Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

 

2007-03-27 16:45:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6856|North Carolina

oChaos.Haze wrote:

Hunter, gotchya man.  I just assumed that if they become conservative after college, then it had something to do with college.  You merely meant as a timestamp of their lives and maturing process, I take?

But I still disagree with the notion that more adults are conservative.  I do believe that more conservatives become such as adults.  I just don't know if it's the clear cut majority as you make it seem.  Aside from what the word means, and how we use it, I think the majority of Americans are actually pretty liberal.  Not liberal like abortions all around and trees are more important than people and shit like that.  That's TV liberal.  I mean liberal like, lets move to a higher plane of existence.  Let's live for more than the status quo.  Let others live how they want, and let me live how I want.  I mean hell, most conservatives like less government.  And with the way things are right now, that would be a liberal view in my point.  I think everyone can agree that regardless of your views, we all want to move forward, and progress.  Which in a way, is a liberal notion.  Kinda gray area, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.  I just think the word is so distorted now, it's almost impossible to get a conservative to realize that they might be thinking liberally conservative, if that makes any sense at all.  Still progressing forward, while keeping yesterday in mind.  That's kinda how I think about it all.  I feel like there's somewhere better we can get to, as long as we remember where we came from.  Feels like a liberal ideal to me, meh.

It becomes hard when you battle between what the word liberal and conservative mean by definition, and what they mean according the the people saying them.  I see what your saying, I just think that it's so backwards now, that being conservative might be liberal and vice versa, haha.
Great points...  I would agree that the terms have become very ambiguous.

I guess what separates me from both liberal and conservative is my lack of hope in humanity for the most part.  I really don't see America getting any better, only worse....
2007-03-27 17:04:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

So then you consider Hitler to be a paragon of democratic values?
Nope, the reality of Hitlers terror had nothing to do with "democratic values".

The difference is, I am speaking of real world, how it is practiced, and you are speaking of fantasy land and how it is supposed to be practiced.
2007-03-27 17:12:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

So let me pose a question, and Lowing, this is based on your comment that there is no reason for people who are physically and mentally healthy to be poor.

First off, even when a person is physically and mentally healthy does not mean that all people are equal in physical or mental capabilities.  Some people are just flat out stronger, and some just flat out smarter.

So, given the fundamental concept that poor people worked/studied harder so they weren't poor, as they increase their income their buying power increases; thus them not being poor any longer.  However, this purchasing power would still create inflation and drive up the cost of goods and services, thus resulting in a gradual spiral back into poverty.  The bottom line is that our form of economics makes it such that there is no way but to have a classed system that spans from the very poorest to the very richest.

Comments?
Well, good post, but to answer it:

You are very correct when you say able bodied people are able at different degrees. That is why poverty has a range of 0-12 or 15 thousand a year. lower class has a range of maybe 16-30 thousand a year, middle class might range from 30-75 thousand a year and upper class 76-175 thousand a year and flat out rich/elite beyond that. My numbers might not be accurate but they are only to prove a point. That to match degrees of ability they have degrees of classes.

lower-middle, middle-middle, upper-middle etc.........

This is a capitalist society what exactly is wrong with a classed system economy? Anything less would be liberalism/socialism/communism.
2007-03-28 01:03:23
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012

lowing wrote:

Nope, the reality of Hitlers terror had nothing to do with "democratic values".
But he repeatedly declared his commitment to Democracy.  Even the name, National Socialist German Workers' Party, implied rule by the people.  Surely no leader would call themselves something they aren't.

lowing wrote:

The difference is, I am speaking of real world, how it is practiced, and you are speaking of fantasy land and how it is supposed to be practiced.
The USSR called itself Communist.

This does not mean it is.

It's practices were nothing like Communism (a command economy is not Communist).

It is not uncommon for people to give themselves tags which the people like and act in a manner which does not match with their supposed ideology.  Look at Hitler as an example.  Or Saddam Hussein, who regularly held elections: was he democratic?
2007-03-28 01:23:34
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7006

lowing wrote:

lower-middle, middle-middle, upper-middle etc.........

This is a capitalist society what exactly is wrong with a classed system economy? Anything less would be liberalism/socialism/communism.
Socialist and liberal economies also have classes lowing, in case you didn't realise. They just aren't as far apart and as difiicult to ascend as with absolutist capitalism.
2007-03-28 06:56:54
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6805
Ascending classes ( your expression ) is not difficult at all in the United States, some work is required. What capitalistic society do you speak of?

ps watch your spelling some one may throw a hissy fit. lol
2007-03-28 06:57:56
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012
Yes.  The US is full of sunshine and happiness.
2007-03-28 07:19:53
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7187|Salt Lake City

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

So let me pose a question, and Lowing, this is based on your comment that there is no reason for people who are physically and mentally healthy to be poor.

First off, even when a person is physically and mentally healthy does not mean that all people are equal in physical or mental capabilities.  Some people are just flat out stronger, and some just flat out smarter.

So, given the fundamental concept that poor people worked/studied harder so they weren't poor, as they increase their income their buying power increases; thus them not being poor any longer.  However, this purchasing power would still create inflation and drive up the cost of goods and services, thus resulting in a gradual spiral back into poverty.  The bottom line is that our form of economics makes it such that there is no way but to have a classed system that spans from the very poorest to the very richest.

Comments?
Well, good post, but to answer it:

You are very correct when you say able bodied people are able at different degrees. That is why poverty has a range of 0-12 or 15 thousand a year. lower class has a range of maybe 16-30 thousand a year, middle class might range from 30-75 thousand a year and upper class 76-175 thousand a year and flat out rich/elite beyond that. My numbers might not be accurate but they are only to prove a point. That to match degrees of ability they have degrees of classes.

lower-middle, middle-middle, upper-middle etc.........

This is a capitalist society what exactly is wrong with a classed system economy? Anything less would be liberalism/socialism/communism.
But doesn't that statement counter what you said in that no able bodied/minded person should never be poor in the US?

Now believe me, I'm in full agreement that our social services programs need an overhaul, and absolutely do not agree with generations of families living on welfare as a way of life.  In fact, it was your favorite person in the whole world, William Jefferson Clinton, that set time limits on welfare.

Aside from those that feel "entitled" to living on welfare we have a growing number of working poor; those that do work, often multiple jobs, that still can't afford basic housing, clothing, and food for them and their families.  Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that in a country as wealthy as the US, that has an econimic model that can do nothing but make classes, offer those at the very bottom a little help to make sure they aren't living out of their cars and scrounging dumpsters for food.  As since you are so big on supporting our military, let's throw something else into the mix.

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans wrote:

Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And nearly 400,000 experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country. According to the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Urban Institute, 1999), veterans account for 23% of all homeless people in America.
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
2007-03-28 14:08:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, the reality of Hitlers terror had nothing to do with "democratic values".
But he repeatedly declared his commitment to Democracy.  Even the name, National Socialist German Workers' Party, implied rule by the people.  Surely no leader would call themselves something they aren't.

lowing wrote:

The difference is, I am speaking of real world, how it is practiced, and you are speaking of fantasy land and how it is supposed to be practiced.
The USSR called itself Communist.

This does not mean it is.

It's practices were nothing like Communism (a command economy is not Communist).

It is not uncommon for people to give themselves tags which the people like and act in a manner which does not match with their supposed ideology.  Look at Hitler as an example.  Or Saddam Hussein, who regularly held elections: was he democratic?
Bubbalo if I made a comment that asked name 1 communist country in Europe because Europe never had 1. YOU would first in line to correct me and say "Uhhhhhhhhhhh USSR anyone"?

Again I am talking about what we ALL refer to as communism and you know it, you are just trying to split hairs to save your point.
2007-03-28 14:10:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

So let me pose a question, and Lowing, this is based on your comment that there is no reason for people who are physically and mentally healthy to be poor.

