MANTI5
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Elite
Guys, haven't you learned anything yet? Ecrack backs everything up with links that are infallible regardless of whether you prove him wrong doing the same.
dooski
10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
I hope when you become president that you wear a red had that says big *****. just a thought
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
I do not take it as a slight to my intelligence, but I understand the basic principles behind conservatism.
As for compromising your core principles, Id start at quit labeling them your 'core beliefs' as if there can be no other options. Lets look at your examples.
Abortion, a compromise from the republican viewpoint would be to acknowledge each individual can make that choice for themselves. If you think its murder, that's fine, dont ever get an abortion. Yes, I understand, your 'core belief' would label it as excusing others to 'murder'. But that mental obstacle is rarely discussed when talking about war. Think every soldier that ever killed another human being on the battle field all believed deeply in what they were told they were fighting for? When Bush was president, were all democratic soldiers murdering Iraqi's? No, I do not expect you to accept that response, because you've already solidified in your mind that it is a topic you are unwilling or unable to compromise about, sadly.
Higher taxes 'that oppress individuals restricting their ability to pursue happiness'. When labeled in such terms, yes the obvious answer would be to say lower taxes is always better. But, is lowering taxes ALWAYS better? We could reduce taxes to zero, have no govt what so ever, would that insure every individual's ability to pursue happiness? No, it would not. So clearly compromise is needed to find the happy medium of enough taxation, but not too much taxation. You already compromise on this topic, you just dont realize it (apparently)... that is unless you really do believe no taxes and no govt is the best/only option, I give you more credit than that however. So until you are willing to drop the republican talking points about higher taxes, Im not at all sure you are able to engage in a reasonable discussion on the topic.
Compromise to allow a welfare state that oppresses people by keeping them dependent on government rather than using their own skill and industry to thrive. Again, like your comment on higher taxes oppressing people, you word your 'belief' in such an extreme way so as to render any disagreement as repulsive. This is a defense mechanism you use to distance yourself from any real discussion that might threaten what you feel is one of your 'core beliefs'. But the reality is that liberals do not want a welfare state either, most of them anyway. Im a fiscal conservative much like yourself, and in many ways exactly because I do believe our govt is not diligent enough with social programs to ensure they are not being abused on individual levels. But even being what I am and how I feel, I still dont believe that all liberals want to create a serf-state where everyone relies on the govt on a day to day, minute to minute basis. Yes, I believe some do, just as I believe some republicans really do just want to help the wealthy even at the expense of the middle class. But people who have been duped into believing the political propaganda that DC spews only look at this topic in extremes: one side wants a welfare state, the other side doesnt care about the sick or poor. These are extreme views that in the majority of cases is simply false (on both sides), but DC wants us to believe those are exactly what the 'other side' wants. You have expressed that very notion here, yourself, without even realizing it.
Then its a wonder this country has lasted over 200 years. Its built on compromises. Try to deny it.
Lastly, let me say that I apologize for it sounding like Im picking on you specifically. I respect your opinion, and even your core beliefs. I think you mean well when you express your views. Ive just been around long enough to realize that most liberals mean well too. Fiscal liberalism has lead us astray plenty of times, such as our abused and broken social programs like welfare, medicare/medicaid, and even our continuing belief that we should allow immigrants to relocate here illegally based on the idea that its the humanitarian thing to do. But, fiscal conservatism has lead us astray too. You dont have to look any further than the deregulation of the banking/financial system of the past few years to see what allowing a too-free-market that acts with impunity can do. Yes, people tend to be their own best incentive to succeed, but individuals also tend to take that feeling too far to the point of destructive behavior on a societal level for no other reason than to improve their own personal wealth. We cant have every citizen relying on the govt to feed them, house them, support them. But we also cant have wall street being allowed to do whatever they want under the guise of what's good for them, is good for everyone, obviously. So we live in a society that relies on compromises all around us. When we move away from that realization, we stop progressing, period. We all stand around arguing about welfare families, anchor babies, and CEO golden parachutes, meanwhile the rest of the world is laughing at us while pushing us out of the political/financial superpower that we once were. If we dont wake up and stop bickering, about everything, we are going to find we are too late to turn the ship away from the path of the iceberg.
OP
ahole-ic
Banned
- Thread Starter
- #276
To accept your premise, I have to equate an unborn child to an enemy combatant. It's not sad that I am not in favor of killing unborn children. It's sad that you draw a parallel to something that is totally different. I'm not going to debate the Iraq war anymore... but let's talk about war for a second as though it can only be used in defense of this nation and nobody is questioning that fact. (I'm not conceding anything on Iraq, it's controversy is just a distraction from the point right now.) Is having a child terminated so that the parents' lives are not inconvenienced the same as preserving the sovereignty of this country? Could this country have existed without war? I think the answer is clearly no. Could a woman exist without abortion? It's pretty easy to see how your comparison, is not actually comparable. I realize you wanted to equate killing to killing, but it simply cannot be done with the example provided.
You described libertarians. This argument is always tried by people far more left than you. Conservatives are not anti government. They are for smaller government. So reducing the tax to zero is not their point. Reducing the roles and size of government so that it does not reach into every aspect of a person's life is the goal. It is not compromising Conservative principles to have SOME tax(mainly to provide for the defense of this nation), so again I'm sorry but your premise is flawed.
Your psycho-analysis could not be more inaccurate my friend. I use it because it describes how unwavering a belief is. When you believe something with passion, you're not at all afraid to defend it because you're so unwilling to compromise on it. To compromise by very definition means to cave on something. In this case the stakes are far too high and the consequences too dire. We have seen the results of going through with it. The status quo is already overreaching. It MUST be pushed back, so what would compromising do? It is to merely concede.
No, I think I explained that I in fact do not believe this a post or two ago when I explained the difference between the establishment buying votes and the voters believing that they and their party are more generous and just want to help people. I made it very clear there, so I think if you'll revisit that you'll see that I made the distinction and explained it in some detail.
I was sort of surprised at your "welcoming all challengers" comment here. I realize you are somewhat disgusted with my viewpoints, but up until now it had been pretty respectful. That's ok, I respect your passion for your viewpoint. Our government was indeed set up for gridlock. There is no denying that. What we have seen the last 3 years is supermajorities of the most overreaching leftist agenda this country has ever seen. How many times did the congress pass bills with not a single Republican vote? Did nancy pelosi try to "deem" the healthcare bill passed without voting on it? The government is severely overreaching and it got here by the left not compromising. They got everything they wanted.... and it MUST be pushed back. Compromising anything is to give up more ground. It simply cannot be afforded.
I think if you'll read the article I posted on the community reinvestment act you'll see that the banks were FORCED by the federal government to give loans to people that could not pay them back. The government would prosecute banks that did not give these loans. (0 down financing, no background checks or credit history) The banks realized this was going to blow up in their face and continued selling them in packages as "mortgage backed securities" etc and traders kept buying them until they realized they had no real value. Then they would sell them again and pass them on down the line. Eventually they had lost so much value and people were stuck with so many... collapse time. REGULATION CAUSED IT!!!!(as with every financial disaster in American History). It is verifiable and I have provided links to it. A little research will confirm this.
I think this last paragraph is logically indefensible. Do all rich people have money pens like scrooge mcduck? Do they take swims in their money? What is the point of having wealth? It is to spend it on goodies they want. Yahts, homes, the latest gadgets and electronics, cars, etc. Heck they may want to earn more by starting another business and creating more jobs. When they spend any of that money what happens? That's right, it keeps people in a job. It circulates money throughout the economy. So we can all talk about how much we hate the rich... how greedy they are etc, but a simple economics class will tell us that the more money they have, the better it is for EVERYONE.
MANTI5
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Elite
Audioholic bringing the truth.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
A life is a life, isn't it? That is the premise behind the pro-life viewpoint. In fact, it goes so far as to say that a human that is not even self-aware yet is still a life. So to follow that stance, and then suggest killing in the name of your commander is somehow different, because the life the soldier takes is an 'enemy' seems like a huge double standard to me.
Smaller... than what? Another republican talking point, repeated with the same lack of any real content that it was initially given when the person repeating it first heard it. It seems many republicans are comfortable with simply defining their ideal as 'smaller than what democrats want'. Id aim for a higher ideal if it were me.
Well at least you tried to add some content, but lets look at it beyond the political catch phrases. Would defense of this country not constitute a goal that reaches into the life of every citizen? Yes, it would. So we can take the 'dont reach into peoples lives' ideal off the table, unless you want to refine the statement to only include what YOU want to affect your life. The problem is, we have 300 million different opinions of how much govt interference is too much.
Shall we turn over road building to private industry? We pay a toll at every stop sign? The police is also a private entity? What about international strategic financial and political policies? Do all 300 million of us just get together twice a week to decide how to handle Iran, Israel/Palestine, import tariffs on products from foreign auto manufacturers, etc? Saying 'smaller govt' is a great ideal, in fact I generally would take this stance over the idea that we should let the govt make even more decisions for us than they already do. But to end your political platform at 'less govt' is a gross generalization to the point of giving no real substance which gives it credibility.
Libertarians would be just as offended at you suggesting they are anti-govt as you appear to be at me suggesting 'conservatives' in the extreme are for a free-market society. If Ron Paul was elected president, would he shut down all other aspects of our govt besides the army? You are painting yourself into a corner that you have yet to realize.
You seem to be intentionally bypassing my true point, I have to wonder why. As I said before, you word your belief so as to make any disagreement of it seem ridiculous. Lets reread what you said: "compromise to allow a welfare state that oppresses people by keeping them dependent on government rather than using their own skill and industry to thrive". So again, you word your stance to suggest anything more than what you deem a satisfactory dependance on govt would just be a bunch of serfs relying on govt to support them. If you were truly secure with your belief, you would not use such extremism to describe what disagreeing opinions want. A liberal does not think 'gee Id like to have an oppressive govt that squashes individuality', they simply see their opinion as less conservative than yours. It is exactly this type of extremist demonizing that Ive been talking about in this thread, you continue to do it without realizing it. Im not surprised, nor does it lower my opinion of you, its a sad fact that many people in this country, on both sides of the aisle, use the same tactic. Instead of using content to support their view, they use demonizing of the other side to suggest that since that other side is so clearly wrong, our side MUST be right. Its very similar to saying conservatives are for 'smaller govt' but dont go into silly little details like exactly what that would entail (beyond less than what we have now).
Its sad that you view compromising in such a negative way. By your definition, compromise is a synonym for failure. A more rounded view of what compromise is would be to approach a disagreement not by focusing on the differences of opinion, but instead to focus on the common ground between the two sides, and come to an agreement that satisfies both sides as much as possible. I think your definition of compromise is at the heart of why you are so unwilling to actually compromise on anything beyond what you consider unimportant.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
How is me saying our country has been built on compromising somehow being disrespectful to you? Of all the things you could take offense to, this would have been right at the bottom of my list of possibilities. Im honestly confused here.
Im not 'disgusted' with anything you've said here. I have, more than once, tried to explain that I do respect your opinion. This just feels like more of the same thing you tried on me yesterday by claiming I said we should just 'give up', when I have never said any such thing (a point you failed to even acknowledge btw). Im not disgusted with you, your opinion, or your political choices. I think we are having a reasonably respectful discussion here. So please do not try to portray me as disgusted or in some other way angry or lacking respect. Thanks.
Incorrect, our govt was designed as a machine which is lubricated with compromise. Our founding fathers did not design a system with gridlock in mind as the intention. To suggest as such seems beyond absurd to me. What it has grown into, however, is a system which is lubricated by political polarization. You are helping feed that polarization by accepting that liberals simply want a welfare state, and the removal of individual liberty.
I agree. With the attempt to implement social healthcare, that is hard to deny. But where you and I part ways is when you fail to see that republicans have tried to lean too far in the other direction as well. Again, the deregulation of the banking/lending system is a prime example.
Many things lead to the current crisis, yes including too much regulation in some places. But its much more accurate to say that the over all problem was too little regulation, where it was needed most. In 2004 the SEC lowered regulations on the amount of debt a lending institution could have. IN 2007, the top 5 investment banks in the US posted over $4 trillion in debt, approx 1/3 of the entire US economy.
Its also more accurate to say that quasi-legal actions on the part of those investment banks, in the form of marketing and selling of mortgage backed securities, to insure their own profit margins, was a major contributor to the financial crisis. S&P gave AAA ratings to ENRON days before it filed for bankruptcy. It also gave artificially high ratings to those risky mortgage backed securities we now know lead to the crisis. How is that caused by too much regulation? Its not, it was caused by not enough oversight which allowed individuals, and individual institutions, to risk what amounted to the health of the entire economy, to gain their own personal growth. Take on a bunch of high risk mortgages? No problem, just bundle them together, slap a AAA rating on them, sell for a profit, take home your multi-million dollar bonus at the end of the year. Its no secret that the CEO's of those investment banks did, and continue to this day, to 'earn' huge salaries and bonuses even though their companies have lead to the greatest financial crisis in several generations. Again, not a symptom of too much regulation, a symptom of too little. But the over all situation is so vast that its easy to gerrymander a few talking points to create the illusion of whatever cause you want, such as what you've attempted to do here by saying too much regulation lead to the crisis.
When did I say I hate the rich? Must have been that same reply where I said we all might as well just give up and not even try. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif But seriously, yes I understand the idea behind trickle-down, and Ive been seen here on ca.com, more than once, defending it. But even a successful trickle-down effect must be controlled by regulation, or individual greed will unravel the whole ball of twine. Im sure in a world of haves and have-nots, you'd be happy to be one of the have-nots, so long as you could put even just meager food on your table by building yachts for the elite super-rich, right?
"Rich people" are not the problem, its human nature to strive for individual success over societal success. If you claim you would gladly live the life of a pauper, so that everyone else around you could live at a higher standard, than you would be one rare human being. Even at the very core of conservatism, a free-market society, it is acknowledged that people are inherently greedy. Its merely suggested that this greed can be made to help improve society as a whole. Not many enlightened people think we should attempt to build a society on the notion that people are inherently generous.
martiandancer31
10+ year member
Front Towards Enemy
if you walk up to a pregnant woman and put a bullet in her head you get charged with double homicide, do you not?¿
OP
ahole-ic
Banned
- Thread Starter
- #282
You ignored my argument and chose to continue with yours, which is irrelevant. Where is an enemy combatant's life guaranteed under the Declaration of Independence? Does it have jurisdiction to a foreign land? No, so the premise I established does not apply to your argument at all. I know you want it to because it's all you have, but it doesn't hold up as I've repeatedly told you and you've repeatedly ignored.
I defined this to, and you ignored it because it defeated your point. Clearly I talked about the healthcare bill. I can get into EPA regulations based on a debunked myth of man-made global warming. The hacked emails from the University of East Anglia exposed that as a hoax yet we still can't drill for and produce our own energy at the rate we could because of this phony science. Businesses can't emit so much "pollution" because of them. They go above and beyond polluting drinking water and local air which could easily be justified and nobody has a problem with preventing.
I've added content with each point. You have just chosen to ignore it in most cases because my clear and concise arguments shut yours down. You're really reaching with this point. Protecting the sovereignty of this land does not encroach on individual liberties and requires no action, inaction, or any sort of burden upon the citizens. So the way you framed your question is not applicable to what I stated. I realize you have to do this so it seems like you have a point, but you're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes.
Again, you're talking about libertarians. Your argument now is, that because I did not list these things that I have to be against the government funding them. That is why you're on such shaky ground and obviously grasping at straws. I didn't exclude any of these items. Your argument is based on the fact that it is unrealistic for me to go through and systematically itemize each thing that Conservatives are in favor of the government paying for. That's a very weak argument.
No I don't think so. Most libertarians are quite in favor of "the chaos theory" etc. I'm not painting myself anywhere. You have yet to realize that your entire argument is based on your assumptions and biases. You are doing what you accused me of. I say one thing and you argue another based very loosely on the comments. I think it is because you did not feel like reading everything I wrote because it was so lengthy.
It's clear I am secure with my belief. You are now trying to characterize my comments on the welfare state to be hateful putdowns of someone. It's obvious that the welfare state in this country isn't helping the vast majority of people using it. They are depending on it, not using it as a crutch in their time of need. Because they have this option, why would they try to better themselves? It is common sense that when people can get something for free they will. If you were in school and your teacher said "Everyone will pass this class whether they show up or not as long as one person shows up and does the work and earns an A" How many people would attend? It stifles creativity. It encourages laziness and complacency and does not help anyone. What I find laughable at the arrogance in your comments. You truly believe that you have some intellectual superiority in what you say, yet your points are all assumptions, off the mark, and generally an intentional misinterpretation of what I've actually said.
I have explained this to you several times and you have insisted on not listening to it.If you were in a basketball game and your team was getting creamed... I'm talking 50 to 4, and you come out and decide you're going to match the other team point for point (compromise, give one to get one) you lose the game and you're no better off than you were at half time. What you have failed to acknowledge is, the other side is not willing to compromise. I showed this by asking you how many times they passed HUGE bills that had no Republican votes. You ignored that and told me I should want to compromise. Where is the compromise on the other side? No you cannot go into it looking to compromise because when Republicans do that, it means crossing the aisle and becoming democrats like john mccain. Positive change can only occur from defeating people like that. They refuse to compromise and because of it we must too. Look at the healthcare bill. Look at some bailouts, and all of the crazy spending that has gone on recently. Where have they compromised to get Republican support? What about a budget? Congress hasn't passed a budget for over 1000 days. Paul Ryan put a budget forth a couple of years ago that would fix a lot of the problems that are currently going on. It passed the house and the democrats in the senate blocked it. Where was the compromise? You've got this idea that everyone can just concede a couple of points in the name of "getting things done" and we can all sit around and sing koombaya or however it's spelled. That is lunacy. It simply won't work in this climate. If you paid attention you'd KNOW that. The fact that you refuse to see it in the name of inflating your ego in your attempts to argue with me is just sad.
MANTI5
10+ year member
CarAudio.com Elite
The sad thing is, ecrack can't see how lost he is. Audioholic completely detroyed him with logic and reasoning. "Again, like your comment on higher taxes oppressing people, you word your 'belief' in such an extreme way so as to render any disagreement as repulsive. This is a defense mechanism you use to distance yourself from any real discussion that might threaten what you feel is one of your 'core beliefs'."
/thread
/thread
OP
ahole-ic
Banned
- Thread Starter
- #284
What I said is right... try to prove me wrong. Come at me bro! give it a shot come on come on come on..... that's how.
Come on... try it. Try me... just see what I can do... come on come on.
Right. Totally respectful.... and I am not the one ignoring things the other is saying brah.
Explain the filibuster then please.
What are you even referring to here? I already asked you to do your homework on the community reinvestment act that caused the housing crisis. Apparently your ego wouldn't let you do that.
If you'll read, these banks requested exemptions in order to continue trading these "toxic assets" that the government forced them to deal with in the first place by way of the CRA. The exemption gave access to billions of dollars in reserve to cushion against losses on their investments caused by dealing with these "assets". The idea was that the funds would flow up to the parent company and let it invest in mortgage-backed securities, etc.
To say that not enough regulation led to enron is a half truth. To make that suggestion, you would have to say that basically the federal government MUST perform the audit of each company with net revenue in excess of x amount. Otherwise, each company can still cook it's books and hire auditors to look the other way. In this case, the auditor was also an advisor etc. I suppose the questions are, what outcome do you think would have happened if the government would have regulated enron perfectly? What would have been the perfect regulation/s? Just saying "more regulation" is a cop out. It's pretty cut and dry that other than the military, everything the federal government touches is an outright failure.
When did I say you said you hate the rich? When did I say killing is killing? Don't try to spin what I said as an attack on you when it wasn't and then act appalled when something you said was taken out of context when your whole argument is based on that very thing. All you've done to argue me is try to spin what I've said into something else and then argue there. LOL. This entire statement you just made spun what I said out of context, and even after a careful explanation by me, you tried to make it look like all I care about is rich people.... so I could say you're talking about building a military base on the moon right now and you would have no right to complain. Your arguments are THAT irrelevant to my comments.
Individual success = societal success. When everyone is trying to make as much money as possible they will make more than when they are complacent receiving their gubment cheese. When people have more money in their pockets they spend more, thus helping society. You had to ignore my scrooge mcduck comments to even make these ignorant statements you made. It doesn't take government regulation to get people to spend their money. That's why they are earning it... to get the things they want. To insinuate that the government must seize some of it to keep them from hording it is juvenile and really not worthy of my time.
OP
ahole-ic
Banned
- Thread Starter
- #285
Look there isn't a person reading this thread that doesn't realize that me absolutely destroying you has you mad so you've done nothing but attack me. Quoting audioholic's nitpicking on my personal beliefs doesn't win/lose anything. I disproved his point and if your brain comprehended logic you'd see that. All thread you've shown how little you comprehend and how petty you are. You are clearly a very simple minded and small person. We get that.... but you've made yourself look bad enough. Please raise your hand so the teacher in your ld class will wipe the drool from your face and escort you back to your secure cubicle and put your helmet back on. Thanks.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
- Start date
- Participants
- Who Replied
- Replies
- 313
- Views
- 3,567
- Last reply date
- Last reply from
- Scratchy
