RE: Conservative != Clueless (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:23:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, the teabaggers are anti-republican, as you see it, since that is what the republican party was founded on, at the very least; an overreaching federal government. 

Funny they are embraced as the darlings of the republican party these days, so who has changed?  And for what reasons?

That wasn't a request earlier.



mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:29:06 AM)

That wasnt anything at all,  earlier.

Now, what we are talking about is conservatives and their supposed clueing innessness.

The threads OP sort of made that clear, and if one wants to start or enjoin a thread on the proud stance of teabaggers on the revokation of freedom of speech, and their abject willingness to abide in misinformation and history re-writes; then by all means, hit it.  



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:31:05 AM)

quote:

You've shifted from Teas to others--Libertarians in particular--but basically you're on the government = bad Kool-Aid. The problem with that is it ignores market externalities.

Well actually you also brought them up.

Nope, I'm on the big government equals bad Kool-aid.. Big Fed as well.. State government is my preferred form that I see the masses as maybe needing.

me personally, I don't need any of them.. I function or could without them.

quote:

How did no government interference work in the mortgage bundling fiasco?

There wasn't a time when there was no mortgage interference.. That is if you're talking about the somewhat recent housing issue and government pushing mortgage companies into giving bad loans.

I mean we can pick this and that all you want I guess but can you show me a big government plan that has worked? I mean one that has hard facts...



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:32:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That wasnt anything at all,  earlier.

Now, what we are talking about is conservatives and their supposed clueing innessness.

The threads OP sort of made that clear, and if one wants to start or enjoin a thread on the proud stance of teabaggers on the revokation of freedom of speech, and their abject willingness to abide in misinformation and history re-writes; then by all means, hit it.  

Let me make it clear then. I'm telling you that I don't want you to communicate with me.
Per the TOS.



Lucylastic -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:39:13 AM)

Ron you gots mail :)



mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:45:14 AM)

Then I suggest you use your hide function, per TOS, or take the roadshow somewhere else, leaving the CM big government out of it.  As you can do that on your own, it is an easy remedy.

I have not been 'communicating' with you, that is a two way street, all I am doing is been pointing out multiple glaring errors in fact, passed off as something else.



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:52:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Then I suggest you use your hide function, per TOS, or take the roadshow somewhere else, leaving the CM big government out of it.  As you can do that on your own, it is an easy remedy.

I have not been 'communicating' with you, that is a two way street, all I am doing is been pointing out multiple glaring errors in fact, passed off as something else.

Actually CM isn't big government, it's a private site with certain rules..

Here are two of them.
Per the TOS.
7.3.6.      You also agree to immediately cease and desist from any contact with any person who so requests such cessation; 7.3.7.      You will not "stalk" or otherwise harass any person, and if any member or other person requests that You cease communications with them, at any time, for any reason, You will immediately comply with said request.  Further, You stipulate to liquidated damages of $50,000.00 per such violation, and You agree to pay any and all fees incurred in the recovery of this amount, including attorneys' fees and all associated costs.  We expressly reserve the right, and You stipulate, that We may assign the rights to sue for these liquidated damages to any third party, including the party stalked or otherwise harassed by such violation.



mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 8:57:05 AM)

So, regarding the cluediness or cluedoutness of todays 'conservatives', I have to say that I have found them (in the main) very untutored in the subjects dear to their heart and hyperbole.

  



Lucylastic -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:03:32 AM)

removed because I cannot handle the ironing




Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:04:01 AM)

quote:

I mean we can pick this and that all you want I guess but can you show me a big government plan that has worked?


Burden of proof. You're taking shots and yet offering nothing but sound bites. You're also ready to swing in with the perfectionist fallacy.

You live in the most prosperous nation in the world. You have broad freedoms. You are reasonably safe and secure. Government protects all of this. Those Trusts mentioned earlier? History now. The elderly dying in poverty? Over. Poor children going to school with no (reasonably) healthy lunch? Ended.

