Current Topics
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by logtroll
12:19 PM
RoundTable for Summer 2020
by Greger
04:42 AM
Medications that might help against SARS-CoV-2
by Greger
04:31 AM
What happens if the election doesn't settle due to voting problems?
by Greger
07:44 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pondering_it_all
12:09 AM
Lists of Trump actions
by Greger
08/10/20 04:38 AM
Portland. A Turning Point?
by jgw
08/09/20 06:54 PM
Normal Stuff
by pondering_it_all
08/03/20 10:07 PM
A possible solution to rental problems.
by Irked
08/01/20 12:21 AM
Ongoing Slavery
by jgw
07/31/20 05:06 PM
The Departed - 2020
by pondering_it_all
07/29/20 01:33 AM
Seattle had a Riot!
by jgw
07/28/20 06:17 PM
The Boogaloo Bois
by pondering_it_all
07/25/20 08:08 PM
Collections
by Greger
07/24/20 11:08 PM
There needs to be a ‘real reckoning’ for Trump’s abuses if Biden wins
by pondering_it_all
07/24/20 09:35 PM
Deranged Trump supporter suspected in murdering son of judge
by Greger
07/24/20 05:54 PM
What is the purpose of Capitalism?
by logtroll
07/24/20 12:07 PM
Chad Wolf
by pdx rick
07/24/20 03:54 AM
why cities won't be able to stop Trump's secret police
by jgw
07/23/20 07:06 PM
Fox News anchor shared fabricated tweet in attempt to smear AOC
by rporter314
07/22/20 03:11 AM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
60 Forums
16978 Topics
301828 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 19 of 47 < 1 2 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 46 47 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#315302 - 09/13/19 04:44 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
You think I am because when you read something into my comments that isn't there and then respond to what you thought I said, not what I actually said.
Then clarify your thoughts rather than complain about being misunderstood, my friend. You threw out a position, "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare.", but didn't specify what you mean, and how that is accurate. Nothing Jeff said was wrong, just a different interpretation of meanings. Medicare isn't "government run healthcare", it is government funded healthcare. There is a vast difference between funding and control. Just ask any governor.

In your response you didn't really clarify what you meant. I'm asking you to clarify what you mean.

When I said "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare." he claimed that was saying it would be identical the British healthcare system. Since I don't know much about the British system I cannot say that ours would be identical to theirs. That is where Jeffery was wrong. I did not make any comparison of Medicare for all with the British system. When our government funds something, be it Medicare or anything else, it makes the rules. Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#315306 - 09/13/19 05:16 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Greger Online   content


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 17061
Loc: Florida
Quote:
Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.


As long as they use reason, logic, and facts to write the regulations and they fall under Constitutional guidelines I'm not sure I see a problem with this. You trust them to be the world's police force but not enough for them to do much of anything else. Why don't we privatize the world's police force and save the US Gov a lot of money?
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#315307 - 09/13/19 05:55 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.
quote=NW Ponderer]That was the conservatism that I grew up on and adopted. In the interim, two things have happened. First, the Republican party came under the thrall of what I describe as a "criminal mindset" - what I mean is that consequences don't matter.

I've written extensively on the "criminal mindset" in other threads and forums in the past. It is not as pejorative as it seems here, and I'll elaborate briefly: at the time of committing a crime, a criminal is not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the impact on their victims. For some, this is a transitive thing - the passion of the moment, a lark, peer pressure, etc. They "act out". For others it is a social defect - psychopathy. For many (most?) it is circumstances, but becomes a habit. That sympathetic part of their brain "turns off."

That is, I think, what has happened to the Republican party, and by proxy, conservatism. Beginning with Nixon, it became manifest (although it appeared sporadically before then). People supporting/excusing and defending Nixon's and Agnew's criminality were infected and the contagion spread. With Reagan, and Reagan-worship it became habit, and with Newt Gingrich it became weaponized more effectively than Atwater. Trump, I've said, is the symptom, not the cause.

