance.
> I think it?s important that we find >out through civil discourse with each >other. Obviously there are some
> here incapable of such, and there are >some who simply hate America.
> I once bought the line that the >Democratic Party and liberals were >?for? the people. Thankfully, I?ve been
> able to escape that gross ignorance. >I believe that liberals are controlled >by an intellectual elite that wishes to >impose their views on Americans because
> they know that they can?t win with a >majority of Americans. So they attempt >to impose their ideology instead of >garnering support for it. I bought into
> the lies of Liberalism and a few years >ago I was lucky to disabuse myself of >such a silly political philosophy?if it >can even be called that.
> I see liberalism as a failure in >many regards. It makes little sense and >it isn?t rooted in fact, but rather >emotion and ignorance.
"Civil discourse," eh, Mario?:D I especially liked your little warning at the end about anyone who responded with an attitude to your post. Not oly do you seek to vent your spleen without suffering any repercussions, but you specifically tried to prevent anyone from calling you on your hubris.
Nice try, but that trick was old when I was your age.:D Maybe as you get older and more mature, you'll learn some new ones.
Having said that, as tactfully and civilly as I'm able, I'll address the putative basis of your post.:D
|
|
|
Posts:
2,134
From:
Through the Looking Glass
Registered:
8/30/02
|
|
(4 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 7:39 AM
|
Both are rather harsh deviations of American Liberty, and Ideology.
I once read a quote, Not sure who it came from, but it is all too true. I will paraphrase it.
I fear fear a Liberal or a Conservative with an agenda more than a Hell's angel with a gun and bad attitude -
I have over time progressed from democrat to Libertarian. Why, because I have read volumes of books covering the founders of this nation, the Philosophers that influenced them, and the history of Republicanism (Rome), Rights of Englishman (magna carta.........). I am convinced that niether today's Liberal or Conservative embrace liberty or understand it's meaning.
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
6/5/04
|
|
(5 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 11:40 AM
|
Tom my man, sit down and breathe!
I had NO intention whatsoever to insult anyone. I did however lay out my perception of liberalism. My argument is, after all, that liberalism is rooted in ignorance. Again, this is my perception, and if that offends some, they will have to grow thicker skin. We cannot have this discussion if some are going to whine about such petty things.
I guess it's only natural for some to take umbrage to a challenge of the ideology they hold dear.(Besides, didn't you say you weren't a liberal?):D
Calm down. Experience doesn't necessarily equate with wisdom. I don't blame you. I remember putting forth a few arguments on Capitalism vs. Socialism and Communism in a face to face discussion with one of my poly sci. professors. He's looks a bit over 60. If there's anything people hate, it's being told that they are wrong. So try to avoid the indignation. Your perception of hubris is really just me telling the truth.:D
Man, I bet you were fighting your mother as she was carrying you to birth?:D Again, I'm not looking for a fight, but rather a discussion. Try not to be so fretful.
Good, I'm looking forward to you giving me the intellectual beating of my life.:D
Later, tom.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,964
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(6 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 2:25 PM
|
> Here are my positions on the issues:
>
> I support a large-standing military.
Large Navy, medium-sized Air Force (both necessary to project our power anywhere in the world on short notice. Small standing Army, and a Marine Corps just about the size it is. In place of the huge standing army, I would implement compulsory military/government service for ALL men and women between the ages of 18-21. The major portion of these would be 1 year active duty, 2 years ready reserve. When called, they would have 24 hours to report, and they would fight. Those physically unable to fight would assume non-combat roles.
> I oppose obtaining permission from the >UN, France, or other world >organizations to defend America and its
> citizens.
If we had rational definitions of what constitutes a threat to this nation, I would agree.
> I support extremely low taxes. I?d >like to see tax reform by way of a >national sales tax or a flat tax.
NAtional sales tax, perhaps. A flat tax is disproportionately hard on the poor.
As far as low taxes, why not pay higher taxes, but force the politicians to account for how they use them?
> I support the gradual phasing out of >welfare.
Nope; gotta have a safety net. However, welfare would be for two years and two years ONLY, and only one signup within ten years.
> I oppose minimum wage hikes.
I favor them, based on a "living wage,"
for a number of reasons: first, the current minimum wage of $5.15/hr. means a monthly take home of approximately $766/mo. which, barring any government subsidies, would barely allow one person to rent an apartment and feed himself. Second, a living wage for the poor, who vastly outnumber the wealthy, would cause a rise in the goods and services purchased, thus creating more business.
It is one of the most assinine presumptions of the right that you grow an economy from the top down; you don't. You grow it, like anything else, from the bottom up. If you want to sell Rolls Royces, you'd better make sure that roads and drivers exist first.
> I support an elimination of the >corporate income tax.
Biggest mistake in the world. This is a silly notion dreamed up by the right wing, and it goes like this: "If you unfetter the corporations, they will reinvest the money, grow, provide more jobs, and they will lower prices for their goods/services..." Nice in theory, but in reality, dead wrong.
Corporations take up an inordinate amount of publics services and infrastructure--why should WE pay for it? Second, by recent Supreme Court ruling, corporations are considered equivalent to individuals when it comes to making political contributions--if they're my equal, they should be taxed as equals--with NO loopholes for depreciation, etc.
> I support an end to the death tax.
(Sigh...) Another red herring thrown out by the rich to make it seem a populist notion. Fewer than 1% of families are affected by the inheritance tax, and those have net worths generally in the millions.
> I?m opposed to Affirmative action and >reparations for slavery.
I am opposed to reparations also--but we have yet to overcome the racism inherent in our society. I do not favor hiring or accepting someone into school simply on the basis of their skin color...but I strongly reject any attempt to hold people back for the same reasons.
> I support school vouchers to force >public schools to compete for money in >educating America?s youth.
School vouchers would destoy public education--which is exaactly the goal of those who propmote them. The average expenditure per student in this country in public school is a little over $6,300; the average private school tuition is $4,700, not counting costs for books, clothing, or transportaion. Also, private schools in poor areas don't tend to be much different from public schools--for large differences in testing between private and public schools, you have to go to the wealthy ones in the 'burbs--where the AVERAGE tuition is $10-12,000/yr.; far above what poor people could pay, even WITH a voucher. Also note that, with a decline of the public education system, you would lack any national standardization in teaching and testing. Vouchers will provide substandard educations.
> I believe patriotism is a good thing.
What's your definition of "patriotism"? If it doesn't include the right or the necessity to publicly decry bad policy, then it's wrong.
> I support globalization, as it is good >for America and the people of Third >World nations.
first step on the slippery slope toward plutocrachy and oligarchy. Large corporations are pit bulls; the foolish like to let them run free, but the intelligent keep a leash on them because you can't trust them. In fact, the "outsourcing" of American jobs to foreign countriws is the first symptom of the diesase of globalization.
> I support free trade.
With accompanying corporate responsibility.
> I?m opposed to gay marriage.
I'm for marriage. Period.
> I support the acknowledgment of God in >the public realm.
Someone says "God bless you," when I sneeze, I say "Why, thank you." Someone says, "God will bless you if you follow our dogma" and I put on the boxing gloves. I have no problem with seasonal religious displays on public property, as long as they don't offend others. But keep religion out of my face.
