| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2008 03:07:45 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
Why do so many conservatives refuse to accept man-caused climate change as a reality? |
Maybe because it is not a reality. Maybe because they are tired of being force fed b-s and see the liberal left swallow it whole and say "mmm" that tastes good. Maybe because the evidence that the climate has warmed and cooled long before man was even a pimple on the face of the earth, proves the cyclical nature of it. Maybe because the Sun's impact has much more to do with it than anything man has done or not done. Maybe because the hypocracy associated with those claiming a mightier than thou holiness, whilst those "evil conservatives" do equally measured activities in recycling or other reduction activities, but are criticized regardless. Or just maybe, because the last decade has actually cooled, while the "sky is falling crowd" is claiming catastrophe.
Maybe that's why. |
Or maybe they just arrogantly cherry pick articles by fringe groups to justify driving their Hummers, leaving the lights blazing, and squandering resources to support their ostentatious lifestyles. Keep in mind these same "conservatives" are the same folks who have foresaken the fiscal responsibility once espoused by their party to go on a hog-wild spending spree with the national credit card. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 03:45:40 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Or maybe they just arrogantly cherry pick articles by fringe groups to justify driving their Hummers, leaving the lights blazing, and squandering resources to support their ostentatious lifestyles. |
So these "evil" and arrogant hummer driving people deserve to have their homes burned by the "rational" thinking greenies?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Keep in mind these same "conservatives" are the same folks who have foresaken the fiscal responsibility once espoused by their party to go on a hog-wild spending spree with the national credit card. |
You must mean those liberals that can't spend enough on "earmarks" and want to raise my taxes even more? Lets elect Jennifer to another term. (for anyone else - this last statement is a specific reference for Spazmo and I).
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 04:05:20 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Or maybe they just arrogantly cherry pick articles by fringe groups to justify driving their Hummers, leaving the lights blazing, and squandering resources to support their ostentatious lifestyles. |
So these "evil" and arrogant hummer driving people deserve to have their homes burned by the "rational" thinking greenies?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Keep in mind these same "conservatives" are the same folks who have foresaken the fiscal responsibility once espoused by their party to go on a hog-wild spending spree with the national credit card. |
You must mean those liberals that can't spend enough on "earmarks" and want to raise my taxes even more? Lets elect Jennifer to another term. (for anyone else - this last statement is a specific reference for Spazmo and I). |
As for arson, how did that come into play? Did I endorse criminal activity by extremists? Does that also mean you endorse criminal activity by those on your end of the political spectrum?
No, I mean Republicans; the party that, until about 8 years ago, stood for smaller governement and fiscal responsibility. They have financed the pointless quagmire of a war in Iraq with the National credit card to the tune of trillions of dollars while the average Joe's job gets shipped overseas to the lowest cost country. My grandkids will be paying for their excesses, assuming the US doesn't go bankrupt in the meantime. They have expanded the government in both reach and sheer size with creation of the DHS and laws that "allow" greater intrusion into and Orwellian monitoring of people's lives.
As for Jennifer, I'll take her any day over that nutjob Mike Cox or her predecessor, Engler. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 05:02:20 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by Flash:
So these "evil" and arrogant hummer driving people deserve to have their homes burned by the "rational" thinking greenies? |
Let me sum up the position from my perspective.
No GW:
o 100s of academic supporters (largely in unrelated disciplines)
o heavy reliance on anecdotal and amateur analysis
o massively profitable for big business/oil companies
o massively profitable for people/politicans who support the big business/oil companies
o tends to be supported by conservatives (characterised by a "self first, others later" attitude [ie low tax, don't support social benefits or wealth redistribution])
o backing of one major western country (the US) - (co?)incidentally the western nation most influenced by lobbyists and unfettered campaign donations.