It was a group of Republicans, led by Sen. Goldwater, who told Nixon that his support on Capitol Hill was gone. Nixon realized that that he would be impeached and so he decided to resign. The infection was checked and did not spread. The low opinion of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon, kept it in check. Regan worship was very bipartisan. A President doesn't win 49 of the 50 states when he is reelected if he is not very popular with both Republicans and Democrats.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now, I want to note here that a similar pattern occurred in the Democratic party, too, but it was more specific. Dan Rostenkowski, Wilbur Mills and Bill Clinton were exemplars of that. It is associated with the length of time a party is in power, and the increasing brazenness that occurs and that getting away with petty acts of criminality engenders - the habit of petty crimes leads to brazenness and bigger crimes.

No, in the Democratic Party it was more widespread. Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. I agree, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and it doesn't what what political party you are a member of.

(Should I be nervous? Twice on Friday the 13th NW Ponderer and I have agreed on something.) shocked

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I think, though, that the general tenor of conservatism makes the Republican party more susceptible to virulent outbreaks. Conservatism proponents tends to be more "aloof", high-minded, and mechanical in their language and approach - already leaning into non-sympathetic thought patterns. Democrats, in contrast, tend to emphasize their sympathy and even bleeding-heartedness.

That leads me to my second point and where my schism with conservatism occurred. I became aware - too slowly, I admit - that conservatism had excused a multitude of sins in the service of their aloofness from humanity. Racism, xenophobia and sociopathy lingered beneath the surface. When discussing economic and political theorems, pretty considerations like the impacts on workers and the citizenry get ignored. They forget that "creative destruction" means loss of jobs, economic turmoil, even starvation and death. "Tough on crime sentencing" means depriving households of breadwinners and exacerbating poverty. "Colorblind" policies cover blatant discrimination baked into society.

The "conservatism" NW is referring to was not limited to the Republican Party. Racism and xenophobia have unfortunately a long bipartisan history in America. Creative destruction creates jobs and prosperity. A thriving growing economy will always be one in turmoil. The "discussion of economic and political theorems" is when our government is given more control over our economy. No government can do that as well or as productively as the private sector can. If the breadwinner of a family is convicted of crime should they be let free just because their family will suffer? If that happens then anyone who is the "breadwinner" of a family has just been given a get out of jail free card and the safety of society ceases to exist. When a person is not identified by the color of their skin, but rather as Martin Luther King, Jr, said "by the content of their character" then discrimination is removed from society.

Originally Posted By: MW Ponderer
When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.

It is NW's views that would create an epidemic of inhumanity not conservatism.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#315308 - 09/13/19 06:01 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Greger]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.


As long as they use reason, logic, and facts to write the regulations and they fall under Constitutional guidelines I'm not sure I see a problem with this. You trust them to be the world's police force but not enough for them to do much of anything else. Why don't we privatize the world's police force and save the US Gov a lot of money?

Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government. Therefore, while they might use reason, logic, and facts to write the rules for healthcare they do not have the Constitutional authority to write them. Show where in our Constitution it specifically mentions healthcare.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#315309 - 09/13/19 06:16 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17403
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When I said "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare." he claimed that was saying it would be identical the British healthcare system. Since I don't know much about the British system I cannot say that ours would be identical to theirs. That is where Jeffery was wrong. I did not make any comparison of Medicare for all with the British system. When our government funds something, be it Medicare or anything else, it makes the rules. Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.
Thank you for that clarification. Now, I think, I can fill in some blanks.

Not speaking specifically for Jeff, but I and other "liberals" are used to the word "socialism" being bandied about loosely by so-called "conservatives" for any policy that smacks of human consideration or government support, generally. As a result, I think we have been habituated to "going there" whenever some issues, like Medicare, are raised and criticized broadly.

The UK, somewhat uniquely, has a National Health Service, doctors employed by the government in government-operated hospitals and clinics. It is true "socialized medicine". In the United States we only have a few such services - e.g. military hospitals, the Veterans hospitals and the Indian Health Services - where the "means of production" are actually government-owned and operated.

Other countries, like Canada, have single-payer health insurance systems. That is vastly different. Medical decisions are made independently of government, but payments are made directly or of government funds. While government may influence the system, it does not control it.

