The Philosophy of a True Conservative, Today

Basic things to understand:

1) The more control the gov't has, the less freedom you have.

2) Politicians, are just as greedy as the rest of us (at least).

3) There is a simple knee-jerk reaction to every problem -

[COLOR="Red"][CENTER]"There Oughta be a Law"[/CENTER]
[/COLOR]
that we have. If we don't resist that, we wind up in a mess of laws, coercion by the gov't everywhere you turn, and a huge loss of our freedoms.

4) Major social programs initiated by law, have achieved a great deal of negative effects. Our goal should be VOLUNTARY social programs, as much as possible, instead of forced Stateism control of social programs.

Let Mr. Friedman describe it. The video is quite old, but the logic is brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

Note how the meaning of liberal and conservative have changed over the ensuing years. Liberals today are joined at the hip with Statists, who want the state involved in every part of our lives. (Milton refers to that as Collectivisim). I will call it Stateism. Stateism may take the form of Socialism, Communism, or others, but those words refer to a particular type of tightly regulated State control. Stateism is the parent and broader term I use for it.

That's a little too black and white for me... Today is the age of dynamic color and black is the combination of all colors.. white is no color and God sent the rainbow to promise he will never flood the earth again... when Jesus returns it's gonna be like the days of Noah.. everybody is eating and drinking and thinks he's not comming and tada here he is.. so tell me this what is the color of a saved soul... black or white?? White Washed tombs are are like dust and bones.
In the baptist church they teach a saved soul is white as snow.. I want that new bible that ctn has been advertising.. it's like 200dollars and it's "color coordinated".. if you really want to be my friend get me that bible for Christmas...

In a conservative society, there will be jobs, but who is the right person for the job?

Imagine you have to hire two singing acts, for two conventions. One for a church, and one for Mary Kay. The applications and their sample songs are all around you on the desk.

Two samples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBOI3Thfco&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-iOymDxKPs

Who are you going to hire for the church convention?

and the Mary Kay one?

The answer is both simple and obvious - you hire the person who can do the best job. I don't care if Matt Cardle is from Antartica, and he's really got antennae on the back of his head - he's hired for the Mary Kay convention .

Race, religion, etc., are not something a True Conservative cares about. You hire the best person for the job, period.

Another moment with Milton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc&feature=fvwrel

Does power corrupt? Are our politicians acting in our best interests?

Keep the Pink liquid* close to hand for this one:
http://democraticvision.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981462547

*Pepto Bismol

A true Conservative doesn't want the farm subsidies changed, he wants farm subsidies STOPPED.

OMG, we're still subsidizing tobacco and corn?

I agree with your points. I believe in these points. The problem we have is that it can't be just black and white; we have to have some shades of gray

That makes sense, until you start breaking it down a little.

First off, I very much doubt many employers would sit down and think: yes, I know that black man (or that woman, or that differently abled person etc etc) is better qualified, better able and better suited to this post, but I just don't like the cut of his jib, so I'll hire this guy instead: unsuited, less able, but look at that white skin and pale blue eyes.

Discrimination doesn't occur in spite of an awareness of the other person's fine qualities. It occurs because prejudice blinds to those qualities. A man with a low opinion of women doesn't look at the female candidate he's just interviewed and think: yes, you're perfect for the job, and have all the qualities I'm looking for, but I just don't want to employ a woman. He looks at her and sees someone unsuited, regardless of her actual qualities. He looks at her and sees his own image of woman plastered across her and that's what he is discriminating against.

A true conservative makes their decision irrespective of race, gender or creed, but based on who is best suited. Who is the right person for the job. That is in no way contradicted by the fact that for some people, a black man, or a married woman is inherently unsuitable. They may not recognise that as a part of their thinking, and are therefore not consciously taking race, gender, or creed into consideration.

Second, that isn't a 'conservative' stance, it's just common sense. It holds true for any sensible person wherever they are on the political spectrum.

@DanaC: good discussion, thanks for posting. You're correct that a lot of these ideas, are not new, or unique to Conservatism. Good ideas are frequently shared ideas.

DanaC;835677 wrote:

That makes sense, until you start breaking it down a little.

First off, I very much doubt many employers would sit down and think: yes, I know that black man (or that woman, or that differently abled person etc etc) is better qualified, better able and better suited to this post, but I just don't like the cut of his jib, so I'll hire this guy instead: unsuited, less able, but look at that white skin and pale blue eyes.

Discrimination doesn't occur in spite of an awareness of the other person's fine qualities. It occurs because prejudice blinds to those qualities. A man with a low opinion of women doesn't look at the female candidate he's just interviewed and think: yes, you're perfect for the job, and have all the qualities I'm looking for, but I just don't want to employ a woman. He looks at her and sees someone unsuited, regardless of her actual qualities. He looks at her and sees his own image of woman plastered across her and that's what he is discriminating against.

A true conservative makes their decision irrespective of race, gender or creed, but based on who is best suited. Who is the right person for the job. That is in no way contradicted by the fact that for some people, a black man, or a married woman is inherently unsuitable. They may not recognise that as a part of their thinking, and are therefore not consciously taking race, gender, or creed into consideration.

Second, that isn't a 'conservative' stance, it's just common sense. It holds true for any sensible person wherever they are on the political spectrum.

we don't see people how they are. we see them how WE are.
-some guy from one of jinx's sig lines.

Adak;835666 wrote:

Basic things to understand:

1) The more control the gov't has, the less freedom you have.

Freedom is impossible to maximize...

what's black and white and red all over: the news paper... da dat dat cshst

Not sure that's Conservatism, necessarily -- more Libertarianism.

I wouldn't say that most Conservatives want to get rid of all government control. They just want people to have a wee bit more personal choice and personal responsibility than the other side wishes. The whole "teach a man to fish" vs. "give him a fish" parable.

At least that's my understanding. Disclaimer: I suck at politics, it ain't my thing.

Adak;835666 wrote:

1) The more control the gov't has, the less freedom you have.

Not generically true. Power accumulates with or without government.

Somalis do not have more freedom than Americans.

Adak;835666 wrote:

1) The more control the gov't has, the less freedom you have.

Happy Monkey;835709 wrote:

Not generically true. Power accumulates with or without government.

Somalis do not have more freedom than Americans.

No Adak. Freedom isn't JUST about being free from government interference.

Freedom also means the freedom to be in control of one's body, it means freedom to eat food and breathe air that isn't contaminated or unsafe, freedom is having teachers to educate our children and firemen to put out fires and policemen to help protect us. Freedom is the ability to choose our rulers and vote on laws. It's being able to worship (or not) as you choose, to marry who you love, and having recourse against chicanery. Freedom is a certain level of trust and minimal fear during the course of your daily life.

Try being a second class individual in a country without these sorts of freedoms...then maybe you'll appreciate the freedom that government gives us.

And yes, I have.

Stormieweather;835715 wrote:

No Adak. Freedom isn't JUST about being free from government interference.
. . . .
Try being a second class individual in a country without these sorts of freedoms...then maybe you'll appreciate the freedom that government gives us. . . .

@Stormieweather & Happy Monkey:
This is a political philosophy discussion. It's about the interaction of a stable gov't, with the people in it.

It can't begin to cover a situation like they have in Somalia, or emergency responders, etc.

@Juniper, yes. My idea of Conservatism (True Conservatism), is to go back to the gov't described in the Constitution - not all this current gov't, with an agency for everything under the sun.

Libertarians and I agree on this: gov't has become FAR too intrusive, in our daily lives, and we've become FAR too used to having it that way.

Adak;835719 wrote:

@Stormieweather & Happy Monkey:
This is a political philosophy discussion. It's about the interaction of a stable gov't, with the people in it.

It can't begin to cover a situation like they have in Somalia, or emergency responders, etc.

So less government control = more freedom, unless we're talking about the things government does that you approve of?

Exactly how much intrusion is acceptable?

Federal agencies are established for a reason. The process of planning one, getting Congress to establish it, getting physical assets then a workforce in place isn't a quick or easy thing to do. Granted, they may overreach sometimes, but is the original reason they were formed no longer an issue?