> I support the Second Amendment and the >right to bear arms. Guns are not evil.
Im a gun owner and former 12 year member of the NRA. I favor draconian punishments for any crime committed with a firearm; I favor stringent background checks for weapons buyers. I favor licensure of potential gun owners. You have to be liecensed to operate a moto vehicle, right? I am opposed to fully auto weapons in the hands of civilians, and I challenge anyone to offer a sporting use for something such as an Uzi, Mac-10, Tech-9, or FF's mastubatory fantasy weapon, the H&k MP5N. As I've told others, I'd love to go face to face with them, at about 400 yards. They can have their toys, and take their best shots. I'll take an old M-1 Garand, or an even older Springfield '03-A3. I'll have to remember to ask them where they want the flowers sent before we begin, though...
> I?m opposed to socialized medicine. >(Just look at Britain and Canada)
I'm opposed to socialized medicine, but favor national health insurance. The two are not synonymous, no matter how much the right tries to make them so.
> I?m opposed to the reimportation of >prescription drugs from Canada.
Disatrous restriction. As it stands, pharmecutical companies are taking between 40-60% profits from each and every dose of medication they sell. WHile I normally have nothing aginst a compay making profits, I not only have a problem when profits (thus prices) are exhorbitant on necessities for mere survival, but when companies appeal to the government to restrain trade. You're a free trader, right? Here's the scenario of the pharmecutical houses:
They make a drug. They sell it to the Canadia health care system at about a 10% profit on each dose. Let's say tat each dose sold for $1, with a 30 day supply costing the company $30 . They sell a month's worth to Canada for $33, making a tidy 10% profit. Canada makes the medication avalable to Americans (with a script written by a Canadan doc) for $40, for another tidy profit for the Canadians. Here in this country, the same script would cost Americans $48. Everybody makes out...except that the pharmecutical houses want to maintain their dominance of the Canadian drug market. and want AMERICANS to pay for them to do so.
Now, this might be slightly repugnant (but bearable) if we were talking cars, or stereos, or even clothes--but we're talking medications that people need to stay alive, and who are often on fixed income. Can you give me one rational reason why you feel the way you do? (I've seen you make this statement before, and this is a debate that I've been ITCHING to get into with you...)
BTW--this morning when I got off work, my Director of Nursing was tearing her hair out because our pharmacy bill was $92,000 last month, for 242 patients. (And remember, that most of the medications we give are for maintaenance of health consitions, not treatments for acute conditions.) She mentioned one drug in particular, and it stuck with me. It is a thng called an Advair diskus, and it is used for repsiratory problems. We have a number fo residents on these things, and they are each good for one month. Here, with our facility bulk discount, we pay $250 apiece for these inhalers. Checking online Canadian pharmacies, I found prices ranging between $130-$143 apiece.
> I believe we need tort reform.
Henry VI, Part II Act.IV, scene 2 is all the tort reform we need.
> I believe in the death penalty.
Agreed. All the whining aside, there are simply some people too evil to live. I would also expand capital statutes to aggravated rape and pedophilia, simply because of the recidivism rate of these criminals, regardless of therapies attempted.
> I support sex education in public >schools.
Comprehensive--teaching abstinence as an admirable goal, but not the be-all, end-all.
> I?m pro-choice, albeit reluctantly. (I >do support such restrictions as 24-hour >waiting periods and parental >notification)
I'm pro-choice, albeit MORE reluctantly.
Te 24 hour waiting period is acceptable, and I would agree with parental notification--without their ability to prevent the abortion if that's what the girl decided. After all, if the parents feel that she is too young to have sex, or too immature to make a decision on having an abortion, then they have no right to compel her to have a child that she would not be able to care for.
> I?m opposed to school prayer.
Adamantly.
> I support medicinal marijuana.
I smoke medical marijuana.:D (No, I agree.)
> I think that evil exists in the world >and that military force is sometimes >required to achieve peace.
Without a doubt--but we must avoid using military force as a first option.
> I think feminism is crazy.
If you can name any other single societal force that would gaurantee women equal pay for equal work, and which would fight to remove the gender bias in this country, I'd think it was crazy, too. Since no such other force exists, I have to go with feminism. (The altenative, the Phyllis Schlafly's, are so abhorrent to me that only my strong belief in the first amendment prevents me from strangling them.)
> I?m opposed to liberal judges >rewriting the Constitution to suit >their views.
I'm opposed to conservative federal judges treating the Constitution as a rigid document. It is clear and concise where it needs to be; it is more vague and has "wiggle room" built in for expanding its protections in others.
> I detest multiculturalism.
You live in one of the world's great multicultural experiments, perhaps the greatest. However, the rules for multicultural living in New York have been established for over 200 years. Des Moines, Iowa needs some guidance.
Also, I am strongly against multilingual education here. No, I am not one of those phony flag wavers crying "English first!" I simply maitain that the best...the ONLY way for any immigrant group to be assimilated into this society is to first learn its language. English is the dominant language in this country. In enclaves of one's native culture, make all the signs in your native tongue; speak the language at home; but you have chosen to bring your family to this country--at least make sure your CHILDREN can communicate here.
> I think the border with Mexico should >be sealed.
Guess who wants it to remain open? All the growers and manufacturers in the southwestern states--all those companies you so strongly support.:D
> Military should police the border with >the border police. No more water >stations. Severe quota should be >imposed. We have enough people here. If >liberals truly cared about the >environment, they?d support this.
(Sigh...) don't make this an environmental issue. It is an economic issue. Make the penalties for hiring illegals about $1 million a pop, and watch the traffic dry up. Business owners like having a disposable work force, not subject to any of the protections of our laws, who don't have to be paid a minimum wage, or have social security benefits paid for.
> I don?t like France.
Who does?
> I support Israel.
I support her cautiously--and not in her current incarnation as neighborhood bully.
> I support a missile defense shield.
Then you'd better find out where they make Reeeeeeeal big sheets of lexan, because Star Wars won't, and can't work.
> I support a significant reduction in >government regulations on business.
Every industry that has EVER been deregulated immediately does two things: first, competition ends as the bigger companies gobble up the smaller ones, and two, prices rise as service declines. Note the airline industry, the cable tv industry, and radio and tv broadcasters as just three quick examples. You seem to harbor the belief that companies would become good corporate citizens if just those onerous regulations were removed.
Knowing human nature, how about we try and experiment? What would you say to removing all laws from society, and just trust everyone to do the right thing? To deal fairly and honestly with everyone else?
> I believe in terrorist profiling.
So do I...with a twist. Profile anyone you wish to, but if you make an arrest, you must honor the accused's 6th amendment rights to a speedy trial--and there would be an automatic $1 million award given for any of those people found not guilty. Why? Our system survives because of checks and balances.
There is no check, no balance, for abuse of the profiling statutes. we need to build some in.
Look; cops are trained, and allowed, to use deadly force. There are also severe penalties for them if they use it unjustifiably, aren't there?
> I believe that global warming is a >farce for the most part.
