Post by: Manedwolf on November 21, 2007, 11:03:13 AM
He wrote back when someone asked why he was reading a CONSERVATIVE paper instead of the Boston Globe, with this:
Quote
I am not a Mass. invader. I have lived in the state my entire life, and my family has lived there for generations. Don't categorize anyone who doesn't share your narrow viewpoint as an outsider. I believe in decentralization of power, local control, and free choice, but within the context of accountability, equity, and protection of the public good. It is incredibly foolish to think that the liberals are still advocating big, centralized government and that conservatives are for keeping the government out of people's business as if it were still the 1950s. Liberals are for expanded accountability and greater spending with more, but decentralized social progams and free choice in areas that do not endanger others (public smoking, guns, etc), whereas conservatives are for social restrictions (civil liberties, marriage, family planning) and expanded military spending. Both parties spend heavily and control aspects of individual life and "freedoms", but there is a clear difference between what is being controlled, by whom, and for what purpose. It's time to turn the page in this country, and the modern liberals are the ones who can accomplish it best.
I don't even know what to say. That's just...How can you argue with someone who believes that level of Newspeak doubletalk?
Liberals offer free choice in areas that don't endanger others, like guns and smoking in public do? HUH?
Post by: wooderson on November 21, 2007, 11:35:32 AM
"Both parties spend heavily and control aspects of individual life and "freedoms", but there is a clear difference between what is being controlled, by whom, and for what purpose."
This is true. His characterization of 'liberal aims' is colored by his ideological stance, as would be your own - and everyone else's (of those with a 'dog in this fight' - libertarians and leftists standing outside the liberal/conservative spectrum may have more standing to render these assessments). But the underlying argument is surprisingly honest.
These questions of value really throw you for a loop, don't they?
And in terms of the title - you can't "talk to liberals" because they don't agree with you? Is that it?
Post by: Thor on November 21, 2007, 11:53:10 AM
Post by: wooderson on November 21, 2007, 11:56:44 AM
Post by: Archie on November 22, 2007, 09:53:24 PM
William F. Buckley wrote a book titled, "Up From Liberalism".
Ann Coulter is more concise, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans".
(Of course the liberal guiding lights are Michael Moore, Al Franken and that comedian who didn't get to run after all.)
Whereas not all Democrats are Moonbat Liberals (tree hugging, cradle-to-grave big-government-is-the-answer-to-all-problems), and not all Republicans are Goldwater Conservatives (strict Constitutionalist) the two parties do at least symbolize the two views of government. Republicans see government generally as a treacherous servant while Democrats see government (when they control it) as benevolent all-father.
President Bush is not the conservative I wish he was. He's still been a much better man - leader, decision maker and administrator - for the nation than either former Vice President Gore or Senator Kerry. I'm working to see a more conservative - Constitutionalist - element in the White House and Congress.
The main problem right now is the prediction attributed to Alexander Tytler, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
Whether Alexander Tytler said that or not, that's sure what's happening today. That's the popular principle of the Democrat Party, 'What's in it for me?'
Post by: Iain on November 23, 2007, 02:22:37 AM
Winston Churchill said, "A young man who is not a liberal, has no heart ... but an old man who is not a conservative, has no mind!"
No, he didn't, and if he had it would have capital letters as he made the switch from the Liberal party to the Conservative party. These two parties would not easily fit into the definitions of the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' that you use.
Post by: Antibubba on November 23, 2007, 07:08:07 AM
Quote
To quote Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and maybe a few others, "Liberalism is a mental disorder"
And Ann is someone who would know a great deal about mental disorders.
Post by: El Tejon on November 23, 2007, 11:19:39 AM
Post by: gunsmith on November 23, 2007, 12:21:12 PM
I like guns.
However, I hate second hand smoke and perfume/cologne.
The problem is liberals really think mike moore is presenting the truth in bowling for columbine.
they can not admit to themselves that they are far away from pro choice, politically a liberals idea of choice is a starbucks soy latte or a starbucks frappachino.
If you choose beef stew you are trying to destroy the planet.
they do not understand that guns are not a public danger because they have to much invested in their outlook to change. It really does appear to be some kind of mental disorder.
