Liberal vs Conservative in USA

[Roark_John]

If you think the moral of the story was that goverment is a producer, you missed the point. Government is an enabler (would Thomas Edison have done anything with electricity if government patent rights and the courts didn't give him a financial incentive to do so?) and a "doer" of things that individuals and the private sector can't or shouldn't be trusted (there are some things where the profit motive is not appropriate) to do.

The government is NOT an enabler, they take from others via taxes and give to a chosen few via subsidies, grants and bail-outs. Businesses have existed for thousands of years WITHOUT patent rights and court protections...one could even say modern politics are an outgrowth of the government-model of business. Individual and private sector shouldn't be trusted? From where else is the body of government drawn...?!

A short list:

1. Go to the Moon. Evidently you haven't heard of the X-Prize...

2. Win WWII. Plenty of gouging and war-profiteering was made during WWII...

3. Provide police and fire protection. Really? The gov doesn't like to make money off these endeavors? Care to explain speed cameras and the rise of traffic fines during any economic downturn? Or the gent who's house was allowed to burn down right next to his neighbors because he hadn't "re-upped" his "subscription"?

4. Build the interstate highway system. Who do you think does all the infrastructure maintenance and improvements? Last time I looked it wasn't the state highway departments...

5. Protect and develop nascent but important industries (the early aircraft industry, Semantec, etc.). Again...wrongo. Unless IBM, Microsoft, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglass, Sikorsky, etc are wholly owned subsidiaries of the gov.

6. Provide courts to allow peaceful resolution of disputes rather than IBM's army of Pinkertons taking on Microsoft's. Peaceful resolution? Tell me it's peaceful when someone get's the courts to take money and property away from YOU when they "win". The courtroom is a battlefield...but you should know, as you're a lawyer!

7. Provide collective assistance to the elderly, the infirm and the unemployed. I daresay the insurance industry would be strung up in court if they pillaged their own financial trusts for imprudent "borrowing" the way the gov has with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and yes EVEN Unemployment Insurance...

And on, and on, and on. Sure, I can be a He-Man Government hater along with anyone. It's natural. No one likes authority.

But some of the anti-Government rhetoric I see on boards like this is stupid and myopic.

The gov is the biggest bully on the block. I would pray for an enemy as benign as Microsoft...

So it goes!

I can see your college "education" has served you well...

 

[Jeff Young]

Aren't you a government employee?

 

[Roark_John]

Aren't you a government employee?

In half of my life, yes. I also pledged an oath the uphold the Constitution and protect her from all enemies, foreign and domestic. In some ways, so are you, as an officer of the court. Whether you are paid for that duty or not has nothing to do with the fact that we both fulfill necessary roles as dictated by that same government.

If the government becomes an enemy of the public, guess what? It's my Constitutionally-derived duty to protect the public from the government. This doesn't always mean using violent means. Proactive vs. Reactive. When the legislative and civil process via the courts ceases being effective, then the pendulum swings to a less civil approach.

Have you seen what a military man is paid? Nothing nearly as grandiose as a legislator, federal judge or even federal law-enforcement officer. We aren't exactly suckling on the power teat, growing fat.

Besides, when the need for the military grows redundant or unnecessary, don't you think we'll be cut as was done in the 90's? Or better yet, why don't all the civilians push for us to stop being so active in foreign arenas and save alot of scratch for other, more pressing needs? I'll be far happier with my situation when I'm not pushed from one hell-hole to the next, killing "enemies of the state".

 

[Ron R.]

Ah yes.

The courts...where law prevails, and justice is nowhere to be found.

No surprise then that many of our politicians are lawyers by training.

 

[Cliff Beer]

A properly functioning legal system is one of a very few distinguishing characteristics of a civil society - and that goes for the USA right now today. To say that the US legal system is not just is to not know how unjust conditions are in most of the rest of the world.

As to "liberals" need to redistribute wealth, the redistribution of wealth is the practical mechanism by which really acute concentration of wealth and power (and the inevitable atrocities that go with that) is moderated. Perhaps you don't agree with the particular choices as to what groups benefit more than others in that redistribution, but in that case your problem is not with redistribution in general, it's with the current decision maker's poor choice of recipient.

As to the cute college-based story about redistribution of grades (ie. wealth), that assumes that everyone is brought into the world on an even footing. If you've travelled around in this world then you know the reality is quite the opposite, and to the extreme.