There's no "for the most part" Mario. It either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then none of the things that climatologists say are or will happen will happen. If it DOES exist, but to a lesser degree than has been proposed, all that means is that the outcomes spoken of by the scientists will merely take longer to occur.
The earth has cyclical climatology, and has gone through many wartming and cooling periods in its history. We have been in a relatively cool period for a long time, and for whatever reason, we're beginning to heat up again. Add to this the loss of the rain forests (which generate oxygen for the world, along with the oceans, which are becoming polluted, and unable to sustain the life they once did, and we are looking at problems.
I would suggest that you take yourself out of the city, and come upstate some summer. Take a look at the pristine mountain lakes which can no longer support fish or plant life because acid rain from substandard midwest power plants is killing them. You can see the damage for yourself. Once you have, you can decide that the company's need for greater profits by not installing scrubbers on their smokestacks outweighs the desire of people of Upstate to live and work in a beautiful, untouched wilderness.
> I believe that society is not >responsible for the actions of >criminals.
For the first crime, no; but for the actions the society takes after a criminal has been caught the first time, they ARE responsible.
> I know that Bush won the 2000 election >fair and square.
And I believe in Deja Thoris and the Moons of Barsoom--we're each entitled to our favorite fantasy.
> My favorite President is Ronald >Reagan.
JFK, FDR, and Harry S. Truman.
> I think Bill Clinton was one of the >worst Presidents this country has ever >suffered.
History will be kinder to him (except on morality issues) than you are willing to be--but then, you have been indoctrinated.
> I believe the Vietnam war was >winnable.
Of course it was--had we been allowed to fight it properly.
> I believe in strict discipline in >public schools.
Everything short of corporal punishment.
> Kids should have school uniforms.
Agreed.
> I support drilling for oil in Alaska.
Angle drilling, perhaps. drilling of the type and on the scale dubya advocates, never. Oil companies have routinely and historically proven their complete lack of cncern for any damage they might do to the enviroment. Why give them another chance to prove their record? If they satnd to make huge profits off what they find there, then they should be willing to risk huge penalties if they screw things up.
> I support alternative sources of >energy.
Yup. Why we haven't done more work with hydrogen fuel cells or alternative fuels (there is a guy here in Upstate who will retrofit a system onto any car with fuel injection to burn oil of any type--even cooking oil. He gets his fuel by dropping off five gallon cans at restaurants and collecting their used cooking oil. He takes it home and filters it, then pops it into the tank of his Jetta, and happily goes cruising around. Note that his cars are "dual fuel" systems, with gasoline needed just to start then engine to get it going--then he switches to the less combustible, but very useable, oil.)
You went down the line, about as I expected. While not surprised, I would caution you about being too supportive of corporations. Look; they appealed to the Supreme Court to be considered as individuals for the purposes of political contributions--why shouldn't they then be charged for the same responsibilities that we are? Profit is a nice thing, but profit to the exclusion of all else is dangerous.
Let me know if you wish to debate the presription drug situation.:D
|
|
|
Posts:
498
Registered:
6/6/04
|
|
(7 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 2:56 PM
|
|
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is one of truth. Liberals think they have truth in a box. Conservatives have strong feelings about the way things should be based on their view of the world. They are not always married to their ideas and will change many of them as new information comes in. A few they are such as abortion because abortion is murder. It is simple. Liberals, like al quaida and other extremist groups now and throughout history have put their own ideology and/or god in a box. When you put your ideology or god in a box you will guarantee that you will at some point commit error. You then say you have the truth and anything that disagrees is then wrong. Even if it is the truth. The common wisdom today is that if Jesus were to come to Earth today he would be crucified because he doesn't fit in anyones box. Same with liberal theology (minus theo). The liberals have it worse than most box groups because it does not appear that they even believe what they espouse. If you watch them it is clear that it is ok to lie for political advantage. Not a Conservative view. Frequently the bigger the lie the better. If they can't find something to bash the opposition with they just make something up such as the election debacle in FL. (debacle in Wonderland but not reality) The white rabbit came out and said that blacks were barred from voting. No proof. No evidence. Making it up as they go along. They have no moral rudder that is why they are so cynical. Ever notice that they just say stuff for effect. They don't have to believe it. They just throw it out and hope it sticks in someones mind. They are a sad and unhappy people in my opinion. I feel sorry for them.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,964
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(8 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 3:02 PM
|
> Tom my man, sit down and breathe!
>
> I had NO intention whatsoever to >insult anyone.
Mario...as I said, you may trot out that
absurdity for others, but you and I know the truth. Of COURSE you meant to insult, and simply wrapping each of the insults in the "This is just my opinion, you understand" doesn't relieve you of the accountability for the insults. Perhaps others will be too polite, but I will call you to account for them.
>I did however lay out my perception of >liberalism. My argument is, after all, >that liberalism is rooted in ignorance.
Which is, of course, specious and usupportable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you use "Liberalism" as a blanket term for anyone to the left of center, no matter how moderate they may be. You've been silly enough to blanket ME with the term, and yet, as you will note in my reply to your opinions, where we tend to disagree comes in matters of people vs. the corporate world.
> Again, this is my perception, and if >that offends some, they will have to >grow thicker skin.
So, you effectvely absolve yourself of any responsibility for a hostile reaction from anyone offended by saying that, if you call them names, or say they're ignorant, it is their problem, not yours.:D Think BS like that is going to fly? In the Navy, we would have sdaid that it has a glide slope like a rock.:D
>We cannot have this discussion if some >are going to whine about such petty >things.
OH, I LOVE THIS! "HERE ARE THE RULES: I GET TO CALL NAMES, IMPUGN OTHERS' INTELLIGENCE, QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THEIR MORAL CHOICES, BUT IF ANYONE TAKES ME TO TASK FOR DOING SO, I'M GOING TO TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME...::D:D:D:D
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> I guess it's only natural for some to >take umbrage to a challenge of the >ideology they hold dear.(Besides,
> didn't you say you weren't a >liberal?):D
I'm not--I just get annoyed at anyone who asks for debate or discussion, then tries to make all the rules suit him. Furthermore, it's pretty sleazy to try and sneak in inflammatory remarks which you KNOW will bring heated responses, and then attempt to play innocent and deny any ulterior motive.:D
> Calm down. Experience doesn't >necessarily equate with wisdom. I don't >blame you. I remember putting forth a
> few arguments on Capitalism vs. >Socialism and Communism in a face to >face discussion with one of my poly >sci. professors. He's looks a bit over >60. If there's anything people hate, >it's being told that they are wrong. So >try to avoid the indignation.
Mario, I wasn't indignant. I was merely stating that your youth and inexperience in life cannot be compensated for by an overblown ego. That you argued with your professor, I don't doubt. It is the nature of young people to do so, as they try to establish themselves in an adult world. And, while no great intellectual threat, you are bright enough to make an outward case for the rationality of your beliefs.
But then, we both know that you will increasingly attempt subtle insult, calling it "opinion" and hoping to elicit a hasty response from me.:D I keep telling you that my daughter is brighter than you, knows me and my buttons better than you, and finds it increasingly difficult to push them satisfactorily.