Happy Monkey;835729 wrote:

So less government control = more freedom, unless we're talking about the things government does that you approve of?

Yes, that is true. Less government equals more for you. In your wallet, in your freedom.

It's not whether I approve of it, or not. It's whether it's appropriate for a function of federal gov't, as stated in the Constitution.

For example, controlling our borders is a function left to the federal gov't. That is perfectly and undeniably true. So hiring border patrol and immigrant enforcement agents, is perfectly acceptable to me.

Hiring an EPA enforcer to prevent me from using my clean burning car, or running my clean diesel truck, is NOT OK, because the EPA's regulations were never passed as a law, by our representatives, AND the action of the EPA has gone FAR beyond any scientific rationale. Basically, the EPA has adopted regulations into law, that bypass our lawmakers, and totally exclude us from representation, in their decisions. We have no vote on their regulations.

With the stroke of a pen, they can say that every puddle of water, is now a "standing body of water" (meant to describe lakes and such), and make driving a truck through a puddle, now require an environmental study, first! In other words, they can wipe out any forestry or rural jobs, that they want to.

THIS is taxation, without representation, and THAT phrase sounds VERY familiar to an American.

it's utterly utterly hilarious, literally laugh-out-loud ridiculously laughably utterly undeniably hilarious, how wrong you can consistently be. If it weren't 1 AM and I were more or less sober, I would try to point-by-point prove to you what an idiot you are.

But since I'm drunk and you're stupid, I UTTERLY trust the regular dwellars I respect - which is almost all the regular dwellars - to, even when they disagree with my broader political liberalism, see right through all your utterly backwards, absolutely idiotic bluster.

Most of us dwellar types are MUCH too smart for you lying, ridiculous, idiotic shills.

ETA: yeah sorry this is obviously directed at Adak. Only UG and Merc are so ridiculously and consistently WRONG.

Adak;835808 wrote:

THIS is taxation, without representation, and THAT phrase sounds VERY familiar to an American.

fair cop. How many senate/house votes do you propose to extend to DC?


No, wait. They're mostly black democrats. God forbid THEY get a say in THEIR government.

Ibby;835810 wrote:

Most of us dwellar types are MUCH too smart for you lying, ridiculous, idiotic shills.

ETA: yeah sorry this is obviously directed at Adak. Only UG and Merc are so ridiculously and consistently WRONG.

@Ibby:
Why don't you come over to the C Programming Board forum, and show us just how brilliant you are? Or come over to the DaniWeb C forum, and show us how you'd optimize a Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm.

Because us C programmers, aren't so dumb, either. ;)
http://cboard.cprogramming.com/c-programming/

=========================================================
Let's see how this Conservative philosophy, can work with a real life (and big) problem:

Education!

This is a multi-part YouTube segment. Each segment is about 10 minutes. When you've completed one segment, choose the next education segment number, from the choices offered on the YouTube screen.

The name of each segment can be seen if you hover the cursor over it.

#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU

A computer programmer, eh? That would explain a lot about your affinity for defined labels and your inability to embrace the mixed, indefinite, changeable, contradictory reality of people and their interactions, including elections, in the real world. Thanks for that bit of background.

As for freedom, let me ask you, what about when two parties are in conflict, when their freedoms come at the expense of the other's. Imagine a situation where a manufacturing plant wants the freedom to discharge waste into a river (your introduction of the EPA made me think of this). They wish to be able to be free to do so. Imagine an individual downstream that wants to drink from or bathe in the water of the river. Without government inhibiting the freedoms of either, what happens?

Let me pose another one, since I know you have a strong preference for things that are favorable to business. Imagine that a manufacturer produces a widget. Now imagine another manufacturer sees what a great doodad that is, and starts producing the same widget with a different deelybob on top. Should the second manufacturer be free to do so?

I have wondered for a while why computer programmers have such a high proportion of libertarians/conservatives?

Delete.

101

Adak;835808 wrote:

It's not whether I approve of it, or not. It's whether it's appropriate for a function of federal gov't, as stated in the Constitution.

And then you give some things you approve and disapprove of, ignoring the fact that INS do exactly the same thing that EPA does. They are enacted by the government, given a portfolio, and empowered to create and enforce regulations pursuant to that portfolio.

THIS is taxation, without representation, and THAT phrase sounds VERY familiar to an American.

No, taxation without representation is something I deal with in DC, and any attempts at gaining representation are blocked by Republicans.

(And BTW, I, too, am a computer programmer.)

BigV;835870 wrote:

A computer programmer, eh? That would explain a lot about your affinity for defined labels and your inability to embrace the mixed, indefinite, changeable, contradictory reality of people and their interactions, including elections, in the real world. Thanks for that bit of background.

No, I'm not a computer programmer, professionally. I do it for a hobby.

I like the changeable and the freedom to make changes, whether they be contradictory one's or not. What I don't like is when someone calls a chicken, a dog, or a pig, a horse. Like calling the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, a result of a demonstration against a film, when they had a real time feed from a recon drone, AND emails from the consulate, during the 5 hour attack, telling them exactly what was going on.

That's not a labeling problem - that's lying, and when it involves our Ambassador being killed and dragged through the streets, it's NOT a little inconsequential thing, damnit!

As for freedom, let me ask you, what about when two parties are in conflict, when their freedoms come at the expense of the other's. Imagine a situation where a manufacturing plant wants the freedom to discharge waste into a river (your introduction of the EPA made me think of this). They wish to be able to be free to do so. Imagine an individual downstream that wants to drink from or bathe in the water of the river. Without government inhibiting the freedoms of either, what happens?

Let me pose another one, since I know you have a strong preference for things that are favorable to business. Imagine that a manufacturer produces a widget. Now imagine another manufacturer sees what a great doodad that is, and starts producing the same widget with a different deelybob on top. Should the second manufacturer be free to do so?

There are certain (and needed) protections from others making duplicate widgets, of your design. Those protections are limited however.

Think of cars - aren't they a very similar widget with a few deelybobs on top? Yes, but the basic design of a car is not patented. And I think we agree that we all benefit from the competition for our car buying business.

In a free market, if the widget was not protected by patent, trademark, copyright, etc., a company would be free to compete for the widget market. Note that unfair labor practices, might stop a company from being allowed to compete (child labor, forced labor, sweatshop labor, etc.).

So anyone inventing a new widget, and starting a company to make them, will be immediately bigfooted by a corporation with paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network.

piercehawkeye45;835875 wrote:

I have wondered for a while why computer programmers have such a high proportion of libertarians/conservatives?

Because they're smart! ;)

Seriously, liberals are naive and simple. They think people are always going to do the right things, act in the best way, etc.
That's unrealistic, and as you get older, you learn just HOW unrealistic it is to rely on that kind of philosophy.

One example is Senator Dianne Feinstein, from CA. She was a liberal, and still tries to be one, but she was nearly killed in the Jimmy Jones Guyana kool-aid incident, years ago. She was also there when Harvey Milk (the Mayor of SF), was assassinated. Also, her husband and home have had some serious security issues, from criminals.

SO, now she supports gun control laws - but she herself HAS A PERMIT FOR A CONCEALED FIREARM, and carries a pistol.
THAT is the kind of hypocrite that is all too common, in our leaders today.

"I'll make laws so YOU can't carry a gun, but I will carry a gun. Clearly, I need one, and you are too" stupid/careless/etc.

Gotta love the bald faced hypocrisy there!

Clearly, Diannne Feinstein has learned the hard way, that liberals are too simple, and too willing to trust in the great goodness of others.

Adak;835884 wrote:

Because they're smart! ;)

Seriously, liberals are naive and simple. They think people are always going to do the right things, act in the best way, etc.

.

Unlike conservatives who think business should be able to operate unrestricted, reliant entirely on the civic mindedness of the business elite to prevent abuses.

what makes labor practices unfair?
what makes a patent? a trademark? a copyright?

you didn't answer the question about the waste discharge freedom vs the drink clean water freedom.

Once again, you're really. really really hung up on labels about what happened in Libya. It's ok, you focus on what you think is important. "act of terror" versus "terrorism" seems terribly important to you. It means something to you. Fine. But you're wildly inconsistent in your choices of what's "important" and what's not, what's valid and what's not. Your standards for different speakers saying similar things are wildly different. this .. .. inconsistency might be easier for you to bear, but it disqualifies you as a respectable source of information. your confirmation bias is so huge it covers your whole horizon, making it indistinguishable from anything else.

You don't want fewer laws or smaller government, you just want the laws YOU want, and for the rest to be removed from your path to freedom.

I'll tell you something else. There is no freedom, no "right" without a corresponding responsibility. I hear little in the way of responsibility from the voices on your side when they're shouting with poutrage about how their freedoms are being trampled. The pandering "I'll restore your freedom, I'll cut your taxes, I'll give you anything you want, with no cost." No buzzkill about responsibility. It is despicable.

xoxoxoBruce;835883 wrote:

So anyone inventing a new widget, and starting a company to make them, will be immediately bigfooted by a corporation with paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network.

Coke is a product that is VERY easy to imitate. Do you for one second believe you could compete with them, with your little start up soda brand?

I bet not! :rolleyes:

Seriously, liberals are naive and simple. They think people are always going to do the right things, act in the best way, etc.

Seriously, conservatives are craven and fearful. They think people are always going to do the wrong things, act in the worst way, etc.

Really?

This is how you want to play? This kind of statement is not something an intelligent person would say. It is not something a person who is engaged in a dialog with others, seeking to understand and be understood would say.

I had hoped for better from you.

Adak;835888 wrote:

Coke is a product that is VERY easy to imitate. Do you for one second believe you could compete with them, with your little start up soda brand?

I bet not! :rolleyes:

Bad, you pivoted to the complete opposite of the example I gave.

Seriously, liberals are naive and simple. They think people are always going to do the right things, act in the best way, etc.

Not really, but I understand why you think that.

Conservative thinkers like the economist Thomas Sowell and the Times columnist David Brooks have noted that the political right has a Tragic Vision of human nature, in which people are permanently limited in morality, knowledge and reason. Human beings are perennially tempted by aggression, which can be prevented only by the deterrence of a strong military, of citizens resolved to defend themselves and of the prospect of harsh criminal punishment. No central planner is wise or knowledgeable enough to manage an entire economy, which is better left to the invisible hand of the market, in which intelligence is distributed across a network of hundreds of millions of individuals implicitly transmitting information about scarcity and abundance through the prices they negotiate. Humanity is always in danger of backsliding into barbarism, so we should respect customs in sexuality, religion and public propriety, even if no one can articulate their rationale, because they are time-tested workarounds for our innate shortcomings. The left, in contrast, has a Utopian Vision, which emphasizes the malleability of human nature, puts customs under the microscope, articulates rational plans for a better society and seeks to implement them through public institutions.

link

BigV;835889 wrote:

Really?

This is how you want to play? This kind of statement is not something an intelligent person would say. It is not something a person who is engaged in a dialog with others, seeking to understand and be understood would say.

I had hoped for better from you.

It's stupid, and I don't like it, but after enduring several personal attacks with that very word, I became rather tired of it being so one way. Thanks for getting us back on the right track.

Which indirectly gets us right back to foreign policy. Because you can work on a higher level as a diplomat, but ONLY if the governments you're dealing with, are working at a higher level, also. In North Korea, we don't have that. The NK's have serious food shortages, BUT they remain heavily militarized, with over a million man army. And of course, missile technology that is getting better, and we can't forget the threat of their nuclear bombs.

They are still at war with South Korea - which as we know, has moved from a 3rd world country, into a 1st world country, in record time. Meanwhile, NK's are starving. Despite the best efforts of the NK gov't, word of the success of SK is getting out, and is putting NK into a real squeeze. A coup is starting to brew, the NK leaders must know. They can't sit around and do nothing, although that is the box we have tried to put them into.

NK is trapped. Sooner or later, they will have to attack SOMEBODY, to keep their citizens rallied up and still supporting their gov't, in spite of food shortages, and everything else. That somebody will surely be, their chronic enemy of South Korea, and we are right there with several thousand troops. So we're immediately right in the thick of it.

We will support SK, no question. It's possible that an internal coup, supported by the Chinese, will lead to a more moderate NK, but otherwise, there will be war in Korea, again.

Our allies are not too helpful here, either. France has no bases close to Korea, and the UK has ZERO air craft carriers at this time! :eek: :eek:, and after the loss of Hong Kong, have little interest in the region. Their focus will be on the Middle East, Russia, and the Falklands.

So yes, we need to have a strong military, and we need to have a strong foreign policy. The NK leaders don't give crap about being polite, after kidnapping so many Japanese and South Koreans, so they could learn how to train their spies better, sinking a SK destroyer, and shelling a SK island. They are "itching" for some military action, just something small that they can save face and get some admiration from the people of NK.

DanaC;835885 wrote:

Unlike conservatives who think business should be able to operate unrestricted, reliant entirely on the civic mindedness of the business elite to prevent abuses.

Nobody supports unrestricted business or markets! But we need to limit those restrictions - otherwise you simply have very few businesses, and very little competition or innovation.

What you think might be good tight regulation, will result in excellent monopolies by the few businesses that will remain.

More regulation, comes with a cost - it's not free to the consumer, or to the business being regulated. Who pays for these added regulations, ultimately?

You and me - the consumer.

@Bruce. Go to my previous post in this thread. Watch the series on Education. Then tell me how central planning is doing a better job, than local planning.

Because it doesn't. Centralized professionals do NOT do a better job, than concerned parents and local teachers, working at the local school. Not even close.

BigV;835887 wrote:

what makes labor practices unfair?
what makes a patent? a trademark? a copyright?

you didn't answer the question about the waste discharge freedom vs the drink clean water freedom.

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are a full book in themselves. Lots of in's and out's to them. I don't see how that relates to political philosophy directly, however.

I completely missed your post about waste discharge vs clean water freedoms. I'm not sure that topic relates to this thread, directly. Maybe start a new thread for it?

Once again, you're really. really really hung up on labels about what happened in Libya. It's ok, you focus on what you think is important. "act of terror" versus "terrorism" seems terribly important to you. It means something to you. Fine. But you're wildly inconsistent in your choices of what's "important" and what's not, what's valid and what's not. Your standards for different speakers saying similar things are wildly different. this .. .. inconsistency might be easier for you to bear, but it disqualifies you as a respectable source of information. your confirmation bias is so huge it covers your whole horizon, making it indistinguishable from anything else.

More info is still coming in about Libya - as Hillary Clinton said it would in her statement last week.

Today, the Hillary Clinton staff have leaked that Hillary received the request for more security in Libya, and based on the earlier attacks in June (iirc), and the unstable armed militias abounding in the country, approved the request for more security, and sent it up to the President.

Obama rejected it. (it appears, this is not confirmed yet).

As the attack began, the CIA guys, who were there to collect what they could of dangerous weapons from the militias (a buy back campaign for $$$, I believe), were told TO STAND DOWN, and not support Ambassador Stevens. The CIA guys were about a 1/2 mile away from the consulate, in a "safe house".

The two CIA agents who died, disobeyed their orders to stand down, and went running over to help the Ambassador. As ex-Navy Seals, they know the difference between a little shooting into the air, and a concerted attack likely to overwhelm the consulate. They were doing a great job of holding off the attackers, but were finally killed by a mortar strike.

The attack lasted over 5 hours - and SOMEBODY turned down the urgent request by Ambassador Stevens and the Consulate staff, for help. Gen. David Patreus (Head of the CIA), has stated that NO ONE in the CIA, turned down that request, and any report that they did, is simply "inaccurate".

The Dept. of Defense is saying that NO ONE in their dept. turned down the request for help, by the consulate. The State Dept. has no say about a request for military help, from a consulate. Those go to the Defense dept, and up to the President.

So, to sum it up - Obama denied the request for help from the consulate, even though help could easily have been there in time (Aviona, Italy air base is close by). http://www.aviano.af.mil/

and ready "Anytime, Anywhere". These are the guys who gave us air support in Libya, when it was freed from Ghaddafi, so they KNOW the place, very well.

