Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Eyeball Chambers on January 03, 2014, 12:14:10 PM
-
Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views
- Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution
- Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors
- Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources
- There is no link between women's physical strength and political views
By Daily Mail Reporter
Men who are strong are more likely to take a right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim.
Their study discovered a link between a man’s upper-body strength and their political views.
Scientists from Aarhus University in Denmark collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status and support for economic redistribution from hundreds in America, Argentina and Denmark.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/16/article-2325414-15302A9C000005DC-89_634x440.jpg)
Men who are physically strong - like Arnold Schwarzenegger - are more likely to take a right wing political stance
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html#ixzz2pMtepCGV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
:D What a crock
-
Left wingers are rabid homo sissys
-
Repost, but well worth another look.
-
When is the last time you saw a bodybuilder laying down food stamps for his steaks?
-
I wonder why no mention of the distribution of socio-economic status since it was listed as one of the factors
maybe the men with larger arms are also blue collar workers or have other physical jobs and maybe the bicep size is not correlated with political views but with the fact they they are have physical jobs. It's pretty common for people for blue collar types to be right wing/conservative
-
People with stronger work ethic, motivation/drive and competitiveness are definitely, on average, more likely to be fiscal conservatives and opposed to nanny state government and redistribution. By nature, weaker people (maybe physical, mental or overall energy) and less motivated people are more likely to want (and need) the government to support & help them. All you guys in your 20s voting for liberal democrats are certainly voting for bigger controlling government...which means less personal freedoms.
-
Great post Lieutenant of common sense. The Math is pretty simple; "strong" men are well adapted and recognize the benefit of natural selection. Weaker urbanite "liberals" cannot thrive in this type of environement. Also a great part of their self esteem comes from "standing up" for the "less fortunate" (aka failed @ natural selection) and tap themselves on the back. Note they will do it if and only if that stand up action doesn't doesn't affect their lifestyle.
It's a classic Spartan vs Athenians debate.
-
team a23 as right wing as a high powered assault rifle, cigars and 20 inch arms 8)
-
Lefty Anarchist
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N1Ha7G5itiM/UH_2s2GZsNI/AAAAAAAADw0/czHcOVH86sc/s1600/Jeff-Monson.jpg)
And from what I hear, Arnold was never that strong. Arnold is the typical right wing type of guy who wants other people to THINK he is strong. Right Wingers will do anything to persuade people they are tough guys, even go as far to release media reports on pseudo intellectual and highly flawed studies claiming right wingers are tough.
ANd seriously, has anyone checked out your average politician, pathetically physically weak specimens the lot of them, as is the majority of the general population. Anybody who believes this propaganda has some serious insecurity issues.
Here is what your average right winger looks like
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2011/7/11/1310392765784/Charles-Montgomery-Burns--007.jpg)
-
totALLY LOGICAL
those who produce more and leaders want less tribe taking thier cash
those hindmost wana get most welfare
-
Monson is a monster, no doubt, but an anarchist is not a liberal democrat, defined by recent history anyway. Anarchy is something totally separate...not really right or left, it definitely is not big government control, quite the opposite. Big government and dependency is defining progressive leftists in the US.
-
team a23 as right wing as a high powered assault rifle, cigars and 20 inch arms 8)
All the fucking way 8)
Honestly, I don't consider myself "right" wing. I guess the closest would be Libertarian
Pro Gay Marriage
Pro racial equality
Pro Whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body
Anti drug control
Pro gun but pro gun control as well.
Pro Fiscal responsibility
Anti big Government
Pro border and illegal immigration control
Pro home schooling and education reform (get the gov'ment out of it)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg.html)
-
Monson is a monster, no doubt, but an anarchist is not a liberal democrat, defined by recent history anyway. Anarchy is something totally separate...not really right or left, it definitely is not big government control, quite the opposite. Big government and dependency is defining progressive leftists in the US.
Jeff is on the left. He has said he would like to do away with all class hierarchy in society and the institutions that promote this inequality. He is a member of the left wing Industrial Workers of the World and he receives sponsorship from the AK Press, a book distributor that specialises in radical left and anarchist literature. There is such a thing as right and left wing anarchism.The right want self-ownership and limited government and believe that naturally extends to supporting strong private property rights and free-market capitalism in contrast with left-wing views which do not support them.
-
Pro Gay Marriage
Pro racial equality
Pro Whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body
Anti drug control
Pro gun but pro gun control as well.
Pro Fiscal responsibility
Anti big Government
Pro border and illegal immigration control
Pro home schooling and education reform (get the gov'ment out of it)
This is pretty much my stance on things.
-
would be interesting to see the relationship with fearfulness and insecurity...hmmm?
-
would be interesting to see the relationship with fearfulness and insecurity...hmmm?
look up terror management theory
-
All the fucking way 8)
Honestly, I don't consider myself "right" wing. I guess the closest would be Libertarian
Pro Gay Marriage - LEFT
Pro racial equality - LEFT
Pro Whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body - LEFT
Anti drug control - LEFT
Pro gun but pro gun control as well. RIGHT & LEFT ???
Pro Fiscal responsibility - RIGHT
Anti big Government - Anarchism
Pro border and illegal immigration control - RIGHT
Pro home schooling and education reform (get the gov'ment out of it) - Only the middle and upper classes could afford to keep a parent home and school their own children. Most people aren't smart enough to teach a reasonable curriculum.
-
This is 100% true. Liberalism is a mental disorder... and makes you half a women.
Hope this helps.
And ahead of time. Screw all you lefty bitches. That's right.. Alpha Right Wing shit right there. Go cry your sensitive asses a river.
-
People with stronger work ethic, motivation/drive and competitiveness are definitely, on average, more likely to be fiscal conservatives and opposed to nanny state government and redistribution. By nature, weaker people (maybe physical, mental or overall energy) and less motivated people are more likely to want (and need) the government to support & help them. All you guys in your 20s voting for liberal democrats are certainly voting for bigger controlling government...which means less personal freedoms.
please post something to support your claim
I can list many different well known people with strong work ethic, motivation/drive and competitiveness who are not conservative (fiscally or otherwise)
If this is just your gut feeling or your personal beliefbased on your gut feeling then that's a different story
-
People with stronger work ethic, motivation/drive and competitiveness are definitely, on average, more likely to be fiscal conservatives and opposed to nanny state government and redistribution. By nature, weaker people (maybe physical, mental or overall energy) and less motivated people are more likely to want (and need) the government to support & help them. All you guys in your 20s voting for liberal democrats are certainly voting for bigger controlling government...which means less personal freedoms.
I guess you never heard of Scientists before. :-\
-
Monson is a monster, no doubt, but an anarchist is not a liberal democrat, defined by recent history anyway. Anarchy is something totally separate...not really right or left, it definitely is not big government control, quite the opposite. Big government and dependency is defining progressive leftists in the US.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet alone shit all over your "non-sensery" as well.
-
Monson is a monster, no doubt, but an anarchist is not a liberal democrat, defined by recent history anyway. Anarchy is something totally separate...not really right or left, it definitely is not big government control, quite the opposite. Big government and dependency is defining progressive leftists in the US.
That's because the political spectrum is more of a circle than right/left. Check Stalin and Hitler, dudes were both pretty fucking brutal and in total control, but one a communist and one a fascist are two totally different ideologies. Allegedly.
-
Jeff is on the left. He has said he would like to do away with all class hierarchy in society and the institutions that promote this inequality. He is a member of the left wing Industrial Workers of the World and he receives sponsorship from the AK Press, a book distributor that specialises in radical left and anarchist literature. There is such a thing as right and left wing anarchism.The right want self-ownership and limited government and believe that naturally extends to supporting strong private property rights and free-market capitalism in contrast with left-wing views which do not support them.
My friend, what about "NO" Association law in Queensland >:(
Bad,bad,mega bad bikers with 0.98% crime in that banana state .
Who is the next mob to be mega mega bad ?, stamps collectors,salads growers,etc,.......???????
-
Lefty Anarchist
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N1Ha7G5itiM/UH_2s2GZsNI/AAAAAAAADw0/czHcOVH86sc/s1600/Jeff-Monson.jpg)
And from what I hear, Arnold was never that strong. Arnold is the typical right wing type of guy who wants other people to THINK he is strong. Right Wingers will do anything to persuade people they are tough guys, even go as far to release media reports on pseudo intellectual and highly flawed studies claiming right wingers are tough.
ANd seriously, has anyone checked out your average politician, pathetically physically weak specimens the lot of them, as is the majority of the general population. Anybody who believes this propaganda has some serious insecurity issues.
Here is what your average right winger looks like
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2011/7/11/1310392765784/Charles-Montgomery-Burns--007.jpg)
Hey Sherlock Homely... you can't be a left and an anarchist.
Left is the isms... facism, socialism, Nazism etc. More government control. Less individual liberty.
Right is anarchy. No government involvement.
Think of it more as 4 quads then left and right.
Upper left... full on communism.
Upper right... full anarchy. Bottom right theocracy etc.
Up Liberal. Down Conservatism. Left big gov. Right small gov.
Do it on paper and you can slide the scale around. It's why we have a center, and not a middle. You would have a middle if you only had left and right. You need up and down too to have a center.
Your welcome for your education. Stick to bashing Islam dummy.
This guy would be upper right corner. No god and no government. (Bottom right is all god no gov. Aka Islam)
Get it?
-
Left wingers are rabid homo sissys
Mao & Stalin were leftist, but brutally right minded, nobody knows how many millions they eliminated ???
Look that North Korean fatso :P
-
I'm a libertarian beast.
-
I'm a libertarian beast.
Lay down your views chief. I'm curious on where you stand on the main "issues" beside Nibiru and Mary Jane.
-
Hey Sherlock Homely... you can't be a left and an anarchist.
Anarchism can go both ways, depending on what type of Anarchism you go in for. But essentially it is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, Think Noam Chomsky. Essentially anarchism is a modification of the left wing principles of anti-authoritarian communism, communism being "...the theory of the Communism can be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property" - Karl Marx
Left Wing can be thought of as future thinking, progressive whereas right wing is stuck in the past and wants to maintain the status quo (like private property laws) You can't be a right winger with the goal of maintaining the status quo and support a radical system like anarchism. Right wingers at the very least want Government to protect private property laws. Left Wingers goal is for personal freedom whereas right wingers goals are economic freedom. The right love Government, but only when it helps maintain their privilege, when they talk about stripping back Government,they mean stripping back the parts that makes society fairer and more equitable for those who aren't as privileged as they with the desire of maintaining any current privilege they have.
Left Wing = Giving a damn about other human beings, Right Wing = giving a damn only about oneself. You probably have mistaken the term Anarchism for some civil battleground where lawlessness and chaos reign, that would be a right wing interpretation.. That's not the concept that left wingers like Noam chomsky have on the matter. Anarchism is left because it is offered up as an effective way to deliver left wing ideals: Equality, Improved Society, personal freedom, worker support, level playing field, fairness and fair trade, inclusivity, evolving, one for all and all for one, reducing the many victims of the current system,
-
All the fucking way 8)
Honestly, I don't consider myself "right" wing. I guess the closest would be Libertarian
Pro Gay Marriage
Pro racial equality
Pro Whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body
Anti drug control
Pro gun but pro gun control as well.
Pro Fiscal responsibility
Anti big Government
Pro border and illegal immigration control
Pro home schooling and education reform (get the gov'ment out of it)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg.html)
good list
-
My friend, what about "NO" Association law in Queensland >:(
Bad,bad,mega bad bikers with 0.98% crime in that banana state .
Who is the next mob to be mega mega bad ?, stamps collectors,salads growers,etc,.......???????
Bikers? What bikers? We do not have any bikers. :D
-
Anarchism can go both ways, depending on what type of Anarchism you go in for. But essentially it is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, Think Noam Chomsky. Essentially anarchism is a modification of the left wing principles of anti-authoritarian communism, communism being "...the theory of the Communism can be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property" - Karl Marx
Left Wing can be thought of as future thinking, progressive whereas right wing is stuck in the past and wants to maintain the status quo (like private property laws) You can't be a right winger with the goal of maintaining the status quo and support a radical system like anarchism. Right wingers at the very least want Government to protect private property laws. Left Wingers goal is for personal freedom whereas right wingers goals are economic freedom. The right love Government, but only when it helps maintain their privilege, when they talk about stripping back Government,they mean stripping back the parts that makes society fairer and more equitable for those who aren't as privileged as they with the desire of maintaining any current privilege they have.
Left Wing = Giving a damn about other human beings, Right Wing = giving a damn only about oneself. You probably have mistaken the term Anarchism for some civil battleground where lawlessness and chaos reign, that would be a right wing interpretation.. That's not the concept that left wingers like Noam chomsky have on the matter. Anarchism is left because it is offered up as an effective way to deliver left wing ideals: Equality, Improved Society, personal freedom, worker support, level playing field, fairness and fair trade, inclusivity, evolving, one for all and all for one, reducing the many victims of the current system,
Wrong. Period.
This is most lefties though. You are uninformed about even what you believe. Anarchy is no god no government. Left is massive government. You don't even have a simple grasp on the concepts so talking to you is pointless... As usual.
-
That's probably one of your better arguments.
You didn't even read my other post past the Sherlock Homley. Go read it slowly and get a piece of paper out and draw a big + on it. Think up down right left... Not just right and left. I encourage everyone to do this. You might learn something. In all seriousness.
-
When I get a chance later today, I'll draw the chart up and snap a photo of it and post it. When you see it it will make more sense.
-
You didn't even read my other post past the Sherlock Homley. Go read it slowly and get a piece of paper out and draw a big + on it. Think up down right left... Not just right and left. I encourage everyone to do this. You might learn something. In all seriousness.
The sad part is, you think you know what you are talking about. Left thinking taking to the extreme = anarchy, right thinking taking to the extreme = facism.
There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists,
and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics)
Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing. (as far away from anarchy as you could get, closer to a fascist system)
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands. (closer to an anarchist system, where there is no dominant ruling class and power is in the hands of the people)
-
Wrong. Period.
This is most lefties though. You are uninformed about even what you believe. Anarchy is no god no government. Left is massive government. You don't even have a simple grasp on the concepts so talking to you is pointless... As usual.
Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground were Left Wing Anarchists. Hope this helps.
-
Those guys from the high school football team? Yeah lets put them in charge.
-
The sad part is, you think you know what you are talking about. Left thinking taking to the extreme = anarchy, right thinking taking to the extreme = facism.
There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists,
and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics)
Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing. (as far away from anarchy as you could get, closer to a fascist system)
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands. (closer to an anarchist system, where there is no dominant ruling class and power is in the hands of the people)
Wrong. Again. Facism involves government control. Leftists.
Nazi real name = national socialist party.
Seriously man. Educate yourself.
This what the left tries to teach the uninformed... And you bought it. But GO READ. Learn the truth. Don't believe me please.
-
Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground were Left Wing Anarchists. Hope this helps.
No they weren't. Anarchy doesn't mean violence. Anarchy means lack of gov or religious control. TWU wanted to use the government to eliminate millions of people. That is not anarchy. Another genius.
-
No they weren't. Anarchy doesn't mean violence. Anarchy means lack of gov or religious control. TWU wanted to use the government to eliminate millions of people. That is not anarchy. Another genius.
Ok, Bill Ayers wasn`t left wing and he wasn`t involved in an Anti-Governmental organization that bombed the Pentagon, other buildings and people. ::) Sure. Whatever you have to tell yourself to convince yourself that your "E-argument" is correct (its not).
-
No they weren't. Anarchy doesn't mean violence. Anarchy means lack of gov or religious control. TWU wanted to use the government to eliminate millions of people. That is not anarchy. Another genius.
OOPSY DOOPSY what is this?
-
Ok, Bill Ayers wasn`t left wing and he wasn`t involved in an Anti-Governmental organization that bombed the Pentagon, other buildings and people. ::) Sure. Whatever you have to tell yourself to convince yourself that your "E-argument" is correct (its not).
He was all that but not anarchist. He wasn't anti all gov. Just that one. They want to take ovr the gov. Big difference and your wrong again.
-
He was all that but not anarchist. He wasn't anti all gov. Just that one. They want to take ovr the gov. Big difference and your wrong again.
-
He was all that but not anarchist. He wasn't anti all gov. Just that one. They want to take ovr the gov. Big difference and your wrong again.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. :D
-
Back on my comp not phone so I can type coherently.
I don't give a shit what lies he SAYS. He was not an anarchist. Overthrowing the CURRENT government to replace it with YOURS in NOT ANARCHY. No matter what this idiot uninformed leftist thinks he's doing. TWU wanted to replace the gov with their vision because they thought they could do it better. By eliminating millions of cretons.
Get it? anarchist want NO GOVERMENT AND THIS IS NOT WHAT BILL AYERS WANTED NO MATTER HOW MUCH HE LIES.
Anarchy means NO GOV or RELIGIOUS control AT ALL. It doesn't mean you take over and put yours in place.
Again... slowly...
That... is... not... anarchy.
For fucks sake.
-
Back on my comp not phone so I can type coherently.
I don't give a shit what lies he SAYS. He was not an anarchist. Overthrowing the CURRENT government to replace it with YOURS in NOT ANARCHY. No matter what this idiot uninformed leftist thinks he's doing. TWU wanted to replace the gov with their vision because they thought they could do it better. By eliminating millions of cretons.
Get it? anarchist want NO GOVERMENT AND THIS IS NOT WHAT BILL AYERS WANTED NO MATTER HOW MUCH HE LIES.
Anarchy means NO GOV or RELIGIOUS control AT ALL. It doesn't mean you take over and put yours in place.
Again... slowly...
That... is... not... anarchy.
For fucks sake.
(http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/if-i-agree-with-you-we-would-both-be-wrong.jpg)
-
(http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/if-i-agree-with-you-we-would-both-be-wrong.jpg)
First sign of a losing argument...
The "your a stupid head" clause.
Third party perspective is something you should familiarize yourself with. No matter what Bill Ayers says he is...
Third parties get to tell you what he really is. Listen and read OTHERS talking about Bill Ayers to learn what he was...not him.
You can't be lefty and anarchist. Period.
-
First sign of a losing argument...
The "your a stupid head" clause.
Third party perspective is something you should familiarize yourself with. No matter what Bill Ayers says he is...
Third parties get to tell you what he really is. Listen and read OTHERS talking about Bill Ayers to learn what he was...not him.
You can't be lefty and anarchist. Period.
A third party says Obama was born in Kenya. I guess that is correct too.
A third party source says the Holocaust never happened.
Third party sources are always the best source of information. I agree. :D
-
Wrong. Again. Facism involves government control. Leftists.
Nazi real name = national socialist party.
Seriously man. Educate yourself.
This what the left tries to teach the uninformed... And you bought it. But GO READ. Learn the truth. Don't believe me please.
lol. You know you are crazy when you think Nazism is left wing. Hitler couldn't have been any further right if he tried. Keep telling yourself black is white. Crazy right wingers will say anything. Darth Vader started out as Anakin Skywalker
-
First sign of a losing argument...
The "your a stupid head" clause.
Third party perspective is something you should familiarize yourself with. No matter what Bill Ayers says he is...
Third parties get to tell you what he really is. Listen and read OTHERS talking about Bill Ayers to learn what he was...not him.
You can't be lefty and anarchist. Period.
(http://stefseats.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/pauad-meme-generator-excuse-me-wtf-is-this-shit-3ae845_u18chan.jpg)
-
lol. You know you are crazy when you think Nazism is left wing. Hitler couldn't have been any further right if he tried. Keep telling yourself black is white. Crazy right wingers will say anything.
What do you expect from someone who only believes "Third Party Sources", whatever in the hell that is supposed to be. :D
-
The Diary of Anne Frank is fiction, its not a third party source. :D
-
First sign of a losing argument...
The "your a stupid head" clause.
Third party perspective is something you should familiarize yourself with. No matter what Bill Ayers says he is...
Third parties get to tell you what he really is. Listen and read OTHERS talking about Bill Ayers to learn what he was...not him.
You can't be lefty and anarchist. Period.
I don`t have to listen to a word you say, afterall, you are not a third party source.
-
lol. You know you are crazy when you think Nazism is left wing. Hitler couldn't have been any further right if he tried. Keep telling yourself black is white. Crazy right wingers will say anything.
Yes, please keep ignoring the actual translation of Nationalsozialismus. It helps with your cognitive dissonance.
-
Yes, please keep ignoring the actual translation of Nationalsozialismus. It helps with your cognitive dissonance.
You can't argue with stupid. I don't even know why I try. TA seriously weak stuff.
-
Yes, please keep ignoring the actual translation of Nationalsozialismus. It helps with your cognitive dissonance.
Wow, you are equally as stupid. I guess History is not your strong point. :-\
-
Wow, you are equally as stupid. I guess History is not your strong point. :-\
No... Comparing birthers to those who write about Bill Ayers is really strong. ::)
-
No... Comparing birthers to those who write about Bill Ayers is really strong. ::)
Three words. Third Pary Sources.
-
Yes, please keep ignoring the actual translation of Nationalsozialismus. It helps with your cognitive dissonance.
Yeah, the Nazis where socialists because they started from a party called National Socialist German Workers’ Party . I guess this means North Korea is a democracy and a republic because it is called the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. ::)
I suppose next you will be telling us the holocaust never happened.
-
Three words. Third Pary Sources.
Yep. Like the people you have fooled here who think you are an intellectual type. That's exactly what I mean by third party perspective. ::)
-
Yeah, the Nazis where socialists because they started from a party called National Socialist German Workers’ Party . I guess this means North Korea is a democracy and a republic because it is called the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. ::)
Your an idiot. That is all. If you think any government willing to kill off the weak because they are too costly to care for is a conservative principle, well like I said... Can't argue with stupid. Just like anarchists can be on the left. Lol.
You made my point for me... N Korea can say till they turn purple how free they are etc.
Third... Party... Perspective says otherwise. So thanks.
Lefties can claim Nazism is right wing also, history says otherwise. Education... It's what's for dinner.
-
Your an idiot. That is all. If you think any government willing to kill off the weak because they are too costly to care for is a conservative principle, well like I said... Can't argue with stupid. Just like anarchists can be on the left. Lol.
WTF are you talking about. It is the nature of the right to promote survival of the fittest and shun the weak and to treat the poor and disenfranchised with utter disdain. I couldn't think of a principle any more in line with right wing principles than eliminating the weak, the downtrodden, the handicapped, the stupid, the vulnerable. Right Wingers get a hard on when they think about Hitler and how much they would like to emulate his policies.
-
WTF are you talking about. It is the nature of the right to promote survival of the fittest and shun the weak and to treat the poor and disenfranchised with utter disdain. I couldn't think of a principle any more in line with right wing principles than eliminating the weak, the downtrodden, the handicapped, the weak, the vulnerable. Right Wingers get a hard on when they think about Hitler and how much they would like to emulate his policies.
This is back to where we started. You have no idea what the political spectrum is, so this is pointless. Not a word you have said in this thread is even coherent. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
-
This is back to where we started. You have no idea what the political spectrum is, so this is pointless. Not a word you have said in this thread is even coherent. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
Oh well, maybe you can try your propaganda on someone else, see how you go. I bet you get a real thrill when you suck people into believing that black is actually white.
-
The bottom line is people want to be generous with other people's money (tax money). The left believe in spreading around the wealth and the government is there to be providers with other people's tax money. The government has no money. Only what they take from workers and barrow from countries like China. People who are workers and care for them self resent the people who are takers. Resent people who vote for the politician who promises the most to them. JFK said, "Ask not what the government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your government." Now the cry is. What can government do for me? Don't ask me what I can do.
The nation debt has gone from 9 trillion to over 15 trillion with this president. If Obamacare becomes fully functional and it won't, this country is going to go broke paying all the subsidies for insurance policies. Almost every American with a family making under 90K qualifies for a tax break to pay. Can this country afford a major drop in tax collection when it already can't pay it's bills?
-
You didn't even read my other post past the Sherlock Homley. Go read it slowly and get a piece of paper out and draw a big + on it. Think up down right left... Not just right and left. I encourage everyone to do this. You might learn something. In all seriousness.
LOL Nick destroying E-Kum with pure logic. Well played sir.
-
LOL Nick destroying E-Kum with pure logic. Well played sir.
/bow
-
LOL Nick destroying E-Kum with pure logic. Well played sir.
???
-
LOL Nick destroying E-Kum and True Adumbus with pure logic. Well played sir.
Fixed. 8)
-
Even definitions have problems because they aren't absolute and subject to intellectual's interpretations. I know Anarchy has been defined as an extreme leftist philosophy by some but it is in no way related to big government, systemic controlling leftists. So, anarchy has nothing to do with modern day liberalism. Fascism has been categorized as an extreme right wing philosophy but makes no sense to me because current right wing philosophy has limited government as its core component.
Likely that Fascism is defined as right wing because of the extreme protectionism and nationalistic views, not in our current big vs little government and personal freedom vs big government system control that define right and left in the US today.
-
Ayers was a anti-system leftist through violent means and extreme civil disobedience...it doesn't seem like true anarchy was ever his goal.
To me fascism and communism are more similar than different because both involve minimal personal liberties. Both of those philosophies/systems are the antithesis to libertarianism.
-
Anarchism can be divided up politically between those who think, in the absence of government, people will choose to compete or cooperate. Anarchism essentially means voluntary association. Any attempt to define it according to the current understandings of right and left fail if it has to use coercion to achieve its goals.
Anarchism is self government.
-
Even definitions have problems because they aren't absolute and subject to intellectual's interpretations. I know Anarchy has been defined as an extreme leftist philosophy by some but it is in no way related to big government, systemic controlling leftists. So, anarchy has nothing to do with modern day liberalism. Fascism has been categorized as an extreme right wing philosophy but makes no sense to me because current right wing philosophy has limited government as its core component.
Likely that Fascism is defined as right wing because of the extreme protectionism and nationalistic views, not in our current big vs little government and personal freedom vs big government system control that define right and left in the US today.
QFT
-
Oldtimer, I agree, that is the opinion of experience and life wisdom...though I think Obamacare will survive in some form or lead to a more centralized system.
Voice of Doon: makes sense. Anarchy cannot be defined in traditional definitions of right or left
I don't think any economic or political system in isolation is wise...though we have been recently trending further away from personal freedom, achievement and limited government than I like or the founders of our country intended.
Back to the original point of contention, Right wing (mainly economic conservatives) is certainly more defined by achievement for the fittest and probably attracts more competitive and 'strong' people as it takes less away from them. Many right wing people believe in supporting the sick, elderly and veterans so not survival of the fittest but I say achievement/advancement of the fittest.
-
I think this would be a no brainer.
most strong men view themselves as self sufficient and usually look at needing help as weakness amd look down on it, which is typically a right wing trait.
-
Study shows that whiny kids grow up to be conservatives.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=An6WolUtn3lnpbx9LJATT4ibvZx4?fr=yfp-t-192-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=whiny%20kids%20grow%20up%20to%20be%20conservatives
-
In the last few posts, a lot of wisdom has prevailed. Minus Lurker.
(Studies also show more liberal families produce porn star children. Not sure what that has to do with the topic but ok.)
Shockingly, it is absent both E-Kul and Adonis.
Hope has returned to Getbig.
-
Study shows that whiny kids grow up to be conservatives.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=An6WolUtn3lnpbx9LJATT4ibvZx4?fr=yfp-t-192-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=whiny%20kids%20grow%20up%20to%20be%20conservatives
also makes sense of they grew up and tried to overcompensate for how weak or whiney they were as children.
-
In the last few posts, a lot of wisdom has prevailed. Minus Lurker.
(Studies also show more liberal families produce porn star children. Not sure what that has to do with the topic but ok.)
Shockingly, it is absent both E-Kul and Adonis.
Hope has returned to Getbig.
Of course most porn stars are liberal. Everyone knows conservatives have no balls.
Seeing the amount of whining you are doing, it is safe to assume you are a right winger.
-
anarchists tend to be leftist as many of the tents of socialism are central to the philosophy.
they remove government and insert centrally that of the communal and the collectivist. its not there is a lessening of govt- its the removal of government and state power and putting it all in the hands of the collective, of the people. this is as left wing in its purest terms as it gets. removing power from the wealthy gentry and placing this in the hands of the people.
how this could be seen as right wing/ pro capitalist is beyond belief.
-
Sometimes I think a society should be judged by how far it lets its most miserable fall. Other times I'd like to open someone's head for the slightest infraction. I'm Adolf Nader.
-
Right wingers can't be anarchists when they attempt to use the gov't to regulate other people's marriages, women's vaginas, and other basic rights through the excuse of a fairy tale written by an invisible man on a cloud.
-
All the fucking way 8)
Honestly, I don't consider myself "right" wing. I guess the closest would be Libertarian
Pro Gay Marriage
Pro racial equality
Pro Whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body
Anti drug control
Pro gun but pro gun control as well.
Pro Fiscal responsibility
Anti big Government
Pro border and illegal immigration control
Pro home schooling and education reform (get the gov'ment out of it)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg.html)
Close to this. I agree that most, NOT ALL, of my warm and fuzzy liberal friends are physically weak. Most, but NOT ALL, of my weight lifting friends are conservative.
I have a problem with kids smoking too much dope. I was a toker, but later in life. Also an alkie and coke head, also later in life. I could afford my habits. (clean and sober now for decades). As a libertarian I do not want to support mush brained kids in Colorado or Washington that think "its legal….why not".
-
This thread has become outright comedy now. Moving on.
-
The Math is pretty simple; "strong" men are well adapted and recognize the benefit of natural selection. Weaker urbanite "liberals" cannot thrive in this type of environement. Also a great part of their self esteem comes from "standing up" for the "less fortunate" (aka failed @ natural selection) and tap themselves on the back.\
Since when did math equate to garbage just-so evolutionary tales without the slightest shred of evidence in their favor?
-
Fucking hell. Must we go on with this Randy crap no end.
It's a cooperative, collaborative effort. The big bencher will need a skinny-armed doctor one day. The big thinker will need a dimwit cop to rescue him. The 'amazing guy' theory of human leadership is nonsense. You're not worth more than someone else, no matter what yardstick you want to use to show it. But be comforted. No one else is worth more than you are either. So be nice, you dickheads.
-
Fucking hell. Must we go on with this Randy crap no end.
It's a cooperative, collaborative effort. The big bencher will need a skinny-armed doctor one day. The big thinker will need a dimwit cop to rescue him. The 'amazing guy' theory of human leadership is nonsense. You're not worth more than someone else, no matter what yardstick you want to use to show it. But be comforted. No one else is worth more than you are either. So be nice, you dickheads.
this. Everyone has their place and everyones opinion is needed to jeep balance. ... going to far in any direction is a bad thing and always leads to one inevitable outcome - loss of rights and subjugation of citizens
-
Yep. Sooner or later we're all going to be sitting there saying "Look...can you help me out here, brother?" What kind of guy do you want on the other side of that desk? What kind of guy were you?
-
Study shows that whiny kids grow up to be conservatives.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=An6WolUtn3lnpbx9LJATT4ibvZx4?fr=yfp-t-192-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=whiny%20kids%20grow%20up%20to%20be%20conservatives
All kids are whiny, Parents on the right like to beat it out of their children, they use tough love, discipline and coercion in an attempt to toughen the child up so they grow up to become self sufficient, these kids grow up to be police, military, judges etc.. , and left wingers prefer to use reason, tolerance and understanding to raise their kids to become emphatic, open minded and loving in the hope of creating potential and a fulfilled adult. These children become the teachers, professors & scientist types.
Essentially you can sum up the two personality types as thus. Right Winger = selfish arsehole (the bullies of the world) Left Winger = Kindly altruist (the carers of the world).
-
All kids are whiny, Parents on the right like to beat it out of their children, they use tough love, discipline and coercion in an attempt to toughen the child up so they grow up to become self sufficient, these kids grow up to be police, military, judges etc.. , and left wingers prefer to use reason, tolerance and understanding to raise their kids to become emphatic, open minded and loving in the hope of creating potential and a fulfilled adult. These children become the teachers, professors & scientist types.
Essentially you can some up the two personality types as thus. Right Winger = selfish arsehole (the bullies of the world) Left Winger = Kindly altruist (the carers of the world).
hahahahahahabahaha *COUGH* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
-
All kids are whiny, Parents on the right like to beat it out of their children, they use tough love, discipline and coercion in an attempt to toughen the child up so they grow up to become self sufficient, these kids grow up to be police, military, judges etc.. , and left wingers prefer to use reason, tolerance and understanding to raise their kids to become emphatic, open minded and loving in the hope of creating potential and a fulfilled adult. These children become the teachers, professors & scientist types.
Essentially you can some up the two personality types as thus. Right Winger = selfish arsehole (the bullies of the world) Left Winger = Kindly altruist (the carers of the world).
::)
-
::)
Bully >:(
-
Bully >:(
;D
-
Close to this. I agree that most, NOT ALL, of my warm and fuzzy liberal friends are physically weak. Most, but NOT ALL, of my weight lifting friends are conservative.
I have a problem with kids smoking too much dope. I was a toker, but later in life. Also an alkie and coke head, also later in life. I could afford my habits. (clean and sober now for decades). As a libertarian I do not want to support mush brained kids in Colorado or Washington that think "its legal….why not".
Totally agree. Hey props for going clean and sober.
-
Yeah, the Nazis where socialists because they started from a party called National Socialist German Workers’ Party . I guess this means North Korea is a democracy and a republic because it is called the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. ::)
I suppose next you will be telling us the holocaust never happened.
E-Kul man, not picking on you but what do you think about Israels 'democracy' ?, like male & female could not seat together
on the bus, conservative Jews trying to stop any archaeological works or doing fuck all & getting paid for it (like Abos in Aussie).
-
There is a big difference between an economic conservative (right wing economic) and social right winger. The economic conservative tends to be more assertive, hard working, and self-sufficient, not needing excessive support from the government. The social right winger may want to use government to control the rights of others....most economic conservatives and libertarians are against that principle, in general...nothing is absolute.
That 1 single study means nothing. Heard on the news today that although US kids rank somewhere around 30th in math & science, they rank at the top in self esteem. That's what the liberalization of education has gotten us.
-
gee....that kind of makes sense. I haven't heard anarchism explained that way before. That's where anarchy and pure socialism overlap, thanks. Of course, the problem in that system is there will be doers and there will be takers. In the real world (outside the ivy league college utopia where everyone acts good & fair), many people will work less hard off the backs of others if they aren't held accountable.
That's one of the main problems I have with liberalism...it sounds good and feels good but too many folks are lazy and will live off the hard work & efforts of others when they are able bodied.
This is also what is stating to happen more to the U.S.... less people are working/producing (for a variety of reasons including not having enough jobs and people not willing to do certain work) and more people are dependent upon government support.
-
everybody needs support from the govt one way or other.
hope this helps.
nobody has their own airports, highways and hospiatals last time ichecked
-
Indeed galenkio, it is not and all or nothing scenario. We need some government and collective cooperation. The question is how much support is necessary and how much is reasonable to take from the producers. Also, how much should the government take over and can they do it better than just regulating private industry.
We must still reward those that achieve, are more motivated, work hard and make sacrifices to better themselves and standing. This country had opportunity at its core, the ability to advance....its why my poor ancestors came here with nearly nothing in the 1920s.
The worst thing I have seen so far in a work environment is entitlement. It breeds laziness, complacency, lack of drive & motivation and underproduction.
-
Also, no matter how much government there is, people who are more motivated, more driven and more talented will get ahead in any environment...unless they are held back. So, I argue that using the government to build infrastructure and such will not change who would be successful and who wouldn't. Relying on government to build and manage these things actually costs successful working people more in taxation. Strong motivated people, in general, find a way to succeed. They always have....unless they are over-restricted.
-
As a politician, Arnold is rather known as a centrist.
Pay attention @1:00 and at the end.
-
I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I wind up identifying with libertarian beliefs more than any other.
Dont care what someone does with their body or who thwy marry.
dont care if people want to get high or use roids.
do expect people to carry their weight and be responsible for their choices, and I dont expect people with more to give to people withess nust because.
Dont expect the goverment to take care of those who wont help themselves.
do expect for people to earn their way and not try and force others to subsidize their lifestyle.
-
I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I wind up identifying with libertarian beliefs more than any other.
Dont care what someone does with their body or who thwy marry.
dont care if people want to get high or use roids.
do expect people to carry their weight and be responsible for their choices, and I dont expect people with more to give to people withess nust because.
Dont expect the goverment to take care of those who wont help themselves.
do expect for people to earn their way and not try and force others to subsidize their lifestyle.
-
I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I wind up identifying with libertarian beliefs more than any other.
Same as pretty much every conservative I know. Even most here. So tell me, why are the Libertarians, or people like them, so fucking voiceless?
-
All the fucking way 8)
Honestly, I don't consider myself "right" wing. I guess the closest would be Libertarian
Pro Gay Marriage
Pro racial equality
Pro Whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body
Anti drug control
Pro gun but pro gun control as well.
Pro Fiscal responsibility
Anti big Government
Pro border and illegal immigration control
Pro home schooling and education reform (get the gov'ment out of it)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg.html)
You live in Palo Alto that means there's nothing right wing about you ;D
-
Same as pretty much every conservative I know. Even most here. So tell me, why are the Libertarians, or people like them, so fucking voiceless?
were not. The republicans silence anyone that doesnt tow the line when it comes to putting out candidates. I don't even vote because I cant stand any of the republican candidates.
-
to vote democrat is to say I ama pussy!
-
were not. The republicans silence anyone that doesnt tow the line when it comes to putting out candidates. I don't even vote because I cant stand any of the republican candidates.
But it seems like you're agreeing with me, no? What alternative is there to the R crap candidates? Certainly no one the Libertarians offer up.
-
Mind if I steal this, aj?
-
Mind if I steal this, aj?
Sure, I swiped it from the Libertarians, and I am sure they don't mind it getting out there.
-
were not. The republicans silence anyone that doesnt tow the line when it comes to putting out candidates. I don't even vote because I cant stand any of the republican candidates.
At this point, I don't think that there is a true right/left schism in politics. Once elected, all politicians do basically the same thing, with slight variations to potentially placate a pliant constituency. Instead of democrat/republican, the real separation is corporatist-statist on one side and individualist on the other. The corporatist-statist may seem almost like an oxymoron until you realize that we haven't been experiencing a true capitalist economy for decades or more. Large corporations and corrupt politicians have created a self-feeding beast, and ordinary folk that just want to "tend to their fields" are increasingly being trammeled upon.
But, as a wise man once said: if something cannot go on forever, it won't.
-
Similar to me...socially tolerant, fiscally conservative/responsible so a blend of all but more libertarian I suppose.
If you lean libertarian, the current big government democratic party is opposite of your core beliefs. However faulty the republican party is, it is closer with the limited government philosophy. The republican part has many different branches. There are more fiscal conservatives and libertarians then there used to be. I think the party is slowly changing too, definitely less influence of the religious right. The democratic party is changing too, more feminists, redistribution and big government liberals, white guilt advocates and less strong working people who were fighting to keep what they earned and fair workers rights (like my grandparents, who were democrats but wouldn't be in the party today because it is dominated by people like President Obama, Jessie Jackson and Nancy Pelosi).
-
And to put it into bodybuilding terms....planet fitness is an example of how liberalism affects gyms.
-
And to put it into bodybuilding terms....planet fitness is an example of how liberalism affects gyms.
hahahah so fuking true
-
All the fucking way 8)
Honestly, I don't consider myself "right" wing. I guess the closest would be Libertarian
Pro Gay Marriage
Pro racial equality
Pro Whatever the fuck you want to do with your own body
Anti drug control
Pro gun but pro gun control as well.
Pro Fiscal responsibility
Anti big Government
Pro border and illegal immigration control
Pro home schooling and education reform (get the gov'ment out of it)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002857_zpsfff31fd9.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002347_zps58f13f46.jpg.html)
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb425/A23Corp/th_Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg) (http://s1205.photobucket.com/user/A23Corp/media/Unknown002048_zpsb39341bb.jpg.html)
Pretty much bang on my beliefs. I definitely lean toward the fiscal conservative side i think this comes natural not so much with strength but added wealth. I'd like to add another big one
Pro keeping religion and politics separate
-
Pro keeping religion and politics separate
This is another important one to me.
-
This is another important one to me.
It really bothers me. In reality this is the foundation to the way most politicians make decisions.
-
And to put it into bodybuilding terms....planet fitness is an example of how liberalism affects gyms.
I`d say its more like Republicans- Lots of rules, in authoritarian manner, telling you what you can and can`t do with and to your body. Much more Conservative than anything.
-
Also, Planet Fitness is more Republican and Conservative natured in that not only do they limit the behavior in their gym (toning it all down), they are a private establishment that does not want to cater to everyone but a select few (who they think should be patrons of their establishment). They openly discriminate and do not try to hide it. This is the total opposite of the acceptance and inclusiveness and fairness of liberalism.
Planet Fitness is a Conservatives Wet Dream in all actuality.
-
Also, Planet Fitness is more Republican and Conservative natured in that not only do they limit the behavior in their gym (toning it all down), they are a private establishment that does not want to cater to everyone but a select few (who they think should be patrons of their establishment). They openly discriminate and do not try to hide it. This is the total opposite of the acceptance and inclusiveness and fairness of liberalism.
Planet Fitness is a Conservatives Wet Dream in all actuality.
It's a corporation that found a neat way to make money: appeal to people that like to pay gym fees, but never actually go to the gym. It's not really a metaphor for political parties, despite our internal desire to equate everything stupid and abhorrent in our lives as associated with the "other" political philosophy. It's sophomoric to do so.
It reminds me that most people have an internal metronome that always says, "Stuff I like is Constitutional, stuff I don't like is unconstitutional" and will stick to those guns despite the absurdity and hypocrisy of those opinions.
-
Then you have Planet Fitness donating money solely to Republican Candidates.
Republican Gov. Candidate Kevin Smith Sees Big Benefit From Campaign Finance Loophole
http://stateimpact.npr.org/new-hampshire/2012/08/27/gov-candidate-kevin-smith-sees-big-benefit-from-campaign-finance-loophole/
Another $55,000 in donations came from two addresses —one in Newington, N.H., the other in Yonkers, N.Y. — that serve as headquarters for Planet Fitness health clubs.
-
It's a corporation that found a neat way to make money: appeal to people that like to pay gym fees, but never actually go to the gym. It's not really a metaphor for political parties, despite our internal desire to equate everything stupid and abhorrent in our lives as associated with the "other" political philosophy. It's sophomoric to do so.
It reminds me that most people have an internal metronome that always says, "Stuff I like is Constitutional, stuff I don't like is unconstitutional" and will stick to those guns despite the absurdity and hypocrisy of those opinions.
Planet Fitness is a highly Conservative gym, run on Conservative principles who donate a lot of money to Republican candidates. You are just going to have to deal with that.
-
I`d say its more like Republicans- Lots of rules, in authoritarian manner, telling you what you can and can`t do with and to your body. Much more Conservative than anything.
both parties are pretty much the same now adam, dems are all about restricting rights and free speech because it may 'hurt someones feelings' or it 'may be dangerous'.
republicans are all about telling everyone what to do because of their religious beliefs and desire to enforce those beliefs and lifestyles on others.
both parties do the same thing now. Just different excuses as to why they do it.
-
hahah true anus trolling hard in this thread
-
both parties are pretty much the same now adam, dems are all about restricting rights and free speech because it may 'hurt someones feelings' or it 'may be dangerous'.
republicans are all about telling everyone what to do because of their religious beliefs and desire to enforce those beliefs and lifestyles on others.
both parties do the same thing now. Just different excuses as to why they do it.
The Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved to the loony bin.
-
Huey Long said it best.
-
Planet Fitness is a highly Conservative gym, run on Conservative principles who donate a lot of money to Republican candidates. You are just going to have to deal with that.
Conservatives run it (they have a knack for successful business models), but I hardly find the business model to be an illustrative metaphor of conservatism in general.
-
hahah true anus trolling hard in this thread
I know. I hate it when I get into political threads on a bb board.
-
Conservatives run it (they have a knack for successful business models), but I hardly find the business model to be an illustrative metaphor of conservatism in general.
???
Its a perfect example if you think about it.
-
The Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved to the loony bin.
100 percent.
-
???
Its a perfect example if you think about it.
While I am sure that it conforms to the soulless caricature of all conservatives that you carry in your heart, it doesn't actually correspond to any conservative that I know. So I respectfully disagree.
-
The majority of business owners are likely fiscally conservative because they want to expand, make a profit, have less regulation and avoid over taxation, all which are barriers to successful profitable business...so the owners of planet fitness may be conservative but I completely disagree with the principles of the gym being conservative, which specifically discriminates, purposely, against strong, assertive males and tries to make all their members feel good with kiddy care, lunk alarms and pizza parties. That is wossifiation that the feminists love. Liberals say they are inclusive but I have found many are completely intolerant against anyone who don't completely agree with them and get nasty quickly. True fiscal conservatives believe the best person for the job...the person who is most productive helps the organization most.
Fiscal conservatives and libertarians are absolutely not controlling and with excessive rules and regulations, they try to allow the advancement of the fittest and most motivated as a core principle. TA, I respect many of your posts but your misguided on that statement. Perhaps you are thinking of some social conservatives/religious right, then I would agree.
-
Agree aj, TA must be thinking of a specific narrowly defined conservative, certainly not the more modern libertarian/less rules/personal freedom conservative. Suppose it gets muddy because there are different factions within each larger party. I can identify with the hard working blue collar democrat but not the utopian liberal elitist or militant feminist or race bater.
-
Chris Christie is the only Republican worth a shit in the whole shitty party.
-
Chris Christie is the only Republican worth a shit in the whole shitty party.
::)
-
The Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved to the loony bin.
The GOP apparently has a $50 million war chest to make sure the Cains, Bachmans and Cruz' etc. are not even balloted in 2016. They've (finally) realized idiocy can't win them votes. ;D
-
I'm going vote for Rob Ford, oh wait I'm not.
-
Fucking hell. Must we go on with this Randy crap no end.
It's a cooperative, collaborative effort. The big bencher will need a skinny-armed doctor one day. The big thinker will need a dimwit cop to rescue him. The 'amazing guy' theory of human leadership is nonsense. You're not worth more than someone else, no matter what yardstick you want to use to show it. But be comforted. No one else is worth more than you are either. So be nice, you dickheads.
I disagree. Steve Jobs is certainly worth more than many people. So is Bill Gates, scientists, artists, conquerors. Men like these have contributed far more to the betterment of society then the three kids who shot that that Australian college kid in the back last year. People should be equal in the eyes of the law but that's as far as equality goes. What you produce and contribute to civilizations is ABSOLUTELY an appropriate yardstick to determine worth.
-
The Democrats have moved to the right
Examples?
-
The GOP apparently has a $50 million war chest to make sure the Cains, Bachmans and Cruz' etc. are not even balloted in 2016. They've (finally) realized idiocy can't win them votes. ;D
im not so sure about that.
those voters arent really soo dumbm they pretend to be.atleast the party leaders do.
theres even a word for it, anti intelectualism or something, but its deliberate and all planned."playing dumb"
-
I disagree. Steve Jobs is certainly worth more than many people. So is Bill Gates, scientists, artists, conquerors. Men like these have contributed far more to the betterment of society then the three kids who shot that that Australian college kid in the back last year. People should be equal in the eyes of the law but that's as far as equality goes. What you produce and contribute to civilizations is ABSOLUTELY an appropriate yardstick to determine worth.
They didn't emerge fully formed on the half-shell from the frothy sea. They grew up and created their success surrounded by others who helped them along in ways big n' little.
Sometimes unwillingly. coughWozniakcough
-
everybody needs support from the govt one way or other.
hope this helps.
nobody has their own airports, highways and hospiatals last time ichecked
There a thousands of private airports, highways and hospitals. They typically provide better customers service because they're dependent on those revenue streams. Public airports and hospitals can feed off the taxpayer regardless of performance. You've got European socialism WAY to far in your brain. Centuries of monarchy, wars for the rich and Marxism have warped that fuckin continent. ::)
At the end of the day it comes down to this. Private business seeks to maximize output and minimize input through the efficient use of resources. Human labor is one of those resources. Governments, on the other hand, are terrible users and distributor of resources (see the Federal Reserve and the tech and housing bubbles of the past 20 years). On a planet with a finite amount of resources, oil, food, land, gold, water, etc., you need maximum efficiency to provide the highest standard of living to the most amount of people (notice I said most not all). Private enterprise in a free market is the best solution to achieve those ends. Yes, there is a human cost to that undeniable truth but welcome to planet earth.
Start a charity with your private accumulated capital if you're so inclined.
-
Examples?
Frantically searching google, please wait........
-
They didn't emerge fully formed on the half-shell from the frothy sea. They grew up and created their success surrounded by others who helped them along in ways big n' little.
Sometimes unwillingly. coughWozniakcough
You make my point. They were helped by the contributions (productions) of other producers and creators. Not by people sitting on the couch taking money from those creations OR from people sitting at financial institutions scooping interest percentages off those creations. Both sides are parasites to maximum production efficiency.
You original point was that we were all equal in a land of rainbows and flowers (you didn't build that - Obama) and had a "moral" duty to maintain the lifestyles of the parasitic.
At the end of the day its the individual's will to risk, to build, revise, take chances and create that distinguishes the output and "value" they bring to a society.
-
There a thousands of private airports, highways and hospitals. They typically provide better customers service because they're dependent on those revenue streams. Public airports and hospitals can feed off the taxpayer regardless of performance. You've got European socialism WAY to far in your brain. Centuries of monarchy, wars for the rich and Marxism have warped that fuckin continent. ::)
At the end of the day it comes down to this. Private business seeks to maximize output and minimize input through the efficient use of resources. Human labor is one of those resources. Governments, on the other hand, are terrible users and distributor of resources (see the Federal Reserve and the tech and housing bubbles of the past 20 years). On a planet with a finite amount of resources, oil, food, land, gold, water, etc., you need maximum efficiency to provide the highest standard of living to the most amount of people (notice I said most not all). Private enterprise in a free market is the best solution to achieve those ends. Yes, there is a human cost to that undeniable truth but welcome to planet earth.
Start a charity with your private accumulated capital if you're so inclined.
-
Christie seems more moderate, focused on fiscal issues and economics far more than social issues...so I am leaning favorable toward him so far. He has shown he can be inclusive in his state, which is refreshing from some of the divisive politicians we see. People like Reagan brought people together, that is what we need. President Obama is divisive...he is strong in his core progressive, community organizing principles and has an us vs. them mentality. Clinton worked across the isle much better.
-
Christie seems more moderate, focused on fiscal issues and economics far more than social issues...so I am leaning favorable toward him so far. He has shown he can be inclusive in his state, which is refreshing from some of the divisive politicians we see. People like Reagan brought people together, that is what we need. President Obama is divisive...he is strong in his core progressive, community organizing principles and has an us vs. them mentality. Clinton worked across the isle much better.
We need a conservative
-
Agree Voice of Doom. The 'you didn't build that' was particularly irritating and mostly incorrect. Private industry and motivated people are the main driver of progress and jobs in this country, with some notable exceptions (ie. good science and public health) and they certainly do it more efficiently with resources. We achieve with cooperation and community but predominantly of the willing, motivated and able and our tax dollars went to build every single thing the government did...government has no $ without us to produce.
I feel the federal government should regulate private industry in most cases and keep them from committing abuses, monopolies and violating fair work standards but run very few things outside the military.
-
You make my point. They were helped by the contributions (productions) of other producers and creators. Not by people sitting on the couch taking money from those creations OR from people sitting at financial institutions scooping interest percentages off those creations. Both sides are parasites to maximum production efficiency.
You original point was that we were all equal in a land of rainbows and flowers (you didn't build that - Obama) and had a "moral" duty to maintain the lifestyles of the parasitic.
At the end of the day its the individual's will to risk, to build, revise, take chances and create that distinguishes the output and "value" they bring to a society.
Exactly, we agree. It's a collaborative effort and everyone made some contribution.
And we have a civic duty to direct society to foster man's natural goodness, rather than exploit and abuse him until he becomes parasitic or irretrievably cynical.
-
Goes to show that men most of the time knows what's best, and that women, although well meaning, are most often wrong. Sweden lives this lesson at the moment.
-
Examples?
Obamacare aka Romneycare aka Bob Dole Care and all the democratic support for it. (A truly right wing, Pro-Big Business joke of a healthcare system)
The fact that the Democrats bend over backwards and cater to Republicans and never stand for any liberal principles. I can give specific examples. Just pick any issue you like.
-
Obamacare aka Romneycare aka Bob Dole Care and all the democratic support for it. (A truly right wing, Pro-Big Business joke of a healthcare system)
The fact that the Democrats bend over backwards and cater to Republicans and never stand for any liberal principles. I can give specific examples. Just pick any issue you like.
First time I've heard Obamacare referred to as a right wing idea. Even when Romney implemented it, it was considered rather socialistic.
How does the party feel about guns these days? In general.
-
First time I've heard Obamacare referred to as a right wing idea. Even when Romney implemented it, it was considered rather socialistic.
How does the party feel about guns these days? In general.
???
Obamacare is a Republican idea totally.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dont-obamacare-it-was-republicans-idea-says-liberal-democrat
Don't Like Obamacare? It Was the Republicans' Idea, Says Liberal Democrat
October 28, 2013 - 9:12 AM
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dont-obamacare-it-was-republicans-idea-says-liberal-democrat#sthash.HYsVuV8w.dpuf
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-democrats-version-of-_b_4166664.html
The Democrats' Version of Health Insurance Would Have Been Cheaper, Simpler, and More Popular (So Why Did We Enact the Republican Version and Why Are They So Upset?)
-
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says Republicans will seek to delay a requirement of the 2010 Affordable Care Act that all Americans obtain health insurance or face a tax penalty. "With so many unanswered questions and the problems arising around this rollout, it doesn't make any sense to impose this one percent mandate tax on the American people."
While Republicans plot new ways to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, it's easy to forget that for years they've been arguing that any comprehensive health insurance system be designed exactly like the one that officially began October 1st, glitches and all.
For as many years Democrats tried to graft healthcare onto Social Security and Medicare, and pay for it through the payroll tax. But Republicans countered that any system must be based on private insurance and paid for with a combination of subsidies for low-income purchasers and a requirement that the younger and healthier sign up.
Not surprisingly, private health insurers cheered on the Republicans while doing whatever they could to block Democrats from creating a public insurance system.
In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today's Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon's plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?
Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree.
Thirty years later a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, made Nixon's plan the law in Massachusetts. Private insurers couldn't have been happier although many Democrats in the state had hoped for a public system.
When today's Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it's useful to recall this was their idea as well.
In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."
Insurance companies loved Butler's plan so much it found its way into several bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. Among the supporters were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (who now oppose the mandate under the Affordable Care Act). Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995, was also a big proponent.
Romney's heathcare plan in Massachusetts included the same mandate to purchase private insurance. "We got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation," said Romney, who thought the mandate "essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need."
Now that the essential Republican plan for healthcare is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant.
Last week, after the giant insurer Wellpoint raised its earnings estimates, CEO Joseph Swedish pointed to "the long-term membership growth opportunity through exchanges." Other major health plans are equally bullish. "The emergence of public exchanges, private exchanges, Medicaid expansions ... have the potential to create new opportunities for us to grow and serve in new ways," UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J. Hemsley effused.
So why are today's Republicans so upset with an Act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it's the signature achievement of the Obama administration.
There's a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His film, "Inequality for All," will be out in September. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause. Watch the trailer for his new film, Inequality for All:
-
Uhh, TA. He asked about GUNS. Please, do let us all know about the Demcrat's rightwing stance on guns.
-
please post something to support your claim
I can list many different well known people with strong work ethic, motivation/drive and competitiveness who are not conservative (fiscally or otherwise)
If this is just your gut feeling or your personal beliefbased on your gut feeling then that's a different story
Your "president" wouldn't be included in that list nor very few on the left.
-
???
Obamacare is a Republican idea totally.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dont-obamacare-it-was-republicans-idea-says-liberal-democrat
Don't Like Obamacare? It Was the Republicans' Idea, Says Liberal Democrat
October 28, 2013 - 9:12 AM
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dont-obamacare-it-was-republicans-idea-says-liberal-democrat#sthash.HYsVuV8w.dpuf
Ok, so even if this is the case, how does it support your point that the right has moved further right? The ideology behind government healthcare certainly doesn't reflect true conservatism.
-
OOPSY DOOPSY what is this?
Bill Ayers should be shot. The lefts thinking. Become a terrorist THEN get hired at a prestigious University as a professor.
-
Bill Ayers should be shot. The lefts thinking. Become a terrorist THEN get hired at a prestigious University as a professor.
Seems like you have the mindset of a terrorist yourself...
-
Your comment, TA, was that both parties were moving further right, but you've only provided examples of how the right has become more moderate.
-
Your comment, TA, was that both parties were moving further right, but you've only provided examples of how the right has become more moderate.
???
Did you not see the vote on Obamacare?
-
???
Did you not see the vote on Obamacare?
I'm confused now. You seem to be arguing both sides. They invented it, but rejected it?
-
I'm confused now. You seem to be arguing both sides. They invented it, but rejected it?
This is true though.
The rejected it because the Democrats started agreeing with it... The only thing the parties can agree on is that whatever the other party promotes CAN NOT happen.
They are buffoons the lot of them.
-
This is true though.
The rejected it because the Democrats started agreeing with it... The only thing the parties can agree on is that whatever the other party promotes CAN NOT happen.
They are buffoons the lot of them.
Ok, well if that was his point, then I understand. But still, who are these right-leaning Democrats who've redirected the party?
-
A liberal is a power worshipper without the power - George Orwell
The left/right paradigm in the US is a smokescreen. Both parties are Statist. Both parties look to increase the size of the military and the size of the dependent citizenry. This is the hallmark both of central planning authoritarianism and the decline of an empire.
Those of you who get hard at the color of the tie the faceless bureaucrat is wearing are the problem.
-
Ok, well if that was his point, then I understand. But still, who are these right-leaning Democrats who've redirected the party?
I think the point is that the democrats are getting people because the right has gone bat shit crazy.
Focusing on things that most people think should be done. Gay Marriage is over... Young people don't care if 2 gay people get married. Abortion is over... Young people think abortions during 1st trimester should be allowed.
Stuff like that.
Trust me... I voted for Obama in 2008 because the right wing is so busy saying that the baby jesus will fix it that I had to get off the crazy train.
Don't get me wrong... The dems aren't better. I voted libertarian in 2012 because I don't think raising taxes is the fix either.
I keep saying this... If you think the answer to the countries problems are raising taxes or the baby jesus, I have no use for you.
-
I'm confused now. You seem to be arguing both sides. They invented it, but rejected it?
Mind numbing, isn`t it?
Yes, Obamacare is originally the brain child of Republicans. The Democrats, moving more to the right, picked up that plan, and lobbied support for it. (no true liberal would ever push for such a plan) They even kowtowed to the whining Republicans and included many provisions to appease them. Then, not a single one of them voted for despite it being their plan originally, despite the provisions they demanded and got from the Democrats. The vote was then taken and there were enough Democratic votes to pass it.
So, the Democrats effectively became way more right wing with this issue. Lets review:
1. They lobbied for a plan that was pushed and crafted by Republicans.
2. They bent over backwards to give Republicans what they wanted in the plan.
3. The plan supports Big Business, which was a primary concern for Republicans. They want the insurance companies to be fully in charge.
4. Not a single Republican voted for a plan they used to push for and a plan they invented.
Democrats are the new Republicans, Republicans belong in the nuthouse and only do things that are politically expedient for them. They have no interest in helping the situation.
-
I think the point is that the democrats are getting people because the right has gone bat shit crazy.
Focusing on things that most people think should be done. Gay Marriage is over... Young people don't care if 2 gay people get married. Abortion is over... Young people think abortions during 1st trimester should be allowed.
Stuff like that.
Trust me... I voted for Obama in 2008 because the right wing is so busy saying that the baby jesus will fix it that I had to get off the crazy train.
Don't get me wrong... The dems aren't better. I voted libertarian in 2012 because I don't think raising taxes is the fix either.
I keep saying this... If you think the answer to the countries problems are raising taxes or the baby jesus, I have no use for you.
This!
-
This!
X2
-
A liberal is a power worshipper without the power - George Orwell
The left/right paradigm in the US is a smokescreen. Both parties are Statist. Both parties look to increase the size of the military and the size of the dependent citizenry. This is the hallmark both of central planning authoritarianism and the decline of an empire.
Those of you who get hard at the color of the tie the faceless bureaucrat is wearing are the problem.
George Orwell was a Socialist. Hope this helps. (doubt that it will)
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/03/01/196347/george-orwell-was-a-socialist/
"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement. "- George Orwell
As a SOCIALIST, George Orwell considered that the first duty of a socialist is to fight totalitarianism, which means in practice “to denounce the Soviet myth, for there is not much difference between Fascism and Stalinism.
1984 was a Pro-Socialist anti Totalitarianism book. I guess that fact escapes you as well.
-
In fact, Orwell thought Socialism to be the only antidote to defeating Hitler.
-
A liberal is a power worshipper without the power - George Orwell
The left/right paradigm in the US is a smokescreen. Both parties are Statist. Both parties look to increase the size of the military and the size of the dependent citizenry. This is the hallmark both of central planning authoritarianism and the decline of an empire.
Those of you who get hard at the color of the tie the faceless bureaucrat is wearing are the problem.
Read Orwell`s essay entitled "WHY I WRITE".
In the essay he states his goal to rail against Soviet Totalitarianism and to promote Socialism and dispel the myth that Stalin`s Russia was Socialist. This made his VERY angry that people were misrepresenting Socialism by calling Russia as such when it was not. THAT is why he wrote.
He was later to add, in "Why I Write" (1946), "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
According to biographer John guy,"the other crucial dimension to Orwell's socialism was his recognition that the Soviet Union was not socialist. Unlike many on the left, instead of abandoning socialism once he discovered the full horror of Stalinist rule in the Soviet Union, Orwell abandoned the Soviet Union and instead remained a socialist--indeed he became more committed to the socialist cause than ever."
-
A liberal is a power worshipper without the power - George Orwell
The left/right paradigm in the US is a smokescreen. Both parties are Statist. Both parties look to increase the size of the military and the size of the dependent citizenry. This is the hallmark both of central planning authoritarianism and the decline of an empire.
Those of you who get hard at the color of the tie the faceless bureaucrat is wearing are the problem.
George Orwell`s real name was Eric Arthur Blair.
Did you not realize that he wrote under another name, "John Freeman", and penned "Can Socialists be Happy".
Here is some more info for you.
Blair then took a job teaching at the Hawthorne High School for Boys in Hayes, West London. This was a small school that provided private schooling for local tradesmen and shopkeepers and comprised only 20 boys and one other master.[17] While at the school he became friendly with the local curate and became involved with the local church. Mabel Fierz had pursued matters with Moore, and at the end of June 1932, Moore told Blair that Victor Gollancz was prepared to publish A Scullion's Diary for a £40 advance, for his recently founded publishing house, Victor Gollancz Ltd, which was an outlet for radical and socialist works.
Orwell set out for Spain on about 23 December, dining with Henry Miller in Paris on the way. A few days later at Barcelona, he met John McNair of the ILP Office who quoted him: "I've come to fight against Fascism".[23] Orwell stepped into a complex political situation in Catalonia. The Republican government was supported by a number of factions with conflicting aims, including the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM — Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista), the anarcho-syndicalist CNT and the Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia (a wing of the Spanish Communist Party, which was backed by Soviet arms and aid). The Independent Labour Party was linked to the POUM and so Orwell joined the POUM.[/glow]
Orwell was declared "Unfit for any kind of military service" by the Medical Board in June, but soon afterwards found an opportunity to become involved in war activities by joining the Home Guard. He shared Tom Wintringham's socialist vision for the Home Guard as a revolutionary People's Militia.
In this work he states his idea of socialism as "a real Socialist is one who wishes - not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes - to see tyranny overthrown". However it was the Spanish Civil War that played the most important part in defining his socialism. He wrote to Cyril Connolly from Barcelona on 8 June 1937: "I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before".[64][65] Having witnessed the success of the anarcho-syndicalist communities, and the subsequent brutal suppression of the anarcho-syndicalists and other revolutionaries by the Soviet-backed Communists, Orwell returned from Catalonia a staunch anti-Stalinist and joined the Independent Labour Party, his card being issued on 13 June 1938.
Orwell wrote "For some years past I have managed to make the capitalist class pay me several pounds a week for writing books against capitalism. But I do not delude myself that this state of affairs is going to last forever",[67] going on to add "the only régime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a Socialist régime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer - that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a Socialist party."
-
A liberal is a power worshipper without the power - George Orwell
The left/right paradigm in the US is a smokescreen. Both parties are Statist. Both parties look to increase the size of the military and the size of the dependent citizenry. This is the hallmark both of central planning authoritarianism and the decline of an empire.
Those of you who get hard at the color of the tie the faceless bureaucrat is wearing are the problem.
Orwell joined the staff of Tribune as literary editor, and from then until his death was a left-wing (though hardly orthodox) Labour-supporting democratic socialist.
guy also considers that "the other crucial dimension to Orwell's socialism was his recognition that the Soviet Union was not socialist. Unlike many on the left, instead of abandoning socialism once he discovered the full horror of Stalinist rule in the Soviet Union, Orwell abandoned the Soviet Union and instead remained a socialist--indeed he became more committed to the socialist cause than ever."
-
I like it when "republicans" and "conservatives" try to quote George Orwell when he was a die hard Socialist.
I also like it when they pledge the allegiance to the flag, which was written by Francis Bellamy, a rabid and devout Socialist. (fun fact, the original Pledge as he wrote it for the 1892 World`s Fair, had no mention of god. That was added by congress later in the 1950s during the "Red Scare". Another fun fact, the pledge was not meant just for Americans, but for any school children of any nation of any "flag".)
-
In case anyone wants to further their knowledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
-
I think you've made your point with Orwell. Are you promoting socialism now, after poo-pooing taxes?
-
Exactly, we agree. It's a collaborative effort and everyone made some contribution.
And we have a civic duty to direct society to foster man's natural goodness, rather than exploit and abuse him until he becomes parasitic or irretrievably cynical.
I don't believe in man's "natural goodness". That's a moral argument that assumes a static "good" that can be identified and applied universally. Since the dawn of time the concepts of 'good/bad/right/wrong' have changed as new discoveries were made and technology advanced. To assume that current definitions of 'goodness' won't change in the future is naïve.
Instead, I believe in man's will to power and the natural law to apply that will on this earth. I believe 'civic duty' is a noble concept though I see it as the substitution of religious morality to the masses that coincidentally rose as the power of the church declined.
However, as long as these concepts are adhered to on a voluntary basis I have no qualms but as soon as any 'system of thought' is placed on a pedestal under the cover as what's 'best for all' then a system of coercion will be designed to enforce it and its legitimacy is destroyed.
The most cogent example still defining human purpose is the declaration that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That they have a right to speak their minds, write down these thoughts, to defend their lives and property, to a fair and impartial judicial processes, to be free of the tyranny of religious institutions and standing armies, to be free from unusual and cruel punishment and to retain (as a free man) all other rights not afforded here.
I am not my brother's keeper until I 'choose' to be.
-
I think you've made your point with Orwell. Are you promoting socialism now, after poo-pooing taxes?
I do consider myself a Socialist which is why I support a true Socialist Tax Plan and absolutely NO INCOME TAX. I personally think there should be a National Sales tax ON ALL NEW items. EVERYTHING IS TAXED! with the exception of food and housing.
Used items should also be tax free.
Changing the nation from a spending to a savings oriented nation will not only reward quality, but will promote correct conservatism as it is meant to be practiced.
This way, people will have total control of every dollar they make and will be in total control of their finance.
Everybody pays the same equally. (true Socialism)
We can be as regressive and as progressive as we like with a National Sales Tax as the world economy waxes and wanes. 20 percent is the agreed upon amount by all Fair Tax/National Sales Tax economists.
-
I also believe in a National Sales Tax that allows you to select a box after each purchase to where a certain percentage of your tax dollars would go. Defense, Welfare, Corporate Welfare, Education, Infrastructure, Etc... Etc...
Give the people at least some direct control over where the money goes.
-
Here you go, this is from Mike Gravel, former Democratic Senator who ended the military draft, read the Pentagon Papers, Democratic Candidate for President and Libertarian Candidate for President.
-
Can't watch videos on my iPad, but I get the picture. You're an interesting dude, Adam, I'll give you that.
-
I don't believe in man's "natural goodness". That's a moral argument that assumes a static "good" that can be identified and applied universally. Since the dawn of time the concepts of 'good/bad/right/wrong' have changed as new discoveries were made and technology advanced. To assume that current definitions of 'goodness' won't change in the future is naïve.
Instead, I believe in man's will to power and the natural law to apply that will on this earth. I believe 'civic duty' is a noble concept though I see it as the substitution of religious morality to the masses that coincidentally rose as the power of the church declined.
However, as long as these concepts are adhered to on a voluntary basis I have no qualms but as soon as any 'system of thought' is placed on a pedestal under the cover as what's 'best for all' then a system of coercion will be designed to enforce it and its legitimacy is destroyed.
The most cogent example still defining human purpose is the declaration that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That they have a right to speak their minds, write down these thoughts, to defend their lives and property, to a fair and impartial judicial processes, to be free of the tyranny of religious institutions and standing armies, to be free from unusual and cruel punishment and to retain (as a free man) all other rights not afforded here.
I am not my brother's keeper until I 'choose' to be.
I still do, as a potential that will develop in the right circumstances rather than be given up on as a hopeless cause because it's not ever present. I like to think those circumstances are what old Tom was aiming for.
-
The strong become leftists when they fall on hard times.
The weak turn to the right when they do well.
People believe in whatever is beneficial for them at the time. People who don't believe in handouts
do everything possible to milk whatever current system for their benefit, they don't give a shit if they steal someone elses money. Very few true idealists out there.
In the end it doesn't matter, it all turns to shit. And death. :D
-
The strong eats the fresh of the weak.
Its natural and golden rule.
Just you cant handle the truth
-
The strong eats the fresh of the weak.
Its natural and golden rule.
Just you cant handle the truth
:)
-
Orwell was a socialist but I doubt he would be pleased with the concept of political correctness. Political correctness is a form of thought control and language manipulation.
-
:)
Hahha nice catch
-
Orwell was a socialist but I doubt he would be pleased with the concept of political correctness. Political correctness is a form of thought control and language manipulation.
(http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/05/orwell1.jpg)
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c8/c897ec817755607e796103b52cb72c29773dba39474da5b317b91f89e3bb493e.jpg)
-
Here you go, this is from Mike Gravel, former Democratic Senator who ended the military draft,
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Speaking as a 25yr old american male, I'm 99% sure I'm registered in the Selective Service System and will be so until i'm 26, by law.
Hold on let me re-check.
Yep, still registered by law (again).
Cute try though. Please continue.
-
So basically if your perfectly fit, with no health problems and no experience with true adversity your more likely to believe in a do it yourself attitude what a surprise.
This kind of emotional reasoning is fucking retarded.
We live in a mixed economy deal with it, no matter how right wing or left wing a country is your taxes and services provided are gonna be relatively equal when you factor in the geographic distribution in that country.
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Speaking as a 25yr old american male, I'm 99% sure I'm registered in the Selective Service System and will be so until i'm 26, by law.
Hold on let me re-check.
Yep, still registered by law (again).
Cute try though. Please continue.
The draft is not in effect. Yes... it can be "re-instated", but it is currently not in effect.
-
The draft is not in effect. Yes... it can be "re-instated", but it is currently not in effect.
You don't say.
What is your point again?
-
Your comment, TA, was that both parties were moving further right, but you've only provided examples of how the right has become more moderate.
what about the koch party?
they have so,me funny ideas ;D
-
You don't say.
What is your point again?
You=Pwned
-
The strong become leftists when they fall on hard times.
The weak turn to the right when they do well.
People believe in whatever is beneficial for them at the time. People who don't believe in handouts
do everything possible to milk whatever current system for their benefit, they don't give a shit if they steal someone elses money. Very few true idealists out there.
In the end it doesn't matter, it all turns to shit. And death. :D
this sums it all up nicely.
see ayn rand :D
-
You=Pwned
Totally. It's all good though because the draft was abolished!
LOL
-
George Orwell was a Socialist. Hope this helps. (doubt that it will)
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/03/01/196347/george-orwell-was-a-socialist/
"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement. "- George Orwell
As a SOCIALIST, George Orwell considered that the first duty of a socialist is to fight totalitarianism, which means in practice “to denounce the Soviet myth, for there is not much difference between Fascism and Stalinism.
1984 was a Pro-Socialist anti Totalitarianism book. I guess that fact escapes you as well.
consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds - Emerson
-
consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds - Emerson
(http://www.skepticalob.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/War-is-peace.jpg)
Here you were, doing EXACTLY what Orwell abhorred. Using him, a staunch Socialist, to argue for your Conservative agenda.
Up is down, down is up and left is right? Is that how it works.
Or is Ignorance simply your strength?
-
Totally. It's all good though because the draft was abolished!
LOL
He didn't say abolished... he said "ended".
That is a correct statement.
-
I am not sure that I get why it's so important for you to point out that Orwell was a socialist. He wrote a book about a dystopian future that, at times, appears to be prescient. Pointing out that an author's unhappy vision of the future is coming true matters not what the author's political views are, but what the political views of the current administration that is attempting to embody that dystopian vision.
-
The strong eats the fresh of the weak.
Its natural and golden rule.
Just you cant handle the truth
Rice cake eaten by weak -> weak eaten by strong -> strong eaten by taxes... perfect eco system.
-
I am not sure that I get why it's so important for you to point out that Orwell was a socialist. He wrote a book about a dystopian future that, at times, appears to be prescient. Pointing out that an author's unhappy vision of the future is coming true matters not what the author's political views are, but what the political views of the current administration that is attempting to embody that dystopian vision.
Because I find it amusing that Orwell wrote 1984 to demonstrate why Totalitarianism is dangerous and why Socialism is the ideal, yet you have "Conservative" (I use that term loosely) morons using Orwell to disparage Socialism. Its downright maddening, ignorant and is the EXACT behavior that Orwell was trying to highlight in his book. Orwell envisioned a completely Socialist society to cure the ills of Totalitarianism as well as to fix some of the unfair pitfalls of capitalism. I for one, do not like seeing Orwell misused, especially when the ones doing so are using his works in the manner Orwell was warning us against.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Using the Socialist works of a devout Socialist to argue against Socialism in order to further a "Conservative" or "Capitalist" agenda without knowing any of this beforehand but claiming Orwell as one of their own is just insane. Sorry if you can`t see it that way. Perhaps you and the others just don`t understand Orwell or 1984.
-
In fact, just last year the BBC declined to put up a statue of George Orwell because he was "too left wing".
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/22/bbc-george-orwell-statue-left-wing
BBC George Orwell statue turned down as 'too left-wing'
Joan Bakewell reports director general Mark Thompson turned down proposal 'flat'
-
Because I find it amusing that Orwell wrote 1984 to demonstrate why Totalitarianism is dangerous and why Socialism is the ideal, yet you have "Conservative" (I use that term loosely) morons using Orwell to disparage Socialism. Its downright maddening, ignorant and is the EXACT behavior that Orwell was trying to highlight in his book. Orwell envisioned a completely Socialist society to cure the ills of Totalitarianism as well as to fix some of the unfair pitfalls of capitalism. I for one, do not like seeing Orwell misused, especially when the ones doing so are using his works in the manner Orwell was warning us against.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Using the Socialist works of a devout Socialist to argue against Socialism in order to further a "Conservative" or "Capitalist" agenda without knowing any of this beforehand but claiming Orwell as one of their own is just insane. Sorry if you can`t see it that way. Perhaps you and the others just don`t understand Orwell or 1984.
If that pisses you off, you must walk around pretty damn angry with everything then.
-
He didn't say abolished... he said "ended".
That is a correct statement.
Actually, it's not. Let's try this one more time.
Vietnam War, the draft, and the Pentagon Papers
President Richard Nixon had campaigned in 1968 on a promise to end the U.S. military draft,[52][53] a decision endorsed by the February 1970 report of the Gates Commission.[52][54] The existing draft law was scheduled to conclude at the end of June 1971, and the Senate faced a contentious debate about whether to extend it as the Vietnam War continued.[55] The Nixon administration announced in February 1971 that it wanted a two-year extension to June 1973, after which the draft would end;[56][57] Army planners had already been operating under the assumption of a two-year extension, after which an all-volunteer force would be in place.[58] Skeptics such as Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Stennis thought this unrealistic and wanted a four-year extension,[56] but the two-year proposal is what went forward in Congress.[55] By early May 1971, Gravel had indicated his intention to filibuster the draft renewal legislation, halting conscription and thereby bringing U.S. involvement in the war to a rapid end.[59]
By June 1971, some Democratic senators opposed to the war wanted to limit the renewal to a one-year extension, while others wanted to end it immediately;[55] Gravel reiterated that he was one of the latter, saying, "It's a senseless war, and one way to do away with it is to do away with the draft."[55] A Senate vote on June 4 indicated majority support for the two-year extension.[55] On June 18 Gravel announced again his intention to counteract that by filibustering the renewal legislation,[60] defending the practice against those who associated it only with blocking civil rights legislation.[60] The first filibuster attempt failed on June 23 when, by three votes, the Senate voted cloture for only the fifth time since 1927.[61]
Protracted negotiations took place over House conference negotiations on the bill, revolving in large part around Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield's eventually unsuccessful amendment to tie renewal to a troop withdrawal timetable from Vietnam; during this time the draft law expired and no more were conscripted.[62] On August 5, the Nixon administration pleaded for a renewal before the Senate went on recess, but Gravel blocked Stennis's attempt to limit debate, and no vote was held.[63]Finally on September 21, 1971, the Senate invoked cloture over Gravel's second filibuster attempt by one vote, and then passed the two-year draft extension.[62] Gravel's attempts to stop the draft had failed[40] (notwithstanding Gravel's later claims that he had stopped or shortened the draft, taken at face value in some media reports, during his 2008 presidential campaign).[nb 3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel)
There goes that crock of shit.
-
If that pisses you off, you must walk around pretty damn angry with everything then.
I DO NOT like ignorance.
-
In all of history, which country has pulled off this socialistic utopia, TA? Whom do you point to as a model?
-
Mmmm... let's see... Phil Heath, Kai Green, Shawn Rhoden, Dexter Jackson... Ronnie Coleman, Flex Wheeler, Chris Cormier, Shawn Ray... these guys are or were among the most muscular men in the world. I'm sure they all voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential race.
-
tu...you voted libertarian? Yes!!!
The religious right has less influence on the republican party than they used to, they are a faction of the party but a shrinking one as other factions (like libertarian conservatives) grow. You hear about the fringe in mainstream media more because it gets them ratings! Don't trust the media without an analytical mind and looking for bias!
There are a lot more fiscal and personal freedom conservatives now. If the republicans want to win any big elections in swing states, they must concentrate on a fiscal, personal freedom and limited government message.
Adonis, you are very interesting....smart, good points but sometime view a topic from an unconventional angle and pure definitions that aren't necessarily commonplace to today's version of the parties. I would be absolutely fine with a consumption only tax and eliminating federal income tax. If you consider that socialistic, then sign me up. The left in this country would want both income & consumption taxes and take more from people to fund bigger government and bigger programs. The liberals in this country are not pure socialists, according to what you write...they are big government control. Socially liberal but functionally totalitarian and willing to support too many takers. I imagine in true socialism there would be standards to hold people to in order to have their share. Interesting....
-
Totalitarianism is what links German Nazis and Soviet-type communism....and what I see as the antithesis to personal freedom. Today's liberals are more totalitarian in many ways. Today's libertarian and fiscal conservatives champion personal freedom, choice and less centralized government.
-
Totalitarianism is what links German Nazis and Soviet-type communism....and what I see as the antithesis to personal freedom. Today's liberals are more totalitarian in many ways.
I agree. Liberals want to control what a person thinks. They also do whatever they can to quiet dissent by shaming and ostracizing anyone who disagrees with their world view. I was entrenched in the liberal world for a long time and this is my personal experience.
-
(http://www.skepticalob.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/War-is-peace.jpg)
Here you were, doing EXACTLY what Orwell abhorred. Using him, a staunch Socialist, to argue for your Conservative agenda.
Up is down, down is up and left is right? Is that how it works.
Or is Ignorance simply your strength?
I'm not arguing for the 'conservative' agenda. I'm just quoting Orwell's definition of a liberal.
Almost the only persons who may be said to comprehend even approximately the significance, principles, and purposes of Socialism are the chief leaders of the extreme wings of the Socialistic forces, and perhaps a few of the money kings themselves. - Benjamin Tucker
-
So basically if your perfectly fit, with no health problems and no experience with true adversity your more likely to believe in a do it yourself attitude what a surprise.
This kind of emotional reasoning is fucking retarded.
We live in a mixed economy deal with it, no matter how right wing or left wing a country is your taxes and services provided are gonna be relatively equal when you factor in the geographic distribution in that country.
IF what you're saying sounds like I think it does, I'd agree yes. Often, I debate my daily toil as I watch those on Section 8 housing and Medi-cal coverage live equally invigorating and rich lives as those that work to pay a house payment and their own medical (amongst other things like their own food bill. Im yet to come to a conclusion on what is best.
-
Sooo...Let's take inventory shall we?
We currently have the most liberal president ever (also black), most big spending liberal congress ever, the most liberal time in US history (gay marriage etc.), Obamacare, and the list goes on and there is no sign of this changing no matter what party is in charge.
Yet somehow, we are also living in the most totalitarian time in the US history... spying, gun grabbing, drone killing, drone killing US citizen, indefinite prison terms with no trial, printing lists of gun owners names etc.
TA so much fail yet again. So much.
Socialism Utopia... IE jumbo shrimp.
-
Sooo...Let's take inventory shall we?
We currently have the most liberal president ever (also black), most big spending liberal congress ever, the most liberal time in US history (gay marriage etc.), Obamacare, and the list goes on and there is no sign of this changing no matter what party is in charge.
Yet somehow, we are also living in the most totalitarian time in the US history... spying, gun grabbing, drone killing, drone killing US citizen, indefinite prison terms with no trial, printing lists of gun owners names etc.
TA so much fail yet again. So much.
Socialism Utopia... IE jumbo shrimp.
Obama IS NOT governing like a liberal. Ronald Reagan`s record is more liberal. Hope this helps.
-
Hope this helps
Ronald Reagan more Liberal than Obama
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dylan-ratigan-show/38113765#38113765
-
Obama IS NOT governing like a liberal. Ronald Reagan`s record is more liberal. Hope this helps.
Please stop. If you want to continue perpetrating the myth that you are some sort of intellectual, I recommend you just stop posting in this thread all together. It's good advice you should heed.
-
Hope this helps
Ronald Reagan more Liberal than Obama
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dylan-ratigan-show/38113765#38113765
NBC news source. Like I said just stop. Your moving into short bus territory. Get out now while you still can.
-
Please stop. If you want to continue perpetrating the myth that you are some sort of intellectual, I recommend you just stop posting in this thread all together. It's good advice you should heed.
::)
You have been exposed. But, in true right wing fashion, somehow you still don`t get it.
-
Sooo...Let's take inventory shall we?
We currently have the most liberal president ever (also black), most big spending liberal congress ever, the most liberal time in US history (gay marriage etc.), Obamacare, and the list goes on and there is no sign of this changing no matter what party is in charge.
Yet somehow, we are also living in the most totalitarian time in the US history... spying, gun grabbing, drone killing, drone killing US citizen, indefinite prison terms with no trial, printing lists of gun owners names etc.
TA so much fail yet again. So much.
Socialism Utopia... IE jumbo shrimp.
Read this one more time. Then read what you have been posting.
I am still laughing at you. It's that funny.
The left leads to totalitarian regimes... History says so... Our current situation says so... But since TA says otherwise, it has to be true. Seriously you should just stop. Your bad at this.
-
Read this one more time. Then read what you have been posting.
I am still laughing at you. It's that funny.
The left leads to totalitarian regimes... History says so... Our current situation says so... But since TA says otherwise, it has to be true. Seriously you should just stop. Your bad at this.
Orwell says otherwise.
-
Orwell says otherwise.
Mao, Che, Obama, Hitler, every historian ever, and anyone with a brain, would disagree.
Good thing an author of fiction makes you case for you though.
-
Mao, Che, Obama, Hitler, every historian ever, and anyone with a brain, would disagree.
Good thing an author of fiction makes you case for you though.
In case you didn't see it... This is called getting utterly destroyed.
-
Mao, Che, Obama, Hitler, every historian ever, and anyone with a brain, would disagree.
Good thing an author of fiction makes you case for you though.
He wasn`t just an author of fiction. Of course you wouldn`t know a thing about him. Hope this helps.
-
He wasn`t just an author of fiction. Of course you wouldn`t know a thing about him. Hope this helps.
Where did I say he was? Now your helping me own you into oblivion. Focus.
-
People with stronger work ethic, motivation/drive and competitiveness are definitely, on average, more likely to be fiscal conservatives and opposed to nanny state government and redistribution. By nature, weaker people (maybe physical, mental or overall energy) and less motivated people are more likely to want (and need) the government to support & help them. All you guys in your 20s voting for liberal democrats are certainly voting for bigger controlling government...which means less personal freedoms.
See I understand this in theory. But then you get shit like the Patriot Act under a conservative, and then Anti Abortion and Gay Marriage, and you think "hey isnt that government intrusion from the anti government people?"
-
Yeah Option, I agree. The anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion comes from the social/religious republicans, not the fiscal conservatives & libertarian factions. I don't give two shits one way or the other about gay marriage or abortion but I am absolutely opposed to limiting my freedom, taking more taxes from me, supporting too many able bodied people with expanding government programs and having a huge government telling us what to do...therefore I tend to vote either libertarian or republican and hope repubs keep moving to champion the fiscal & economic issues and minimize the rest.
TA, the liberal democrats in America are now more totalitarian than anything else. They absolutely want to control more things and redistribute how they see fit. They are also champions for feminism and continuing to promote minority and poor dependence instead of upward mobility. The liberals and extreme social conservatives are similar in wanting to control!
-
Yeah Option, I agree. The anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion comes from the social/religious republicans, not the fiscal conservatives & libertarian factions. I don't give two shits one way or the other about gay marriage or abortion but I am absolutely opposed to limiting my freedom, taking more taxes from me, supporting too many able bodied people with expanding government programs and having a huge government telling us what to do...therefore I tend to vote either libertarian or republican and hope repubs keep moving to champion the fiscal & economic issues and minimize the rest.
x2
This is the way most people I know feel. It's just that the lunatic fringe gets all the press.
-
I'm cautious of any ideology that believes it can and should modify and control human behavior for what they believe is the greater good. Whether that control is physical, emotional , religious or psychological it's still control. Both sides of political spectrum have a problem with this kind of thinking.
The thing about national socialism(nazis) is that is was one part political ideology and another part religion/cult and definitely bad science.
-
I'm cautious of any ideology that believes it can and should modify and control human behavior for what they believe is the greater good. Whether that control is physical, emotional , religious or psychological it's still control. Both sides of political spectrum have a problem with this kind of thinking.
The thing about national socialism(nazis) is that is was one part political ideology and another part religion/cult and definitely bad science.
sounds an awful loy like modern day neocons and far left dems.
Lets face it, the establishment of both parties of 2 shades of the same cloth.... they both want the same end, they just use different means. Its sad but they both want essebtially the same things with regards to the economy, personal freedoms, immigration, etc. They bkind and divide us with non issues like abortion and religion, but they both have the same core beliefs.
there are next to zero conservatives in the Republican party anymore, thwyre all RINOs (and many were democrats) that found that they could modify their platform just a touch and now be a republican, even though theyre essentially still big government democrats.
-
See I understand this in theory. But then you get shit like the Patriot Act under a conservative, and then Anti Abortion and Gay Marriage, and you think "hey isnt that government intrusion from the anti government people?"
Malcolm, you will be more aligned with the right than the left within the next 10 years.
It might take a while but you'll get there.
I'm calling it right now. 8)
-
sounds an awful loy like modern day neocons and far left dems.
Lets face it, the establishment of both parties of 2 shades of the same cloth.... they both want the same end, they just use different means. Its sad but they both want essebtially the same things with regards to the economy, personal freedoms, immigration, etc. They bkind and divide us with non issues like abortion and religion, but they both have the same core beliefs.
there are next to zero conservatives in the Republican party anymore, thwyre all RINOs (and many were democrats) that found that they could modify their platform just a touch and now be a republican, even though theyre essentially still big government democrats.
Well said, brother.
-
Malcolm, you will be more aligned with the right than the left within the next 10 years.
It might take a while but you'll get there.
I'm calling it right now. 8)
Lol...
you got me there...Buddy of mine and i were having it out about welfare.
I said drug test them. He had some half brained reason not to
I think social security needs to be reexamined but no politician will dare go near that.
So i do think that fiscially i am more conservative. I do think that there are institutions that need to be taken care of the state. I am a product of public school for high school and private for college and i see pros and cons in both. But i think public schools still have a place in society.
Also I understand what Shoot is referring to with the Religious Right vs the Economic Right..
The republicans need to do a better job at drawing that line. Republicans looked cool in the 80s...now they look like ass clowns (see Soul Crusher)
-
Government welfare is sucking the country dry too..
I call the DEA Government welfare because the WAR on Drugs has been ineffective by definition yet this department is still grossly overfunded by tax dollars...
This among other government departments
-
Lol...
you got me there...Buddy of mine and i were having it out about welfare.
I said drug test them. He had some half brained reason not to
I think social security needs to be reexamined but no politician will dare go near that.
So i do think that fiscially i am more conservative. I do think that there are institutions that need to be taken care of the state. I am a product of public school for high school and private for college and i see pros and cons in both. But i think public schools still have a place in society.
Also I understand what Shoot is referring to with the Religious Right vs the Economic Right..
The republicans need to do a better job at drawing that line. Republicans looked cool in the 80s...now they look like ass clowns (see Soul Crusher)
Mal,
You are what we call "reasonable". I find that reasonable people often think like you. It's the fringe groups that seem to get all of the press for some reason.
I don't understand it.
-
Government welfare is sucking the country dry too..
I call the DEA Government welfare because the WAR on Drugs has been ineffective by definition yet this department is still grossly overfunded by tax dollars...
This among other government departments
War on Drugs is a financial drain. What a waste of money. The government didn't learn a damn thing from prohibition.
-
Lol...
you got me there...Buddy of mine and i were having it out about welfare.
I said drug test them. He had some half brained reason not to
I think social security needs to be reexamined but no politician will dare go near that.
So i do think that fiscially i am more conservative. I do think that there are institutions that need to be taken care of the state. I am a product of public school for high school and private for college and i see pros and cons in both. But i think public schools still have a place in society.
Also I understand what Shoot is referring to with the Religious Right vs the Economic Right..
The republicans need to do a better job at drawing that line. Republicans looked cool in the 80s...now they look like ass clowns (see Soul Crusher)
1. In the states that have drug tested for Welfare, it has proven to be a MASSIVE failure that has cost more money than it has saved. I can provide you with links if you want.
2. Why would you want to give the government power to delve into people`s personal lives? Less government action in private lives should be the ideal.
-
This is from a few days ago.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/drug-test-policies-end-failure
Drug-test policies end in failure
01/02/14 09:00 AM—Updated 01/02/14 09:53 AM
facebook twitter 17 save share group 106
By Steve Benen
Remember Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) idea of mandating drug tests for welfare applicants? As we’ve discussed before, the Republican governor had a theory: the state could save money by forcing drug users to withdraw from the public-assistance system.
At least, that was the idea. In practice, the policy failed spectacularly – only about 2 percent of applicants tested positive, and Florida lost money when it was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the program.
Adding insult to injury, Scott’s policy fared even worse in the courts.
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional a Florida law that required welfare applicants to undergo mandatory drug testing, setting the stage for a legal battle that could affect similar efforts nationwide.
Judge Mary S. Scriven of the United States District Court in Orlando held that the testing requirement, the signature legislation of Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who campaigned on the issue, violated the protection against unreasonable searches.
“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote.
If this sounds familiar, the same federal court blocked further implementation of the Florida law last February, but this week’s ruling makes permanent what had been a temporary injunction.
Also note, the failures of the policy extend beyond the Sunshine State. In Minnesota, state officials reported last week that the drug-testing policy is a flop: participants in Minnesota’s welfare program for low-income families “are actually far less likely to have felony drug convictions than the adult population as a whole.”
What’s more, as Jamelle Bouie added, “One of the biggest failures is in Missouri, where the state spent $493,000 on drug testing for this fiscal year. It received 32,511 welfare applications and referred 636 for drug testing. Only twenty came back positive, although nearly two hundred people refused to comply. But even if all 200 were drug users, that still comes to more than $2,200 per positive result, which is more expensive than the median benefit in the state.”
The underlying motivation for these policies seems to be an unwarranted assumption: if you’re struggling during difficult economic times, and relying on the safety net to keep your head above water, you’re probably abusing illegal drugs. If not, the theory goes, you’d find a job.
It’s an offensive argument, discredited by reality.
-
1. In the states that have drug tested for Welfare, it has proven to be a MASSIVE failure that has cost more money than it has saved. I can provide you with links if you want.
2. Why would you want to give the government power to delve into people`s personal lives? Less government action in private lives should be the ideal.
I wasnt aware of the numbers but if implementing Drug Testing is a failure then its back to the drawing board. But i do see a problem with giving someone someone elses money with no strings attached.
-
This is from a few days ago.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/drug-test-policies-end-failure
Drug-test policies end in failure
01/02/14 09:00 AM—Updated 01/02/14 09:53 AM
facebook twitter 17 save share group 106
By Steve Benen
Remember Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) idea of mandating drug tests for welfare applicants? As we’ve discussed before, the Republican governor had a theory: the state could save money by forcing drug users to withdraw from the public-assistance system.
At least, that was the idea. In practice, the policy failed spectacularly – only about 2 percent of applicants tested positive, and Florida lost money when it was forced to reimburse everyone else for the cost of the drug test, plus pay for staff and administrative costs for the program.
Adding insult to injury, Scott’s policy fared even worse in the courts.
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional a Florida law that required welfare applicants to undergo mandatory drug testing, setting the stage for a legal battle that could affect similar efforts nationwide.
Judge Mary S. Scriven of the United States District Court in Orlando held that the testing requirement, the signature legislation of Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who campaigned on the issue, violated the protection against unreasonable searches.
“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote.
If this sounds familiar, the same federal court blocked further implementation of the Florida law last February, but this week’s ruling makes permanent what had been a temporary injunction.
Also note, the failures of the policy extend beyond the Sunshine State. In Minnesota, state officials reported last week that the drug-testing policy is a flop: participants in Minnesota’s welfare program for low-income families “are actually far less likely to have felony drug convictions than the adult population as a whole.”
What’s more, as Jamelle Bouie added, “One of the biggest failures is in Missouri, where the state spent $493,000 on drug testing for this fiscal year. It received 32,511 welfare applications and referred 636 for drug testing. Only twenty came back positive, although nearly two hundred people refused to comply. But even if all 200 were drug users, that still comes to more than $2,200 per positive result, which is more expensive than the median benefit in the state.”
The underlying motivation for these policies seems to be an unwarranted assumption: if you’re struggling during difficult economic times, and relying on the safety net to keep your head above water, you’re probably abusing illegal drugs. If not, the theory goes, you’d find a job.
It’s an offensive argument, discredited by reality.
Well that solves tha. Thanks, good find
-
I wasnt aware of the numbers but if implementing Drug Testing is a failure then its back to the drawing board. But i do see a problem with giving someone someone elses money with no strings attached.
There are strings attached for the most part. Social Welfare is not bankrupting the country though at all. If anything, it helps stimulate the economy further. Its not like the money is being hoarded away.
-
Another State.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/27/2532851/utah-spent-30000-catch-12-drug-users-welfare/
Utah Spent More Than $30,000 To Catch 12 Drug Users On Welfare
By Bryce Covert on August 27, 2013 at 10:00 am
facebook icon 9,809 twitter icon 652 google plus icon email icon
"Utah Spent More Than $30,000 To Catch 12 Drug Users On Welfare"
Share:
Share on facebook Share on google_plusone_share google plus icon Share on email
drug testUtah has spent more than $30,000 to drug test welfare applicants after it passed a new law last year. But in that time, just 12 people have tested positive for drug use, according to state figures.
Utah doesn’t randomly test applicants or require them to all undergo a drug test, but instead requires them to complete a written questionnaire that is meant to screen for drug abuse. Those who have a high probability are then given drug tests. The state spent nearly $6,000 on written tests for 4,730 applicants, 466 of which had to take a drug test, which cost more than $25,000. The law doesn’t disqualify those who test positive but instead requires them to go into a substance abuse treatment program.
Other states have turned up similar results. In Florida, just 2 percent of welfare recipients failed drug tests in 2011, compared to 8 percent of the state’s population who use illegal drugs. And while Gov. Rick Scott (R) had promised that the law would bring out savings, those will be almost negligible after administrative costs and reimbursing those who took the $30 tests. A federal appeals court rejected Florida’s law in February. In Virginia, a similar proposal failed when lawmakers determined that it would cost $1.5 million to administer and save just $229,000.
At least eight states have laws that drug test people who apply for or receive public benefits, and at least 29 new proposals have been introduced this year. Kansas became the latest to adopt such a policy when it passed a law in April. Yet many recent court rulings have blocked these laws as likely unconstitutional.
-
There are strings attached for the most part. Social Welfare is not bankrupting the country though at all. If anything, it helps stimulate the economy further. Its not like the money is being hoarded away.
So by the numbers, what is the biggest drain on our economy as far as spending. I would guess it was Defense Spending
-
So by the numbers, what is the biggest drain on our economy as far as spending. I would guess it was Defense Spending
Bingo!
-
Bingo!
So wouldnt Fiscal Conservatives vote to cut it?
-
So by the numbers, what is the biggest drain on our economy as far as spending. I would guess it was Defense Spending
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1jj4w3/
You want to talk outrageous prices. Here is what the US military spent on ONE BOLT for an old Hummer.
-
So wouldnt Fiscal Conservatives vote to cut it?
They don`t dare cut the military.
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1jj4w3/
You want to talk outrageous prices. Here is what the US military spent on ONE BOLT for an old Hummer.
How is that even possible? Aren't government entities supposed to put contracting jobs up for bid? Surely someone would step up and supply a less expensive bolt.
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1jj4w3/
You want to talk outrageous prices. Here is what the US military spent on ONE BOLT for an old Hummer.
Speechless.
-
The True Adonis firing on all twelve cylinders in this thread. Swiss watch-like.
-
How is that even possible? Aren't government entities supposed to put contracting jobs up for bid? Surely someone would step up and supply a less expensive bolt.
Sure, they might do that, but it takes extra paper work. Its not necessary though since it will be paid for anyways.
Jezebelles parents were both high level government contractors by the way. Specifically for fighter planes and the V-22 and other aircraft. They are retired and get a large pension for the rest of their lives, they also still receive government contract work and its hilarious what they make for what they do.
-
This is a good watch for anyone who is interested in Government Contractors and how they spend money.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Iraq_for_sale_poster.jpg)
-
Mindblown
Its crazy because you know it happens on some level. It happens at all levels.
But you never think its as bad as it really is...
$54 bucks for a screw. How does this go unoticed.
-
How is that even possible? Aren't government entities supposed to put contracting jobs up for bid? Surely someone would step up and supply a less expensive bolt.
Maybe what we need is another bigger government that can reign in the excesses of the current government. That would surely stop all this crony-capitalismoligarchy. ::)
-
Sure, they might do that, but it takes extra paper work. Its not necessary though since it will be paid for anyways.
Jezebelles parents were both high level government contractors by the way. Specifically for fighter planes and the V-22 and other aircraft. They are retired and get a large pension for the rest of their lives, they also still receive government contract work and its hilarious what they make for what they do.
ah...now it makes sense why you argue for socialism...cause you've got a financial interest in it ;). If you were just honest about your selfish desire to get things easy then we could do away with 'moral' high ground socialists try to take.
-
Mindblown
Its crazy because you know it happens on some level. It happens at all levels.
But you never think its as bad as it really is...
$54 bucks for a screw. How does this go unoticed.
Oh its noticed and its standard protocol. Just think what parts on a F-15 cost, or a Globemaster. The Supply Officer in charge is not worried about cost. Its not his job to do so. His job is logistics and making sure the correct parts go to the correct place and no order is left unfilled.
-
ah...now it makes sense why you argue for socialism...cause you've got a financial interest in it ;). If you were just honest about your selfish desire to get things easy then we could do away with 'moral' high ground socialists try to take.
Socialism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor is what the United States has been built on. Is this news to you?
-
Maybe what we need is another bigger government that can reign in the excesses of the current government. That would surely stop all this crony-capitalismoligarchy. ::)
Wasn't suggesting that at all. But you're cool with a 45 dollar bolt?
-
Wasn't suggesting that at all. But you're cool with a 45 dollar bolt?
I remember during Reagan`s watch the $800 toilet seat. Good to see things have changed. ;D
-
Wasn't suggesting that at all. But you're cool with a 45 dollar bolt?
Absolutely not. I was being sarcastic. The left will have you believe that $45 bolts and $1000 toilet seats are the work of evil capitalist while conveniently ignoring that the root of the problem is because the government has the power to bestow these contracts. My joke was that the corrupt government needed a bigger more corrupt government to keep it in check. The left live under the delusion that only government can check the power of big business. They fail to understand that big government is the enabler of big business and monopolies.
If you were a businessman and the government offered you a no-bid contract where you could charge $45 for a bolt that costs you 20c would you not take it? Of course you would! You'd be a fool not too. The government can pay that kind of money because it possesses a monopoly on those contracts and can use force to tax the citizenry to pay for it.
I think socialism for the rich is as reprehensible as socialism for the poor. The greed of the poor is not morally superior to the greed of the rich...that's where the morality of the 'parties' fail. They both use the government to exert force, violence and/or the threat of violence to enrich themselves at your hard earned capital.
Both are appalling to be labeled as 'civilized'.
-
Sounds like we need about 100 nooses for the Senate and 435 for the House and let's start from scratch again.
-
Sounds like we need about 100 nooses for the Senate and 435 for the House and let's start from scratch again.
reported to DHS and FBI for being an anti government extremist/evil constitution supporter.
-
Absolutely not. I was being sarcastic. The left will have you believe that $45 bolts and $1000 toilet seats are the work of evil capitalist while conveniently ignoring that the root of the problem is because the government has the power to bestow these contracts. My joke was that the corrupt government needed a bigger more corrupt government to keep it in check. The left live under the delusion that only government can check the power of big business. They fail to understand that big government is the enabler of big business and monopolies.
If you were a businessman and the government offered you a no-bid contract where you could charge $45 for a bolt that costs you 20c would you not take it? Of course you would! You'd be a fool not too. The government can pay that kind of money because it possesses a monopoly on those contracts and can use force to tax the citizenry to pay for it.
I think socialism for the rich is as reprehensible as socialism for the poor. The greed of the poor is not morally superior to the greed of the rich...that's where the morality of the 'parties' fail. They both use the government to exert force, violence and/or the threat of violence to enrich themselves at your hard earned capital.
Both are appalling to be labeled as 'civilized'.
amen...
-
Absolutely not. I was being sarcastic. The left will have you believe that $45 bolts and $1000 toilet seats are the work of evil capitalist while conveniently ignoring that the root of the problem is because the government has the power to bestow these contracts. My joke was that the corrupt government needed a bigger more corrupt government to keep it in check. The left live under the delusion that only government can check the power of big business. They fail to understand that big government is the enabler of big business and monopolies.
If you were a businessman and the government offered you a no-bid contract where you could charge $45 for a bolt that costs you 20c would you not take it? Of course you would! You'd be a fool not too. The government can pay that kind of money because it possesses a monopoly on those contracts and can use force to tax the citizenry to pay for it.
I think socialism for the rich is as reprehensible as socialism for the poor. The greed of the poor is not morally superior to the greed of the rich...that's where the morality of the 'parties' fail. They both use the government to exert force, violence and/or the threat of violence to enrich themselves at your hard earned capital.
Both are appalling to be labeled as 'civilized'.
thread
-
The same inflated prices are seen throughout the federal system guys, not just the military. I worked for the federal government for several years (as a contractor). Everything we did was 2-3 times as expensive as it could be bid out to outside contractors. I saw this repeatedly, hit us when we bid a couple things out but then they decided it needed to be done by the government workers. Federal workers get great pensions, many can retire early and then keep working. Guess what...that is our tax money supporting them the rest of their lives. None of us get taxpayer pensions. Everyone that works hard and provides value deserves a good living but big government is not efficient.
-
Absolutely not. I was being sarcastic. The left will have you believe that $45 bolts and $1000 toilet seats are the work of evil capitalist while conveniently ignoring that the root of the problem is because the government has the power to bestow these contracts. My joke was that the corrupt government needed a bigger more corrupt government to keep it in check. The left live under the delusion that only government can check the power of big business. They fail to understand that big government is the enabler of big business and monopolies.
If you were a businessman and the government offered you a no-bid contract where you could charge $45 for a bolt that costs you 20c would you not take it? Of course you would! You'd be a fool not too. The government can pay that kind of money because it possesses a monopoly on those contracts and can use force to tax the citizenry to pay for it.
I think socialism for the rich is as reprehensible as socialism for the poor. The greed of the poor is not morally superior to the greed of the rich...that's where the morality of the 'parties' fail. They both use the government to exert force, violence and/or the threat of violence to enrich themselves at your hard earned capital.
Both are appalling to be labeled as 'civilized'.
Not sure I follow...can you give some more on this...talking about possible consequences from each, etc.
-
We need old school, 1890's Capitalism back in this damn country.
-
Military grade specifications probably require a level of quality control that produces sharply decreasing returns in quality appreciation per dollar spent, but if soldiers were dying due to equipment failure you'd be calling for the blood of the people who made a faulty bolt.
If you think $45 is a lot, go institute and record strict QC measures at every stage of production from metallurgy analysis to cut thread surface finish. The end product might be only marginally better than what you'd get at the hardware store but collecting the data to present to your client as per their requirement is where the money goes.
The relationship between product cost and product quality isn't linear. Neither is cost vs quality assurance. People's dissatisfaction generally comes from thinking that something that costs 50x as much should be 50x as good. It doesn't work that way.
-
Lefty Anarchist
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N1Ha7G5itiM/UH_2s2GZsNI/AAAAAAAADw0/czHcOVH86sc/s1600/Jeff-Monson.jpg)
And from what I hear, Arnold was never that strong. Arnold is the typical right wing type of guy who wants other people to THINK he is strong. Right Wingers will do anything to persuade people they are tough guys, even go as far to release media reports on pseudo intellectual and highly flawed studies claiming right wingers are tough.
ANd seriously, has anyone checked out your average politician, pathetically physically weak specimens the lot of them, as is the majority of the general population. Anybody who believes this propaganda has some serious insecurity issues.
Here is what your average right winger looks like
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2011/7/11/1310392765784/Charles-Montgomery-Burns--007.jpg)
Ok lil fella - Arnold is a weak nobody - lol... The sad liberals whining about those big dumb bully lying conservatives - is just really old... So what if you are a financial failure and have a feminine physique - keep the self loathing to yourself man... Its pathetic seeing a grown man so jealous of those that have the things you wish you had
-
Absolutely not. I was being sarcastic. The left will have you believe that $45 bolts and $1000 toilet seats are the work of evil capitalist while conveniently ignoring that the root of the problem is because the government has the power to bestow these contracts. My joke was that the corrupt government needed a bigger more corrupt government to keep it in check. The left live under the delusion that only government can check the power of big business. They fail to understand that big government is the enabler of big business and monopolies.
If you were a businessman and the government offered you a no-bid contract where you could charge $45 for a bolt that costs you 20c would you not take it? Of course you would! You'd be a fool not too. The government can pay that kind of money because it possesses a monopoly on those contracts and can use force to tax the citizenry to pay for it.
I think socialism for the rich is as reprehensible as socialism for the poor. The greed of the poor is not morally superior to the greed of the rich...that's where the morality of the 'parties' fail. They both use the government to exert force, violence and/or the threat of violence to enrich themselves at your hard earned capital.
Both are appalling to be labeled as 'civilized'.
Guess who the staunchest supporters are of Defense Spending.
Your boyfriends, the Republicans.
-
Guess who the staunchest supporters are of Defense Spending.
Your boyfriends, the Republicans.
Which would probably not piss me off if Gas was still 99 cents a gallon, but when we spend all that money in those oil rich countries and don't get a good deal on it, it just makes me angry.
-
Which would probably not piss me off if Gas was still 99 cents a gallon, but when we spend all that money in those oil rich countries and don't get a good deal on it, it just makes me angry.
HA! Me too.
-
Absolutely not. I was being sarcastic. The left will have you believe that $45 bolts and $1000 toilet seats are the work of evil capitalist while conveniently ignoring that the root of the problem is because the government has the power to bestow these contracts. My joke was that the corrupt government needed a bigger more corrupt government to keep it in check. The left live under the delusion that only government can check the power of big business. They fail to understand that big government is the enabler of big business and monopolies.
If you were a businessman and the government offered you a no-bid contract where you could charge $45 for a bolt that costs you 20c would you not take it? Of course you would! You'd be a fool not too. The government can pay that kind of money because it possesses a monopoly on those contracts and can use force to tax the citizenry to pay for it.
I think socialism for the rich is as reprehensible as socialism for the poor. The greed of the poor is not morally superior to the greed of the rich...that's where the morality of the 'parties' fail. They both use the government to exert force, violence and/or the threat of violence to enrich themselves at your hard earned capital.
Both are appalling to be labeled as 'civilized'.
Thanks for clarifying. Good post.
-
Which would probably not piss me off if Gas was still 99 cents a gallon, but when we spend all that money in those oil rich countries and don't get a good deal on it, it just makes me angry.
Shit should be 10 cents a gallon!
Turn of the 20th century prices for our sacrifices!
-
Military grade specifications probably require a level of quality control that produces sharply decreasing returns in quality appreciation per dollar spent, but if soldiers were dying due to equipment failure you'd be calling for the blood of the people who made a faulty bolt.
If you think $45 is a lot, go institute and record strict QC measures at every stage of production from metallurgy analysis to cut thread surface finish. The end product might be only marginally better than what you'd get at the hardware store but collecting the data to present to your client as per their requirement is where the money goes.
The relationship between product cost and product quality isn't linear. Neither is cost vs quality assurance. People's dissatisfaction generally comes from thinking that something that costs 50x as much should be 50x as good. It doesn't work that way.
In hindsight, this post is way less fun than using an extreme pricetag as a jumping off point for a political philippic. Apologies for not keeping with the spirit of the thread.
-
In hindsight, this post is way less fun than using an extreme pricetag as a jumping off point for a political philippic. Apologies for not keeping with the spirit of the thread.
I understand where you're generally coming from w that, but there's no excuse...one way or another, in the design or otherwise, it simply doesn't compute...someone is pulling bullshit witrh these costs
Thinking back, it brings up a memory of about 2.5 TRILLION dollars in "misplaced assets" that the Pentagon announced in 2001
Shit's going on, dude...there ain't no denying
Pentagon is mysterious black hole that rivals even Lobstah!
-
those trills were announced on sept 10 of that year..someone correct me if i'm wrong about that
-
Or how about the 400 Billion Dollars given to Cable companies that was to be used for a Universal Fiber Internet for the entire United States and they didn`t do a thing with the money.
-
The same inflated prices are seen throughout the federal system guys, not just the military. I worked for the federal government for several years (as a contractor). Everything we did was 2-3 times as expensive as it could be bid out to outside contractors. I saw this repeatedly, hit us when we bid a couple things out but then they decided it needed to be done by the government workers. Federal workers get great pensions, many can retire early and then keep working. Guess what...that is our tax money supporting them the rest of their lives. None of us get taxpayer pensions. Everyone that works hard and provides value deserves a good living but big government is not efficient.
Sounds like an old fashioned racket.
-
A song a good friend of mine wrote and plays all the time and heavily relevant to this topic.