You also forget that a large portion of my job requires that I deal with demented and psychiatric patients who are quite clever at trying to twist the truth to fit their fantasies, and I enjoy the game when they play it--as I do your posts.:D
>Your perception of hubris is really >just me telling the truth.:D
Actually, my perception of your hubris is directly and specifically related to the UNTRUTHS you choose to tell, whether because of arrogance, ignorance, or simply as a corollary of being successfully propagandized at a young and impressionable age.:D
> Man, I bet you were fighting your >mother as she was carrying you to >birth?:D
She said I kicked like a mule...I'm told that minutes after my birth, my mother balled up her fist and asked for one of the nurses to bring me over to her so she could "Pay the little sombitch back" for doing the two-step on her tummy.:D
> Again, I'm not looking for a fight, >but rather a discussion. Try not to be >so fretful.
Ah, Mario...calling you on your games, exposing your rhetoric for what it is, is NOT getting fretful. The last time I got fretful was...well, AAMOF, last night when the 450lb. patient I was standing next to said, "Catch me; I think I'm going to faint...":D
> Good, I'm looking forward to you >giving me the intellectual beating of >my life.:D
I'll save that for some other time when I'm feeling grumpy. I just had three days off, and am feeling rather good. I even got my lawn mowed before it rained, and remembered to put the trash out. With things going this good, how could I feel grumpy?
BTW--if you REALLY want to discuss the issues, I'll be happy to. Lose the snarky BS about philosophies of ignorance, and we can take a delve; continue to be snide and snerty, and I'll keep on playing the same game.:D
> Later, tom.
Vaya con Tacos, Mario.
>
|
|
|
Posts:
2,391
Registered:
4/11/00
|
|
(9 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 3:04 PM
|
Nice going..This makes you the biggest hypocrite in the US. You are the king of the hypocrites. All other hypocrites bow down before you. Your highness rules over all of right wing nut land. I give you king of the hypocrites, Mr.Conservative,aka nyrepublican and what ever other names he has used.
"Are you going to bark all day little doggie,or are you going to bite?"
Mr.Blonde
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
6/5/04
|
|
(10 of 112)
My fellow posters, take a look at this sad character.
Jul 7, 2004 3:15 PM
|
I knew we would get one or two. Mike proves my points in many ways.
Not only are his writings incoherent, he's boorish as hell.
Mike, I issued a warning. You chose not to heed it. But I'll give you a second chance. You play nice and show some semblance of intellect, or...well never mind.:D
Take care.
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
6/5/04
|
|
(11 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 3:40 PM
|
Tom, you know full well that I relish confrontation at times. But seriously, I made an honest attempt at civil discourse here.
Insults? Look, how can I speak of why I oppose and reject liberalism if I can't speak candidly about my perceptions? My perceptions are simply meant to inform for posters reading the post. I had no intention of insulting anyone. Come on!
Okay, I will admit that you aren't a radical leftist. I'd say that's pretty generous on my part.:D I think it's just because we both speak with heated rhetoric; mine, Conservative, yours liberal.
Again, tom, the point of my post is to foster political discussion, and not political acrimony. But I can't be held responsible for expressing my perceptions. Or can I?:D
lol...I bet the mother still carries the frying pan at her side when you visit, eh?:D
Tom, again, we are talking about political schools of thought. If I find one to be sustained by ignorance, I have no choice but to say so.
But I saw your reply to my positions. I'll respond later tonight.
You know, I took 6 years of spanish, I've forgotten most of it.
But I know you're not afraid to say God in spanish! But just in case you are, I'll say it right:
Vaya con dios, Tommy!
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
6/5/04
|
|
(12 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 4:25 PM
|
Willie, I need to understand where you're coming from. Specifically, why are you a Libertarian?
I disagree. I've done my fair share of analysis and reading on our Founders. They were classical liberals. Classical liberalalism were what today is known as Conservatism. And classical Conservatism is contemporary liberalism, for the most at least.
No, I highly doubt the Founders would support Libertarianism. Libertarianism is a philosophy of government; whereas Conservatism is more a philosophy of life. Libertarians think individual liberty is of paramount concern, as do Conservatives. However, libertarians miss something. Human nature is NOT impeccable. Freedom can and will be used badly by some. I'm always reminded by what Conservative writer Dinesh D'souza once said, "Conservatives defend freedom not because they believe in the right to do as you please, but because freedom is the precondition for virtue. It is only when people choose freely that they can choose the good. Without freedom there is no virtue: A coerced virtue is no virtue at all."
Take care, willie.
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
6/5/04
|
|
(13 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 7, 2004 10:15 PM
|
Yep. Actually Jesse Hi-Jackson was busing in blacks to vote in Florida. He was TELLING them who to vote for.
I agree with most of what you said.
Take care.
|
|
|
Posts:
814
Registered:
6/5/04
|
|
(14 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 8, 2004 1:34 AM
|
|
<<<<Large Navy, medium-sized Air Force (both necessary to project our power anywhere in the world on short notice. Small standing Army, and a Marine Corps just about the size it is. In place of the huge standing army, I would implement compulsory military/government service for ALL men and women between the ages of 18-21. The major portion of these would be 1 year active duty, 2 years ready reserve. When called, they would have 24 hours to report, and they would fight. Those physically unable to fight would assume non-combat roles.>>>>
-I disagree on the small standing Army. In today?s world, we need a large military. Bill Clinton slashed 8 Army divisions. I believe that those losses can easily be recouped if the Defense Dept. increases its level of enlistment. You and Donald Rumsfeld seem to agree on the small standing military! I don?t know about conscription. Do you think it leads to a loss of morale for the military as a whole when people are forced to serve, particularly if they have no desire to do so?
<<<<If we had rational definitions of what constitutes a threat to this nation, I would agree.>>>>
-A good point. But there is no fixed definition of a threat. Threats change as circumstances in the world change. Which means we must sometimes modify our foreign policy, as we did in the wake of WW2 and the following wars. But you would agree that the US can and should act to eliminate a threat without the consent of the United Nations, no?
<<<<NAtional sales tax, perhaps. A flat tax is disproportionately hard on the poor.
As far as low taxes, why not pay higher taxes, but force the politicians to account for how they use them?>>>>
-A national sales tax would tax people based on consumption, which strikes me as fair. A flat tax would set one tax rate by which ALL individuals would be taxed. Poor families with an income lower than $30,000 a year don?t pay federal taxes. But for those poor individuals, they would pay say 15 percent on their earnings, and those middle class and wealthy persons would pay the same rate on their income, which is obviously bigger. Politicians will never be held to account. That is why we must change the system and the ridiculous tax code we currently have and substitute it for a much simpler tax code.
<<<<Nope; gotta have a safety net. However, welfare would be for two years and two years ONLY, and only one signup within ten years.>>>>
-Nope, as I said, phase out welfare OVER a period of years. Downsize and eventually eliminate. There will still be unemployment. Cut taxes on the American people and the more they contribute to private charities. Americans contribute far more to charities than any European country. Let private charity deal with such issues as poverty. Groups such as the Salvation Army require a commitment from the recipient. It?s not just a gravy train. Moreover, welfare workers encourage dependency to ensure their jobs are safe. This explains why government bureaucracy only causes us trouble. We know that with low taxation and more freedom, people bestow more of their monies to private charity. When government has high taxation, the people donate far less. The quality of charity is better from private groups than government. More of the money actually gets to the recipients, as opposed to most of our tax money getting gobbled up in bureaucratic red tape before what?s left gets to the recipients. Less government, more economic freedom. We don?t need politicians buying people off with dependency under the guise of altruism. There is no free lunch, and the government always wants something in return; usually the vote and the power.
<<<>>>
-A living wage for whom? A teenager? The overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers still in High School or just part-time workers. Teenagers live with their parents who obviously have an income. Others who make minimum wage are part-time workers with a spouse who earns an income. All evidence demonstrates that minimum wage hikes engender job losses in that area! Minimum wage jobs exist for those young people as an entry-level position. They don?t work minimum wage their entire life. The start there because of their skill level and build on that, thus gaining more experience and moving up the social ladder. What minimum wage hikes do is destroy jobs and negatively effect blacks far more than whites. So what the liberal policies do is destroy jobs and the future of many youths in America by denying them entry-level positions. Minimum wage hikes would also lead to inflation. You seem to think that there will be an increase in goods and services purchased. I don?t see how. When the minimum wage increase, so follows hikes in the prices of goods and services. So whatever new income being earned by these workers the Democrats purport to care for is offset by the new increase in prices. It hurts other consumers as well. No. The wealthy invest, build, and create jobs. Without investment, capital formation, etc, you have no jobs.
<<<<Biggest mistake in the world. This is a silly notion dreamed up by the right wing, and it goes like this: "If you unfetter the corporations, they will reinvest the money, grow, provide more jobs, and they will lower prices for their goods/services..." Nice in theory, but in reality, dead wrong.
Corporations take up an inordinate amount of publics services and infrastructure--why should WE pay for it? Second, by recent Supreme Court ruling, corporations are considered equivalent to individuals when it comes to making political contributions--if they're my equal, they should be taxed as equals--with NO loopholes for depreciation, etc.>>>>
-It would be the best thing in the world, for all Americans. You neglect to mention that corporations hire employees. Employees pay taxes on income, also those payroll taxes. Moreover, when consumers purchase goods and services from corporations, they too pay taxes. It seems to me that corporations are doing us a lot of good.
So what you have now is government that taxes corporate profits and re-taxes the dividends. This pilfers money otherwise used to reduce prices, pay higher salaries, pay higher dividends, and invest. You see, corporations would love to keep their goods and services at lower prices in order to COMPETE. Government tax and economic policy reduces the ability of American corporations to compete. Regulations, heavy taxation, etc. is onerous for corporations, and then we wonder why corporations are forced to flee the United States.
Calvin Coolidge once pointed out that there are no such things as corporations. Corporations are comprised of individuals. How about we let Ronald Reagan explain it to us:
?Some say shift the tax burden to business and industry, but business doesn?t pay taxes. Oh, don?t get the wrong idea; business is being taxed, so much so that we are being priced out of the world market. But business must pass its costs of operation, and that includes taxes, onto the customer in the price of the product. Only people pay taxes?all the taxes.?
I have a few more, tom. Just ask and you will receive!
<<<(Sigh...) Another red herring thrown out by the rich to make it seem a populist notion. Fewer than 1% of families are affected by the inheritance tax, and those have net worths generally in the millions.>>>
-Good. So you admit that the death tax is trivial in terms of the overall revenue accrued by the federal government. Then let?s do away with it. Because, it may be trivial in the sense of annual government revenue, but it?s still deleterious to businesses. The death tax was instituted in 1916 to help fund American efforts for WW One. Unfortunately, there really never is no such thing as a temporary tax and it?s never been decommissioned. I say it?s time to go. Since its institution, the death tax has wiped our property holdings, family savings, family farms, and small business. Keep in mind, the majority of small businesses are taxed on an individual basis. The last thing people should worry about is being taxed when they die, especially if they have family that is also involved in the business. The government wants the death tax in cash 9 months after the person?s death. The death tax curbs the rate of capital formation, which is saving and investment. The death tax discourages investment and reduces people?s incentive to save. Again, I say it?s time we put the estate tax to death.
<<<>>>
-I can?t say I disagree with that.
<<<<School vouchers would destoy public education--which is exaactly the goal of those who propmote them. The average expenditure per student in this country in public school is a little over $6,300; the average private school tuition is $4,700, not counting costs for books, clothing, or transportaion. Also, private schools in poor areas don't tend to be much different from public schools--for large differences in testing between private and public schools, you have to go to the wealthy ones in the 'burbs--where the AVERAGE tuition is $10-12,000/yr.; far above what poor people could pay, even WITH a voucher. Also note that, with a decline of the public education system, you would lack any national standardization in teaching and testing. Vouchers will provide substandard educations.>>>>
-Not at all. Conservatives promote vouchers because we want to see children acquire a genuine education and we want to SAVE the public school system. To be sure, there are some Conservatives who would like to see a private system for education. I would not do that as of yet. I?d like to salvage the public school system if at all possible. I don?t know why you say vouchers would destroy the public school system. The purpose of vouchers is to force the public school system to compete for our money! That means they must educate American children. If they fail, they lose the money. Trust me, I know how these public schools operate. I was a HS student a few years ago. I was at a public school built with a maximum capacity of 1,800 students. Guess how many students there were when I was there? 4,200!
I actually work for a private corporation that educates kids. It?s a shame parents have to spend more money to educate their children because the government has failed. Anyway, we have a computer-based system where kids from pre-K to 10th grade do math, reading, language arts, science, etc. If they need help, I help them. Not only do they have FUN learning, they have more time with myself or the other coaches. Most classrooms in here in our schools have at least 30 children in the classroom. Teachers simply don?t have the time to have one-on-one contact with each student. Corporations produce results because of the profit-motive. The governments taxes for its money, it does not perform for revenue. It has no incentive to satisfy customers?the people that is.
Most private schools don?t reach as high as $10,000. Vouchers have been used in major US cities and has proven successful. Why would private schools not test students? Besides, NY is one of the few states that still has Regents exams. I dreaded those!
<<<What's your definition of "patriotism"? If it doesn't include the right or the necessity to publicly decry bad policy, then it's wrong.>>>>
-Reagan spoke of an informed patriotism. Dissent and difference of opinion should be valued. I?m not one of these ?My country, right or wrong? guys. I do however believe that we should always love the country, but disagree with the policy of the government. Too many people hate the country for the shortcomings of politicians.
<<<<first step on the slippery slope toward plutocrachy and oligarchy. Large corporations are pit bulls; the foolish like to let them run free, but the intelligent keep a leash on them because you can't trust them. In fact, the "outsourcing" of American jobs to foreign countriws is the first symptom of the diesase of globalization.>>>>
-We can?t trust government. That?s where we need a leash. There is a reason why people line up in droves in these Third World to be lucky to secure a job with one of these corporations. Why? It?s great pay! And when these countries reach a good standard of living, that benefits American workers, because these people in turn buy American products. Outsourcing is not evil. In the long-term, it helps America. Besides, we have a new economy emerging.
