User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 82

Thread: A fact socialists hate

  1. #51
    Points: 96,099, Level: 75
    Level completed: 52%, Points required for next Level: 1,251
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    zelmo1234's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    148068
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MICHIGAN
    Posts
    37,373
    Points
    96,099
    Level
    75
    Thanks Given
    14,605
    Thanked 11,345x in 8,390 Posts
    Mentioned
    356 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Conservatives are every bit as enamored of federal control as any "socialist". Whenever a state or local government acts in a way that Conservatives disapprove of, they have no problem seeking an act of Congress, a Presidential or other administrative directive or a federal court ruling. Sure, I know..."that's different".
    I would change your wording some and say that Republicans, not conservatives!

    The GOP is loaded with progressives and they do like centralized power and long as they are the once that wield it

  2. #52
    Points: 430,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    393235
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    142,171
    Points
    430,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,016
    Thanked 40,803x in 30,200 Posts
    Mentioned
    1659 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    When you grow up and live on your own in the world get back to me. You don't know a thing about how the world works.
    Not that I agree with William but at least he's big enough to argue about the topic, the rest seem to slough it off in denial.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-14-2018)

  4. #53
    Points: 430,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    393235
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    142,171
    Points
    430,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,016
    Thanked 40,803x in 30,200 Posts
    Mentioned
    1659 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zelmo1234 View Post
    I would change your wording some and say that Republicans, not conservatives!

    The GOP is loaded with progressives and they do like centralized power and long as they are the once that wield it

    The problem with Republicans, especially the establishment Republicans, is they for so long were on the losing end of the stick to Democrats that they learned to give in, and still do out of habit. The Tea Parties tried to oust them. Hell, Contract with America tried. Now Trump is upsetting the apple cart.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  5. #54
    Points: 26,054, Level: 39
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 896
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    301552
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    9,404
    Points
    26,054
    Level
    39
    Thanks Given
    1,489
    Thanked 7,655x in 4,433 Posts
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    I think though perhaps you confuse Republicans, who do that, with conservatives, who are generally against.
    The confusion inevitably arises because many of the folks who call and consider themselves to be conservatives are, in fact, not conservatives at all. (And yes, the same is true of many of those who self-identify as liberals.)

    And regardless of how much of a bedrock conservative someone believes themselves to be, there will always be another guy who will, when they discover that you believe or advocate this thing or the other, proclaim that you're not a conservative at all.

    In general terms, though, the difference between what conservatives and liberals consider to be "fair game" for federal intrusion (and what should be considered "hands off") lies in which area of life the thing exists in. We've heard it described as the "boardroom vs. bedroom" distinction. Liberals, generally speaking, don't like the federal (or really, any) government putting restrictions on what individuals choose to do with their own bodies, particularly when it doesn't directly affect others, while conservatives tend to see as an unwarranted intrusion any attempt to govern or restrict the conduct of business.
    "It is a foolish man who believes that he possesses all of the answers unless he is absolutely certain that he has heard all of the questions."

  6. #55
    Points: 430,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    393235
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    142,171
    Points
    430,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,016
    Thanked 40,803x in 30,200 Posts
    Mentioned
    1659 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    The confusion inevitably arises because many of the folks who call and consider themselves to be conservatives are, in fact, not conservatives at all. (And yes, the same is true of many of those who self-identify as liberals.)

    And regardless of how much of a bedrock conservative someone believes themselves to be, there will always be another guy who will, when they discover that you believe or advocate this thing or the other, proclaim that you're not a conservative at all.

    In general terms, though, the difference between what conservatives and liberals consider to be "fair game" for federal intrusion (and what should be considered "hands off") lies in which area of life the thing exists in. We've heard it described as the "boardroom vs. bedroom" distinction. Liberals, generally speaking, don't like the federal (or really, any) government putting restrictions on what individuals choose to do with their own bodies, particularly when it doesn't directly affect others, while conservatives tend to see as an unwarranted intrusion any attempt to govern or restrict the conduct of business.

    One, you seem so overly concerned about labels and unconcerned about what they label.

    Two, you point out what I think is a major difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives vary widely, you can see all sorts of disagreement here among them. Liberals, otoh, seem to be lockstep and rarely disagree amongst themselves.