The first city they protected in Libya? Benghazi!

And with the real time feed coming in from the recon drone, Obama's staff and himself, could watch the last few hours of the attack, and the Ambassador's body being dragged through the streets after the attack - finally ending up at the hospital, dead of course.

The Benghazi attack story is not over, and many are calling for Obama being removed from office, if he wins the election, because of his apparent dereliction of duty. Not all the facts are known yet, however.

Adak;835947 wrote:

Nobody supports unrestricted business or markets!
But we need to limit those restrictions - otherwise you simply have very few businesses, and very little competition or innovation.

who and how decides the limits?

Adak;835947 wrote:

What you think might be good tight regulation, will result in excellent monopolies by the few businesses that will remain.

This is in no way the only outcome, not even the most likely outcome. Witness the recent rejection of the attempted merger between AT&T and T-Mobile. Regulators, enforcing regulations, prevented further consolidation.

Business wants to make money, it is their biological imperative. Laws, ethics, regulations, etc, these are obstacles to one degree or another in the pursuit of profit.

Adak;835947 wrote:

More regulation, comes with a cost - it's not free to the consumer, or to the business being regulated. Who pays for these added regulations, ultimately?

You and me - the consumer.

businesses have costs--labor, materials, energy, transportation, etc, etc. Who bears those costs? Who bears the costs of the degradation of the environment by a given industry, polluters for example?

Adak;835947 wrote:

Nobody supports unrestricted business or markets! But we need to limit those restrictions - otherwise you simply have very few businesses, and very little competition or innovation.

What you think might be good tight regulation, will result in excellent monopolies by the few businesses that will remain.

More regulation, comes with a cost - it's not free to the consumer, or to the business being regulated. Who pays for these added regulations, ultimately?

You and me - the consumer.

Really depends on what we regulate. Mostly what needs to be regulated is the negative effect of greed, and morally reprehensible business practices..etc...

I've been to countries with very small if any real government. No pesky regulations or enforcement by the government in business. I've seen people grind red brick into red pepper to help "maximize profits", oh, then sold this to aid workers giving food to people assed out because of flooding on a Biblical scale. Some other people in a different area were doing the same thing with chalk and flour...for the same target population. Who pays for regulation? Who pays for lack of regulation? I guess it depends on our out look. Just want more profit at any cost? Then the consumer pays in more ways then money.

Our own country has seen this in the banking/home finance industry. A few hundred million dollars for a very small population, again maximizing profits, who quite frankly does not give a shit about billions of dollars in effects for our nation to pay for this greed and lack of principled business practices.

I've been across our country two or three times in the past year. Just got back from DC. My freedoms have never been infringed, not once. I vote, I travel where ever I like, I buy what I want (can afford), I speak my mind and my heart with out fear. I read what I like, can publish just about anything that is not slanderous. No one is coming to my door to enter my home with out permission. If I get pulled over for a speeding ticket and the police ask me how fast I was going, I ask if I can have my lawyer present during questioning. I keep a 7MM Magnum long rifle, a .22 rifle, and a .22 pistol in my man cave. I have a CC licence, but rarely carry my choice.

I am very curious what freedoms you have had infringed by government regulation?

Adak;835666 wrote:

Basic things to understand:

1) The more control the gov't has, the less freedom you have.

--snip

This is what you opened the thread with. You have been relentless on why we should not have laws, why laws are bad, how laws inhibit business or build businesses into monopolies (disregarding the obvious contradiction there).

So I gave a couple of examples of freedoms, paired and in opposition to each other. How do these freedoms get resolved? Who gets to be free? How does that happen? You stand opposed to laws, whereever possible. "It should be voluntary". If that's your stance, reconcile the competing freedoms I described.

Adak;835953 wrote:

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are a full book in themselves. Lots of in's and out's to them. I don't see how that relates to political philosophy directly, however.

I completely missed your post about waste discharge vs clean water freedoms. I'm not sure that topic relates to this thread, directly. Maybe start a new thread for it?


--FLUSH--

They're a book all right, many books. Books of laws that business rely upon in order to do business at all. Our country is founded on laws. Your distaste for them is aberrant. A new thread is not needed. You've stood up as the decider in chief as to what constitutes conservatism. Tell me what the conservative position is for the situations I described.

Hey, Adak. Quick. Without googling. What was the ME's COD for ambassador stevens? how did he die?

Ibby;835958 wrote:

Hey, Adak. Quick. Without googling. What was the ME's COD for ambassador stevens? how did he die?

Initial reports stated he died from the effects of the fire (not gunfire, real fire). That usually means carbon monoxide poisoning, since CO binds so much better than 02 with our hemoglobin.

No, I didn't google it, but I am interested in what the investigation HERE will find for his COD.

@regular joe:
Every phone you make overseas, is recorded and analyzed in an AT&T building in SF. There is no warrant from a judge on any kind of case be case basis here. Mobile phone traffic is all monitored, as well.

Now, they're building a massive new facility near Salt Lake City, which will be able to monitor ALL phone calls, within the country. Again, this is not a case by case decision from a judge looking at a warrant - this is your gov't analyzing every phone call you make - period.

Perhaps this is what is needed for our reasonable safety in this day and age, but I would like to see EXACTLY why and whether this overreach into our privacy, is really necessary.

@BigV: I'm looking for it.

mkay. at least you know he was killed without his killers actually having known they'd done so. Yeah, he died of smoke inhalation in the consulate fire. To my understanding, it was smoke inhalation causing asphyxia, not carbon monoxide poisoning, that killed him, but close enough.

But he was never paraded around Benghazi, as I feel like I recall you or a similar faceless idiotic republican shill claiming. That WAS you, right? at 4:00AM i'm honestly too tired to try to search for the post. His body was found IN the saferoom he suffocated in.

just wanted to debunk that one bit of ridiculous propaganda while it was on my mind.

You're so often and consistently wrong - not just in your easy-to-check facts like that, but in your utterly inane and frankly insane attempts at making conservative ideology make sense (i've seen people make halfway-plausible defenses of conservatism but you definitely aren't one) - that I can't honestly believe that you think there's more than maybe three or four idiot Dwellars who're going to buy your laughable rhetoric.

xoxoxoBruce;835935 wrote:

Bad, you pivoted to the complete opposite of the example I gave.

Not really, but I understand why you think [liberals are naive and simple].

Let me re-read your example.

Yes, liberals ARE naive and simple.. See it all the time. Liberals get mugged, battered, robbed - any kind of violent crime.

And right away, you have a new born conservative, who favors gun laws, and knows that gun control should mean a good sight picture as you bring up your firearm.

Yours is a sweet world, where priests never molest altar boys, and their Bishops never keep their mouths shut about it, and move the offending priests around to a new diocese, with no warning given about his past. And violent crime never happens, and all the nations of the world come together for harmonious relations, at the U.N.

I get it, really. It's a wonderful utopia - it's just not real.

xoxoxoBruce;835883 wrote:

So anyone inventing a new widget, and starting a company to make them, will be immediately bigfooted by a corporation with paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network.

Give me an example of this.

I'm not familiar with the term "bigfooted" and "paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network", leaves me with more questions than explanation.

Who's paying for the manufacturing and advertising? By bigfooted you mean stomped on?

BigV;835870 wrote:

As for freedom, let me ask you, what about when two parties are in conflict, when their freedoms come at the expense of the other's. Imagine a situation where a manufacturing plant wants the freedom to discharge waste into a river (your introduction of the EPA made me think of this). They wish to be able to be free to do so. Imagine an individual downstream that wants to drink from or bathe in the water of the river. Without government inhibiting the freedoms of either, what happens?

No business (or individual) has the right to pollute the environment, except when it is necessary during an extreme crisis - generally, during a war. An example would be the atom bomb project during WWII. Sufficient care wasn't taken, and a land was subsequently polluted in several states (Washington St. New Mexico, Tennessee, etc.).

There is no argument for polluting our environment, from a True Conservative - or anyone with a bit of common sense. Where do we live? In this environment, of course.

The EPA has gone FAR beyond it's mandate, however. Now, it's a bureaucracy that can ban any product, or material, from being used, anywhere it pleases. It doesn't need the recommendation of any scientists or doctors - oh no! It's whatever the lunatic in charge decides.

Adak;835964 wrote:

Let me re-read your example.

Yes, liberals ARE naive and simple.. See it all the time. Liberals get mugged, battered, robbed - any kind of violent crime.

And right away, you have a new born conservative, who favors gun laws, and knows that gun control should mean a good sight picture as you bring up your firearm.

Yours is a sweet world, where priests never molest altar boys, and their Bishops never keep their mouths shut about it, and move the offending priests around to a new diocese, with no warning given about his past. And violent crime never happens, and all the nations of the world come together for harmonious relations, at the U.N.

I get it, really. It's a wonderful utopia - it's just not real.

Wow. I mean, just fucking wow. Wtf are you talking about?

That last line is the only one in the whole post that makes sense.

I get it, really. It's a wonderful utopia - it's just not real

No, you are absolutely correct, it is not real. It is a product of your imagination.

Adak;835965 wrote:

Give me an example of this.

I'm not familiar with the term "bigfooted" and "paid for manufacturing capability and advertising network", leaves me with more questions than explanation.

Who's paying for the manufacturing and advertising? By bigfooted you mean stomped on?

Yes stomped on. While you try to get up and running with the widget you invented, some large corporation with manufacturing capability in place, distribution networks established and advertising agencies under contract, flood the market before you can get your new company off the ground. That's why we have the patents you protest.

In a free market, if the widget was not protected by patent, trademark, copyright, etc., a company would be free to compete for the widget market.

Adak;835961 wrote:

@regular joe:
Every phone you make overseas, is recorded and analyzed in an AT&T building in SF. There is no warrant from a judge on any kind of case be case basis here. Mobile phone traffic is all monitored, as well.

@BigV: I'm looking for it.

Wow, I ask specific freedoms you have personally experienced in your life here in the US, and you cite some obscure thing that AT&T records and analyzes the traffic that goes through their system in SF for all overseas calls? That AT&T records and analyzes something that we pay for voluntarily? Don't like it that AT&T does this? Don't pay AT&T for their service.

Problem solved, problem staying solved...Rangers Lead the Way!

Next non freedom issue you care to talk about??

regular.joe;836039 wrote:

Wow, I ask specific freedoms you have personally experienced in your life here in the US, and you cite some obscure thing that AT&T records and analyzes the traffic that goes through their system in SF for all overseas calls? That AT&T records and analyzes something that we pay for voluntarily? Don't like it that AT&T does this? Don't pay AT&T for their service.

Problem solved, problem staying solved...Rangers Lead the Way!

Next non freedom issue you care to talk about??

[COLOR="Red"]It's not AT&T - that would be illegal. It's the NSA[/COLOR], using part of the "patriot act".

The new facility in Salt Lake City, will allow they to listen in to ALL domestic phone calls, as well.

No warrant, no reasonable suspicion of ANYTHING.

xoxoxoBruce;835985 wrote:

Yes stomped on. While you try to get up and running with the widget you invented, some large corporation with manufacturing capability in place, distribution networks established and advertising agencies under contract, flood the market before you can get your new company off the ground. That's why we have the patents you protest.

I don't protest patents. Patents are the physical manifestation of a society that is creating, inventing, thinking.

Wrong again, Bruce. ;)

No, it's the Adak/Romney team that is wrong... still.

xoxoxoBruce;836412 wrote:

No, it's the Adak/Romney team that is wrong... still.

That's a really strong argument you have there, Bruce -- don't strain your brain with it, OK? :rolleyes:

Sandy gave us a BIG problem with super storm surge, and very wide spread damage, from Tennessee up to Canada. Some of the worst was in New York, where sea water flooded into subway tunnels and into electrical sub-stations, shortening them out.

Fortunately, the New Yorkers - and etc., are getting help from all across the country. San Diego Gas and Electric is sending a 46 man team in to help. Orange county CA, and Riverside Co. are also sending in teams of pro's to help out. Other CA counties are donating teams for the effort, as well. Also, teams from lots of other states are arriving to help, as well.

A lot of these electrical equipment will have to be replaced, not repaired, since they were burned to a crisp by the shorts from the sea water.

This is a Conservative's answer to an emergency. (Therefore an efficient one.) You don't need a whole lot from Washington (some of course). You need the pro's, with a self-help agreement in place, to help out in times of emergency. Not the gov't.

You look at the teams on the streets, working hard to get the power back on across the East coast - you won't see a Washington Bureaucrat anywhere!

The Liberals make a nightmare.

True story, from a few years back. (Before Katrina).

An enterprising guy from the deep South, knew from the weather report, that a Hurricane was headed for his community so:

1) He needed to evacuate

and

2) He saw an opportunity to help out his community and make a few dollars.

So he evacuated, in his van, and while he was up North, he bought several generators, suitable for a limited home power load. Something that could keep your food, and med's refrigerated, and run some lights, etc.

Nothing huge.

So he returns home, and sure enough, the power is all out. So he puts up a sign and starts selling his generators. Of course, he can't sell them at the price that Walmart or Home Depot might - he doesn't have that kind of buying power to get those discounts.

Plus, he's incurred extra costs and risks, hauling these generators around, and putting up the cash, up front. If he doesn't sell them, he's just out of luck.

And immediately, he's arrested! Why? Because the liberals have made a law that you can't sell something in the aftermath of a storm, for more than it sold for before the storm.

So the generators are impounded for evidence, so he can't sell them someplace else, and he's having to hire a lawyer and pay bail, etc.

Now his community can't buy a generator, because all the stores are either sold out of them, or they are closed because they have no power.

But he can't sell his and recover his investment - oh no! Better to have the liberal community sit in the cold and dark, with everyone's food going rotten, by gawd!!

Another example of a law, that "feels right", and isn't. In fact, it works against the community.

This is NOT the report I have posted about, but it is a similar one:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954352&page=1#.UJDcgYZJWuI

Because only 'liberals' make unsound laws, right?

Adak;836501 wrote:

You look at the teams on the streets, working hard to get the power back on across the East coast - you won't see a Washington Bureaucrat anywhere!

"Washington Bureaucrats" may not be trained to work on live power lines, but I assure you that they were out there working after the storm to fix things up. I live in the suburbs of DC, and several of my neighbors are these scarey "Washington Bureaucrats." The neighborhood has been awesome in their response to the storm. We're out there clearing leaves from the storm drains, checking on one another, and offering refuge to those who have lost power.

You're so used to using "Washington Bureaucrats" as your foil that you have no idea what they are really like, and how hard they work.

DanaC;836512 wrote:

Because only 'liberals' make unsound laws, right?

Liberals make too make laws - period. Look at the more conservative Texas - their state legislature only meets part time.

Compare that with California - they meet all year and pass WAY more bills. Unnecessary and expensive bills, that hurt businesses and people.

That's why so many businesses have left California, and relocated to Texas. Lots of individuals, also.

So yes, by philosophy and by the quantity of their laws, most of them are supported by liberals, and signed into law by liberals.

Adak;836502 wrote:

The Liberals make a nightmare.

True story, from a few years back. (Before Katrina).

Bubba, an enterprising guy from the deep South, blah, blah, blah :zzz:



This is NOT the report I have posted about, but it is a similar one:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954352&page=1#.UJDcgYZJWuI

Stossel is well known for his bias toward the right and his overly facile reporting on right wing issues. I'd respect a link to an impartial source more than a link to Stossel's chewing gum for the conservative brain.

Stossel ends his report with the following quote:

wrote:

Today's fat oil company profits have led many to scream that they're gouging, but the higher prices are a signal to oil companies to drill for more oil.

"The high price is a big flag that's planted in the ground that says, 'Hey, come over here and make money,'" Roberts said.

Then people rush supplies in, and soon, prices come back down.

:right:

Look at any current analyses regarding the cost of oil. It's not a simple black and white equation. However, if you want to blame the cost of oil on a single factor, let’s use OPEC for the sake of argument. OPEC is a common culprit that sets oil prices for any number of reasons. They may limit the amount they export to get a higher price. In such a situation people cannot "come over here and make money." Someone can go to an OPEC country (or where ever) and drill a zillion barrels of oil. But if OPEC is manipulating its exports to keep oil at a certain price range, too bad for you. Or take the problem with high oil prices in Cali a while back. That was a problem at some of the refineries, not a drilling problem. Or the outbreak of a war can effect oil prices. And I could give many more reasons why Stossel’s quote is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. So, please don’t insult our intelligence with pronouncements like the ones you provided the link to.

You and your pal Stossel seem to feel that gouging is actually a virtuous activity. Please spare me from tiresome opinions derived from the fallacious thought of Ayn Rand. What if there was a famine? What if you were a fat cat sitting on the food supply for every single state in the US? You decide to sell your stock for $100/single grain of wheat. Massive starvation results. In fact, so many die that there are no farmers left to till the fields next spring. There’s no one left to "come over here and make money.” Well, I suppose, that’s business as usual in Rand’s Libertarian utopia., Atlas just shrugs and walks off; everyone who dies deserved to, and John Galt rapes Dagny Taggart. I guess it’s cool for libertarian guys to use their women like some commodity. Happy ever after for the Libertarian crowd.

The Philosophy of a True Conservative, Today

A problem is presented... today
Then, 6 of the 7 the next replies by Dwellars include the word "sorry"

But the true conservative responds in post #2:

"This is not a "just world".
"Don't rely on the meds alone - rely on yourself, and try to wean yourself off the meds."
"you should have learned a few of these, along with your meds."
"Tell yourself not to accept being depressed and morose, and act like you're happy, anyway."
"Adapt and overcome, and don't depend on others to make it easy for you"
"Good luck in your pursuits!"

In 7 words, the philosophy of the true conservative, today: Just suck it up, and fix yourself.

"pull yourself up by your bootstraps."

I was thinking the same thing. It totally relates to the 47% crap.

I was angry earlier but I wanted to say what I wanted to say to Ibby and felt that "pull yourself up" conservative could kiss my ass.

But you guys made me think of it again. It's that conservative imagined superiority: whatever is wrong with you (if the same isn't wrong with me) it's all your fault.

Now, go talk yourself out of your cancer and your broken leg, you lazy bass tard.

Then I also figured Adak was going to present himself as somewhat of a medical professional too, so he'll have something else to know everything about once Romney is defeated.

infinite monkey;836549 wrote:

I was thinking the same thing. It totally relates to the 47% crap.

I was angry earlier but I wanted to say what I wanted to say to Ibby and felt that "pull yourself up" conservative could kiss my ass.

But you guys made me think of it again. It's that conservative imagined superiority: whatever is wrong with you (if the same isn't wrong with me) it's all your fault.

Now, go talk yourself out of your cancer and your broken leg, you lazy bass tard.

Then I also figured Adak was going to present himself as somewhat of a medical professional too, so he'll have something else to know everything about once Romney is defeated.

It's not "superiority", it's FREEDOM. It's LIBERTY. You can't have freedom or liberty, without also taking responsibility - or do you want the gov't to take that from you, as well?

Of course, you need doctors when you're sick - but when you're in the prime years of your life, you should also be able to work through your anxieties and depression, at least somewhat, without relying on a daily dose of meds.

You expect her to go through her life drugged every day, even though she can't afford it? That doesn't sound like a winning plan to me.

Taking care of your life, is like growing a garden:

*YOU have to prepare the ground, not a bureaucrat from Washington

*YOU have to plant the seeds

*YOU have to water and pull out the weeds, and keep the pests away.

[COLOR="Red"]YOU[/COLOR] - not a federal bureaucrat, have to take care of your garden, and YOU should have the food it produces - not the gov't.

You probably believe this is an insane idea, but for most people, it's common sense. And it's VERY efficient. Central control from the gov't will

[SIZE="6"][COLOR="Red"][CENTER]NEVER [/CENTER][/COLOR][/SIZE]
grow a garden as well as you can.

Lamplighter;836543 wrote:

The Philosophy of a True Conservative, Today

A problem is presented... today
Then, 6 of the 7 the next replies by Dwellars include the word "sorry"

But the true conservative responds in post #2:

"This is not a "just world".
"Don't rely on the meds alone - rely on yourself, and try to wean yourself off the meds."
"you should have learned a few of these, along with your meds."
"Tell yourself not to accept being depressed and morose, and act like you're happy, anyway."
"Adapt and overcome, and don't depend on others to make it easy for you"
"Good luck in your pursuits!"

In 7 words, the philosophy of the true conservative, today: Just suck it up, and fix yourself.

Do you believe saying "sorry" will fix the woman's problems? Because I don't THINK so.

Do you believe the world is "fair and just"? Are you a child?

Do you believe Ibby has learned NOTHING, about dealing with her problem?

You have suggested NOTHING to help Ibby solve her problem.

Don't you think a person should be encouraged to try and solve their own problems?

Your common sense gets so lonely waiting for you. ;)

Adak;836723 wrote:

[COLOR="Red"]YOU[/COLOR] - not a federal bureaucrat, have to take care of your garden

What if you are a federal bureaucrat? The biggest and nicest garden in my neighborhood is maintained by a federal bureaucrat. It's amazing how bountiful it is. I've talked at length with him about his tricks, and applied some of them to my own garden.

Adak;836723 wrote:

It's not "superiority", it's FREEDOM. It's LIBERTY. You can't have freedom or liberty, without also taking responsibility - or do you want the gov't to take that from you, as well?

Of course, you need doctors when you're sick - but when you're in the prime years of your life, you should also be able to work through your anxieties and depression, at least somewhat, without relying on a daily dose of meds.

You expect her to go through her life drugged every day, even though she can't afford it? That doesn't sound like a winning plan to me.

Taking care of your life, is like growing a garden:

*YOU have to prepare the ground, not a bureaucrat from Washington

*YOU have to plant the seeds

*YOU have to water and pull out the weeds, and keep the pests away.

[COLOR="Red"]YOU[/COLOR] - not a federal bureaucrat, have to take care of your garden, and YOU should have the food it produces - not the gov't.

You probably believe this is an insane idea, but for most people, it's common sense. And it's VERY efficient. Central control from the gov't will

[SIZE="6"][COLOR="Red"][CENTER]NEVER [/CENTER][/COLOR][/SIZE]
grow a garden as well as you can.

Wow.

Well thanks, but I tend my own garden (omg what a trite analogy) and all this waxing ineloquent has little to do with this reality you pretend to espouse. I know, right? That I have my own good job, and take care of my own life...and that I STILL have the audacity to believe that as a society it shouldn't be "i got mine now you get yours" is mind-boggling, isn't it? However, I know that I am not an exception to the rule.

You expect her to go through her life drugged every day, even though she can't afford it? That doesn't sound like a winning plan to me.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything of the kind. You grab onto talking points that don't actually exist in the post you are 'responding' to.

I say this with the sense of inner self that makes me realize I am lesser, that I do want to be just like you, that you have the answers...or at least the general idea of what the answers should be...and I and my god are completely envious of your insight.

Oh, and I'm The Great Sarcastic.

I do wonder where my like-minded fellows are when you post such an abberration, such an over the top conglomeration of disrespectful bullshit, in response to my comment?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

infinite monkey;836762 wrote:

I do wonder where my like-minded fellows are when you post such an abberration, such an over the top conglomeration of disrespectful bullshit, in response to my comment?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

God, Infi, give us time to respond eh?

Most posters appear to be taking Adak to task one way or another.

pblllttttt... :p:

Aw come on...let me pout for a second, will you? ;)

I woke up in the middle of the night and read that post and it's been running through my head ever since. (Between my dreams of losing my job and being stuck on some road that never ends...)

Besides, I wanted to draw attention to my witty response. Those get lost amongst pages of wax. ;)

Ha! Fairy Nuff

Adak;836732 wrote:

Do you believe saying "sorry" will fix the woman's problems? Because I don't THINK so.
Do you believe the world is "fair and just"? Are you a child?
Do you believe Ibby has learned NOTHING, about dealing with her problem?
You have suggested NOTHING to help Ibby solve her problem.
Don't you think a person should be encouraged to try and solve their own problems?
Your common sense gets so lonely waiting for you. ;)

Adak;836732 wrote:

@Adek
Have I misquoted you ?
Is my summary incorrect ?

In 7 words, the philosophy of the true conservative, today: Just suck it up, and fix yourself.

But of course life is fair and just. How else does one explain their life-situation ?
For example: I chose my parents wisely. They are rich. Therefore, I deserve to be rich.
From this, it follows: Just suck it up, and fix yourself.

I think I am just following your line of reasoning.

Lamplighter;836786 wrote:

@Adek
Have I misquoted you ?
Is my summary incorrect ?

But of course life is fair and just. How else does one explain their life-situation ?
For example: I chose my parents wisely. They are rich. Therefore, I deserve to be rich.
From this, it follows: Just suck it up, and fix yourself.

I think I am just following your line of reasoning.

I see your sense of sarcasm has found it's way home, at least.

America is the land of opportunity, not the land of "fair and just" (and where might one view such a fantasy?).

When YOU are the gardener, YOU plant, YOU water, YOU weed, YOU take care of pests, YOU harvest the produce.

The guy down the block may give you tips, but it's YOU who will have to do the work - not a gov't employee - and it's YOU who should have the majority of the benefit from your work - not the gov't.

There's NOTHING wrong with people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps - seizing legal opportunities when they see them. People do that all the time - this IS the land of opportunity, after all

This is a big selling point for America, around the world, and has been, for over 200 years: America, land of opportunity.

infinite monkey wrote:

I do wonder where my like-minded fellows are when you post such an abberration, such an over the top conglomeration of disrespectful bullshit, in response to my comment?

For the record, I decided on a Coventry stance awhile back. Dude's a troll and obviously has more time than I have energy. Please don't let my silence make you think I somehow support his foolishness.

Oh no, really i don't. I tried coventry because i agree with you vis a vis troll. But you know i can't help myself in that situation. :)

I didn't really think i was being universally ignored, i was mostly being an attention ho. :lol:

Why you want to trust YOURSELF, as much as possible, in any emergency.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/weather/2012/11/02/ac-intv-sandy-staten-island-molinaro.cnn

"We're going to die!"

Gov't and other emergency agencies are helpful, but in any emergency, they can easily - SO EASILY - be overwhelmed, and unable to help you.

Be Prepared, and try to be as self reliant as possible.

I don't see anybody suggesting that people should take no precautions and rely solely on government agencies to keep them safe. But sometimes an individual's efforts are not enough, in which case I don;t think it's unreasonable to expect government agencies to do their jobs. As indeed it appears they have been doing.

DanaC;837215 wrote:

I don't see anybody suggesting that people should take no precautions and rely solely on government agencies to keep them safe. But sometimes an individual's efforts are not enough, in which case I don;t think it's unreasonable to expect government agencies to do their jobs. As indeed it appears they have been doing.

Nobody is advising people to do nothing to be prepared for an emergency, but I can assure you, most people do NOT prepare for an emergency. ANY emergency.

Actually, the Mormons are pretty good about this. They have a church revelation that they should keep a year's supply of food, in case of emergency. As you might guess, they take it seriously, and slowly build up to it.

Talk to your neighbors and ask them "In case of an emergency where you lost power & cell phones, how would you hear the news?", "What is your plan to heat your home, if you lost all power in the Winter? etc.

They hem and haw, and have very few answers: "I'd heat my home (a 4 bedroom 2 story house), with candles."

"How many candles do you have?"

"Let's see - two!" (points to two skinny dining room table candles, good for about 4 hours) :rolleyes:

"We expect people might be hurt, do you have any first aid supplies?"

"Sure" - shows you a band-aid box :rolleyes:

And the more you dig, the more you know they're woefully prepared for even the slightest emergency.

There's a REAL difference between someone not advising people to not be prepared, and people FIRED up, and saying "Let's BE Prepared!!". World of difference.

(I'll now retire from my soapbox - I used to work in emergency preparedness and response. I do get onto my soapbox about it from time to time.)

The bureaucrats are alive and well, in NYC:

*They require 3 people in each car going over a bridge, so all the Smart Cars that only fit two people but get fantastic MPG, are not allowed into the island.

*One of the biggest problems in NYC is with the damaged electrical system, from all the seawater getting into everything.

Crews from all over the country, have arrived in NYC, to help out, along with some C-130's full of big electrical power equipment, to help rebuild the sub stations that blew up when they were shorted out.

BUT - any NON-UNION crew that shows up - or any UNION crew whose union is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, is being sent home. They're not allowed to work in NYC - even in an emergency! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Of course, my absolutely favorite true story about Unions is the one where the firefighters QUIT fighting the structure fire, because it was now time for them to start their strike!

Followed closely by the firefighters refusing to put out the house fire on the Mayor's home, because he wouldn't give them a raise in recent negotiations with their union.

If you don't live in a "Right to Work" state, your freedom to choose a job, has been stolen. Followed of course, by the Union removing donations from your paycheck, for their political payoffs - whether you approve it or not.

Adak;837238 wrote:

Followed of course, by the Union removing donations from your paycheck, for their political payoffs - whether you approve it or not.

That's not true, by federal law those donations have to be designated in writing by you and separate from normal dues.
Coercion is another matter, however.

Adak;837238 wrote:

BUT - any NON-UNION crew that shows up - or any UNION crew whose union is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, is being sent home. They're not allowed to work in NYC - even in an emergency! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not true at all.

Ibby;837254 wrote:

Not true at all.

C'mon Ibby! Accept just ONE fact, for a change:

The IBEW is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, btw. An AFL-CIO affiliated Union.

"Decatur Utilities sent a 6-man crew to the Northeast Wednesday, October 31, bound for Seaside Heights, N.J., to assist with power restoration. Communication with Seaside Heights was poor due to lack of cell phone service in the area. [COLOR="Red"]Upon arriving at a staging area in Virginia, crews were held in place pending clarification of documents received from IBEW that implied a requirement of our employees to agree to union affiliation while working in the New York and New Jersey areas. It was and remains our understanding that agreeing to those requirements was a condition of being allowed to work in those areas.[/COLOR]

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/11/decatur_utilities_manager_veri_1.html#incart_river_default

You DO KNOW that you can't work in a state controlled by the unions, without joining the union.

Only in a "right to work" state, can a non-union tradesman work, legally. Most states back East, are NOT "right to work" states. You join the union, or you don't work in ANY trade job.

which was followed, in the SAME PARAGRAPH, by:

To be clear, at no time were our crews 'turned away' from the utility in Seaside Heights.

because they were not needed

Ibby;837417 wrote:

which was followed, in the SAME PARAGRAPH, by:

RIGHT! See there's the "<======== don't look here - look over here ======>", redirection.

They WEREN'T stopped from working in Seaside Heights, because they weren't Unionized. Seaside already had all the crews it needed!

They [COLOR="Red"]WERE[/COLOR] stopped from working in Virginia, because they weren't Unionized. They would have been stopped anywhere in New Jersey, New York, or Virgina - because emergency or not, you can't work in those states in any trade, unless you are in the Union.

Period.

Adak;837455 wrote:

They would have been stopped anywhere in New Jersey, New York, or Virgina - because emergency or not, you can't work in those states in any trade, unless you are in the Union.

Period.

Period?

My good friend is an electrician in Arlington VA, and he's not in a union. He's a Republican. It would go against his core beliefs.

You don't know what you are talking about.

glatt, glatt... I know I've said many times that electrons are free, but there is only a finite amount of time to pile up so many of them that you can erect an unassailable bulwark of factual evidence that can withstand the power of Adak's imagination. He's made up his mind. He knows stuff. He hasn't checked the details, but he knows what he knows. He doesn't acknowledge the same rules of evidence, the same differentiation of causation and correlation, the same logic as the rest of us.

You are talking English to him, what the hell do you expect?

Adak;837455 wrote:

RIGHT! See there's the "<======== don't look here - look over here ======>", redirection.

They WEREN'T stopped from working in Seaside Heights, because they weren't Unionized. Seaside already had all the crews it needed!

They [COLOR="Red"]WERE[/COLOR] stopped from working in Virginia, because they weren't Unionized. They would have been stopped anywhere in New Jersey, [SIZE="4"]New York[/SIZE], or Virgina - because emergency or not, you can't work in those states in any trade, unless you are in the Union.

Period.

[SIZE="4"]Huntsville crews are working today on Long Island and Joe Wheeler crews, which are unionized, are on their way home after completing jobs in Maryland for Sandy recovery.[/SIZE]

New York, that's Long Island New York. Where the Huntsville crews are "working today". How do you explain the Huntsville's crew's work in Long Island New York?

got another question Adak... states controlled by unions, that sounds like binders full of women, inarticulately stateds, I'm sure... but let's say new york *is* "controlled by unions", how, exactly, are you suggesting the unions are controlling the state? Perhaps they've been the beneficiaries of some favorable legislation? You're all about following the law, I remember you saying about Romney's tax payment strategy saying that he was just following the law, and that's all you needed. What about these unions who are controlling the state by law? Are you upset that people are following the law? I thought you liked laws.

Or is the control of the state by the unions exerted and enforced by some other ... extra legal means? Where is your smoking gun for this?

People really have to slow down and get all the facts before they jump on the blame-game bandwagon.

Snopes on Hurricane Sandy and unions

"No out-of-state crews, union or non-union, that are coming to help...will be turned away. We are welcoming whatever help comes in, union or non-union, to assist with the recovery." Kevin Roberts, spokesman for Chris Christie.

No, Stormie, other people, like Adak, need to hurry the hell up and join us here in the real world.

Adak.

I have listened to a great deal of what your ideas about the labels "conservative" and "liberal". I have not heard anything that can not be distilled down to "conservative is good and liberal is bad". You've turned them into synonyms. Ha ha! that was a conservative joke! Oh, no, don't eat that, it tastes liberal. Yes Santa, I have been a conservative boy this year. Liberal dog, LIBERAL DOG!

I totally get your point, how you use these terms. You occasionally have given some examples of an action, and when you like it, you call it conservative. When you don't, you call it liberal. Insofar as I, and everyone, really, wants good and not bad, what's the difference? None. You extend these examples sometimes to government policies, and once again, the ones you like are labeled conservative and the ones you oppose you label liberal. Never mind the contradictions. You're less concerned about actual policies than you are with making sure that the ones that you deem good get the coveted "conservative" label. That's peachy, you go right on with your bad self.

However, I have no desire for my government to display the kinds of policies you support. I am especially irked by the inconsistencies. I like government. I realize that our government is made up of people, not just faceless despicable bureaucrats. I realize that our government does good. I also realize that being people, that there are things that could be improved, and that some people do bad. That's not a conservative or liberal thing, though.

I don't think you're final authority on what "conservative" means, I think you're just one guy, hung up on a couple terms, who uses them as shortcuts to conclusions to help you make sense of the world. I'm heartened by this for two reasons. One, your one vote is only as strong as my one vote. Two, while there are conservative ideals that are worth supporting, as well as liberal ones, you are not the decider in chief. I'll continue to evaluate the ideas on their merits and not on whether or not they appeal to you. I wish you well, but I'm not optimistic about your prospects for success in a complex, nuanced world with such a simplistic set of tools.

BigV;837622 wrote:

Adak.

I have listened to a great deal of what your ideas about the labels "conservative" and "liberal". I have not heard anything that can not be distilled down to "conservative is good and liberal is bad". You've turned them into synonyms. Ha ha! that was a conservative joke! Oh, no, don't eat that, it tastes liberal. Yes Santa, I have been a conservative boy this year. Liberal dog, LIBERAL DOG!

I'm liberal if by "liberal" you infer "wants liberty". I'm in favor of a National Health Service, just not the POS we have now. I'm in favor of gay rights - because whose sons and daughters ARE those gays and lesbians, if not ours? Same with racial/ethnic/religious freedoms and equal opportunity.

Frankly, although I know where racism stems from, but if you take a wider view, isn't it just an artificial construct based on *nothing*?
That's the way I see it. It's rational, and especially here, aren't we based on the precept of inalienable rights - including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

You can't reconcile that with slavery or racism of any kind.

I'm pro abortion IF the woman was raped, her life is endangered, or the woman wants an early term abortion. It's late term abortions that I can't tolerate.

So, it isn't "Liberal" that is bad at all. That's just the term everyone knows. The real bad guy is "statists"! That's where the state has you totally dependent on it, and controls every aspect of your life, right down to your wallet - which it regularly empties, to pay for itself.

Imagine how it is in a stateist country:

*You work half or more of your life - just to pay your taxes
*The state tells you how many children you can have
*and what kind of job you can work at
*and what kind of car you can drive
*and what your wages will be
*and everything you do you need a license, certificate, bureaucratic approval of some sort or other - and each little approval you need, requires another payment.

Which is pretty close to what we have today, imo. Imagine - we pay for the streets to be built, and resurfaced and cleaned. But now, that's not enough - we need to pay AGAIN, so we can PARK on the street, we already paid for! :mad:

Unions are another roadblock to liberty:

*what jobs you can take
*what states you can work in
*what work you can specifically do, and what work you must not do
*of course, they want their dues
*and will tell you when to go on strike - you have a vote, but the union leaders make the decisions, not you.

All of these restrictions on your liberty can only be enforced or supported by the state, and that requires a very large system of gov't, which is VERY expensive to maintain. You pay dearly for a very intrusive gov't, that destroys your liberties, and makes us more and more dependent on that gov't. The more dependent you become, the less freedom you shall have.

I totally get your point, how you use these terms. You occasionally have given some examples of an action, and when you like it, you call it conservative. When you don't, you call it liberal. Insofar as I, and everyone, really, wants good and not bad, what's the difference? None. You extend these examples sometimes to government policies, and once again, the ones you like are labeled conservative and the ones you oppose you label liberal. Never mind the contradictions. You're less concerned about actual policies than you are with making sure that the ones that you deem good get the coveted "conservative" label. That's peachy, you go right on with your bad self.

I plead somewhat guilty to this, but there isn't a better term for it. The liberals in this country have planted their actions so firmly into this kind of straight jacket political philosophy and laws.

However, I have no desire for my government to display the kinds of policies you support. I am especially irked by the inconsistencies. I like government. I realize that our government is made up of people, not just faceless despicable bureaucrats. I realize that our government does good. I also realize that being people, that there are things that could be improved, and that some people do bad. That's not a conservative or liberal thing, though.

I don't think you're final authority on what "conservative" means, I think you're just one guy, hung up on a couple terms, who uses them as shortcuts to conclusions to help you make sense of the world. I'm heartened by this for two reasons. One, your one vote is only as strong as my one vote. Two, while there are conservative ideals that are worth supporting, as well as liberal ones, you are not the decider in chief. I'll continue to evaluate the ideas on their merits and not on whether or not they appeal to you. I wish you well, but I'm not optimistic about your prospects for success in a complex, nuanced world with such a simplistic set of tools.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed to be either a final word, or an authority, on the subject.

There is however, a real beauty to a pragmatic conservative (should I call it independent libertarian?) philosophy. One where YOU take more control of your life, instead of the gov't, and you also take more responsibility for it.

We need to seriously stay away from the Japanese fish market syndrome. You want to buy a fish, but you can't buy it from the fisherman, oh no! You can't get it second hand from the wholesaler, or third hand from the retail fish market, either.

Because the fish is sold maybe 10 to 20 times at the wholesale level, before it ever leaves the wholesale fish market. By the time you get a chance to buy the fish, it will cost 20x -100x what it would cost, if it was sold just once or twice.

Conservatism, is efficient, and pragmatic. Gov't is the back up player, not the starting quarterback on the team. You are the quarterback of your life. You are free to choose.

I'll post up links to the excellent videos that Milton Freeman made on the subject. He does call himself a liberal, because in his day, liberals were more for liberty, and less for big gov't stateism.

Freeman is a Nobel prize winning economist, but he's able to communicate the ideas of using our freedom, in a very down to earth way - never over your head.