<<<With accompanying corporate responsibility.>>>
-What do you think of NAFTA? I don?t consider it a real free trade pact. It was created with the intention of benefiting Mexico. But free trade is good for America. Those who don?t believe me can just look up the Smoot-Hawley tariff!
<<<I'm for marriage. Period.>>>
-Great. The definition of marriage is the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Glad we see eye to eye on this, tom.
<<<Someone says "God bless you," when I sneeze, I say "Why, thank you." Someone says, "God will bless you if you follow our dogma" and I put on the boxing gloves. I have no problem with seasonal religious displays on public property, as long as they don't offend others. But keep religion out of my face.>>>
-As long as they don?t offend others? What happened to freedom of religion? God played a major part in the lives of our Founders. Acknowledgement of God in the public realm does not constitute as forcing others to subscribe to any particular religion. We are, after all, not a theocracy.
<<<<Im a gun owner and former 12 year member of the NRA. I favor draconian punishments for any crime committed with a firearm; I favor stringent background checks for weapons buyers. I favor licensure of potential gun owners. You have to be liecensed to operate a moto vehicle, right? I am opposed to fully auto weapons in the hands of civilians, and I challenge anyone to offer a sporting use for something such as an Uzi, Mac-10, Tech-9, or FF's mastubatory fantasy weapon, the H&k MP5N. As I've told others, I'd love to go face to face with them, at about 400 yards. They can have their toys, and take their best shots. I'll take an old M-1 Garand, or an even older Springfield '03-A3. I'll have to remember to ask them where they want the flowers sent before we begin, though...>>>>
-I?m assuming that you agree that the gun ownership is an individual right afforded us by the Constitution. If so, you cannot license a right. Driving a car is not a right. It?s a privilege. Come on, the vast majority of criminals use small firearms as their weapon of choice. That other junk is too big and deemed troublesome by those who wish to engage in criminal conduct. Background checks were ruled unconstitutional back in 1997, I believe. Wasn?t it a provision of the Brady Bill?
Criminals just don?t walk into gun stores and fill out forms to buy guns. They obtain guns on the streets and through other illicit means. And felons obviously are prohibited from buying guns at the stores.
<<<I'm opposed to socialized medicine, but favor national health insurance. The two are not synonymous, no matter how much the right tries to make them so.>>>
-Um, how so? Will the federal government not be the final arbiter as far as our medical care is concerned?
<<<<Disatrous restriction. As it stands, pharmecutical companies are taking between 40-60% profits from each and every dose of medication they sell. WHile I normally have nothing aginst a compay making profits, I not only have a problem when profits (thus prices) are exhorbitant on necessities for mere survival, but when companies appeal to the government to restrain trade. You're a free trader, right? Here's the scenario of the pharmecutical houses:
They make a drug. They sell it to the Canadia health care system at about a 10% profit on each dose. Let's say tat each dose sold for $1, with a 30 day supply costing the company $30 . They sell a month's worth to Canada for $33, making a tidy 10% profit. Canada makes the medication avalable to Americans (with a script written by a Canadan doc) for $40, for another tidy profit for the Canadians. Here in this country, the same script would cost Americans $48. Everybody makes out...except that the pharmecutical houses want to maintain their dominance of the Canadian drug market. and want AMERICANS to pay for them to do so.
Now, this might be slightly repugnant (but bearable) if we were talking cars, or stereos, or even clothes--but we're talking medications that people need to stay alive, and who are often on fixed income. Can you give me one rational reason why you feel the way you do? (I've seen you make this statement before, and this is a debate that I've been ITCHING to get into with you...)
BTW--this morning when I got off work, my Director of Nursing was tearing her hair out because our pharmacy bill was $92,000 last month, for 242 patients. (And remember, that most of the medications we give are for maintaenance of health consitions, not treatments for acute conditions.) She mentioned one drug in particular, and it stuck with me. It is a thng called an Advair diskus, and it is used for repsiratory problems. We have a number fo residents on these things, and they are each good for one month. Here, with our facility bulk discount, we pay $250 apiece for these inhalers. Checking online Canadian pharmacies, I found prices ranging between $130-$143 apiece.>>>>
-This is frankly ludicrous, tom. Yes, I?m a free-trader. Are you saying that we should trade with Canada, who wants to sell Americans American-made drugs??
Look, this is a comprehensive issue. It?s 4:00 in the morning and I?m tired. I?ll deal with this in our discussion tomorrow.
<<<<Henry VI, Part II Act.IV, scene 2 is all the tort reform we need.>>>>
-Is that Shakespeare? I?m not a fan. When we have guys like John Edwards running around, we need tort reform. Our doctors are suffering, those who want healthcare coverage are suffering, and the system is collapsing.
<<<Agreed. All the whining aside, there are simply some people too evil to live. I would also expand capital statutes to aggravated rape and pedophilia, simply because of the recidivism rate of these criminals, regardless of therapies attempted.>>>
-Yes. Some have pointed out that the death penalty is shown not to have any significant effect on the crime rate. It doesn?t matter. The death penalty is a punishment.
<<<Comprehensive--teaching abstinence as an admirable goal, but not the be-all, end-all.>>>
-Abstinence should be taught, along with methods of contraception if sex is undertaken. But I do not believe that all public school students should be subject to sex education. If the parents object, that?s their right. But I gather that most parents don?t mind, considering they have no interest in talking to their children about this issue. And it really requires a much more profound education.
<<<<I'm pro-choice, albeit MORE reluctantly.
Te 24 hour waiting period is acceptable, and I would agree with parental notification--without their ability to prevent the abortion if that's what the girl decided. After all, if the parents feel that she is too young to have sex, or too immature to make a decision on having an abortion, then they have no right to compel her to have a child that she would not be able to care for.>>>>
-I disagree. The child was too immature to be impregnated to start with, she should not have the luxury have deciding the fate of the unborn child. If the parents support her giving birth, then so be it. They will obviously care for the child. Even younger girls must suffer the consequences of their actions. No doubt I can expect a medical lecture from you on this issue, but I?ll stand firm on this one.
<<<>>>
-I should note that other medicines should be entertained in the beginning, but the fact remains that medicinal marijuana can provide many people with pain relief. My only concern would be that they don?t get hooked on it. Can you tell me anything that would satisfy that concern?
<<<Without a doubt--but we must avoid using military force as a first option.>>>
-Agreed. But the military option should not be ruled out or shied away from. Negotiation must be supported by the prospective use of military force. Absent that, negotiations with tyrants usually qualify as an exercise in futility.
<<<<If you can name any other single societal force that would gaurantee women equal pay for equal work, and which would fight to remove the gender bias in this country, I'd think it was crazy, too. Since no such other force exists, I have to go with feminism. (The altenative, the Phyllis Schlafly's, are so abhorrent to me that only my strong belief in the first amendment prevents me from strangling them.)>>>>
-Well, I?m not referring to the Suffrage movement of the 19th century and early 20th century. I?m talking about the extreme version of contemporary feminism.
<<<<I'm opposed to conservative federal judges treating the Constitution as a rigid document. It is clear and concise where it needs to be; it is more vague and has "wiggle room" built in for expanding its protections in others.>>>>
-To be quite honest, there?s not many Conservative judges out there. And yes, the Constitution is not a rigid document. Proof positive is the Necessary and Proper clause. Perhaps I should have said I despise federal judges who ignore current legislative law, state or federal, and interpret it in a way that is favorable to their political agenda.
<<<<You live in one of the world's great multicultural experiments, perhaps the greatest. However, the rules for multicultural living in New York have been established for over 200 years. Des Moines, Iowa needs some guidance.
Also, I am strongly against multilingual education here. No, I am not one of those phony flag wavers crying "English first!" I simply maitain that the best...the ONLY way for any immigrant group to be assimilated into this society is to first learn its language. English is the dominant language in this country. In enclaves of one's native culture, make all the signs in your native tongue; speak the language at home; but you have chosen to bring your family to this country--at least make sure your CHILDREN can communicate here.>>>>
-That?s my point. We?ve made things too easy for immigrants. We treat them too well, and we have politicians who run to pander to them by spending taxpayer money to create ballots in THEIR language. Do you think they did that for our great grandparents, tom? Nope, they were on their own! But the immigrants have today aren?t very patriotic, don?t assimilate into American society, and really have little interest in speaking English. If they want to achieve success, learn English. But it seems that politicians are bestowing them with many benefits.
<<<<Guess who wants it to remain open? All the growers and manufacturers in the southwestern states--all those companies you so strongly support. >>>>
-They?re not alone. Liberals also want that porous border to stay just the way it is. A certain number of Mexicans should be permitted to work in the US for a period of time. But what is going on with that border is madness. Many of the hospitals in California and other southwestern states sustain millions in expenses treating illegals. Many are in California prisons for committing crimes against Americans. Illegals are used as leverage against the American worker. Send them home and seal that border!
<<<<(Sigh...) don't make this an environmental issue. It is an economic issue. Make the penalties for hiring illegals about $1 million a pop, and watch the traffic dry up. Business owners like having a disposable work force, not subject to any of the protections of our laws, who don't have to be paid a minimum wage, or have social security benefits paid for.>>>
-It?s both. Liberals want to salvage national parks and landmarks and other lands. Heavily populated cities just aren?t good for the environment. You know this. I?m simply saying you?d think we?d get some consistency out of the ELF and Sierra Group nuts. Close the border!
<<>>
-I don?t know if I?d call Israel a neighborhood bully. I happen to think the Palestinians represent a bully.
<<<Then you'd better find out where they make Reeeeeeeal big sheets of lexan, because Star Wars won't, and can't work.>>>
-They said the same of a possible moon landing. We did it. This country can do virtually anything it sets its mind to. The Soviets didn?t fear the prospect of SDI for nothing. They believed the US was capable of deploying such a system. Investment, research, and brains go into these things. Let?s not say it can?t be done. Let?s say it can be done and we will find a way to do it.
<<<Every industry that has EVER been deregulated immediately does two things: first, competition ends as the bigger companies gobble up the smaller ones, and two, prices rise as service declines. Note the airline industry, the cable tv industry, and radio and tv broadcasters as just three quick examples. You seem to harbor the belief that companies would become good corporate citizens if just those onerous regulations were removed.
Knowing human nature, how about we try and experiment? What would you say to removing all laws from society, and just trust everyone to do the right thing? To deal fairly and honestly with everyone else?>>>
-Not true. I didn?t say eliminate all regulations, but certainly a drastic reduction would be nice. Actually, with many onerous regulations lifted, and taxation low, small business can thrive. More companies are created, etc. With the system we have of high taxation and many regulations, only the larger companies can really stay in the game. A reduction of taxes and regulations opens the door for a rise of many new businesses. Small business is hurt dramatically by regulations and bureaucratic red tape. Last I heard, owners of small business end up paying $5,000 just in hiring a worker. That?s what the paperwork and the regulations amount to. This is not exactly conducive to job creation, and small business is vital to that process.
<<<<So do I...with a twist. Profile anyone you wish to, but if you make an arrest, you must honor the accused's 6th amendment rights to a speedy trial--and there would be an automatic $1 million award given for any of those people found not guilty. Why? Our system survives because of checks and balances.
There is no check, no balance, for abuse of the profiling statutes. we need to build some in.>>>>
-If the person is an American citizen, his or her 6th Amendment rights shall be honored. As for the $1 million award, I think it?s ridiculous.
<<<<There's no "for the most part" Mario. It either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then none of the things that climatologists say are or will happen will happen. If it DOES exist, but to a lesser degree than has been proposed, all that means is that the outcomes spoken of by the scientists will merely take longer to occur.
The earth has cyclical climatology, and has gone through many wartming and cooling periods in its history. We have been in a relatively cool period for a long time, and for whatever reason, we're beginning to heat up again. Add to this the loss of the rain forests (which generate oxygen for the world, along with the oceans, which are becoming polluted, and unable to sustain the life they once did, and we are looking at problems.
I would suggest that you take yourself out of the city, and come upstate some summer. Take a look at the pristine mountain lakes which can no longer support fish or plant life because acid rain from substandard midwest power plants is killing them. You can see the damage for yourself. Once you have, you can decide that the company's need for greater profits by not installing scrubbers on their smokestacks outweighs the desire of people of Upstate to live and work in a beautiful, untouched wilderness.>>>>
-Well, there are such things as science fiction and hard science. The truth is we really don?t know much about the process of so-called global warming. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. If the world had indeed heated the last hundred years by one degree Fahrenheit, what exactly does this prove? How do we know this isn?t due to natural variation or other natural processes, as opposed to it at all being a problem related to people? And there really is no easy or precise way of determining the Earth?s temperature. Hell, volcano eruptions give off more pollution that anything we do.
Now what if we are heating up again? Is this not part of the natural process? The heat usually melts the icecaps, which will eventually lead to a cooling period. Like you said, it?s a cycle. Bear in mind, 30 years ago it was global cooling the radical environmentalist were concerned about.
<<<For the first crime, no; but for the actions the society takes after a criminal has been caught the first time, they ARE responsible.>>>
-It seems you?ve taken a page out of Max Weber?s writings. For the first time? You would blame society for a criminal act committed for the ?first time??
<<<<And I believe in Deja Thoris and the Moons of Barsoom--we're each entitled to our favorite fantasy.>>>>
-Fact is Bush garnered more votes than Gore in Florida. No amount of ranting, kicking and crying will change that immutable fact.
<<<JFK, FDR, and Harry S. Truman.>>>
-Kennedy, very much a Conservative Democrat in a number of respects. Probably the only two things that disturb me about his Presidency was his botching the Bay of Pigs operation and his ordered assassination of Diem in S. Vietnam.
FDR. Not a very good man on a personal level. Could be very mean. A good leader, though much of his New Deal only exacerbated the depression. But it did serve as a morale booster. I think good ol? Harry is overrated, though his style is leadership is to be commended on some levels. His decision to drop the bomb was absolutely justified. The Berlin Airlift was brilliant, though much like the Cuban Missile crisis, it was the doing of our weakness with the Soviets. Truman left office with a 29 percent approval rating.
