<p>being smug is a mental illness. 'nuff said.</p>
<p>yup yup :)</p>
<p>Somebody needs a lesson on what conservatism is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've never thought about this angle on it before, but that's a really good point. Why not give workers the option to decline minimum wage? Obviously, one can't give business owners that option or they'd always take it. I'm torn on this because, as a business owner, I know first hand what jacking up minimum wage to over $9 an hour can do. Local restaurants just jacked up their prices with the last hike. That said, I also see the checks I cut to these people (who are currently making more than minimum wage) and I can't imagine how they get by. It's a tough issue.</p>
<p>And, as someone who tends to vote liberal, there's no reason the family rule would disappear with a socialist system. The power would just transfer from business owners to political leaders and we'd get one or two families trading off control of power. Oh, wait....</p>
<p>Contemporary American conservatism has nothing to do with ideals. It's an ever-shifting "philosophy" that takes its cues from over-idealization of the stereotypical vision of the 1950s. Doing anti-conservative things like running up government spending or smearing war veterans to promote draft dodgers is perfectly okay, as long as you make your constituents feel like you're inching them closer to Pleasantville.</p>
<p>Minimum wage has simply driven up the standard of living in America, created a huge gap between the rich and poor and created a population of people who think they are to good for a job. Give me a break. You are worth what the market will pay. Its that simple, regulation on wages is again another way the government screws up the economy they think they can run so well. If there was no minimum wage, prices would be much lower. The standard of living would be better distributed and a true perception of what it supposed to be. Theirs a reason Americans are broke. Even the poor live rich, its insane.</p>
<p>nbachris2788, I think you mean 1960's when Goldwater came around, which we today would call real,traditional or fiscal conservatism. We can also have neoconservatism, which the media and most people wrongly state as conservatism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But oligarchies can be broken, families cannot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that you can’t get ahead if you’re not part of these families. Look at Oprah Winfrey or Bill Gates – they came from nowhere, but now they’re two of the richest people in the world. The “ruling” families aren’t the only ones with opportunity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>[citation needed]</p>
<p>Okay, I’ll admit that I don’t have much personal experience with the minimum wage law, so I’ll use another example. In my state, it’s illegal for a high school student to hold a job that requires more than 20 hours per week. Say, hypothetically, that I have a light course load and plenty of free time, and I’d like to make some money. Say the library has a 25hr/week job opening, and I’m pretty sure I can handle those hours. But I can’t take the job, because some lawmakers assumed they could judge my situation better than I can.</p>
<p>What don't you guys understand about not having a large or small but an efficient government? This is the balancing point between capitalism and marxism.</p>
<p>When the government interferes too much, we want a pure capitalistic approach and when it doesn't interfere enough, we want to go the other way. It's about finding the middle ground that will make things work nice. Seen from the 1940s and on till the late 70s. Deedeedee.</p>
<p>Deedeedee indeed.</p>
<p>What you don't understand is that McCain realizes that our money supply is not unlimited. He and Palin have fought for efficiency, Obama has sought funds for his wife's hospital, where her salary soon skyrocketed. Mmkay?
GovTrack:</a> Senate Record: FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM... (109-s20060525-16)
OpenSecrets</a> | Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers - Capital Eye
It never made it out of committee. Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis. </p>
<p>Remarkably, after only serving less than four of those 20 years, Barack Obama has vaulted to the #2 position on Capitol Hill. Only Dodd outstripped him. He took more than six times the amount that McCain received in a 20-year period.</p>
<p>The record shows that McCain saw the problem coming and tried to get Congress to act. In 2005, both McCain and Obama served together in the Senate. Did Obama attempt to pass this reform, sign on as a co-sponsor, or even speak out in its favor? The record is tellingly blank.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What don't you guys understand about not having a large or small but an efficient government? This is the balancing point between capitalism and marxism.</p>
<p>When the government interferes too much, we want a pure capitalistic approach and when it doesn't interfere enough, we want to go the other way. It's about finding the middle ground that will make things work nice. Seen from the 1940s and on till the late 70s. Deedeedee.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Especially in the Libertarian mindset like I have, any government over the absolute minimum is to much and there are leveling degrees,.</p>
<p>I meant to say their aren't leveling degrees.</p>
<p>Obama last year at Planned Parenthood: The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people . Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they’re, they’re basically decent, they’re basically sound.</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Obama seems to agree with smug, there is something wrong with these Americans, listening to the "wrong" radio shows, the "wrong" TV networks... but no matter how "wrong" they are, they're "basically decent".</p>
<p>:D :D :D</p>
<p>I believe by "wrong" he meant the conservative talk show hosts and news networks that distort reality and facts beyond any semblance of truth. Just watch Fox and Friends in the morning for an example of this mindset feeding off itself with those three. </p>
<p>When one immerses him or herself in one worldview. one loses all balance and ability to discern. One starts to actually think those talk show hosts convey the entire truth and trusts them to do so, and they most certainly are not conveying the whole truth. It takes an active and discerning mind to weed through the propaganda on both sides. Many simply do not do that and only seek what reinforces their preconceived notions (this is far more common for conservatives to do than liberals, which is why conservative media always has much higher ratings. Liberals do not seek to have their ideas reinforced nearly as often). Yet, they are still "basically decent" people - loving, caring, wanting the best.</p>
<p>...and I'm pretty sure Barack was making that statement with tongue in cheek and a smile on his face... a joke. humor.</p>
<p>Speaking of mental illness, McCain's latest gaffe about Spain is not a ringing endorsement of his cranial faculties. He's was either ignorant of who the Spanish leader was, or actually considered Spain as part of being in the same diplomatic status as Cuba and Venezuela. Either way, he was being stupid. But hey, being stupid might make him more appealing to his core demographic.</p>
<p>Obama</a> Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem - washingtonpost.com
AFP:</a> McCain jabs Obama as 'naive' on Pakistan, national security
Biden</a> also calls Obama 'Naive' - First Read - msnbc.com</p>
<p>SEN</a>. BARACK OBAMA WANTS TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ, BUT WANTS A DELAY IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR REMOVAL - New York Post
Iraqi</a> Leaders Opposed Biden's Partition Plan - WSJ.com</p>
<p>I don't know much about Spain either nor do I care. This is why liberals lose. Focusing on fringe issues. I really don't care if McCain doesn't know anything about !!! Spain of all places.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't agree that conservatism is a mental illness.</p>
<p>But conservatism is a philosophy doomed to fail because it's about holding back inevitable change for as long as possible. Conservatism has never succeeded in the history of mankind because nothing's exactly the way it was even 10 years ago, much less 100 or even 1000 years ago. Conservatism today would be dismissed as insane liberalism if you go just even a little back in time. </p>
<p>Liberalism is the aggressor, with a clear set of goals in mind. Conservatism is the reactionary, constantly on the defense, and inevitably, it will fail.
[/quote]
What exactly is the "goal" of conservatism?</p>
<p>One of my political goals is for increased quality of life through freer markets. Historically speaking, this is a huge winner. Is it a conservative or liberal position?</p>
<p>It should be clear to not be too liberal. After all, doing so only brought the Soviet Union to ruins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It should be clear to not be too liberal. After all, doing so only brought the Soviet Union to ruins.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're getting liberalism mixed up with leftism. Soviet-level government intrusion is what many American conservatives seem to secretly crave.</p>
<p>nbachris,</p>
<p>Secretly crave?</p>
<p>I don't think so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What exactly is the "goal" of conservatism?</p>
<p>One of my political goals is for increased quality of life through freer markets. Historically speaking, this is a huge winner. Is it a conservative or liberal position?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a liberal position. Liberalism, in its truest sense, is freedom - freedom of choice, freedom of lifestyle, freedom of market. It wasn't until corporate greed and abuse of power started overtly oppressing the freedoms of individuals that liberalism began to focus more on ensuring the freedoms of powerless individuals rather than big business (unions, environmental protections, the New Deal when markets failed due to greed). Think of it as a parent having to watch over an unruly child.</p>
<p>If people grow up and start running a free market from a foundation that "all is one" rather than "all for me", you'll see liberalism move beyond its focus on government regulation because people will regulate themselves, which is the heart of conservatives' mantra of "self responsibility". </p>
<p>But, one look at the collapsing financial markets makes it clear the very people who cry for free markets the most still need mommy to hold their hands. Greed needs to be regulated.</p>