Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Conservatives vs Liberals


Agent0range

Recommended Posts

The world is still evolving. Socialism has been the most common form of government in history and it is still the most common. But throughout history, there have been pockets in cultures that manage to free themselves of Authoritarian government. And it will continue, whatever happens to America and the Constitution, Man will evolve. Evolution can backslide, but it will eventually move forward again.

Back to that old Cannard, redefining what is socialism to suit your agenda. Lets get this straight Monarchy has been the most common government in history - MONARCHY. Monarchy is not a variant of socialism. It doesn't wash and the public ain't buying your slight of hand.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, monarchy possibly could be considered a brand of socialism. What is the role of the monarch but to mangage and distribute resources throughout his realm?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to your magical thinking - the divine hand of the market and all that.

Again thanks for showing how you don't understand basic concept like the Tragedy of the Commons - which is an example of the downside of not regulating a shared resource. The tragedy of the Commons is a classic argument for enhanced regulation.

Every post you make just enhances your reputation for not knowing what your talking about.

It's only magical because the Liberal mind cannot comprehend it. Your reply is proof of what I'm talking about. What more do you want? What more regulation can you have in ToC short of "pain of death"? I'm sorry but that is not the motivation that Man deserves. Self interest is the best motivation for the survival of Man. It is the next step in Man's evolution. I'll let what I've said stand as a testament of what I know. You are ill equipped to do so. I know you are one that resorts to insults, but that too just shows how little you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, monarchy possibly could be considered a brand of socialism. What is the role of the monarch but to mangage and distribute resources throughout his realm?

The mission of socialism is, to the contrary of what many claim who have never read a book about socialism, not the distribution of wealth (that in a socialist state would not exist) but to equalize the possibilities of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mission of socialism is, to the contrary of what many claim who have never read a book about socialism, not the distribution of wealth (that in a socialist state would not exist) but to equalize the possibilities of all.

And who determines who gets which "equal possibility" over another? There needs to be someone that directs such parsing. Again, this is a failing of the Liberal mind.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who determines who gets which "equal possibility" over another? There needs to be someone that directs such parsing. Again, this is a failing of the Liberal mind.

All start out with the same and what they make of it is up to them.

Isn't that really simple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Yamato, we've done this military thing to its conclusion already. I have plenty of principle and I didn't mean to imply that I am better than another. Just meant I'm willing to shoot for so much less. On that note there are many others here for you to take issue with. Last, I don't know about Medicare part D and had no idea it's a pet of the right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mission of socialism is, to the contrary of what many claim who have never read a book about socialism, not the distribution of wealth (that in a socialist state would not exist) but to equalize the possibilities of all.

Possibilities are all sorts of things. Equal, unequal, infinite. The way I see what is referred to as socialism these days isn't a desire for equal possibility but equal outcome and that's ridiculous. I'm sure you could agree with that.

Edited by F3SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh...Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Al Franken, Charlie Rangel - should I go on? And since when did a person's IQ determin their value as a human being or their right to take part in the process of self governance?

Harry is no dimwit, but I throughly dislike his politics and wouldn't never trust him. However, you could add to your list Sheila Jackson Lee who thought Neil Armstrong landed on Mars, and Congressman Hank Johnson who thought that if we stationed more troops on the island of Guam, it would tip over. No conservatives those two and apparently not the sharpest tools in the shed either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibilities are all sorts of things. Equal, unequal, infinite. The way I see what is referred to as socialism these days isn't a desire for equal possibility but equal outcome and that ridiculous? I'm sure you could agree with that.

Which tells me that beyond the slogans you have never entertained any knowledge of socialism. Socialism does not guarantee equal outcomes. Just equal possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm more liberal leaning, I know there are exceptions to the rule, as there will always be. I think liberals can't live without conservatives and vice versa. We challenge each others ideas and through the challenging and debating the a path is opened up and a way forward. Athough we may not see this all the time in politics, it does happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All start out with the same and what they make of it is up to them.

Isn't that really simple?

What if there is someone not friendly to the ruler and they have the ability to "make" much more and are wanting to keep it, if it is up to them? Who's going to force them to tow the line? For the other's who's going to determine the "equal same" periodically after several have produced abundantly? Who's going to determine what each needs to live? There's got to be some kind of yearly reset or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if there is someone not friendly to the ruler and they have the ability to "make" much more and are wanting to keep it, if it is up to them? Who's going to force them to tow the line? For the other's who's going to determine the "equal same" periodically after several have produced abundantly? Who's going to determine what each needs to live? There's got to be some kind of yearly reset or something.

I guess I'll have to do as usual and tell you to actually read something about socialism, that would tell you why your question is ridiculous.

And no, I don't think it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which tells me that beyond the slogans you have never entertained any knowledge of socialism. Socialism does not guarantee equal outcomes. Just equal possibilities.

Then that's Adam Smith and Free Market economics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which tells me that beyond the slogans you have never entertained any knowledge of socialism. Socialism does not guarantee equal outcomes. Just equal possibilities.

Fine but equal possibilities by force. In socialism opportunities are taken from some and given to others to level things out. I like what we have. Equal possibilities to be sought on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then that's Adam Smith and Free Market economics.

No, because Adam Smith did not exclude inheritance (just advocated heavy taxation). As in socialism there would be nothing to inherit it would preclude some starting with millions and others with nothing. Except the training they absorbed in socialism all would start with nothing.

But yes, Marx and Engels quote Adam Smith a few times.

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine but equal possibilities by force. In socialism opportunities are taken from some and given to others to level things out. I like what we have. Equal possibilities to be sought on your own.

What force if there is no capital or productive means to inherit?

You either are willing to make it or you won't. That simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, socialism only garrantees you will be just as poor as sob next door, regardless what you do. there is no better example of socialism than former ussr. i mean real world socialism, not what was intended it to be in theory.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All start out with the same and what they make of it is up to them.

Isn't that really simple?

Name one system that ever happened in besides some hippy commune, none of which last over 20 years.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name one system that ever happened in besides some hippy commune, none of which last over 20 years.

I did not say it would work, I am saying that beyond the slogans calling everything socialist that does not agree with them (including some very conservative positions) hardly anybody has any idea what they are talking about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Yamato, we've done this military thing to its conclusion already. I have plenty of principle and I didn't mean to imply that I am better than another. Just meant I'm willing to shoot for so much less. On that note there are many others here for you to take issue with. Last, I don't know about Medicare part D and had no idea it's a pet of the right.

That's fine and I was setting the table for everyone, but you wanted me to talk about you after you started talking about me. You have plenty of principle like liberals have plenty of principle. You protect your own interests. You want more than some people on some things and less than other people on other things. That doesn't free you from the criticism of the left that you give out in droves. What does not being from the left save you from? You make the same mistakes as the people you chronically condemn. Why do people think their interest makes them immune? Why doesn't the right wing world cost money too?

Part D was a pet of the Republicans. Why didn't you know this brah? Is it because Merc was telling you the opposite and you believed him? I've heard him do that before. But whatever, if Republicans were serious about what they say they'd be willing to make some sacrifices in govt that are important to them. Military, oil, drugs, wars of on terror, DHS, Patriot Act, oil and gas, we can go on and on, and what about those faith based programs? Separation of church and state much, Republicans?

Repeal the DHS along with Obamacare then if the gubmint pills are so damned important. You create the biggest bureaucracy since Lyndon Johnson and the mass ignorance is oh so convenient today when the only problem in the world is Obamacare. Not even a spark of interest from you in the idea either. Nice. But no, we needed more alphabet soup redundancy because the FBI and CIA weren't nearly enough! The alleged problem with the intelligence was too much stovepiping so said the Republicans and we get another massive bureaucracy for the trouble. Nice work. Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds either and hypocrisy has no principle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds either and hypocrisy has no principle.

That is also true of the Democrats.

Both parties are screwed up really bad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, socialism only garrantees you will be just as poor as sob next door, regardless what you do. there is no better example of socialism than former ussr. i mean real world socialism, not what was intended it to be in theory.

Wrong - the former USSR was nothing like socialism. Germany in the present day is a passing approximation to socialism and the scandinavian countries a bit closer - but the USSR was never anything but a Dictatorship from the moment Lenin decided the people couldn't be trusted to be good enough socialists.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is also true of the Democrats.

Not in those examples but in other examples like Obamacare and the NDAA and the Paycheck Fairness Act and rendition and Libya and Guantanamo and Israel and etc. etc. etc. , yes.

Bipartisanship is code for evil and stupid. And no matter how many times I propose mutual sacrifice, I hear the same old crickets. And then some of them go back to whining about big govt. Good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could come up with a proposal that by the time it was implemented left the entire political body of democrats and republicans with quivering chins and tears falling down their fat cheeks, that would be a damn good proposal.

Favoring either party is the mental glue the masters need from all of you to keep their Establishment held together.

Edited by Yamato
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.