GW:
o 10,000s of academic supporters (including the vast majority of specialists in the field)
o heavy reliance on scientific analysis
o massively expensive for big business/oil companies
o supported because it is intellectually persuasive, not financially persuasive
o tends to be supported by people with politics that support community oriented projects (socialism, western liberalism
o backing of 95% of world jurisdictions
I know *why* people don't want to believe in GW, but IMO it *is* intellectual cowardice.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 07:50:17 PM · #305 |
To that end, the most convincing arguments the no-GWers seem have come up with for what would have to be massive fraud on the part of tens of thousands of scientists are:
* It ensures the scientists get their grant money.
* It allows Al Gore to act hypocritically, keep himself in the public eye, and profit.
* It allows governments to force people to alter their behaviour.
Are there any real ones? |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 08:57:53 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by Louis:
...
* It ensures the scientists get their grant money. |
This is the one that makes me laugh. They've got the "follow the money" part right, but they've attached it to the wrong side!
|
|
|
|
03/06/2008 09:08:14 AM · #307 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, I mean Republicans; the party that, until about 8 years ago, stood for smaller governement and fiscal responsibility.
...
As for Jennifer, I'll take her any day over that nutjob Mike Cox or her predecessor, Engler. |
Surely you do not mean to imply that the Democrats are the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility? Are you? Although we may agree on the last 8 years as being uncharacteristic of historic conservative policy, I can't imagine you would claim that the socialist left now holds claim to those principles.
Regarding Jennifer...if you believe that our state with one of the highest unemployment rates and the highest foreclosure rate, and near the very top of tax rates, is a testament to the success of Jennifers liberal socialist democratic policies, then we truly are at odds as to what qualifies as sound management. After 8 years of her, we may not even have enough peole/jobs left to even qualify as a township let alone a state.
As for the impact of NAFTA, who was it again that signed that glorious piece of legislation? Clinton? Did I read it was Clinton? Just checking. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 09:23:15 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Or maybe they just arrogantly cherry pick articles by fringe groups to justify driving their Hummers, leaving the lights blazing, and squandering resources to support their ostentatious lifestyles. |
So these "evil" and arrogant hummer driving people deserve to have their homes burned by the "rational" thinking greenies?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Keep in mind these same "conservatives" are the same folks who have foresaken the fiscal responsibility once espoused by their party to go on a hog-wild spending spree with the national credit card. |
You must mean those liberals that can't spend enough on "earmarks" and want to raise my taxes even more? Lets elect Jennifer to another term. (for anyone else - this last statement is a specific reference for Spazmo and I). |
I think earmarks from both sides account for somewhere around $2 billion of the last round of budgets. Finance/ interest charges on the national debt are about $200 billion at the moment. That's more than the entire military budget. At some point when your spending is that out of control, someone should cut up your credit cards. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 09:26:24 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
No GW:
o tends to be supported by conservatives (characterised by a "self first, others later" attitude [ie low tax, don't support social benefits or wealth redistribution])
GW:
o tends to be supported by people with politics that support community oriented projects (socialism, western liberalism)
|
I thnk you have a bit of confusion on this matter. I would agree that conservatives as a whole do not support wealth re-distribution, instead preferring for those who receive a benefit to actually work for or earn it. Challenging concept I know, but one central to the difference.
If wealth re-distribution was the operative for the world, then all undeveloped countries should be getting the bulk of the wealth as they are the least wealthy. Take from the haves and give to the have-nots. Sounds a bit like communism to me. Whenever that happens, the group always equalizes with the lowest common denominator. The laziest worker, the worst producer, most unscrupulous manager, etc etc etc. If one receives the bennifits for the work of others for making no contribution to it, then what is the motive/incentive for being a contributor.
There is a distinction between doing good works as in charity and promoting a never ending cycle of dependency. Socialism (in my view), never raises the individual out of dependency. It uses the dependency of the masses as the catalyst for self perpetuation of the socialist agenda. The continued need to take from those that have earned it and give to those that have not.
edit to add: by that reasoning, any photographer who sells a print on this site, should divy up those profits amongst all the other photographers here who have not sold anything. Pretty ludicrous isn't it? After all, we want all those photogs who don't have enough talent or initiave or creativity to feel equal don't we? That's how I feel when someone proposes to take MORE of my money and give it to someone else.
Message edited by author 2008-03-06 09:48:02. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 09:39:51 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think earmarks from both sides account for somewhere around $2 billion of the last round of budgets. |
I'm not just discussing the last round of budgets. How much money (tax payers money) has been "re-dristributed" (to use Matthew's phrase)in back room earmarks over the last 50-100 years? How much more debt do we have today because of wasted funds for pork projects? If that money hadn't been "stolen" from the treasury, with interest, how much of a surplus would there be?
To claim otherwise is to fail the process entirely. Accountability is the only solution. If you are going to steal money from my future generation, then you should be signing your name in BOLD letters for all to see. Earmarks are theft - used to pay off conspirators - violating the public trust. Plain and simple. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 09:40:14 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, I mean Republicans; the party that, until about 8 years ago, stood for smaller governement and fiscal responsibility.
...
As for Jennifer, I'll take her any day over that nutjob Mike Cox or her predecessor, Engler. |
Surely you do not mean to imply that the Democrats are the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility? Are you? Although we may agree on the last 8 years as being uncharacteristic of historic conservative policy, I can't imagine you would claim that the socialist left now holds claim to those principles.
Regarding Jennifer...if you believe that our state with one of the highest unemployment rates and the highest foreclosure rate, and near the very top of tax rates, is a testament to the success of Jennifers liberal socialist democratic policies, then we truly are at odds as to what qualifies as sound management. After 8 years of her, we may not even have enough peole/jobs left to even qualify as a township let alone a state.
As for the impact of NAFTA, who was it again that signed that glorious piece of legislation? Clinton? Did I read it was Clinton? Just checking. |
The impact of NAFTA is minuscule compared to other issues such as the failure of the US automotive industry (not due to NAFTA), the trade gap with China and other non-NAFTA nations (also has nothing to do with NAFTA). McCain supports NAFTA as is anyway whereas the Dems are at least open to re-negotiating terms.
The foreclosure rates are a direct result of the mortgage credit crisis and certainly are not unique to Michigan, nor related to anything the Granholm could have done. That's like blaming Schwarzenegger for an earthquake in California.
I can't tell who you include in your "socialist left" group, but I suspect it's anyone to the left of the current bunch of neo-con nutjobs currently destroying the US credit rating. The Democrats may spend money, but they would be hard-pressed to bleed greenbacks at anywhere near the rate the current administration does. At least the Dems tend to spend in the interest of the less fortunate here at home rather than simply dumping giant no-bid contracts into the pockets of their buddies.
Who got the budget back on track last time? (hint: It wasn't a Republican) |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 09:48:00 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think earmarks from both sides account for somewhere around $2 billion of the last round of budgets. |
I'm not just discussing the last round of budgets. How much money (tax payers money) has been "re-dristributed" (to use Matthew's phrase)in back room earmarks over the last 50-100 years? How much more debt do we have today because of wasted funds for pork projects? If that money hadn't been "stolen" from the treasury, with interest, how much of a surplus would there be?
To claim otherwise is to fail the process entirely. Accountability is the only solution. If you are going to steal money from my future generation, then you should be signing your name in BOLD letters for all to see. Earmarks are theft - used to pay off conspirators - violating the public trust. Plain and simple. |
At least earmarks are subject to some review.
What about the no-bid contracts? That's just billions of dollars straight into the pockets of some Bush/Cheney cronies. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 09:55:13 AM · #313 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Who got the budget back on track last time? (hint: It wasn't a Republican) |
Newt Gingrich isn't a republican? The "Contract with America" wasn't a republican/conservative initiative? If I remember correctly (and I might not), Clinton was forced into signing that legislation, then took credit for it in subsequent State of the Union addresses. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 10:01:57 AM · #314 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least earmarks are subject to some review. |
I can't believe that you are defending earmarks. No wonder we see the world differently. You actually think it is OK to take money form other poeple and give to those that didn't eran it. It is not OK. As adamantly as Bear_Music feels that torture is wrong, I equally feel stealing from me is wrong as well. You/they have no right to secretly give my taxes to anyone/thing without open disclosure with names attached so that I can vote you/they out of office for violating my trust.
I think I agree with you on no-bid contracts. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 10:15:33 AM · #315 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The foreclosure rates are a direct result of the mortgage credit crisis and certainly are not unique to Michigan, nor related to anything the Granholm could have done. That's like blaming Schwarzenegger for an earthquake in California.
|
No its not. The forclosure rate in our state is due to those that can no longer make their payments due to them no longer having their job which is due to the states tax rate that drives companies OUT. That is Jennifer and her socialist programs at work. No one else. This is not another Bush problem. It is a Jennifer and the democrats problem. And it is not going to get any better, any time soon. It is a self perpetuating cycle. The unemployed need assistance so taxes are increased to pay for more social dependency which results in business leaving which results in more unemployed which results in higher taxes which results in more businesses leaving...
edit to add:and to relate this to the thread topic, the continued push to increase capitol burden on business due to a false conclusion on Global Warming, further erodes business, further resulting in higher burden and social dependencies which further increases taxes which further drives business overseas...which further strains social programs... Yes I can see where socialism is a good thing.
Message edited by author 2008-03-06 10:20:49. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 10:50:27 AM · #316 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I would agree that conservatives as a whole do not support wealth re-distribution, instead preferring for those who receive a benefit to actually work for or earn it. |
Then can you please explain the rationale for taxing capital gains -- money made not by "working" but merely for lending someone else money -- at about half the rate of someone's wages? Seems to me that "conservatives" *do* in fact have a system of wealth redistribution, but one which basically takes money from the less well-off and gives it to the already-wealthy. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 11:14:50 AM · #317 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Then can you please explain the rationale for taxing capital gains -- money made not by "working" but merely for lending someone else money -- at about half the rate of someone's wages? Seems to me that "conservatives" *do* in fact have a system of wealth redistribution, but one which basically takes money from the less well-off and gives it to the already-wealthy. |
You got me at a loss here. I thought conservatives did not want to tax capital gains as the money had already been taxed when it was earned the first time. I thought it was liberals who continuously want to keep taxing and taxing and taxing untill there is nothing left. Thus discouraging investment, which takes capital out of the hands of business, which in turn reduces company expansion and thus negatively impacts jobs/growth. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 11:27:35 AM · #318 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least earmarks are subject to some review. |
I can't believe that you are defending earmarks. |
I can't believe you think anyone is defending earmarks. Or arson. Or other reprehensible behavior. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 11:55:10 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You got me at a loss here. I thought conservatives did not want to tax capital gains as the money had already been taxed when it was earned the first time. |
The gains have not been previously taxed. Do you really not understand the concept of investment ("unearned" as the IRS calls it) income vs. wages? |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 12:05:35 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least earmarks are subject to some review. |
I can't believe that you are defending earmarks. No wonder we see the world differently. You actually think it is OK to take money form other poeple and give to those that didn't eran it. It is not OK. As adamantly as Bear_Music feels that torture is wrong, I equally feel stealing from me is wrong as well. You/they have no right to secretly give my taxes to anyone/thing without open disclosure with names attached so that I can vote you/they out of office for violating my trust.
I think I agree with you on no-bid contracts. |
No, I'm not, but I will say they are preferable to the awarding of no-bid contracts.
