Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I'm being sarcastic.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Why do some conservatives ridicule domestic handouts but advocate foreign handouts?
- Thread starter minarchist
- Start date
I'm being sarcastic.
minarchist
Regular Member
Indeed.
I didn't say that you stated that it is improper, rather, that you indicated that it is improper.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Good grief, are we really going to quibble over something I merely encouraged you to be careful of?
I did not indicate that it's improper. I simply encouraged you to be careful when inserting things into the posts you respond to. It's not rocket science here.
minarchist
Regular Member
Of course we are not descended from present-day monkeys (that would be impossible), but the most recent common ancestor of present-day monkeys and humans was undoubtedly, taxonomically, a monkey. Some taxonomists actually follow the convention wherein a species inherits every label of the nested hierarchy that it finds itself in. Therefore, according to this taxanomic inheritance view, we are monkeys, as well as lobe-finned fish (of course, we are not functionally fish, but taxomonically, we can indeed be considered to be lobe-finned fish who live on land and walk upright), etc. In other words, all descendants of something that is an X, are also Xes (bear in mind that they can simultaneously be other things as well). Confusion of the sort that you are addressing here arises when categories (such as "ape" and "monkey") are created that include only some of the descendants of the common ancestor and arbitraily exclude other descendants (e.g., it makes no sense to take the Family Hominidae-the Great Apes-and arbitrarily state that all member species are apes EXCEPT for humans, rather, all member species of this family should simply be called apes). This explains the taxonomic school of thought that I have outlined here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igq_niFmXNs
Last edited:
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
Thats true but the OP was asking why conservatives do something when it obvious that both liberals and conservatives do it.
minarchist
Regular Member
The problem is that Obama was elected twice in large part due to Dumbya's numerous, massive, big government fukups. If the Republican party was solidly libertarian, this mess could be avoided, because the people would have a clear choice between liberty and anti-liberty. As it stands, their choices are anti-liberty and somewhat less anti-liberty.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Nope. President Obama was reelected because Romney was on the ticket, and there is a social tide shift that Republicans are having a bit of trouble shifting with...one example: Illegal Immigrants, and what to do with them.
Libertarian is not necessarily pro-Liberty.
eye95
Well-known member
Why do some conservatives ridicule domestic handouts but advocate foreign hando
Extra-special evolution has never been demonstrated. Intra-special evolution is a well-established fact.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Extra-special evolution has never been demonstrated. Intra-special evolution is a well-established fact.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
OC for ME
Regular Member
Liberal claptrap.
I'm no fan of the Libertarian party but they are pro-liberty and pro-citizen, unlike you. If they would just read their own Platform they would see, hopefully, where they advocate for government to intrude into the personal affairs of the citizenry.
I think the the LP is not as liberty-centric as I think they could be. Also, their platform is a wee bit wordy.
http://www.lp.org/platform
Overall I give the LP a B+ on being liberty centric.
Lurchiron
Regular Member
Ahh Comrade...you really told them God fearing capitalists' didn't you???
View attachment 10208 Say high to Bubba for me
Last edited:
minarchist
Regular Member
Romney sucks too. In a sane world, Gary Johnson would have won.
According to the rule of law, they should be removed. Border defense is one of the few legitimate purposes of a central government, and ironically, they fail to do that, while doing a lot of things that they should not do.
It is almost always more pro-liberty than the alternatives.
minarchist
Regular Member
minarchist
Regular Member
Ahh Comrade...you really told them God fearing capitalists' didn't you???
View attachment 10208 Say high to Bubba for me
Are you on drugs? Your post makes absolutely no sense. The only message that is discernable is that you are some sort of big government neocon who has the audacity to accuse a small government person (that would be me) of being a Communist (which is a big government, imperialistic sort of thing that applies much more to you). You just shattered irony meters from coast to coast with this moronic post.
Lurchiron
Regular Member
Who's on drugs... Gary Johnson...really???
Last edited:
minarchist
Regular Member
Who's on drugs... Gary Johnson...really???
I realize that the sight of a pro-liberty politcian's name triggers a reaction similar to that of a vampire exposed to sunlight in an old horror film for freedom-hating big government shills.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
+1 to all points.
And I think "brutally taxed" is euphemistically pleasant compared to the real state of affairs. A mild understatement to be sure.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Yup.
Now, I do know plenty of genuinely illiberal/statist folks. But I also know a number of people who do, basically, believe in liberty, but view voting for a "lesser of two evils" as the appropriate strategic choice.
This may rankle some of the more partisan on the forum, but roughly 50% of those basically pro-liberty people have concluded, for their own reasons, that the GOP is the greater threat to liberty, and accordingly vote democrat.
It appeals to the basic human tendency to form groups and dislike outsiders to frame things in a way such that the democrats are exclusively the bad guys, but I long ago decided that any preference for the GOP over the democratic party is a minor and quite arbitrary value prioritization – that only a slight adjustment of values would lead to the opposite outcome.
I'm not going to waste good electrons saying good things about the democratic party, but I will say why it's a perfectly reasonably judgement to conclude that the GOP is a threat to liberty which must be opposed:
On this forum, the GOP tends to win, as it is generally more pro-gun than the democratic party. But on essentially every other major area of liberty, the GOP is horrendous. I can – almost – see why folks who don't prioritize guns as highly as we do might decide to vote democratic. Objectively (not by comparison), the GOP is horrendous on medical freedom (I'm not even talking about abortion but you can include that if you like), prohibition, self-defense laws (especially for anyone who violates any number of immoral laws), taxation and resulting handouts/subsidies to the undeserving, sexual freedom, and religious freedom (there is no right side when two sides try to force government to adopt their definition of religious concepts for the entire nation).
And the whole overseas interventionism thing, which the GOP really forced down our throats more than any other entity, is corrosive to liberty in a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle ways: war encourages nationalism at the expense of necessary, proper and normal distrust of government, leads to taxes to pay for fancy weapons and toys, civil liberties discarded in the name of "fighting the enemy", etc etc etc.
I really do believe that the two parties are playing the American people for the purpose of fleecing us for as much as possible (rights and profits), utilizing precisely this mechanism cooperatively. I really do believe that if the libertarian party (or another third party with a broad-based pro-liberty appeal) "could" win, they would win.
Praising the GOP because they might be slightly better is missing the point: the GOP knowingly and intentionally allows the democratic party its turn at bat, for the purpose of rekindling partisan furor, to preserve the lesser-of-two-evils logic which drives their ability to win any elections at all. And the democratic party does the same in reverse. They do this by doing precisely whatever they want in practice, but by maintaining their precious rhetoric at election time.
Last edited:
minarchist
Regular Member
I like this post, but I should state that Democrats are a threat to liberty in areas other than the RKBA. First, many Democrats have adopted a lot of neocon ideology (indefinite wars, the Patriot Act, etc.). Second, the progressive wing of the Democrat party, with their obsession with political correctness and censoring politically incorrect people, is extremely anti-free speech. Third, it goes without saying that in the area of economics, Democrats are very anti-liberty.
So the meme that Republicans are generally anti-liberty and Democrats generally pro-liberty, except in the area of gun rights, where these roles are reversed, isn't really accurate at all (not that you were necessarily promoting this meme).
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
No, I agree with you completely here. My intent wasn't to advance that meme, only to point out that many democrats do espouse it, the same way many republicans do the same for themselves and their party. I mean, sure, there are the Dianne Feinstein types, whom you can reasonably imagine literally hunched over, lurking in a shadow somewhere plotting some or other act of unconscionable evil, but that's not the average Joe.
My point is that many on both sides are duped into voting for something they don't really want, and that these folks might actually find more commonality in the context of something like a third party than one might at first imagine.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I won't vote the lesser of two Evils in the form of the major two parties.....Germans several decades were mislead into thinking they had to vote for the only ones to have a chance and they chose the lesser of two evils.....yep that worked out great for them.
Ludwig Von Mises- Omnipotent Government written in the late '40's you'd think you were reading about U.S. today.....
Ludwig Von Mises- Omnipotent Government written in the late '40's you'd think you were reading about U.S. today.....