 

[Roark_John]

A properly functioning legal system is one of a very few distinguishing characteristics of a civil society - and that goes for the USA right now today. To say that the US legal system is not just is to not know how unjust conditions are in most of the rest of the world.

This isn't to say that perversion of justice is okay ANYWHERE. Justice is an idea, and if it can't or won't be implemented properly, then there is no point is using that term...

As to "liberals" need to redistribute wealth, the redistribution of wealth is the practical mechanism by which really acute concentration of wealth and power (and the inevitable atrocities that go with that) is moderated. Perhaps you don't agree with the particular choices as to what groups benefit more than others in that redistribution, but in that case your problem is not with redistribution in general, it's with the current decision maker's poor choice of recipient.

The problem is that money isn't the same as wealth. When one person has accumulated the wealth of a small country through the labor and efforts of others, without any attempt to enrich those others lives, that person has divorced himself from the concept of benevolent lordship, and instead places himself in the capacity of economic tyrant via profiteering over the human cost. We abandoned the practice of slavery, yet this "modern capitalist" concept holds that a persons life is a commodity, same as grain or oil. That's a perversion of equality and against the working system of a democratic-republic.

The very concept of liberty and justice cannot exist hand in hand with tyranny. This is why taxation of the very rich is so important to the proper functioning of a government that can look after people all along the financial spectrum in regards to the common welfare...that is, well-being of it's citizens.

The problem in this country (which to be frank, is the only one I concern myself with) is that the rights and liberties of the common man are so badly trodden in deference to the desires of those with tremendous wealth and power.

This county does NOT exist for the pleasure of those seeking wealth and power, it exists to protect ALL those born here and accepted into our nation. There are billionaires in most other countries in the world, so it's preposterous to claim that our way of life is necessary to allow this to happen.

Until the very rich can get it through their very small minds that they are not doing anyone a favor by being here, but that they are enjoying the fruits of this land that we ALL have contributed to building, until they realize they are part of the community and are leaders, until they start contributing on a level commensurate with their skills and abilities...then they are the ones "freeloading" in our society...not merely the poor they denigrate so fiercely.

Giving back to the community is something that all citizens are encouraged to do, in order to make this a better place for everyone. So why is it that the very rich are exempt from this concept? Is this yet another example of Do As I Say, Not As I Do?

If America truly is a dog-eat-dog country, then why do we have law enforcement, fire department, the military or the courts? Hell, the rich can afford to look after themselves, why must we all pay in and serve a system that benefits those with deeper pockets? OR is it truly a case of strength in numbers and a whole that is greater than the sum of it's parts?


As to the cute college-based story about redistribution of grades (ie. wealth), that assumes that everyone is brought into the world on an even footing. If you've travelled around in this world then you know the reality is quite the opposite, and to the extreme.

Any sane person knows that NOBODY is truly equal in abilities, but we ALL should be equally provided a capacity to exercise our rights and be equally protected under the laws. A person who is lacking in ability shouldn't be afforded a skewed basis for judging those abilities. That makes the point of having abilities invalid. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Equality through mediocrity is just another liberal white-wash for PC distraction from reality. An oak isn't a maple isn't a pine...though they all are trees!

 

[Jeff Young]

With help from a neighboring Cro-Mag, one Ugh Ugh masters use of the bold key.

 

[Charlie Farley]

Al, thanks for your understanding reply.
Don't get me started.
Tonight i've had a good night.
Only 3 hookers, a pound of crack and a kilo of coke !
Move over Keith Richards !

 

[Roark_John]

With help from a neighboring Cro-Mag, one Ugh Ugh masters use of the bold key.

You are a petty little man, aren't you Jeff?

The bolded text was to differentiate my response from Cliff's. I hadn't realized how to color my text before, so in response to your less-than-elegant rebut on my use of bolding, I have since dedicated myself to learning more about all the tools on the toolbar. :

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

You are a petty little man, aren't you Jeff?

The bolded text was to differentiate my response from Cliff's. I hadn't realized how to color my text before, so in response to your less-than-elegant rebut on my use of bolding, I have since dedicated myself to learning more about all the tools on the toolbar. :

You do realize that Randy Newman was absolutely correct concerning this.

 

[Nick]

You are a petty little man, aren't you Jeff?

so in response to your less-than-elegant rebut on my use of bolding, . :

Yes Jeff,

You naughty naughty petty little man.

You should have used the framework of one of these far more elegant and eloquent rebut's

Does your brain ache when you say something stupid, or are you just used to the pain by now?

What the fuck pink bubblegum cloud did you just fall off, sugar-britches?

Can you wrap your (slow, backwards) mind around that one?

Holy fuck, you and the wife are both batshit crazy!

Secondly, I serve in the military to protect dink-fucks like yourself from people who would harm you

Thirdly, I find it frightening that people like yourself, who are prone to paranoia and delusion are able to access the internet and post their drivel

An open mind is a great thing, so long as all the common sense hasn't leaked out."
You sir, are a prime example of why this saying exists.
!

 

[Roark_John]

What's petty, Nick, is to keep bringing up the same tired ol' shit over & over again because you don't have any pertinent contribution to the actual conversation. You took swipes at me, I took them back at you. I'm not Jesus, I don't believe in turning the other cheek. It's false bravado to assume you bested someone because you didn't have to look them in the eye and be in close to claim a victory.

For all the supposed superiority of the liberal bent, you sure don't mind rolling around with the very pigs you whing on...

Yes Jeff,

You naughty naughty petty little man.

You should have used the framework of one of these far more elegant and eloquent rebut's

 

[Nick]

What's petty, Nick, is to keep bringing up the same tired ol' shit over & over again because you don't have any pertinent contribution to the actual conversation. You took swipes at me, I took them back at you. I'm not Jesus, I don't believe in turning the other cheek. It's false bravado to assume you bested someone because you didn't have to look them in the eye and be in close to claim a victory.

For all the supposed superiority of the liberal bent, you sure don't mind rolling around with the very pigs you whing on...

John ,

English is not my strong point so I looked up petty and one definition is irrelevant. I see no relevance to insulting someone, it does not have any pertinent contribution to the debate.

It's all a bit playground stuff in any case but I only quoted your insults, if you think that makes you a pig that I'm rolling around with, and you are happy with that, then who am I to argue.

I take it I'm off your Christmas card list this year.

Oh well Ce La Vi

(Del boy Trotter translation)

 

[Roark_John]

John ,

I only quoted what you said if you think you are a pig I'm rolling around with, then who am I to argue.

I take it I'm off your Christmas card list this year.

Oh well Ce La Vie

It's C'est la vie...and I'm a heathen, I don't celebrate holidays that have been co-opted by corporate religions from pagan traditions for their own purposes.

That's a good question though Nick...who are you to argue?

 

[Ron R.]

Cliff

You no doubt have been trained in the art of critical thinking. Don't bring up the relative inadequacies of other countries to justify the the state of our own "justice" system.

That makes about as much sense as not convicting the thief because he's not as bad as the murderer.

Why is it that I never get seated on a jury? In fact, not a single physician I personally know has ever been seated? Yet the only African-American employee we have gets seated practically every time he gets called for jury duty.

Should we speak of the politics of the American Trial Lawers Association? How about the ridiculous number of nuisance lawsuits in medicine, the cost to healthcare, and the total blind eye turned to the situation buy politicians who claim to be concerned about the spiraling costs of care? Yes, it is quite a system we have here! But a system of justice?

I suppose I should just shut up and be thankful that I dont have to live under Sheria Law.

 

[Ron R.]

Btw Cliff,

I don't really see how you story of redistribution of wealth preventing atrocities and such has any practical application to me or anyone like me... Particular in a country governed by the rule of law (you know, all being equal and such).

Frankly, the little ditty about the college is spot on. Those of us who have worked long and hard, gone without, and took risks resent being made out as the bad guys. And I would add that I have never, repeat, never abused one if my serfs!!

 

[Cliff Beer]

Btw Cliff,

I don't really see how you story of redistribution of wealth preventing atrocities and such has any practical application to me or anyone like me... Particular in a country governed by the rule of law (you know, all being equal and such).

Frankly, the little ditty about the college is spot on. Those of us who have worked long and hard, gone without, and took risks resent being made out as the bad guys. And I would add that I have never, repeat, never abused one if my serfs!!

Ron, you should study history. Here's how it's relevant: if there is a) no effective rule or law, and b) no mechanism to prevent acute concentrations of power and wealth, then everyone (including you) ends up living in a hell (think north korea, much of africa, china, certain parts of the ME). That's how it applies.

 

[Cliff Beer]

Any sane person knows that NOBODY is truly equal in abilities, but we ALL should be equally provided a capacity to exercise our rights and be equally protected under the laws. A person who is lacking in ability shouldn't be afforded a skewed basis for judging those abilities. That makes the point of having abilities invalid. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Equality through mediocrity is just another liberal white-wash for PC distraction from reality. An oak isn't a maple isn't a pine...though they all are trees!

John, I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying here. I'm trying to follow your points but it sounds more like a rant without coherent points to me.

 

[Roark_John]

John, I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying here. I'm trying to follow your points but it sounds more like a rant without coherent points to me.

THIS:
Any sane person knows that NOBODY is truly equal in abilities, but we ALL should be equally provided a capacity to exercise our rights and be equally protected under the laws. A person who is lacking in ability shouldn't be afforded a skewed basis for judging those abilities. That makes the point of having abilities invalid. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Equality through mediocrity is just another liberal white-wash for PC distraction from reality. An oak isn't a maple isn't a pine...though they all are trees!

WAS IN RESPONSE TO THIS:
As to the cute college-based story about redistribution of grades (ie. wealth), that assumes that everyone is brought into the world on an even footing. If you've travelled around in this world then you know the reality is quite the opposite, and to the extreme.

MEANING:
Any sane person knows that NOBODY is truly equal in abilities, but we ALL should be equally provided a capacity to exercise our rights and be equally protected under the laws. (I think this is self-evident...wouldn't you agree?) A person who is lacking in ability shouldn't be afforded a skewed basis for judging those abilities. That makes the point of having abilities invalid. (In regards to skewing grades to "make up" for some having less abilities than others...if someone has diminished capacity, they shouldn't even be in college) You can't have your cake and eat it too. Equality through mediocrity is just another liberal white-wash for PC distraction from reality. (Meaning you can't even out people's abilities simply by flattening the curve of achievement or ranking) An oak isn't a maple isn't a pine...though they all are trees! (Meaning if you want to maintain a healthy forest, you can't prescribe the same treatment to all trees, though you still protect ALL of them from whatever threatens to harm them)Which ties back into the opening sentence at the beginning of this paragraph...it's called reinforcement of a point.

Do you feel my metaphor is off-base...?

Now, what exactly was a rant without any point? It was all coherent through the body of my response and applied with measure to your points from your previous post.

 

[Cliff Beer]

THIS:
Any sane person knows that NOBODY is truly equal in abilities, but we ALL should be equally provided a capacity to exercise our rights and be equally protected under the laws. A person who is lacking in ability shouldn't be afforded a skewed basis for judging those abilities. That makes the point of having abilities invalid. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Equality through mediocrity is just another liberal white-wash for PC distraction from reality. An oak isn't a maple isn't a pine...though they all are trees!

WAS IN RESPONSE TO THIS:
As to the cute college-based story about redistribution of grades (ie. wealth), that assumes that everyone is brought into the world on an even footing. If you've travelled around in this world then you know the reality is quite the opposite, and to the extreme.

MEANING:
Any sane person knows that NOBODY is truly equal in abilities, but we ALL should be equally provided a capacity to exercise our rights and be equally protected under the laws. (I think this is self-evident...wouldn't you agree?) A person who is lacking in ability shouldn't be afforded a skewed basis for judging those abilities. That makes the point of having abilities invalid. (In regards to skewing grades to "make up" for some having less abilities than others...if someone has diminished capacity, they shouldn't even be in college) You can't have your cake and eat it too. Equality through mediocrity is just another liberal white-wash for PC distraction from reality. (Meaning you can't even out people's abilities simply by flattening the curve of achievement or ranking) An oak isn't a maple isn't a pine...though they all are trees! (Meaning if you want to maintain a healthy forest, you can't prescribe the same treatment to all trees, though you still protect ALL of them from whatever threatens to harm them)Which ties back into the opening sentence at the beginning of this paragraph...it's called reinforcement of a point.

Do you feel my metaphor is off-base...?

Now, what exactly was a rant without any point? It was all coherent through the body of my response and applied with measure to your points from your previous post.

Hi John,

I think I'm following you - obviously your points go with some thought behind them.

To be honest, in debates such as this I try to use minimal/no metaphors or rhetoric...my experience has been that it's easy for the basic points to get lost in colorful language and/or politically charged language, making it even harder for parties to understand and potentially reconcile issues. Just by way of example, the language of:

"You can't have your cake and eat it too. Equality through mediocrity is just another liberal white-wash for PC distraction from reality."

can certainly be understood with some thought and reflection, but it's not simple language that makes a point concisely and simply to the average reader.

This is more about style than anything else I suppose, and I completely respect the stylistic choices of others in debate, I just prefer to use very, very simple language to make my points in the hopes that those who aren't particularly erudite may get the gist of it too. Maybe I'm just simple too!