    Three, yes, yes, there's difference between liberals who are socially liberal and conservatives who arre economically liiberal and, even, further, ibertarians who are liberal on both scores--classically so, in the sense cof leaving people alone. The topic here, however, is economics, where, generally, conservatives want to be left alone and liberals want central planning to achieve social agenda--which means, since they use the government to enforce social "freedom" they really aren't liberal on that score, now are they. Equality and liberty are two different things and at odds with each other.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  7. #56
    Points: 26,054, Level: 39
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 896
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    301552
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    9,404
    Points
    26,054
    Level
    39
    Thanks Given
    1,489
    Thanked 7,655x in 4,433 Posts
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    One, you seem so overly concerned about labels and unconcerned about what they label.
    That's a rather obvious instance of someone criticizing the poster instead of addressing the topic at hand, but...whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Two, you point out what I think is a major difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives vary widely, you can see all sorts of disagreement here among them. Liberals, otoh, seem to be lockstep and rarely disagree amongst themselves.
    A ridiculous, partisan assessment on its face. "Lockstep"? I believe one can maybe count on the fingers of one hand the things that liberals agree on. Often the "liberal" world seems to consist of dozens of special interest groups, each with its own focus, which only at times go along with one another if it suits their purpose. And yes, conservatives "vary widely", too - but you'll notice that when they do, they are inevitably dismissed and vilified as not being conservatives at all. How many long time, nationally known conservative leaders have, as an example, been so judged by Trump supporters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Three, yes, yes, there's difference between liberals who are socially liberal and conservatives who arre economically liiberal and, even, further, ibertarians who are liberal on both scores--classically so, in the sense cof leaving people alone. The topic here, however, is economics, where, generally, conservatives want to be left alone and liberals want central planning to achieve social agenda--which means, since they use the government to enforce social "freedom" they really aren't liberal on that score, now are they. Equality and liberty are two different things and at odds with each other.
    When one looks at not only the history but the current positions of each "side", there is plenty of inconsistency, if not outright hypocrisy, to go around. It would seem, just as one small example, to be a classically conservative view that a privately owned company should be responsible for operating without harming the environment or the people who live in it, and for cleaning up its own messes and paying for its mistakes. Yet the agenda of most "conservative" politicians, even pre-Trump, has nearly always been to indemnify, forgive or simply ignore such considerations, or to make the taxpayers pay for the corporations' sins and omissions. Those taking an opposing view are inevitably labeled "anti-business".

    Outside the realm of economics, the hypocrisy on both sides, but especially on the Right, is even more blatant, of course.
    "It is a foolish man who believes that he possesses all of the answers unless he is absolutely certain that he has heard all of the questions."

  8. #57
    Points: 430,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    393235
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    142,171
    Points
    430,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,016
    Thanked 40,803x in 30,200 Posts
    Mentioned
    1659 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    That's a rather obvious instance of someone criticizing the poster instead of addressing the topic at hand, but...whatever.



    A ridiculous, partisan assessment on its face. "Lockstep"? I believe one can maybe count on the fingers of one hand the things that liberals agree on. Often the "liberal" world seems to consist of dozens of special interest groups, each with its own focus, which only at times go along with one another if it suits their purpose. And yes, conservatives "vary widely", too - but you'll notice that when they do, they are inevitably dismissed and vilified as not being conservatives at all. How many long time, nationally known conservative leaders have, as an example, been so judged by Trump supporters?



    When one looks at not only the history but the current positions of each "side", there is plenty of inconsistency, if not outright hypocrisy, to go around. It would seem, just as one small example, to be a classically conservative view that a privately owned company should be responsible for operating without harming the environment or the people who live in it, and for cleaning up its own messes and paying for its mistakes. Yet the agenda of most "conservative" politicians, even pre-Trump, has nearly always been to indemnify, forgive or simply ignore such considerations, or to make the taxpayers pay for the corporations' sins and omissions. Those taking an opposing view are inevitably labeled "anti-business".

    Outside the realm of economics, the hypocrisy on both sides, but especially on the Right, is even more blatant, of course.

    I criticized what you posted. It's only natural to assume you are behind what you post. Note: Again avoids the topic.

    Instead of talking about all those disagreements, why not show some?

    Many of the nationally known conservatives, George Will, for example, disagree with Trump's progressive protectionism, and they catch hell for it.