For instance, with all the real oppression women and gays get from talibanistic islamofascism
one would think the majority of gays and women would be cheering their destruction
yet N.O.W and ACT UP have so much invested in evil bad republicans
they can't see that we are fighting for their survival.
The Lacy Peterson case a few years ago, planned parenthood (I believe, or some big pro baby killing org) came out against a double murder charge for her husband after he killed her in her 9th month
because it could lend creedence to pro lifers.
One of the things that swung me to the conservative side when I was a total NYC liberal
was a case that few remember in the early 80's.
Reagan intervened after a baby with down syndrome was allowed to starve to death in a hospital.
The parents had decided they didn't want it and got a post natal abortion
the doctors,nurses and parents just left the baby alone till it died of starvation and loneliness
...no one in NYC could see my pov that even though the baby was going to die that it should be held,comforted and fed, because they were so married to their "right to choose"
Sometimes I really feel like the savage in brave new world
And this liberal fixation with molding children into their brave new world
I remember being six and I really didn't have any need to be force fed gender identification
why all this focus on molding the sexuality of little kids?
I can see teaching teens the basics of reproduction but why force little kids
to confront ideas beyond their scope?
Everyday it seems like we hear of some 7 year old (boy) getting a severe punishment for drawing a stick figure with a gun, I guess he would get a star if he said it was a penis
you can talk to liberals, if you remember to take your blood pressure medication
Post by: Nitrogen on November 24, 2007, 09:58:39 PM
To quote Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and maybe a few others, "Liberalism is a mental disorder"
Disagreeing with someone is fine. Saying that people that disagree with you have something wrong with them mentally is disingenuous. We all have our countries best interests at heartl it's just that some of us are wrong about it.
Post by: gunsmith on November 25, 2007, 01:44:02 AM
Quote
Saying that people that disagree with you have something wrong with them mentally is disingenuous.
crazy people always say that.
Post by: geronimotwo on November 25, 2007, 02:26:25 AM
Quote
Saying that people that disagree with you have something wrong with them mentally is genius.
here, i changed it to be more in line with the average 2nd grader mentallity.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 25, 2007, 06:11:16 AM
We all have our countries best interests at heartl it's just that some of us are wrong about it.
No, we don't all have the country's best interest at heart. Wife-beaters say they love their wives. And they think they really do.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 25, 2007, 06:55:49 AM
Quote
Everyday it seems like we hear of some 7 year old (boy) getting a severe punishment for drawing a stick figure with a gun, I guess he would get a star if he said it was a penis rolleyes
No, those are bad too, now.
As mentioned in another thread, they had to caution about the early Sesame Street, because Gordon, a kindhearted-seeming MAN, apparently kindly took a lost girl home to meet his wife and give her milk and cookies.
These days, a MAN cannot do such things, or even talk to a lost child, lest it be possible (likely) sexual abuse.
If you possess one of the aforementioned anatomical features, you are automatically under suspicion of being a horrible rapist or child abuser.
Kind of ironically predictable. Just like guns, to the ultra-leftist sorts, if you have one in your pants, it means you must have intent to do evil things with it.
Post by: Nitrogen on November 25, 2007, 11:16:39 AM
We all have our countries best interests at heartl it's just that some of us are wrong about it.
No, we don't all have the country's best interest at heart. Wife-beaters say they love their wives. And they think they really do.
Are you seriously comparing people you disagree with to wife beaters?
I could just as easily compare people that hate all liberals to racists, in the same way.
It's just as invalid of a comparison.
George Bush, and his cohorts honestly think by taking away our God-given rights, they are making our country safer. They are WRONG. Just like many liberals think that taking away guns makes everyone safer. They honestly believe that, and they are demonstratively wrong.
Talking to people you disagree with is never a bad thing. They might learn something from you.
(You might learn something from them, too.)
Our founding fathers managed to work out comprimise amongst some pretty stiff disagreement on how this country should look. We're a better country for it. Like many here point out, we should follow their examples.
Post by: wooderson on November 25, 2007, 01:05:24 PM
Quote
Kind of ironically predictable. Just like guns, to the ultra-leftist sorts, if you have one in your pants, it means you must have intent to do evil things with it.
Oh, gosh "ultra-leftists!"
Traditionally, "ultra-leftists" have been ambivalent toward or supportive of guns. Remember those evil Black Panthers and how they dared arm themselves (or do we just bring up the "gun control is racist in origin" stuff when it suits our purposes)? The history of the American left is littered with activists, organizers and common folk who armed themselves in self-defense. If you were going to organize in the mines of West Virginia, you certainly wanted something under your pillow at night.
Gun control is currently the domain of (some) liberals and centrists, and a few conservatives - people for whom the state (as it exists) can act as a solution. Believing in the goodness of the constituted state is not exactly a common ideological line among the 'left,' much less the 'ultra-left.'
Your use of political terminology is amusingly incorrect so often, I hate to correct you.
Post by: Tallpine on November 25, 2007, 02:27:33 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on November 25, 2007, 06:24:34 PM
You can't really talk to "conservatives" either
And it's a shame.
Conservatives are right on quite a few issues. (Gun rights, illiegal immigration, most national defense issues to start with.)
Post by: Manedwolf on November 25, 2007, 06:27:56 PM
You can't really talk to "conservatives" either
Traditional conservatives will listen to an argument for change, and then decide whether that change is a good thing, or whether the status quo is better, with a bias towards maintaining the stability of the status quo if it's not broken.
Hence, "conservative".
Liberals are the ones trying to turn every social institution of the country's very fabric on its head, consequences be damned. Thankfully, they also don't see the coming backlash.
Post by: Paddy on November 25, 2007, 06:32:23 PM
Quote
Thankfully, they also don't see the coming backlash.
The backlash is coming against conservatives. It's already started in Australia, and will continue until 'conservatism' is small enough to take what's left of it into the bathroom and drown it in the toilet bowl.
Post by: Nitrogen on November 25, 2007, 06:38:22 PM
Quote
Thankfully, they also don't see the coming backlash.
The backlash is coming against conservatives. It's already started in Australian, and will continue until 'conservatism' is small enough to take what's left of it into the bathroom and drown it in the toilet bowl.
That's what happens when conservatives take things too far. It always happens.
The backlash will continue against conservatives until liberals then take things too far, and the process starts all over again.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 25, 2007, 06:46:54 PM
Quote
Thankfully, they also don't see the coming backlash.
The backlash is coming against conservatives. It's already started in Australia, and will continue until 'conservatism' is small enough to take what's left of it into the bathroom and drown it in the toilet bowl.
Australia? Where the population is now disarmed? Yes, it's definitely being taken over by leftists.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 25, 2007, 07:08:42 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 25, 2007, 09:16:08 PM
There is a big difference between true conservatives and the neo-cons. But don't tell the neo-cons that or they will brand you a terrorist and remove your right to speak out against them.
you mean like they've silenced you?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 26, 2007, 01:53:18 AM
We all have our countries best interests at heartl it's just that some of us are wrong about it.
No, we don't all have the country's best interest at heart. Wife-beaters say they love their wives. And they think they really do.
Are you seriously comparing people you disagree with to wife beaters?
Yes. Are you seriously trying to make me feel bad about it?
Post by: Tallpine on November 26, 2007, 06:50:05 AM
Quote
Traditional conservatives will listen to an argument for change, and then decide whether that change is a good thing, or whether the status quo is better, with a bias towards maintaining the stability of the status quo if it's not broken.
Traditional conservatives will listen to an argument for change, and then call you a druggie, insane, coward, America-hater, Ron Paul Toadie, etc ...
The only difference that I see between liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans is that they each have a slightly different agenda of the things they want to control in your life.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 26, 2007, 07:02:27 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on November 26, 2007, 07:40:18 AM
We all have our countries best interests at heartl it's just that some of us are wrong about it.
No, we don't all have the country's best interest at heart. Wife-beaters say they love their wives. And they think they really do.
I actually don't know how to respond to that. All I'll say is that I don't equate most people I disagree with wife-beaters.
I'm just hoping it's a sloppy conparison, and you don't mean that people that you disagree with should be arrested, and lose their 2nd amendment rights, etc.
Strangely enough, many liberals feel the same way about wingnuts. Not many liberals have any reason to hang out with wingnuts to actually get to know them, and actually understand what makes 'em tick.
Actually getting to meet people you disagree with makes one feel a bit less nastily toward them.
Post by: Len Budney on November 26, 2007, 08:02:47 AM
The only difference that I see between liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans is that they each have a slightly different agenda of the things they want to control in your life.
Quoted for truth. "Welfare" is the liberals' pet cause, while "law and order" or else "national security" is the conservatives'. If you refuse to be enslaved for either purpose, you're a whacko--and a druggie, terrorist-supporting whacko at that.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 08:05:14 AM
In fact, he truly disdained the religious activist fanatics ("And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.")
and ("Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.")
He had no problem with 'gays' in the military ( You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight. )
He viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, offlimits for government intervention. He supported an Arizona initiative legalizing medical marijuana.
And for those of you who think Kucinich seeing a UFO is funny, here's what Goldwater said on that subject ("Now, with the millions of planets that we know are up there, it's hard for me to believe that ours is the only goddam one that has things that can think walking around on it. So when people tell me they've seen UFOs, I don't say they haven't. In fifteen thousand hours of flying, I've never seen one, but I've talked to pilots who have. I talked to an airline crew that swore up and down that an object came alongside of them one night, and before they could do anything it vanished. We lost a military pilot who went up to intercept strange lights and never came back. His airplane disappeared, too. I won't argue for or against.")
A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have."
You chuckleheads who think the current crop of corporate stooges, from Reagan to Bush Jr. are 'conservatives', need to educate yourselves.
Post by: roo_ster on November 26, 2007, 09:48:00 AM
Might want you educate YOURSELF on AuH2O and decide which AuH2O you like best (Pre-'64, POTUS Candidate, Post-'64, Post-Senate). Or, you can do as you have done and pick & choose his positions over the years that coincide with your current positions.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 10:56:09 AM
Quote
Or, you can do as you have done and pick & choose his positions over the years that coincide with your current positions.
Since Goldwater's conservative credentials are unquestioned, my agreement with him makes me a conservative also.
Most self-described conservatives today mistakenly believe Reagan and Bush Jr follow in Goldwater's footsteps. Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, both Reagan and Bush Jr expanded the size and power of government to previously unprecedented levels. They both incurred unprecedented massive debt. Those are hardly conservative principles.
In Reagan's case, he transferred the tax burden from the very wealthy to the middle class. Hardly a populist position, despite the myth. During his administration, the income tax on America's most wealthy was cut in half, while the Social Security tax doubled on people earning $30,000 or less. The latter was the largest tax increase in history, and hit exclusively working people. Again, hardly a conservative principle.
But Reagan had a problem. His huge tax cuts for the wealthy didn't leave enough income to support his historical spending levels. There was, however, huge amounts of money in the Social Security fund. Here's where Greenspan bailed Reagan out. Just 'borrow' the money from the Boomer's social security fund, and because you're borrowing 'government money' to pay 'government expenses', you don't have to report it as part of the deficit. Nobody will know what you did until 2006, when the Boomers begin to retire.
So Reagan stole the Social Security surplus, as did Bush, and Clinton and Bush Jr after him. That's trillions of dollars that we Boomers have paid in that have been ripped off and squandered by your so-called 'conservatives'.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 26, 2007, 12:19:20 PM
We all have our countries best interests at heartl it's just that some of us are wrong about it.
No, we don't all have the country's best interest at heart. Wife-beaters say they love their wives. And they think they really do.
I actually don't know how to respond to that. All I'll say is that I don't equate most people I disagree with wife-beaters. I'm just hoping it's a sloppy conparison, and you don't mean that people that you disagree with should be arrested, and lose their 2nd amendment rights, etc.
It is not at all a sloppy comparison. Rather, you are interpreting my comment in a very sloppy fashion. I didn't say that every liberal is like a wife-beater and should be arrested, and so on. In fact, I never specified which group did not have "the country's best interest at heart." You could apply the comparison to conservatives or any other group, if you like. I merely gave an example of another, completely unrelated group that professed love, while hurting the object thereof. This is merely to demonstrate that, even if we think we love something, we might not.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 26, 2007, 12:20:33 PM
Quote
Or, you can do as you have done and pick & choose his positions over the years that coincide with your current positions.
Since Goldwater's conservative credentials are unquestioned, my agreement with him makes me a conservative also.
Except that you don't agree with Goldwater.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 26, 2007, 04:19:21 PM
Quote
Thankfully, they also don't see the coming backlash.
The backlash is coming against conservatives. It's already started in Australia, and will continue until 'conservatism' is small enough to take what's left of it into the bathroom and drown it in the toilet bowl.
What about the recent victories of Koehler and Merkel in Germany?
Even here in American the Left can't gain any traction. The only election the Democrats have won recently was won by moving to the right. Leftists like Pelosi and Reed are in the tanks. Recent polling shows that any Republican nominee for President would beat Hillary, the inevitable Democrat nominee.
I find it hard to accept your notion that there is a coming backlash against conservatism, when notably leftists countries like France and Germany appear to be swinging to the right, and America seems to be consistent in choosing the more conservative candidates on the ballots.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 04:57:42 PM
Quote
And have you been following the recent strikes in Paris?
You mean working people rebelling against the corporatocracy Sarkozy threatens?
Quote
and America seems to be consistent in choosing the more conservative candidates on the ballots.
There haven't been any conservatives elected to public office in the last 30 years, HTG. Reagan was a fraud, as is Bush Jr.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 26, 2007, 05:54:45 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on November 26, 2007, 06:01:08 PM
Quote
I believe in decentralization of power, local control, and free choice, but within the context of accountability, equity, and protection of the public good.
I picked this sentence out of that original quote on page 1. The first part of that sentence sounds really good and is very consistent with some left leaning people I have known. Ideally, they believe in some good stuff. The 2nd part of that sentence is also consistent with some liberals I have known in that they are willing to compromise a lot. They say they believe in the former, but they are willing to compromise endlessly because of the latter to the point that the former is forgotten or lost. People who consider themselves conservative fall in the same traps in a lot of cases though in different ways and for different reasons.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 26, 2007, 06:06:39 PM
If I remember right, Reagan was considered fairly liberal as a governor. As a President, it is some of his economic changes and his foreign policy that he is remembered most for among Republicans. But I am sure you knew that already.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 26, 2007, 06:36:27 PM
There haven't been any conservatives elected to public office in the last 30 years, HTG. Reagan was a fraud, as is Bush Jr.
Wow. You've researched the political philosophy and/or record of every one of the thousands of elected officials in the United States for the past three decades? Or did you refer to the whole Earth?
Either way, that is impressive.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 06:39:11 PM
Quote
I just thought he (Bush) was a closer fit to me than the other candidates.
So did I. Not only did I vote for him twice, I actively worked the get out the vote phones for him in 2000. Needless to say, I'm sorely disappointed. Not only disappointed, but betrayed. You see, I've voted Republican since 1968, beginning with Nixon. I (foolishly) bought into the conservative v. liberal, right v. left, republican v. democrat philosophy which continues to this day. I've finally seen the light and now understand all that is simply a ruse, a smokescreen, a red herring, pap for the masses.
The real story, the truth, is that this government, our government, since Reagan, has been actively shifting income from the (former) middle class to the already wealthiest.
IOW, there is and has been a huge income inequality in this country. The most direct way to illustrate that fact is by way of results.
The most telling statistic of what it all means comes from the U.S. Department of Commerce. It states that wages and salaries as of April 2006 constituted only 45.3% of GDP, a decline from 50.0% in 2001 and 53.6% in 1970. Furthermore, as the U.S. government itself estimates, each percentage point now equals about $132 billion !
In other words, the roughly 8.3% drop (53.6-45.3) in labors share by 2005 represents an annual shift in relative income today of about $1.09 trillion. Thats $1.09 trillion that now occurs every year, and is rising.
That $1.09 trillion shift is equivalent to every one of 108 million non-supervisory workers in the U.S. today writing out a check each year, every year, for $12,100 and signing it over to the other 24 million upper-class householdsabout 40% of which would go to the wealthiest 1.4 million families.
And not yet included in the $1.09 trillion annual figure are additional income transfers from labor to corporations as a consequence of employers shifting a greater share of the costs of health care to their workers in recent years; the destruction and only partial payouts to workers from the discontinuing of tens of thousands of defined benefit pension plans since the 1980s; and the transfer of hundreds of billions more every year in workers payroll tax payments (i.e. deferred wages) from the Social Security Trust fund to the U.S. general budget since the 1980s.
'Conservatism' no longer exists. We have been screwed by every administration since Reagan. I can only strongly urge you to register, and vote, Independent.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 26, 2007, 06:40:39 PM
There haven't been any conservatives elected to public office in the last 30 years, HTG. Reagan was a fraud, as is Bush Jr.
Isn't Ron Paul supposed to be a "real" conservative...?
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 06:43:57 PM
There haven't been any conservatives elected to public office in the last 30 years, HTG. Reagan was a fraud, as is Bush Jr.
Isn't Ron Paul supposed to be a "real" conservative...?Don't look now, but there's nothing left to 'conserve'. It's been stolen and squandered by self appointed 'conservatives', from Reagan to Bush Jr.
IOW, HTG, you've been had. You just haven't figured it out yet.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 26, 2007, 06:51:54 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 26, 2007, 06:55:12 PM
There haven't been any conservatives elected to public office in the last 30 years, HTG. Reagan was a fraud, as is Bush Jr.
Isn't Ron Paul supposed to be a "real" conservative...?Don't look now, but there's nothing left to 'conserve'. It's been stolen and squandered by self appointed 'conservatives', from Reagan to Bush Jr.
IOW, HTG, you've been had. You just haven't figured it out yet.
You're the one who seems surprised by the fact that the rich are getting richer, a fact which would be self-evident to any true "conservative". Money begets money, as it should. Wealth is created by investment, and it's the wealthy who are in the best position to invest.
You also haven't seemed to figured out one of the fundamentals of conservatism, the fact wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth isn't a finite quantity, it is an ever-increasing quantity that is created, not just shifted from one place to another. Your misapprehension that the rich are getting richer by taking it from the middle class (and worse, that there's a deliberate government conspiracy making this happen) is evidence of your ignorance.
Your beliefs sound an awful lot like resentment born of not making as well as you wanted to. It's always easier to blame someone or something else, even crazy conspiracies, than to look at oneself as the root cause of one's life conditions.
Make no mistake, conservatism exists. You just don't know what it is.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 06:56:47 PM
Riley, have you published your results of studying three decades of candidates? And I'm still curious whether that's nation-wide or global.
Just keep drinking the Kool Aid and paying your taxes (especially your 7.65% social security). And don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 07:12:20 PM
Quote
You're the one who seems surprised by the fact that the rich are getting richer, a fact which would be self-evident to any true "conservative". Money begets money, as it should.
No, the founding principles of this country rebel against the very nature of aristocracy.
Quote
Wealth is created by investment, and it's the wealthy who are in the best position to invest.
Wrong again. 'Investment' does not exist without labor.
Quote
You also haven't seemed to figured out one of the fundamentals of conservatism, the fact wealth isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth isn't a finite quantity, it is an ever-increasing quantity that is created, not just shifted from one place to another. Your misapprehension that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the middle class (and worse, that there's a deliberate government conspiracy making this happen) is evidence of your ignorance.
And your ignorance has yet to catch up with you. I seriously doubt that your are rich, or even wealthy. I suspect my net worth is far greater than yours. (Maybe an unfair comparison, as I'm 61 years old, and you are probably much younger).
The rich are in fact getting richer at the expense of the middle class, as I outlined in my Reply #40.
Either directly contradict those facts, HTG, or STFU, because you have nothing to add but the party line.
Quote
Your beliefs sound an awful lot like resentment born of not making as well as you wanted to. It's always easier to blame someone or something else, even crazy conspiracies, than to look at oneself as the root cause of one's life conditions.
Again, young fella, I'll compare my net worth with yours anytime you want.
Quote
Make no mistake, conservatism exists. You just don't know what it is.
Conservatism as a viable and active philosophy is dead. It hasn't been practiced in over 30 years.
Post by: Paddy on November 26, 2007, 07:12:57 PM
.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 27, 2007, 08:04:53 AM
EDIT: On second thought, this stuff probably belongs in another thread. Feel free to start one, if you'd like to continue this discussion.
Post by: Tallpine on November 27, 2007, 09:10:46 AM
