<p>
[quote]
FactCheck is not an unbiased source, they defend liberals mostly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Any website that uses facts as a criterion for judgment is inherently liberally biased, at least in this election.</p>
<p>Liberals usually need the most defending considering who the media is owned by. </p>
<p>I'm creating the CRO. Conservative Rehab Organization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Making the pie bigger and making it equal is impossible. We can try, but history provides us with a great example of why it is not attainable. Those who have the biggest pie want to hold onto it and keep their conservative mentality while those who don't want it take a liberal approach to it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, in many cases it is. This is the whole point of free-trade agreements--just for a simple example, look at Nike and laborers in Indonesia. Without the lowest-paid laborers, Nike would have to charge more for shoes, and the unused laborers in Indonesia would be working at lower-paying jobs. But, since Nike and the laborers made an agreement, both parties are better off--the gains from economic freedom (generally pushed by Republicans) can help many people.</p>
<p>With subsidies, farmers get to maintain their jobs, but consumers have to pay a higher cost. The collective higher cost paid by consumers is less than the incremental income earned by the farmers (subsidies result in a Dead-Weight Loss). So, of course one could argue that the farmers should keep their subsidies so that they can make a living. But this is looking at the situation too narrowly. To some extent, the burden for innovation and cost-cutting lies on the farmers. If they can't make their crops cheaper than those sold in other countries, should they be getting subsidies?</p>
<p>In an outrageous case, think about this--should we have continued to subsidize people who built rail-roads, even after the car was pushing out much of the railway industry? Obviously not...if we had kept subsidizing railroads or telegraphs or whatever, then there would have been little incentive to switch to cheaper alternatives. Plus, taxpayers would have had to pay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I've seen today, very slowly, is that those who don't have that big piece of pie don't really care for it in general as long as its equal and it feeds their family and provides leftovers. I hope you understand where I am coming from.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, the heart of politics is experience. Some people have seen their family starve and therefore want Communism (esp. in India, parts of Latin America). Others have seen their inventions stifled by government subsidies and want greater capitalistic freedom. I can understand what you've seen, and this administration has been egregious about income redistribution (and fiscal carelessness). But not all Conservatives are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The huge argument supporting a conservative fiscal policy is provided by men and women who have that big pie. The ones who have the smallest piece of pie and that still contend for it believe that powerball is going to land and they're soon to be big piece of pie is safe. Seriously, thats about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if I agree with that. The upper quintile of Democratic voters are wealthier than the upper quintile of Republican voters (though the average Republican voter is wealthier than the average Democratic voter). I don't think it's that easy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't understand your catastrophes example. Can you elaborate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. I actually don't usually like to defend social conservatism, but here is an argument. As a child, you demand many things. You demand candy, toys, etc. Say one of your parents is liberal, the other is conservative. The liberal parent and conservative parent argue it out...the conservative parent says "don't give him candy" and the liberal parent says "give him the damn candy." In the end, sometimes one wins, sometimes the other wins.</p>
<p>But all you see is one side giving you candy and the other holding back the candy. You can't see the effects of having too much candy if the parties work properly...and generally the American parties do. I don't know if that makes much sense, but many Conservatives would say that if it weren't for their influences, we would be having polygamous marriages, bestiality, all kinds of things. Naturally, that's kind of extreme...but again, it's hard to imagine what would have happened without the Conservatives. And I mean that literally...hard to imagine.</p>
<p>Of course some people cringe at the idea of "paternalism" (see last examples). These are the libertarians who say, have as much damn candy as you want and suffer, and learn. That's another story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, in many cases it is. This is the whole point of free-trade agreements--just for a simple example, look at Nike and laborers in Indonesia. Without the lowest-paid laborers, Nike would have to charge more for shoes, and the unused laborers in Indonesia would be working at lower-paying jobs. But, since Nike and the laborers made an agreement, both parties are better off--the gains from economic freedom (generally pushed by Republicans) can help many people.</p>
<p>With subsidies, farmers get to maintain their jobs, but consumers have to pay a higher cost. The collective higher cost paid by consumers is less than the incremental income earned by the farmers (subsidies result in a Dead-Weight Loss). So, of course one could argue that the farmers should keep their subsidies so that they can make a living. But this is looking at the situation too narrowly. To some extent, the burden for innovation and cost-cutting lies on the farmers. If they can't make their crops cheaper than those sold in other countries, should they be getting subsidies?</p>
