Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

Limited government with respect to economy + government control over social aspects = conservative; Tea Party

okay, before you start tripping about how you already addressed this, I read what you wrote and I just want to ask you straight up for the sake of clarity.

Which social aspects does the Tea Party favor government control of? I think you alluded to gay marriage and abortion? Is that right? Please don't make any assumptions about something else that I didn't talk about, I just want to know if I heard you right.

And if you would....what does the equation look like for Socialist?

ooge wrote:

I was looking for one thing to disagree with in that video, but I have to say I liked all of it.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Limited government with respect to economy + government control over social aspects = conservative; Tea Party

okay, before you start tripping about how you already addressed this, I read what you wrote and I just want to ask you straight up for the sake of clarity.

Which social aspects does the Tea Party favor government control of? I think you alluded to gay marriage and abortion? Is that right? Please don't make any assumptions about something else that I didn't talk about, I just want to know if I heard you right.

And if you would....what does the equation look like for Socialist?

Socialist is left wing; that is government provision of goods and services that it deems appropriate to manage. Socialism, in my view, therefore doesn't have anything to do with social aspects (somewhat ironically).

That is: Government provision with respect to the economy + ???? = Socialist.

You can have liberal socialists like most modern green partys around the world or you could have authoritarian socialists (communism) like the old Soviet Union etc.

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Limited government with respect to economy + government control over social aspects = conservative; Tea Party

okay, before you start tripping about how you already addressed this, I read what you wrote and I just want to ask you straight up for the sake of clarity.

Which social aspects does the Tea Party favor government control of? I think you alluded to gay marriage and abortion? Is that right? Please don't make any assumptions about something else that I didn't talk about, I just want to know if I heard you right.

And if you would....what does the equation look like for Socialist?

Socialist is left wing; that is government provision of goods and services that it deems appropriate to manage. Socialism, in my view, therefore doesn't have anything to do with social aspects (somewhat ironically).

Somewhat more ironically, that is the #1 answer given to the question (in America) "what is socialism" - social issues

Hrmm, I think we're tying ourselves in knots with syntax here (thank f*ck Symmetry is not involved).

"Social issues" are relevant to the left/right argument in that they tend to relate to welfare and other provisions (healthcare, education etc etc).

What I mean in the above equation when I say social issues is policy around behaviour: Are you allowed to be gay? If so are you allowed to get married? If you are gay can you adopt? Should we allow the murder/removal of human fetuses? etc etc.

The two are different; and when asked about socialism I suggest they are answering the first one, not the latter.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Limited government with respect to economy + government control over social aspects = conservative; Tea Party

okay, before you start tripping about how you already addressed this, I read what you wrote and I just want to ask you straight up for the sake of clarity.

Which social aspects does the Tea Party favor government control of? I think you alluded to gay marriage and abortion? Is that right? Please don't make any assumptions about something else that I didn't talk about, I just want to know if I heard you right.

And if you would....what does the equation look like for Socialist?

Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security. I should note that liberals probably also want to control some of these (e.g. speech... e.g. Biden's crusade against violent video games, e.g. general security... e.g. drones). That's ultimately what cut me off from my local Tea Party. They wanted to support pro-life and anti gay marriage people that were in favor of the Patriot Act. I couldn't get on board with that.

I'm not sure how socialists deal with social issues, to be honest. If we're talking about a socialist like that dude from Vermont (or maybe Nader or whatever), then we're talking about a government controls economy and government leaves personal lives alone. So they wouldn't fit into that bucket.

thegreekdog wrote: If we're talking about a socialist like that dude from Vermont (or maybe Nader or whatever), then we're talking about a government controls economy and government leaves personal lives alone. So they wouldn't fit into that bucket.

I'm not really sure that's any better. Government can't control itself let alone the economy. The government is supposed to only enforce contracts and make sure everyone is going by the same rules. They really shouldn't be controlling anything. All government attempts at intervention in the economy leads only to the favoring of one party over another. But meh, it is what it is I suppose.

patches70 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: If we're talking about a socialist like that dude from Vermont (or maybe Nader or whatever), then we're talking about a government controls economy and government leaves personal lives alone. So they wouldn't fit into that bucket.

I'm not really sure that's any better. Government can't control itself let alone the economy. The government is supposed to only enforce contracts and make sure everyone is going by the same rules. They really shouldn't be controlling anything. All government attempts at intervention in the economy leads only to the favoring of one party over another. But meh, it is what it is I suppose.

I wasn't offering commentary on the socialist vs. conservative dynamic. I disagree with both and prefer limited government intervention in all aspects of life (economic or social).

Xxxxxx

danco wrote:Liberalism as practisted today is the root of a good deal of whats wrong with this country some of our ills are unintened conciquences some are very much on purpose with an eye toward creating a permenent underclass dependent on gov. run Santa Claus programs in short they distain hard work ,sucess,family,church,and freedom to be a liberal you have to be at least a little racist. a little eliteist in love with failure and angry with anybody who has one dollar more than you

Liberals have moved with an eye toward creating a permanent underclass dependent on the government? I might agree that it is an unintended consequence of forms of welfare that aren't properly regulated (time limits and such), but I can't at all agree that it was done intentionally.

And the idea that liberals disdain hard work, success, family life, the church, freedom, and that they're racist, well I'm going to have to just say that I think that you're a very ignorant individual who has managed to look at the world with closed eyes (was that elitist enough for you?).

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

Further, to the extent that the folks that do indicate they lean libertarian on social issues, like security (e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), I will reserve judgment for when there is a Republican president.

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

That was unfortunately my experience as well. I didn't see much "social libertarian" at all, to be honest.

thegreekdog wrote:I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

Most of the tea party people I saw on Long Island were generally 912'ers so it might depend on the specific variety of tea partier. I would say you probably had a 30% Rand Paul percentage. Generally pro-life, but that was about it on the social scale.

Unfortunately, I think the movement fizzled out in my area within the past year.

Xxxxxx

danco wrote:My eyes are wide open my friend , "liberals are not evil people they just kwon a good deal of things that are not true".

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly?

danco wrote:racist . name a big city school system not controled for decades by liberals that is not a mess the kkk in there wildest dreams could not have come up with a better way to insure black kids are ill prepared for life.

Well, at least it wasn't difficult to locate at least one locus of ignorance.

danco wrote:throw in that welfare you were talking about no rules no limits (just who do you think is aganist rules and limits)

Given that I consider myself to lean to the liberal side, I can at the very least point to myself. As well, I know a healthy number of liberals, particularly of late with the economic crunch, who are in favor of welfare that is significant but limited in nature.

danco wrote:and you have a resipe for cultural geniside...

Cultural genocide? You believe that liberals aren't accepting of other cultures? Or is this another "Christians are being persecuted" load of hooey?

danco wrote:family adorition any age anytime (now avail. in a handi take home pill)

1. I presume you mean "family abortion"? I can assure you that liberals are not trying to eliminate families. Far from it, liberals are trying to support families, even homosexual ones.

2. If you are going to hold that the "abortion pill" is a problem as far as abortions go, then I'm just going to have to go ahead and count you among the unreasonable and mystifyingly stupid.

danco wrote:two generations of young women treated as a public convience must not be enough hope and change for ya...

Young women treated as a public convenience? You mean to tell me that you believe these women are not getting abortions of their own volition? You see, right here you self-describe the problem with modern-day Republicans...you're pissed off that you can't seem to control your women any more.

danco wrote:church people insulted daily by every third rate tin plated liberal of the last twenty years.

Ah, you do buy into the "Christians are being persecuted" bullshit that's being fed to you by pandering behemoths that just want your coin. Well done, you're doing your part to perpetuate stupidity.

danco wrote:add hate the rich (hard working people SELF made folks by and large)

Hate the rich? This doesn't even make basic sense. Plenty of liberals are rich. Are you bordering into the insanity clause here?

danco wrote:and you mostly have liberalizem today.

I can't say that you've actually hit on ANY accurate rendition of "liberalism today".

danco wrote:it only took you one long sentence to insult me personly witch indicates the depth of you position ... standard liberal

Your own posts are so insulting to you on their own that all I can do is point and laugh.

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

Further, to the extent that the folks that do indicate they lean libertarian on social issues, like security (e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), I will reserve judgment for when there is a Republican president.

As far as I know, social issues are not part of the Tea Party platform. People come together for fiscal responsibility, and don't care about anyone elses social views. When it comes to abortion or marriage or any other social issue, we can all go our separate ways, but still jointly organize to demand fiscal responsibility.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

Further, to the extent that the folks that do indicate they lean libertarian on social issues, like security (e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), I will reserve judgment for when there is a Republican president.

As far as I know, social issues are not part of the Tea Party platform. People come together for fiscal responsibility, and don't care about anyone elses social views. When it comes to abortion or marriage or any other social issue, we can all go our separate ways, but still jointly organize to demand fiscal responsibility.

Somebody should tell your Tea Party representatives that then, because they don't seem to believe your statements are true at all. Hell, your very own Minnesota representative is a primary example.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

Further, to the extent that the folks that do indicate they lean libertarian on social issues, like security (e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), I will reserve judgment for when there is a Republican president.

As far as I know, social issues are not part of the Tea Party platform. People come together for fiscal responsibility, and don't care about anyone elses social views. When it comes to abortion or marriage or any other social issue, we can all go our separate ways, but still jointly organize to demand fiscal responsibility.

Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

Further, to the extent that the folks that do indicate they lean libertarian on social issues, like security (e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), I will reserve judgment for when there is a Republican president.

As far as I know, social issues are not part of the Tea Party platform. People come together for fiscal responsibility, and don't care about anyone elses social views. When it comes to abortion or marriage or any other social issue, we can all go our separate ways, but still jointly organize to demand fiscal responsibility.

Somebody should tell your Tea Party representatives that then, because they don't seem to believe your statements are true at all. Hell, your very own Minnesota representative is a primary example.

don't tell me Michelle Bachmann is his congresswoman,I don't think I could take it,I may die from laughter. what comity is Michelle Bachmann on?Why the intelligence comity of course.Really you cant make this stuff up.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, in my opinion, rather than any back-and-forth.

Interesting, I've never seen nor heard anyone else make this claim. Care to elaborate on how you've come to this view? It's off topic in this thread so if you want to shoot me a PM to discuss, that'd work for me.

Just happened across this article (on a bit of a weird website). I don't agree with all of it, but much of it seems pretty accurate:
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2011/reagan-the-rino-how-far-right-has-the-right-shifted/

ooge wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Yes, conservatives (including the Tea Party) would like to have the government control social aspects of society, including abortion, marriage, speech, and general security.

Let's break that down for a moment.

Abortion: Since people think that abortion is the deliberate killing of someone, most conservatives would be flat out against that.

Marriage: "Social" conservatives, who in general want to "conserve" the social status quo, would generally be in favor of "control" ... fiscal conservatives not as much so.

Speech: I'm going to call you on that. No one who thinks things through wants to control speech. If you control theirs they will control yours.

General security; Generally a "Neo-Con" position. Most conservatives often quote Franklin who suggested that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Tea Party folks are generally fiscally conservative, and politically lean libertarian.

I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party folks I was involved with lean solidly to the right on social issues, including security. There are some who stand with Rand Paul and his ilk on these types of things.

Further, to the extent that the folks that do indicate they lean libertarian on social issues, like security (e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), I will reserve judgment for when there is a Republican president.

As far as I know, social issues are not part of the Tea Party platform. People come together for fiscal responsibility, and don't care about anyone elses social views. When it comes to abortion or marriage or any other social issue, we can all go our separate ways, but still jointly organize to demand fiscal responsibility.

Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

In fairness both Bush and Obama, while influential, are not particularly relevant to those stats; lag and external influences make any trends based on that data pretty meaningless.

Lootifer wrote:

ooge wrote:Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

In fairness both Bush and Obama, while influential, are not particularly relevant to those stats; lag and external influences make any trends based on that data pretty meaningless.

Well actually they are relevant. Bush created a whole lot of the deficits because of his wars, which were his choice. Obama, although he got stuck with the mess Bush created, did not do a very good job either.

If I look at Obama from a european perspective, I do understand why he wants to create a social welfare system. However Obama makes one big mistake that most socialists make. He likes to spend money rather than learn from capitalism and pursue efficiency and effectivity. The first thing he should do is make sure that what he spends, gets spent in a better way, before he starts setting up new systems to spend money inefficiently. In europe we have the experience of setting up such systems, but american democrats don't and will thus most probably end up making mistakes and wasting money.

In other words I think the timing of Obama's plans are horrible. He wants to create systems to spend more money at a time when the country is pretty much bankrupt already.

waauw wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

ooge wrote:Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

I see a trend here,pres Obama said he would cut the deficit in half.

In fairness both Bush and Obama, while influential, are not particularly relevant to those stats; lag and external influences make any trends based on that data pretty meaningless.

Well actually they are relevant. Bush created a whole lot of the deficits because of his wars, which were his choice. Obama, although he got stuck with the mess Bush created, did not do a very good job either.

If I look at Obama from a european perspective, I do understand why he wants to create a social welfare system. However Obama makes one big mistake that most socialists make. He likes to spend money rather than learn from capitalism and pursue efficiency and effectivity. The first thing he should do is make sure that what he spends, gets spent in a better way, before he starts setting up new systems to spend money inefficiently. In europe we have the experience of setting up such systems, but american democrats don't and will thus most probably end up making mistakes and wasting money.

In other words I think the timing of Obama's plans are horrible. He wants to create systems to spend more money at a time when the country is pretty much bankrupt already.

Huh, the IMF, a bastion of capitalists, are warning against austerity and suggesting government investment in infrastructure. Are they socialists now?