Examples of no/little government? There are many. Check out Somalia.

Complaining is easy--ask any two-year old. There's much reason for gratitude here.

And no, I didn't bring up Libertarians, except in response to you lumping them in.



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:17:07 AM)

quote:

Burden of proof. You're taking shots and yet offering nothing but sound bites. You're also ready to swing in with the perfectionist fallacy.

You live in the most prosperous nation in the world. You have broad freedoms. You are reasonably safe and secure. Government protects all of this. Those Trusts mentioned earlier? History now. The elderly dying in poverty? Over. Poor children going to school with no (reasonably) healthy lunch? Ended.

Examples of no/little government? There are many. Check out Somalia.

Complaining is easy--ask any two-year old. There's much reason for gratitude here.

And no, I didn't bring up Libertarians, except in response to you lumping them in.

As I said before, this is nothing more than a political competition. I'll give you that you are more informed on a variety of issues than I am. That doesn't make your approach the correct one though and it doesn't do anything to the direction that the Founding Fathers wanted it to go.

Nobody is perfect sure but "your" attempt to govern out all of the imperfections of the reality of life just aren't going to work.. It's a utopian fantasy that will never come to fruition. If you really believed in freedom, you'd be for actually giving it to the people and letting them figure out what's best and how to help people.

I think all of our troubles boil down to morality issues, some of us need government and some of us don't to protect one from another. The fair thing to do would be to allow for an opt out. I'd be happy with that.. I'm not opposed to helping the needy and I'd probably fair well against many when it came to giving instead of taking.

Some of you might find that hard to believe coming from an asshole such as myself. :)

I just don't feel the government as in BIG government should be doing it. States could very well do their own thing. I think you might have skipped over that?



mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:21:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Then I suggest you use your hide function, per TOS, or take the roadshow somewhere else, leaving the CM big government out of it.  As you can do that on your own, it is an easy remedy.

I have not been 'communicating' with you, that is a two way street, all I am doing is been pointing out multiple glaring errors in fact, passed off as something else.

Actually CM isn't big government, it's a private site with certain rules..

Here are two of them.
TOS violation removed.

Don't waste my time with inaccurate law tips. Anything in there will be interpreted in the 'reasonable man' vein. You have an easy remedy in the site provided and sponsored hide button. 

Please read the entire TOS, which you have agreed to,  as you have just violated the fair use policy of TOS. It is either in the 5s or 6s.  You as a site member, are not allowed to publicly post any part of the TOS.  You have also agreed to not willfully use it for unintended purposes.

What's the point? 

The point here is that most self-styled 'conservatives' in the main are cutting out little pieces of law, history, and realities, taking them out of context, totally reengineering them,  and reposting as fact. 

This is the difficulty with discourse here and in general.




Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:22:16 AM)

You are mischaracterizing for your own convenience.

As I said, you would go for the Perfectionist Fallacy. You did. It's a fallacy.

Example: All people can't be cured of their illnesses. Therefore we shouldn't have health care--it doesn't work.

But it DOES work, if not perfectly. NOT treating illnesses works worse.



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:29:04 AM)

quote:

But it DOES work, if not perfectly. NOT treating illnesses works worse.

I disagree that it works to a point that I'd call it "working".. The fact that it actually does help a little isn't proof that it's doing better than the alternative.

Nor does bringing up that it helps some people negate the issue of it being wrong because of mandates. We could do probably just as good without the Feds being involved through the states. That could be even better being that we wouldn't have big brother making deals with big corp, also big gov siphoning off more tax money through bureaucracy that could then be used for taking care of more people.

Keep in mind all of the money we spend on wars, that lovely big gov pet project Solyndra and a number of others. I mean hell we might be able to actually keep those programs as Dr.Paul states if we could pull in some of the spending.

The answer isn't being more "liberal" with our funds, it's being more "conservative" with them.



mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:31:04 AM)

And allow the corporate management, and lobbyists to siphon it off instead of providing healthcare?