<p>In an outrageous case, think about this--should we have continued to subsidize people who built rail-roads, even after the car was pushing out much of the railway industry? Obviously not...if we had kept subsidizing railroads or telegraphs or whatever, then there would have been little incentive to switch to cheaper alternatives. Plus, taxpayers would have had to pay.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nike is a poor example considering I get my shoes from Steve and Barrys for 8.99. Luxury vs. necessity. </p>
<p>Farmers should be getting subsidies that are having a ceiling to them. Some farmers have too much money if you ask me. I'm keeping this nice and simple to be honest. </p>
<p>I think even the dumbest of people get to the point where they understand that rail road subsidies are useless similar to teaching creationism in the class room.</p>
<p>My only problem is that I have been limited to, in my lifetime, the policies of these conservatives. Looking through history, I've seen more of the same thing though, but usually swept under the rug. This administration is proud of their approach to this. </p>
<p>In regards to income, we have to be careful about wealth. I assume, without looking at figures, it falls far below the 6 figure mark which doesn't attribute to my piece of the pie which speaks for those making over 6 figures. </p>
<p>Society has self correcting features to itself. This is a reason why anarchy will never exist. A-holes like myself will rise to the occasion when things get out of hand and try to fix them up. The same thing happens in regards to imaging a world without conservatives. We think we might fall off the track, but has there honestly been a society that has done so to that extent? Even Europe is making something of a u-turn. Look at Canada as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
FactCheck is not an unbiased source, they defend liberals mostly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's because the majority of the lying is done by conservatives. As Stephen Colbert said: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not about having a big or small government, but about having an efficient government that caters to our needs and protects the well being of its inhabitants not from foreign invaders, but the terrorists that run the big corporations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When one of those big corporations bombs your house, the government will protect you. Until then, you can protect yourself by <em>not buying</em> their products.</p>
<p>Oh yes, the last time I was at the market square, a huge bomb went off and ploooooooof. The problem isn't our foreign policy, but religion. Religion is the best thing and the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity.</p>
<p>Listen up sunshine. Do you honestly think my boycotting of these corporations are going to dwindle anything? Nope. It takes masses to pull it off and the masses have fear instilled in them by this damn government of A-RABS TRYIN' TA TAAK AWAY ARE FREEDUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111ONEONEONE</p>
<p>When you scare the crap out of people, you can make them do anything.</p>
<p>I think you need to separate the current religious / political machine that is conservatism from the pure political ideology that is conservatism.</p>
<p>Every society, in our primitive state of development, needs one side pushing to advance society (civil rights, women's rights, etc...) and the other working to hold the status quo so change does not come too quickly so as to destabilize the system.</p>
<p>Like a marriage, every society needs the motherly nurturing side (Democrat) and the fatherly disciplining side (Republican) to balance one another.</p>
<p>Every society needs one side absolutely in love with the way things are / were and wanting to hold onto that and the other side critical of the way things are / were and wanting to progress beyond it. Too much of one or the other is not good. You could see in the 1960s and 70s when liberalism ran rampant and everybody hated America the problems it caused, and you could see in the early 2000s when blind jingoist conservatism ran rampant and the chaos that has caused.</p>
<p>Conservatives must love everything about America or what they perceive it used to be. Otherwise, that would leave only the option of progressing to something new, and that would make them progressives. The fervent love of country you see is rooted in this psychological need to perceive our country as the greatest in the world or having been the greatest before "liberals", "elites", "hollywood" ruined it, or whatever focus group us-versus-them phrase-to-get-votes they trot out this week.</p>
<p>Statistics show that our economy grows best when we have a Democratic president pushing for new investments in human capital and infrastructure and a Republican congress to keep those new investments in check.</p>
<p>So, at least for now, both sides are important. The religious right aspect is just pandered to for votes. Ask yourself what Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II have done in terms of hard legislation to further their agenda. Not much. It's just lip service for votes and the religious right keeps coming back to the trough for one or two issues and ignoring the others. Palin did nothing for social conservative issues as governor, and I doubt she'd change as VP.</p>
<p>Study</a> of Bush's psyche touches a nerve | World news | The Guardian</p>
<p>I am dead on about this stuff. </p>
<p>Who hated us during the 60s and 70s precisely?</p>
<p>The quotation usually attributed to Churchill is, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."</p>