    "classically conservative view"? The conservative movement started in the 1950's with Buckley, Kirk, and the New Conservatives. Classical? There is classical liberalism, of Hobbes, Locke, to name two. But classical conservatism? Where do you all liberals come up with this stuff. There's history, and there's the modern liberal immagination that denies socialism and invents classical conservatism

    As for conservatives, nay, Republicans acting like liberals, see earlier reply on that. Generally, Republicans take a pro-business stance, Democrats an anti-business one--conservatives a pro-market stance, liberals pro-government--see conservative Jonah Goldberg's criticism of Republicans in Pro-Business or Pro-Market.

    So let's not again confuse Republicans with conservatives.

    When you say, "Outside the realm of economics, the hypocrisy on both sides, but especially on the Right, is even more blatant, of course," are you speaking of Republicans or conservatives?



    But what say you about the successes of capitalism vs the failures of socialism? You, know, the topic.
    Last edited by Chris; 03-13-2018 at 03:41 PM.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  9. #58
    Points: 17,147, Level: 31
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    William's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85779
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,657
    Points
    17,147
    Level
    31
    Thanks Given
    2,506
    Thanked 2,637x in 1,580 Posts
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Not that I agree with William but at least he's big enough to argue about the topic, the rest seem to slough it off in denial.
    Thanks for that Chris - that's typically fair of you. But just out of interest, what did you disagree with? I wasn't being political - I was just pointing to facts that I think I know.

    Like the Scandinavian countries have better systems and a better lifestyle than either the UK or the USA - no matter if you want to call them socialist or capitalist. I know those names are just convenient boxes to put people and societies in, but they also carry lots of other baggage. And we all have our social problems, but none of the Scandinavian countries, nor places like Germany, are third world countries, and the world is keen to buy the goods they produce.

    And the reasons for poverty are not just laziness - I gave examples of other causes (and there are loads more I don't know about). So which things did you think were wrong? I'm not just trying to be right - I'm genuinely interested.
    Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
    for a glow worm's never glum,
    'cause how can you be grumpy
    when the sun shines out your bum!

  10. #59
    Points: 430,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    393235
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    142,171
    Points
    430,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,016
    Thanked 40,803x in 30,200 Posts
    Mentioned
    1659 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Thanks for that Chris - that's typically fair of you. But just out of interest, what did you disagree with? I wasn't being political - I was just pointing to facts that I think I know.

    Like the Scandinavian countries have better systems and a better lifestyle than either the UK or the USA - no matter if you want to call them socialist or capitalist. I know those names are just convenient boxes to put people and societies in, but they also carry lots of other baggage. And we all have our social problems, but none of the Scandinavian countries, nor places like Germany, are third world countries, and the world is keen to buy the goods they produce.

    And the reasons for poverty are not just laziness - I gave examples of other causes (and there are loads more I don't know about). So which things did you think were wrong? I'm not just trying to be right - I'm genuinely interested.

    Well, I think capdon was being hard on the poor and you soft and that probably gets him frowns and you smiles, but as I read it I thought--did I post it?--that how one feels about the poor really matter not a bit, other than perhaps motivating a passion to solve poverty--which takes us back to the topic, that howeverso much sopcialism seems to be compassionate for the poor, it's uncompassionate capitalism that raises them at least meterially out of poverty, vis--vis the OP chart.

    Poverty, to me, is man's natural state and motivator to act to feed, clothe, and shelter oneself at least.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  11. #60
    Points: 17,147, Level: 31
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 303
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    William's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85779
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,657
    Points
    17,147
    Level
    31
    Thanks Given
    2,506
    Thanked 2,637x in 1,580 Posts
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Well, I think capdon was being hard on the poor and you soft and that probably gets him frowns and you smiles, but as I read it I thought--did I post it?--that how one feels about the poor really matter not a bit, other than perhaps motivating a passion to solve poverty--which takes us back to the topic, that howeverso much sopcialism seems to be compassionate for the poor, it's uncompassionate capitalism that raises them at least meterially out of poverty, vis--vis the OP chart.
    I think I understand what you mean, but I don't think it is any economic system that lifts people out of poverty. I think it is development - both scientific and engineering - which has historically lifted all first world societies out of both ignorance and poverty. It is not who develops a cure for cancer - whether that be a privately owned research institute or a publicly owned, government institute - that matters; it is the cure which is the advance. And that advance can come from either private or public ownership of the means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Poverty, to me, is man's natural state and motivator to act to feed, clothe, and shelter oneself at least.
    Dunno about poverty, but I think that is true in that survival is the strongest motivator. So I think we agree there.
    Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
    for a glow worm's never glum,
    'cause how can you be grumpy
    when the sun shines out your bum!

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO