lol, I think the republicans are becoming worse than the D-craps. At least the democrats don't hide what they are doing under the guide of "Safety for all"
^ The left one is so fucking true! My GF's grandparents came to visit her sister yesterday. Let me just mention some of the things they said: "Educational toys are stupid." "Obama's gonna choose your doctor!" (Interesting. My insurance company already does that.) And in other occasions they've complained about how legalizing same-sex marriages would destroy the sanctity of marriage, even though they each have been divorced about 3-4 times, and how "the gays" are not fit to be parents. Right. This coming from a man whose own son hasn't talked to him in years and a woman whose daughter (my GF's mom) is a gold digger (by my GF's own admission). I'm so glad they're old! That means I won't have to put up with their crap much longer. </rant>
Thankfully for a lot of you I don't judge all liberals based on the ignorant ones that I've come across. This sort of shit happens with equal frequency on both sides of the aisle.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting a reasonable Conservative or a non-******ish black person first hand. I know they must be out there somewhere.... As for it happening on both sides of the aisle, well, one girl I used to work with was a hardcore "truther", yet she didn't know who Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice are. So, yeah.
Well, not sure what to tell you. Either your idea of "reasonable" is completely off kilter or you travel in very narrow circles.
I love the rant - because the government can provide something doesn't mean it's provided well. Fuck there are two or three gigantic potholes on my street alone. Last winter I was told that our township didn't have enough salt for an average winter. Our county wants to build street cars for a "city" that is about 1 sq mile. No f'n shit. I have friends of all races and political views.
I consider myself a misanthrope, so you're definitely right about me having a small circle of close friends. Nothing wrong with that. I wish both of us could have a lengthy conversation to clear up some misunderstandings that we seem to have about each other, but I'm too lazy. PM me if you're interested.
There is no question that the idea of government itself is able to succeed. It does all over the world in many many different aspects of life. This little paragraph is of course a little over the top, but in it are many examples of how government has made our lives better. Is it perfect? Hell no, nor will it ever be, but in probably every example, some form of government is better than lack of it. I mean, just look at a place like Somalia... And at the end of the day, nothing will succeed if people believe it can't, or won't let it succeed.
What a sad and ignorant statement. Going back to MSP's original post, sure there are sensible conservatives but the extremists seem to be far louder and far more prominent.
WOW! First MSP, now you. What's up with the hate? I'm sure there are some kinds of people (me myself, for instance) who you'd prefer not to associate with. What's wrong with that?
These are the things that have regulation. Why is there not regulation on what affects us the most right up front......finances? Just asking. Governmwent in and of itself, has a place and responsibilities. When it gets too wound up in greasy pockets, well, here we are: regulated everything except the pocket greasers.
Would it make you feel better if I also included wiggers and white trash (AKA, most of my GF's family)? It's not based on race; it's based on attitude. I actually forgot to mention my economics teacher, Mr. Achesah, who comes from Kenya. I have no problem with him. :-D
smaller government, the states are intact to govern themselves... but national laws out weigh state laws... why should we even have state laws then??? the bureaucracy of it all seems just a waste of time, i think states need more power to govern themselves
QFT How about starting with the 10th amendment, reducing government waste, getting rid of Keynesian economics (The Fallacy of Keynesian Economics Veritas Vos Liberabit), getting rid of the federal reserve, let the free market dictate economic growth and efficiency, et al Can anyone name a social program right now that is not in bankruptcy? Government never has and never will have the ability to create jobs.
Sure, the federal government does some things right but for what it spends it should be doing a lot more. 2nd for the states rights comments above. We were founded as a weak republic for many, many reasons. And if we hadn't we would have flung apart a long time ago.
Only against corruption. On EDIT: I am not trying to reignite the health care debate, but this is a pretty good read: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26229
Thanks for the articles, j0k3r. I'm still reading the first one. It'll be a while before I digest all of that information.
This is ridiculous. You need to stop watching Glenn Beck and start looking at the world and its history. No where in history has a society based in entirety on free market principles ever been achieved, let alone thrived. If you hold to this ideal then you are a religious fundamentalist of the highest order who is bound by faith, not by reason, when interpreting the world. All the empirical evidence in the world is beneath you, you just refuse to look at it in your hysterical defense of some randian utopia than never existed. The bottom line is that the reason why graphics like the above are compelling to so many people is that they annihilate the flimsy mythology of the entirely independent American individual. The graphic violently drags people back to the cold real world and the realization that we are deeply embedded in a highly interdependent society that we do not wish leave, and that we actively benefit from. While people decry the existence and function of government, the perils of actually having roads and clean water to drink, they would cry like spoiled children when deprived of such privileges. Yet so many cling to this dogmatic belief that government cannot do anything right, especially in the field of employment. I find this claim especially curious, as so many members of this board are actively or previously employed by the military. Even if you start at the point of military as a necessary employer, any reasonable person could the argument of a similar necessity to things such police, fire departments, and ambulances. Perhaps some sort of justice system to codify the operations of these institutions. From here we come to the conclusion that the government MUST be an employer as these institutions are ones we MUST have. Therefore the government is a necessary part of the economy, by virtue of need to employ and regulate these institutions. The fact that the government is and should be involved in the economy is inescapable, except for in very poorly written works of fiction. Once you shed your dogmatic fundamentalism, you can accept this fact of reality. Then we move to the much more adult debate about the degree of involvement. This incredible poverty of thought in the randian is especially present in the consideration of social programs. Sure a great variety of American social programs are at this point insolvent. However, there is no definitive evidence that this has anything to do with idea of social assistance in itself. If the randians were to look beyond their own borders you would see a variety of countries with substantial social programs that were entirely solvent. Take the example of OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Program) where I live, the universal health program of the province that I live in. Have cost increased? Substantially. Yet this is the result of the aging baby boom and more costly medical technology than anything else. The biggest tax payers, baby boomers, recognize this and realize that unless they want shit for health care in their final years, they better be willing to pay for it. Unlike our peculiar American cousins, we realize that social programs cost money and nothing comes for free. So many Americans want both the glory of tax cuts and support of social programs. You can't have both, nothing is free. In conclusion, the free market fundamentalist presents us with two deeply troubling forms of naivety about the world. The first is the belief that government interference in the economy is categorically bad. The second is that the goods and services we depend on from the government should not cost you. What your left with is an infantile view of the world that wants to live in the society it so keenly enjoys without paying the costs of keeping it going. If you keep in mind the maxim that the United States is country of the people, run by the people, for the people, what I've said should leave you with one conclusion. You need to grow the fuck up.