First off, even when a person is physically and mentally healthy does not mean that all people are equal in physical or mental capabilities.  Some people are just flat out stronger, and some just flat out smarter.

So, given the fundamental concept that poor people worked/studied harder so they weren't poor, as they increase their income their buying power increases; thus them not being poor any longer.  However, this purchasing power would still create inflation and drive up the cost of goods and services, thus resulting in a gradual spiral back into poverty.  The bottom line is that our form of economics makes it such that there is no way but to have a classed system that spans from the very poorest to the very richest.

Comments?
Well, good post, but to answer it:

You are very correct when you say able bodied people are able at different degrees. That is why poverty has a range of 0-12 or 15 thousand a year. lower class has a range of maybe 16-30 thousand a year, middle class might range from 30-75 thousand a year and upper class 76-175 thousand a year and flat out rich/elite beyond that. My numbers might not be accurate but they are only to prove a point. That to match degrees of ability they have degrees of classes.

lower-middle, middle-middle, upper-middle etc.........

This is a capitalist society what exactly is wrong with a classed system economy? Anything less would be liberalism/socialism/communism.
But doesn't that statement counter what you said in that no able bodied/minded person should never be poor in the US?

Now believe me, I'm in full agreement that our social services programs need an overhaul, and absolutely do not agree with generations of families living on welfare as a way of life.  In fact, it was your favorite person in the whole world, William Jefferson Clinton, that set time limits on welfare.

Aside from those that feel "entitled" to living on welfare we have a growing number of working poor; those that do work, often multiple jobs, that still can't afford basic housing, clothing, and food for them and their families.  Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that in a country as wealthy as the US, that has an econimic model that can do nothing but make classes, offer those at the very bottom a little help to make sure they aren't living out of their cars and scrounging dumpsters for food.  As since you are so big on supporting our military, let's throw something else into the mix.

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans wrote:

Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And nearly 400,000 experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country. According to the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Urban Institute, 1999), veterans account for 23% of all homeless people in America.
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
Again, if you are able bodied and of sound mind, and got yourself educated either by trade or classroom, you have no excuse to be poor. Give me one that is beyond your control or your personal choice.

Mind you, I am not saying you should be filthy rich, but you should not be in poverty.

Last edited by lowing (2007-03-28 14:11:32)

2007-03-28 15:31:48
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6805
totaly agree
2007-03-28 19:51:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA
Beuller.....Beuller..............
2007-03-28 20:28:34
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo if I made a comment that asked name 1 communist country in Europe because Europe never had 1. YOU would first in line to correct me and say "Uhhhhhhhhhhh USSR anyone"?
No, I wouldn't.

lowing wrote:

Again I am talking about what we ALL refer to as communism and you know it, you are just trying to split hairs to save your point.
There was a time when we all called the Earth flat, is that correct?
2007-03-28 20:49:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo if I made a comment that asked name 1 communist country in Europe because Europe never had 1. YOU would first in line to correct me and say "Uhhhhhhhhhhh USSR anyone"?
No, I wouldn't.

lowing wrote:

Again I am talking about what we ALL refer to as communism and you know it, you are just trying to split hairs to save your point.
There was a time when we all called the Earth flat, is that correct?
As soon as you figure out what you mean by this post, let me know so I can follow.
2007-03-28 21:13:19
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012
Majority wisdom isn't always right.
2007-03-28 21:20:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Majority wisdom isn't always right.
Bubbalo, you know what we are all talking about when we talk about communism so get into the real world such as it is lived . Bring your liberal buddies with ya if you want.
2007-03-28 21:22:34
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012
So now that you can't argue with my statement you're just going to declare yourself to be right?
2007-03-28 21:27:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

So now that you can't argue with my statement you're just going to declare yourself to be right?
What statement??.............I have been responding in this thread about societies AS THEY ARE LIVED, you have been doing it, by your own admittance, by societies that have and never will exist.