<p>We mostly hated ourselves during the 60s and 70s. It was the first time in American history where the populace realized how much they were being lied to and controlled by the military-industrial complex. Before that, finding rabidly patriotic liberals and conservatives was like shooting iguanas in a barrel. Since then, the trust has been broken between liberals and the government they purport to love so much.</p>
<p>But, again Smug, you're confusing Bush and his radical religious / criminal overtake of our government with true conservatism - which is fiscal responsibility and minimal government interference. It's unrealistic at this point, but it's a good ideal.</p>
<p>Or perhaps that's true Republicanism, which would lead me to differentiate Conservatism from Republicanism and tend to agree with you a little more. Though, radical liberalism has its own neuroses as well.</p>
<p>I think that is what scares me about Palin. Just by assessing her spiritual background, it is clear she has simply followed the path laid out for her (and changed churches when her political career took off) rather than probe the core questions of reality. I do not trust people who are not introspective. I did not trust Bush for that very reason and I was proven right on that one. </p>
<p>I am reminded of a poignant quote from Star Wars - "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". </p>
<p>God help us all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Listen up sunshine. Do you honestly think my boycotting of these corporations are going to dwindle anything? Nope.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying that you can affect those big corporations. I'm saying that if you don't buy their products, they can't affect you much (unless you're a competing business, but if they offer a superior product at a lower price, you can't blame them.) Maybe you'll have to watch more McDonalds commercials, or maybe there's more traffic on the corner where they opened a Starbucks, big deal.</p>
<p>What we now call economic conservativism was originally an aspect of liberalism. Along with freedom of speech and freedom of religion was the freedom to run your business any way you want. But as big business got bigger and developed closer ties to the government, it was regarded as part of "the establishment" and an enemy of the individual.</p>
<p>It's not the products that affect me, its their profits that go to sway the minds of congressmen and other elites.</p>
<p>Radicalism has been seen throughout American history from the very beginning. It's just been subdued by economic interest, the issue of slavery/civil rights, and so forth. Do you honestly believe that we could have gotten to this point without liberal radicalism?</p>
<p>True conservatism is complete bullcrap. As I've stated before either in this thread or others, its a small amount of people running the show. Similar to a monarchy as the families continue to dominate. Employers only care about themselves and profit. We actually had to have acts created in accordance so we wouldn't get screwed over so hard.</p>
<p>The conservatism of yestyear is what conservatives truly want. They only accept todays equal opportunity acts as "can't do nuffin about it", but you and I both know they go over seas and exploit the crap out of them.</p>
<p>Conservatism doesn't work because it only attends to the minority of those who run the businesses. The masses are there providing their skills for wage. Our workforce today is a result of highly mandated government regulation, and our economy is the world's strongest. The last 8 years have resulted in what happened today and what will happen over the course of the next couple of weeks.</p>
<p>IT DOES NOT WORK. You need a balance between Marxism and Capitalism. Not a big government or a small government, but an efficient government. I've repeated that before. Our country got a lot better once we looked at the national government for help. Prior to that, we tried to bargain with corporations, who didn't bargain back.</p>
<p>It doesn't work. Those who think it does have never been on the other side of the table trying to provide.</p>
<p>Freedom of speech and freedom of religion don't result in oppression of people and stalling their daily lives because you're a conservative, greedy pig.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our workforce today is a result of highly mandated government regulation, and our economy is the world's strongest.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, you are talking about the US, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I've stated before either in this thread or others, its a small amount of people running the show. Similar to a monarchy as the families continue to dominate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, what you're talking about is more like an oligarchy, similar to what existed in Florence during the Renaissance. The Medicis, a family of skilled and ruthless bankers, used their economic power to control the government. But they also commissioned Michelangelo, da Vinci, Raphael, and Galileo. "Greedy conservatives" like them made the Renaissance possible. Should their reign have been cut short?</p>
<p>Let's examine a basic liberal principle: minimum wage. We have a problem with illegal immigrants working for far below minimum wage. The illegals could pretend to be citizens protected by the minimum wage law, but instead they choose to work for a lower wage - a low-paying job is better than no job. Would Americans do the same if they could get around the minimum wage law? Who is this law really hurting?</p>
<p>Stella,</p>
<p>Yes I am talking about the United States of America. If you don't believe so, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. While I'm learning this in class, past experience has taught me the same. Issues such as Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity, and Affirmative Action fall into this category. Other issues concerning health issues and what not are part of the deal as well. The fact you've assimilated to them as a norm shouldn't overlook the fact they weren't there at one point. I am also convinced during the 1800s you wouldn't give a crap for anyone of this unless you were a worker. Damn conservatives.</p>
<p>No. I am also completely convinced there are families that run the show.</p>
<p>Minimum wage is great. It makes businesses poorer, but able to post profit, and gives more to those who need. And if you can't afford to pay the minimum wage, entrepreneurship isn't your thing. </p>
<p>Immigration problem would be solved by the North American Union. Of course, you don't want them Mexicants coming here and taking your highly skilled jobs and replacing your kids at the ivies, now would you? </p>
<p>I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT!</p>
<p>Did you even read my post?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. I am also completely convinced there are families that run the show.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said they didn't. In fact, I compared your description of the US to Renaissance Florence, where the Medici family definitely "ran the show".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Minimum wage is great. It makes businesses poorer, but able to post profit, and gives more to those who need. And if you can't afford to pay the minimum wage, entrepreneurship isn't your thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said businesses shouldn't have to pay their employees minimum wage. I said that the minimum wage laws restrict the workers' freedom. If they choose to work for a lower wage, shouldn't they have that right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Immigration problem would be solved by the North American Union. Of course, you don't want them Mexicants coming here and taking your highly skilled jobs and replacing your kids at the ivies, now would you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no complaints against illegal immigrants. My point was that there exists a group of workers who choose to ignore the minimum wage law. (I used illegal immigrants as an example because, to the best of my knowledge, they are the only group that can get away with it.) If the law was in their best interests, why would they do that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
our economy is the world's strongest.
[/quote]
[quote]
Yes I am talking about the United States of America
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you're not John McCain, you'll know that the US economy isn't doing too well right now.</p>
<p>You compared my original post to oligarchies, in which I said no, all of these families function in relatively 5 money making domains: drugs, guns, sex, gambling, and oil. By definition, sure. But oligarchies can be broken, families cannot.</p>
<p>I never said that you said businesses shouldn't have to pay their employees minimum wage. I was just adding fluff as you did your "liberal principle." lawl.</p>
<p>They sort of have to ignore the minimum wage law. Just starting to think about how easy it is to do a background check with a fake social security number is just funny. In the past, I've tried my best to look up how to make yourself legal without doing it legally, but not too much information comes up. Most, if not all, is just paper. When the employer finds out, he'll just blackmail them.</p>
<p>Our country still, sadly, has the worlds strongest economy regardless of the crisis that is going on. It's in a horrible, horrible, horrible (I'm so delighted) position, but you still can't expel the fact its still up there in numbers. </p>
<p>We shall only change when we get a stake driven through our hearts.</p>
<p>"Smug", "conservatism" has elected many Republicans to be commander in chief.
United</a> States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More often than not, conservatism wipes the floor with liberalism.</p>
<p>So, I congratulate you, that you are in the minority, while the rest of us are suffering from this terrible disease.</p>
<p>Yes. I was the minority back in 1984, even when I wasn't a sparkle in my parents eyes. Excellent. FABULOUS.</p>
<p>I'm sure the 2000 popular vote can credit that as well. Along with the 2006 congressional elections and most likely this election. </p>
<p>Jeeze, you're dead on.</p>
<p>And not only does conservatism wipe the floor with liberalism, but with any amount of freedom we truly have, any hopes of many economical and social gains, not just for ourselves, but for every other developing country in the world.</p>
<p>My goodness.</p>
<p>"IT DOES NOT WORK. You need a balance between Marxism and Capitalism."</p>
<p>-Smug, How are you supposed to have a balance between the two? I'm actually really interested in what you have to say about this since Capitalism and Marxism are pretty much polar opposites. In fact Marxism and Capitalism is pretty much an oxymoron. </p>
<p>"True conservatism is complete bullcrap. As I've stated before either in this thread or others, its a small amount of people running the show. Similar to a monarchy as the families continue to dominate."</p>
<p>-Smug the problems you list here can easily happen in a more "liberal" system also. Making governments larger isn't just going to solve this problem. In fact you might be making it worst by giving more power to the government since these people "running the show" usually make deals with these government officials anyways. Issues like corruption and unfair distribution of power will always be a problem in some way no matter what school of thought you're using.</p>
<p>-In the end, both liberalism and conservatism has its pluses and minuses. We need to stop doing the all or nothing approach and start using both schools of thought to help better our needs. There are way too many problems in this world for one school of thought to deal with effectively.</p>