<<<History will be kinder to him (except on morality issues) than you are willing to be--but then, you have been indoctrinated.>>>>
-Nope. I think Clinton is far overrated by the Left. I have trouble finding one accomplishment in which he is to credit. Perhaps you can help me?
<<<Of course it was--had we been allowed to fight it properly.>>>
-Yep, the war wasn?t prosecuted the right way. Too much political correctness, not enough force. The war was fought in a defensive style and not an offensive one.
<<<Everything short of corporal punishment.>>>
-Of course.
<<<<Angle drilling, perhaps. drilling of the type and on the scale dubya advocates, never. Oil companies have routinely and historically proven their complete lack of cncern for any damage they might do to the enviroment. Why give them another chance to prove their record? If they satnd to make huge profits off what they find there, then they should be willing to risk huge penalties if they screw things up.>>>>
-A lot of new technology in existence. Much of the environmental movement doesn?t question the abilities of the drillers, but rather fear that the drilling will disturb the sleep of the caribou.:D
<<<<Yup. Why we haven't done more work with hydrogen fuel cells or alternative fuels (there is a guy here in Upstate who will retrofit a system onto any car with fuel injection to burn oil of any type--even cooking oil. He gets his fuel by dropping off five gallon cans at restaurants and collecting their used cooking oil. He takes it home and filters it, then pops it into the tank of his Jetta, and happily goes cruising around. Note that his cars are "dual fuel" systems, with gasoline needed just to start then engine to get it going--then he switches to the less combustible, but very useable, oil.)>>>>
-I?m actually a bit surprised that car manufacturers haven?t really been too productive in this area. Companies often plan ahead. They know that oil won?t be with us forever and that the sooner they come up with alternative sources of energy or make vehicles that consume less gas, that will rake in more profits. Maybe I?m missing something here.
<<<<You went down the line, about as I expected. While not surprised, I would caution you about being too supportive of corporations. Look; they appealed to the Supreme Court to be considered as individuals for the purposes of political contributions--why shouldn't they then be charged for the same responsibilities that we are? Profit is a nice thing, but profit to the exclusion of all else is dangerous.>>>>
-PM Nehru of India once called profit a dirty word. I disagree with him. Profit is something corporations acquire by producing auspicious results for consumers. Tom, are they considered individuals for tax purposes? No, their profits are taxed, the dividends re-taxed. Employees pay taxes on income. You?re being too hard on America?s corporations. Just my humble opinion.
<<<Let me know if you wish to debate the presription drug situation. >>>
Oh we will. Get ready!:D
Take care.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,964
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(15 of 112)
Re: Conservatism vs. Liberalism-Which makes more sense, and why so we subscribe to these ideologies?
Jul 8, 2004 7:02 AM
|
> Tom, you know full well that I relish >confrontation at times. But seriously, >I made an honest attempt at
> civil discourse here.
...And I'll bet right now that you've got a wounded look on your face because you are shocked that I could have questioned your sincerity...or motives.:D
> Insults? Look, how can I speak of why >I oppose and reject liberalism if I >can't speak candidly about my
> perceptions? My perceptions are simply >meant to inform for posters reading the >post. I had no intention of insulting >anyone. Come on!
Mario, stop, please. You know that kind of stuff is wasted on me.
Let me briefly explain my position as far as Conservatives and liberals are concerned. I once bought the line that the Democratic Party and liberals were "for" the people. Thankfully, I've been able to escape that gross ignorance. I believe that liberals are controlled by an intellectual elite that wishes to impose their views on Americans because they know that they can't win with a majority of Americans. So they attempt to impose their ideology instead of garnering support for it. I bought into the lies of Liberalism and a few years ago I was lucky to disabuse myself of such a silly political philosophy-if it can even be called that.
Now, what do you think that Dale Carnegie would have thought about that, eh?
> Okay, I will admit that you aren't a >radical leftist. I'd say that's pretty >generous on my part.:D I think
> it's just because we both speak with >heated rhetoric; mine, Conservative, >yours liberal.
There you go again. (That sound "liberal" to you?) You have been so indoctrinated by the right wing that you don't even see what you're doing, nor are you able to stop yourself from doing it. Without asking me my beliefs, you're TELLING me what they are--and you INSIST
on saying that I argue with "liberal" rhetoric. Mario, you repeatedly express the belief that ANYTHING to the left of your position is "liberal," which leads into a fundamental misapprehension on your part before debate has even begun. Another thing you do is to make the assumption that one expressed opinion equals an entire philosophical revelation. case in point:
What if I were to post that you are (however reluctantly) pro-choice, that you opposed prayer in school, you were in favor of medical marijuana use, and that you favored tort reform? D'ya think that somebody unfamiliar with both of us might could get a somewhat incorrect idea of our positions?
Hell, some of my positions are flat reactionary, most especially those dealing with crime nd punishment. My views are left of center for most areas, but there is a hard-edged pragmatism to them that you can't see and refuse to accept because you've already labeled me, and therefore I must be one'a them "touchy-feely tree huggers".
> Again, tom, the point of my post is to >foster political discussion, and not >political acrimony. But I can't be held >responsible for expressing my
> perceptions. Or can I?:D
Mario, we are both responsible and accoutable for everything we say. (Actully, I'm just setting the ground rules here; you see, when you and I engage in these discussions, I fully intend to call you on each and every one of the generalizations you love to use, and the confusions to which you like to jump.:D
> lol...I bet the mother still carries >the frying pan at her side when you >visit, eh?:D
Funny you should mention it. She just gave it to me last week, and suggested that me, my daughter, and the frying pan have a three-way conversation.:D
> Tom, again, we are talking about >political schools of thought. If I find >one to be sustained by ignorance,
> I have no choice but to say so.
Mario, to somone who cannot understand the intellect process behind the opinion, many ideas might look like ignorance. Also, we must always contend with your philosophical youth. (And don't be insulted by this) You have not yet attained the emotional or philosophical maturity to simply accept the existence of opposing opinion without challenging the validity of same. This is not a character defect for you alone, but it is part and parcel of ALL people your age, and of their required psychological makeup.
We MUST acquire a hard set of core beliefs before we can mature and refine them. At the beginning of our adulthood (and sometimes well into middle adulthood, depending on the nature of the person) we MUST strenuously attack any disputation of our beliefs because they are the core of who we are becoming, and until we have formed that core, we remain adolesscents.
However, by the time we have reached 25 or so, to be unwilling or unable to introspect and challenge our own core beliefs, or to meet external challenge with the acceptance that thee is validity in opposing viewpoints, means that we have reached a state of mental rigidity which will lead us inevitably to reactionary behaviors and ideals.
This is all Behavioral Psych 201 stuff, and it will be the basis for my responses to you when we start talking about this stuff.
> You know, I took 6 years of spanish, >I've forgotten most of it.
>
> But I know you're not afraid to say >God in spanish! But just in case you >are, I'll say it right:
>
> Vaya con dios, Tommy!
Actually, it would have been "Vaya con Dios" had I been speaking about God, which I wasn't. It was a play on the old suggestion that, if we're going to debate, you'd better pack a lunch...
Vaya con tacos...:D
|
|
|
|
|