Seems like a horse apiece if that is the false dilemma.



DomYngBlk -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:32:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

Yeah the whole party. Will include the whole of the republican party as well. Will stipulate that no one wants to go broke. The question really is who wants gov't to be the vehicle to help society or whether business or free enterprise is that vehicle.


Sorry, not following here. I asked for other fiscally responsible Democrats. Since I'm only aware of two, I was hoping since you brought it up that you might know others.



Not my fault if you aren't intelligent enough to follow along after you asked the question.



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:34:28 AM)

quote:

Not my fault if you aren't intelligent enough to follow along after you asked the question.


So you can't name them.. Why didn't you just say so.



Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:47:49 AM)

quote:

We could do probably just as good without the Feds being involved through the states.


Been there, done that. It's why the federal government stepped in, turn of the 20th century, to address trusts.

It's why we addressed poverty at the national level in the 60s.

That's just two examples.

It's more than you're offering.

Without federal involvement, we'd still have states with slavery, lynchings, segregated schools, or at the very least, longer than we did.

But at least you're clear about what I mean by naive and unrealistic. I think we understand each other.

quote:

quote:

But it DOES work, if not perfectly. NOT treating illnesses works worse.


I disagree that it works to a point that I'd call it "working".. The fact that it actually does help a little isn't proof that it's doing better than the alternative.

There's no point in arguing with contradictory "logic" like that.



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 9:59:17 AM)

quote:

There's no point in arguing with contradictory "logic" like that.

How about we sidestep the insults about a mistake/rewrite midstream that I didn't catch.

quote:

It's more than you're offering.

I've offered a few myself in regards to Federal government intrusion so I'm not sure why you're skipping over those unless you want to ignore those. Hell there's a much longer list of reasons and you know it but you want to hold onto the idea that big gov is fine I guess because it puts you in the moral right in your own mind.

I never said it was a magic bullet just better from my view.



Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 10:26:24 AM)

Insult? Only if you make it such.

It helps, but that's not proof it works? Come on. Blatant contradiction. Pointing that out is an insult? Further--The "little bit" is your unsupported addition. The two examples I gave made a HUGE difference--Trusts and Elderly poverty.

Ignoring your examples? You haven't given any, except to say nothing is perfect. That's obvious, and on that "logic," we should never do anything at all in life. Meanwhile, I've pointed out that we HAVE left everything to the States before...and it didn't work until the federal government intervened. You're ignoring that.

You have an ideological position that you're cherry picking to prop up. It doesn't work.

Meanwhile, I'm taking a realism approach. You've noticed I regularly get attacked for supporting free trade here--hardly a "leftist" position as others simplistically label things they don't like for reasons ignoring data. I base my thoughts on what works. And hands off government does not. Nor does government involvement in all things, sure. I'm all for Obama's elimination of bureaucracy redundancy proposal, for example. I'm all for cutting the military by a third. I'm for low capital gains taxes, but oppose the Bush tax cuts--because I go where the numbers justify the claims. Often, my personal opinion and initial reaction is wrong--that's why I go with the data. That's the difference between naivety and a difference of opinion on viable solutions--one is honest difference in approach, the other is DOA, because it's based on something that simply isn't true. Intrusion--the Patriot Act, the Dept. of Homeland Theater--are indeed foolishness to cut. So cut them. There's no logic in "all or nothing" either.

Nor do I think that's stupid. It's a common mistake by very smart people--systems work differently than individual aspects of that system, and it's easy to make seemingly valid decisions that don't work systemically. There's a wealth of material on this--start with Peter Senge's "The Fifth Discipline."

Your position is that you are right and no data whatsoever can ever change that. Inherently, this is illogical and by definition, unreasonable.

You just "know."

This will hence go in circles forever. I have more productive things to attend to. Take your parting shot and enjoy.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.785156E-02