As it is practiced in the real world liberalism/socialism/communism are all but the same thing. Everyone working for the common good and everyone rewarded equally. With the govt. flipping the bill for all your needs.
2007-03-28 21:30:50
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012
But Communism never has been lived.  It has never been practiced.  People declaring themselves to be Communist have achieved power, but that doesn't mean they are Communist, as I've already pointed out.
2007-03-28 21:34:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

But Communism never has been lived.  It has never been practiced.  People declaring themselves to be Communist have achieved power, but that doesn't mean they are Communist, as I've already pointed out.
And I have pointed out that what we refer to as communism is the generally accept practice of which we see from the USSR and China. You know it, and you know what was meant by all my previous posts regarding it. Now, challenge that in the context of which it was meant or just let it go.
2007-03-28 21:36:15
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012
But you cannot use that as an example of what Liberalism is because they weren't Liberals.
2007-03-28 21:46:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

But you cannot use that as an example of what Liberalism is because they weren't Liberals.
Once again, you know the context of what was said. And you know that what is practiced in the USSR and China is accepted as Communism by the rest of the world. Time for you join the bandwagon.
2007-03-28 22:22:04
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7012
Never!  The bandwagon shall leave without me!

I do know the context in which is was said, and that context was to show the Liberals support dictatorships, so to show that that's true you must demonstrate either:

a)  That Stalin was a Liberal

or

b)  That Liberals support Stalin
2007-03-29 04:55:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7102|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Never!  The bandwagon shall leave without me!

I do know the context in which is was said, and that context was to show the Liberals support dictatorships, so to show that that's true you must demonstrate either:

a)  That Stalin was a Liberal

or

b)  That Liberals support Stalin
I said TODAYS liberals were like communists in the sense that they liked big govt. and govt. control over our lives. That they believe "we are all in this together" and we should all work for the common good and let the govt. dicticate what that "common good" was. I also said individuality is discourged and that sharing all you have earned with all those "less fortunate" is essential.

But hey, a dictatorship is most certainly big govt. and TODAYS liberals like big govt. thewy just might feel right at home with a dictator in power. Why not, they certainly do not want a nation with the capability of defending itself. Something we already discussed and agreed upon.
2007-03-29 05:15:16
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7006

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Never!  The bandwagon shall leave without me!

I do know the context in which is was said, and that context was to show the Liberals support dictatorships, so to show that that's true you must demonstrate either:

a)  That Stalin was a Liberal

or

b)  That Liberals support Stalin
I said TODAYS liberals were like communists in the sense that they liked big govt. and govt. control over our lives. That they believe "we are all in this together" and we should all work for the common good and let the govt. dicticate what that "common good" was. I also said individuality is discourged and that sharing all you have earned with all those "less fortunate" is essential.

But hey, a dictatorship is most certainly big govt. and TODAYS liberals like big govt. thewy just might feel right at home with a dictator in power. Why not, they certainly do not want a nation with the capability of defending itself. Something we already discussed and agreed upon.
Well as a fairly liberal person I can tell you this:

a) I abhorr BIG government: I prefer government devolved to local levels wherever possible - it facilitates a truer form of democracy. Centralistation of power breeds corruption and distances leaders from the psyche of the ordinary man. I like a healthy and reasonable amount of government control over many (but not all) aspects of society, with plenty of checks and balances: not an unhealthy totalitarian amount.

b) The people dictate what the 'common good' is when they elect their representatives to government based on the manifestos presented to them, the government shouldn't dictate what it is. Most humans are hard working and societal and realise that if we work together in various facets of life we can achieve more for ourselves and make a better society for everybody at the same time. It's like a positive feedback system of personal and common benefit.

c) I'm a huge proponent of individuality. I am wary of globalisation for just this reason. Uniqueness and inidividulaity should be highly prized. Liberals DO NOT want everyone to be the same.

PS Josef Stalin was the number one criminal of all time if you ask me: He was a brutal, harsh, bloodthirsty, pig-headed dictator who cared nothing for his people and killed millions upon millions of them. I don't think you will find one liberal on the surface of the planet who doesn't think he was one of the worst people to see the light of day.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-29 05:19:27)

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard