BF2S Forums American 'liberals' have gone too far on this one...

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yer right, they all just decided to leave homeland, friends and family forever for the fun of it, and not because they believed they had better opprotunity away from big govt. Europe.

What the fuck are you on about man? The size of government has  nothing to do with it, it's about your own economic situation and whether you are being oppressed or not. Not this "OMG BIG GOVERNMENT" bullshit.

and who in your mind is doing the oppressing? I suppose a weak non-intrusive govt.?

I look forward to this answer.

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

and who in your mind is doing the oppressing? I suppose a weak non-intrusive govt.?

I look forward to this answer.

Right, because socialist governments are also dictatorships.

And who said government was the only thing that had to be doing the oppressing?

Well gee whiz, I said big govt. who said anything about dictatorships? Wealth redistribution and punishing achievment is also oppression however.

and who else is supposed to be oppressive, in the context of this discussion, that would cause a mass exidus from Europe to Ellis Island. If not for the laws and oppression of Europe's govts.? Let me guess, an entire generation of shitty mother-in-laws?

Last edited by Spark (2009-12-11 16:07:19)

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Right, because socialist governments are also dictatorships.

And who said government was the only thing that had to be doing the oppressing?

Well gee whiz, I said big govt. who said anything about dictatorships? Wealth redistribution and punishing achievment is also oppression however.

...

and who else is supposed to be oppressive, in the context of this discussion, that would cause a mass exidus from Europe to Ellis Island. If not for the laws and oppression of Europe's govts.? Let me guess, an entire generation of shitty mother-in-laws?

Two world wars and a depression, perhaps?

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-11 16:22:53)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its funny, lowing is happy for big govt to have a big military to push everyone else around, but when it comes to himself he wants small govt.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-11 16:35:22)

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Two world wars and a depression, perhaps?

Eh... no. Most immigrants came to America just after 1848. The Irish because of the potato famine and the Germans because of the failed revolutions.

Well lowing seems to be completely ignoring that. His 'big government causes immigration' would only work for this century and even then...

Somehow I don't think "big government" providing socialised healthcare and education at the expense of high taxes was the cause of either world war. And the great depression was a market failure.

But in any case John what you say there matches up with what I thought, that most immigration came before the turn of the 20th century.

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Well lowing seems to be completely ignoring that. His 'big government causes immigration' would only work for this century and even then...

Somehow I don't think "big government" providing socialised healthcare and education at the expense of high taxes was the cause of either world war. And the great depression was a market failure.

But in any case John what you say there matches up with what I thought, that most immigration came before the turn of the 20th century.

How does that match up with what you say when said that immigration was caused by two world wars and a depression?

Oh, I was talking about lowing's assumption that the immigration was caused by big governments. Given that continental Europe wasn't ruled by "democratic" governments until the late 19th/20th century, if you had to look at obvious causes for any immigration that occurred that would be it. Because the patent implication of his line of thought is that the communist/socialist governments in Europe were the cause of immigration (never mind that said governments didn't let you emigrate in the first place).

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its funny, lowing is happy for big govt to have a big military to push everyone else around, but when it comes to himself he wants small govt.

We already got him on that in this thread today:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=133204&p=3

No actually, Reagan had a strong military and he was not big govt. Big govt. did not interfere in the private sector nor did his administration punish achievement with an enormous tax burden.

So basically, yer Virginia, you can have a strong military without big govt. interference.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-12 06:59:12)

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

No actually, Reagan had a strong military and he was not big govt. Big govt. did not interfere in the private sector nor did his administration punish achievement with an enormous tax burden.

So basically, yer Virginia, you can have a strong military without big govt. interference.

You're confused between the myth of Reagan and the actuality.

If Reagan told you that increasing spending for Medicare was not big government, would you believe him? Because he did that.

He increased our budget and deficit more than any other peacetime President in history. The myth says he was a fiscal conservative. The reality is he was a free-spending senile old man who was very good at rhetoric. Reminds me of a certain black an who is rather free spending and very good at the rhetoric too.

Thats funny, I seem to remember a very prosperous 8 years under Reagan so does everyone else who actually EARNED a living.

Reagan was about tax cuts, not theft for the sake of wealth redistribution.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-12 07:04:45)

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You're confused between the myth of Reagan and the actuality.

If Reagan told you that increasing spending for Medicare was not big government, would you believe him? Because he did that.

He increased our budget and deficit more than any other peacetime President in history. The myth says he was a fiscal conservative. The reality is he was a free-spending senile old man who was very good at rhetoric. Reminds me of a certain black an who is rather free spending and very good at the rhetoric too.

Thats funny, I seem to remember a very prosperous 8 years under Reagan so does everyone else who actually EARNED a living.

Reagan was about tax cuts, not theft for the sake of wealth redistribution.

Yes, he coupled tax cuts with spending increases. He sunk trillions into upgrading the military and put it all on a credit card for a future generation to pay off. Glad you enjoyed the 80s. I'm going to be paying for your fun when I'm old and gray.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You seem to have a serious disconnect from what a fiscal conservative actually is. Tax cuts must be the result of cuts in spending. The whole idea is to carry a balanced budget without deficit spending.

If you increase spending you are fiscally liberal. If you decrease spending you are fiscally conservative. If you increase spending without raising taxes to pay for it, you are fiscally retarded. Just like the fiscally retarded people you like to bash for spending more than they have and living on credit and well beyond their means... Reagan was one of them. Hate to break the news to you.

A balanced budget, has got nothing to do with this discussion about a strong military and strong govt. control over our lives. They are not the same things. Reagan era proved this. regardless of the fuckin' budget.

Also , whatever lie I was living sure has done me quite well.


You are all over the place on this military thing. Here are your inconsistencies

You claim you d onot need a strong military, yet maintain all you need are nukes. I say, if you can destroy the world 80 times over, you have astrong military, just a different type. It also means that you must agree with me, that you need a strong military to defend your society and your freedoms.

You claim earlier that air power does not win the war, that you need boots on the ground, yet later then claim nukes are all you need.

Tell ya what, get your story straight as to what you actually wannna argue about and let me know.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

apparently a failed potato crop is evidence of an oppressive government. who knew!

Who said a fuckin' thing about potatoes? As if the Irish alone make up Europe, or those passing through Ellis Island.