The United States has an amalgamation of "systems" (which is why it is so broken). Some services, as noted above, are government provided. Some are provided by private medical services. Some are paid by government agencies (e.g., Medicaid, FEBP), or third parties (e.g., business, unions, insurance systems), who make coverage decisions. Medicare is actually a hybrid system. Some is paid directly by the government; some by the government, but through private insurance providers; some directly by third party insurance providers.

There are several versions of "Medicare for all" being proposed, so it is pretty hard to make definitive arguments about what it means. Mostly it is about "universal coverage" as a goal.

Top
#315310 - 09/13/19 08:34 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17403
A lot to unpack here:
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
That was the conservatism that I grew up on and adopted. In the interim, two things have happened. First, the Republican party came under the thrall of what I describe as a "criminal mindset" - what I mean is that consequences don't matter.
... That sympathetic part of their brain "turns off."

That is, I think, what has happened to the Republican party, and by proxy, conservatism. Beginning with Nixon, it became manifest (although it appeared sporadically before then). People supporting/excusing and defending Nixon's and Agnew's criminality were infected and the contagion spread. With Reagan, and Reagan-worship it became habit, and with Newt Gingrich it became weaponized more effectively than Atwater. Trump, I've said, is the symptom, not the cause.

It was a group of Republicans, led by Sen. Goldwater, who told Nixon that his support on Capitol Hill was gone. Nixon realized that that he would be impeached and so he decided to resign. The infection was checked and did not spread. The low opinion of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon, kept it in check. Regan worship was very bipartisan. A President doesn't win 49 of the 50 states when he is reelected if he is not very popular with both Republicans and Democrats.
I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

Reagan-worship was not, and is not, bipartisan. Nixon also won reelection overwhelmingly... shortly before impeachment proceedings began.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now, I want to note here that a similar pattern occurred in the Democratic party, too, but it was more specific. Dan Rostenkowski, Wilbur Mills and Bill Clinton were exemplars of that. It is associated with the length of time a party is in power, and the increasing brazenness that occurs and that getting away with petty acts of criminality engenders - the habit of petty crimes leads to brazenness and bigger crimes.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
o, in the Democratic Party it was more widespread. [NOPE.
Not even close.] Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. [ANCIENT history. Really.] I agree, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and it doesn't what what political party you are a member of.

(Should I be nervous? Twice on Friday the 13th NW Ponderer and I have agreed on something.) shocked


Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I think, though, that the general tenor of conservatism makes the Republican party more susceptible to virulent outbreaks. Conservatism proponents tends to be more "aloof", high-minded, and mechanical in their language and approach - already leaning into non-sympathetic thought patterns. Democrats, in contrast, tend to emphasize their sympathy and even bleeding-heartedness.

That leads me to my second point and where my schism with conservatism occurred. I became aware - too slowly, I admit - that conservatism had excused a multitude of sins in the service of their aloofness from humanity. Racism, xenophobia and sociopathy lingered beneath the surface. When discussing economic and political theorems, pretty considerations like the impacts on workers and the citizenry get ignored. They forget that "creative destruction" means loss of jobs, economic turmoil, even starvation and death. "Tough on crime sentencing" means depriving households of breadwinners and exacerbating poverty. "Colorblind" policies cover blatant discrimination baked into society.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The "conservatism" NW is referring to was not limited to the Republican Party. Racism and xenophobia have unfortunately a long bipartisan history in America. [Agreed, but... current history (post 1960s) is quite different. That has to be acknowledged.] Creative destruction creates jobs and prosperity. [For some. As well as poverty, inequality, and unemployment, which was my point.] A thriving growing economy will always be one in turmoil.
Now interlineations and asides will not suffice. I disagree. A thriving, growing economy will be disruptive and dynamic, but does not inevitably require turmoil. If approached intelligently, disruptions can be minimized, not exacerbated, and dynamism harnessed and directed. But, that requires consideration of "externalities" - something that definitely exists, but is assiduously ignored and denied by capitalists of a certain ilk.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
The "discussion of economic and political theorems" is when our government is given more control over our economy.
Um, no. (Actually kind of a non sequitur.) Often, and most destructively, precisely no. Laissez faire policies are born of economic theorems, and not practical intelligence. They assiduously avoid dealing with realities in favor of preferred expectations.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
No government can do that as well or as productively as the private sector can.
Now we're into rote recitation of party-line nostrums. Evidence? SUPPORT? Or is the statement intended to be a tautology? I can provide a direct contradiction to the Statement: China. China Used More Concrete In 3 Years Than The U.S. Used In The Entire 20th Century. Indeed, if we don't accept the lesson of, and adapt to, China's aggressive economic posture, China will absolutely eat our lunch.

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
If the breadwinner of a family is convicted of crime should they be let free just because their family will suffer? [Sometimes, yes. Did you never see/read Les Miserables?] If that happens then anyone who is the "breadwinner" of a family has just been given a get out of jail free card and the safety of society ceases to exist.
Again, evidence? SUPPORT? What is your "theory of justice"? What is the purpose of the penal system? Do the issues of compassion, causality or reformation/rehabilitation have any bearing?

Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When a person is not identified by the color of their skin, but rather as Martin Luther King, Jr, said "by the content of their character" then discrimination is removed from society.
In an ideal, or just world, I agree. That, unfortunately, is not (as Dr.King was stressing in that quote) the world in which we currently live, but aspire to.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: MW Ponderer
When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.

It is NW's views that would create an epidemic of inhumanity not conservatism.
What utter nonsense. An epidemic of inhumanity is what we have under the current rubric of "conservatism".

Top
#315311 - 09/13/19 09:31 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17403
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government.
On what do you base this assertion? (I acknowledge up front that this is a trap.)

Top
#315312 - 09/13/19 10:02 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: logtroll]
perotista Offline
journeyman

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 719
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Thanks, perotista. Sounds like a pretty sane set of principles that can play well in any discussion.

Seems like the main problem today with political discussions is the destructive use of lying, incivility, hyperbole, dishonesty, and intentional obtuseness. Clear those things away and we could likely solve some problems in this world.

RR is far better at honest discussion than any other political site I have visited, largely due to a set of rules designed for civility and honesty. I think the rules have slipped a bit in the past few years, partly due to the passing of some of our chief enforcers, and partly due to a general erosion of public discourse.

I appreciate your interest in discussing, and not just looking for a fight.

To butcher an old saying, "Books are for learnin', and the internet's for fightin'!"

Over the last 20-30 years it seems our election campaigns have become name calling and mud slinging. No room for new ideas, possible solutions to our problems or visions on where the candidates want to take our country. It's negative personal attack after negative personal attack.

I sick and tired of Republicans automatically opposing anything put forward by Democrats and vice versa, Democrat automatically opposing anything suggested by Republicans. The merits of the proposals or legislation are never considered anymore, just who proposed them.

This era of polarization and ultra high partisanship very well could be the beginning of our downfall. I've been interested in politics since watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV way back in 1956. I never seen the likes or the hateful politics of today before.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#315313 - 09/13/19 10:13 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
perotista Offline
journeyman

Registered: 09/05/19
Posts: 719
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I am wondering how conservatives describe today’s “conservative”.


Times change and so do political ideologies. I'm an old foggie who classified himself as a Goldwater Conservative with some of Perot thrown in. I grew up under Eisenhower who also had a huge influence on my political thinking. This I think left me more of a traditional conservative than what today we describe as social or religious, neo or any other type of conservative.

Traditional conservatism believes in fiscal responsibility, not what passes as fiscal conservatism today. I believe that the government shouldn't be spending more than it takes in. A balance budget. Today fiscal conservatism means just low taxes where as being fiscal responsible mean if one has to raise taxes to balance the budget, one does it. If one has to cut spending to balance the budget one does it. Most likely it means both. Eisenhower is the last president of actually have the national debt lowered in two of his eight years.

Traditionalist also believe in small government. Keeping government out of a citizen's private business and lives. This is where traditional conservatism has a big problem with what is known as social or religious conservatism. I believe when it comes abortion, that should be left up to the woman, not the government. Same with gay marriage, let love decide, not government.

Also with the cold war over, that we shouldn't be the policeman for the whole world anymore. Let Europe take care of Europe, WWII reconstruction is long over.

There are other things, but traditional conservatism basically is a dying brand.

While I agree with most of what you said, perotista, it is the "policeman of the world" that I take issue with. If America is not the policeman of the world who do you think should have that job? China? Saudi Arabia? Russia? The European Union? Nature abhors a vacuum and if America is not the policeman of the world some other country will try to take our place. Throughout history that change in power has been accomplished by war with very detrimental results for the country that lost the position.
I think it could very well be the European Union if it wanted to fill the position. It doesn't and won't as long as the good old USA does it.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Top
#315314 - 09/13/19 10:47 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

If you mean racism you are wrong! If you are talking about a “criminal mindset” that too is wrong. Yes, Nixon was a crook but his "criminal mindset" did not spread into the Republican Party any more than it did into entire American population. To think that “welfare queens” is racist is not true. The percentage of welfare recipients is 39.8% white and 38.8% blacks. That means the “welfare queens” are white women. The saying “A rising tide lifts all boats.” was first said by Pres. Kennedy. Was JFK a racist?
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Reagan-worship was not, and is not, bipartisan. Nixon also won reelection overwhelmingly... shortly before impeachment proceedings began.

Apparently you have forgotten about the REAGAN DEMOCRATS.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. [ANCIENT history. Really.]

If the Democrat’s political machines are ancient history why are 45 out of 50 wards in Chicago predominately Democrat?
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now interlineations and asides will not suffice. I disagree. A thriving, growing economy will be disruptive and dynamic, but does not inevitably require turmoil. If approached intelligently, disruptions can be minimized, not exacerbated, and dynamism harnessed and directed. But, that requires consideration of "externalities" - something that definitely exists, but is assiduously ignored and denied by capitalists of a certain ilk.

A disruption of someone’s life can throw it into turmoil. To minimize, harness, and direct a thriving and growing economy means government intervention. Most, but not all, government interventions stop economic growth. While economic growth can be painful the market can and does control them better than government does.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Um, no. (Actually kind of a non sequitur.) Often, and most destructively, precisely no. Laissez faire policies are born of economic theorems, and not practical intelligence. They assiduously avoid dealing with realities in favor of preferred expectations.

Laissez faire is an economic theorem. A theorem that rejects government interventions because the preferred expectations of government interventions cannot achieved in realty.

Originally Posted By: NW Pondere
Now we're into rote recitation of party-line nostrums. Evidence? SUPPORT? Or is the statement intended to be a tautology? I can provide a direct contradiction to the Statement: China. China Used More Concrete In 3 Years Than The U.S. Used In The Entire 20th Century. Indeed, if we don't accept the lesson of, and adapt to, China's aggressive economic posture, China will absolutely eat our lunch.

That is a false analogy. When the US was using all of the concrete it did from 1901 – 2000 the decision of how and for what it was used was made mostly by the private sector. The decision of how and for what it the concrete is used for in China in the last three years was made by its government. Governments build large dams, like the Three Gorges Dam, the private sector doesn’t. Should China ever become a Capitalist country it probably will eat our lunch. But dictatorships rarely disappear quietly.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Again, evidence? SUPPORT? What is your "theory of justice"? What is the purpose of the penal system? Do the issues of compassion, causality or reformation/rehabilitation have any bearing?

I asked a rhetorical question which I answered. I did read the Cliff Notes of Les Miserable. As for my theory of justice it is that ours can be improved and I welcome a vigorous discussion how it can be done.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
In an ideal, or just world, I agree. That, unfortunately, is not (as Dr. King was stressing in that quote) the world in which we currently live, but aspire to.

Thomas Jefferson’s statement all men are created equal is an ideal that we haven’t lived up to and Dr. King reminded us of that in his excellent, moving, and sadly very necessary I HAVE A DREAM speech.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What utter nonsense. An epidemic of inhumanity is what we have under the current rubric of "conservatism".

It is because that is how you want to see conservatism in order to justify your being a liberal. Like the saying “There none more pious than a reformed sinner.” you see conservatism as sinful and liberalism as redemption.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
Page 19 of 47 < 1 2 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 46 47 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 46 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2