As for giving your tax dollars away, the process for awarding no-bid contracts is much shadier than the process for approving earmarks.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2008 12:10:35 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The foreclosure rates are a direct result of the mortgage credit crisis and certainly are not unique to Michigan, nor related to anything the Granholm could have done. That's like blaming Schwarzenegger for an earthquake in California.
|
No its not. The forclosure rate in our state is due to those that can no longer make their payments due to them no longer having their job which is due to the states tax rate that drives companies OUT. That is Jennifer and her socialist programs at work. No one else. This is not another Bush problem. It is a Jennifer and the democrats problem. And it is not going to get any better, any time soon. It is a self perpetuating cycle. The unemployed need assistance so taxes are increased to pay for more social dependency which results in business leaving which results in more unemployed which results in higher taxes which results in more businesses leaving...
edit to add:and to relate this to the thread topic, the continued push to increase capitol burden on business due to a false conclusion on Global Warming, further erodes business, further resulting in higher burden and social dependencies which further increases taxes which further drives business overseas...which further strains social programs... Yes I can see where socialism is a good thing. |
No, just like everywhere else in the country with high foreclosure rates, the foreclosure rate in Michigan is tied to people getting loans they really can't afford. People who exaggerate their income, the absence of any incentive for the brokers to verify the information provided by the borrowers, a total lack of oversight in the mortgage industry and the over-investment in mortgage funds consisting of bundled mortgages containing a high percentage of risky loans. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 03:51:13 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
At least earmarks are subject to some review. |
I can't believe that you are defending earmarks. |
I can't believe you think anyone is defending earmarks. Or arson. Or other reprehensible behavior. |
Having met Spazmo, I do not believe that he nor anyone else here is defending earmarks or arson or other reprehensible behavior. I do find it occassionally useful to pit one's politics against their stated positions, just as you and others do to those with whom you disagree. It is the nature of things.
IF, and I do mean IF, we could ever get past the individual nit-picking, I suspect we have more in common that in differences. But that would require both sides to actually consider the others arguments and the merits of them, versus the more common approach of tit for tat rub your nose in it. |
|
|
|
03/06/2008 04:16:18 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by Flash:
IF, and I do mean IF, we could ever get past the individual nit-picking, I suspect we have more in common that in differences. But that would require both sides to actually consider the others arguments and the merits of them, versus the more common approach of tit for tat rub your nose in it. |
Actually, I think you'll find that most people don't consider a demand for verifiable facts and an accurate representation of their views "nit-picking", "tit-for-tat", or anything other than a reasonable expectation when talking with people. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 10:34:21 AM · #324 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I thnk you have a bit of confusion on this matter. |
I assure you that I do not.
Originally posted by Flash:
If wealth re-distribution was the operative for the world, then all undeveloped countries should be getting the bulk of the wealth as they are the least wealthy. |
This is where you completely lose the plot.
Every nation applies a degree of wealth redistribution. You pay tax, and that goes to community projects. Wealth redistribution at its most basic level.
Most nations go much further than that. Social security payments, emergency healthcare, economic subsidies for specific industries, payments for the handicapped, war wounded etc. You could even class trade embargoes in this fashion (pushing up local prices to support specific industries).
My point was that conservatives tend to support a low tax approach with limited redistribution of wealth. Socialists tend to support greater redistribution of wealth. Pretty much no-one opposes it (except anarchists and maybe you), just its extent and the way in which it is employed.
To get back on topic, conservatives tend to oppose the intervention of the state to interfere with economic freedoms to destroy the climate. Socialists tend to recognise the need for a community response.
Originally posted by Flash:
Take from the haves and give to the have-nots. Sounds a bit like communism to me. |
Socialism is not communism in the same way that conservatism is not fascism. All those concepts are far more complex than you seem to be able to recognise.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 10:13:55 AM · #325 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My point was that conservatives tend to support a low tax approach with limited redistribution of wealth. Socialists tend to support greater redistribution of wealth. Pretty much no-one opposes it (except anarchists and maybe you), just its extent and the way in which it is employed. |
The point with socialists, is that they ALWAYS have something to spend someone else's money on. In its purest form, it is akin to communism with the ultimate ideal of total communal ownership of the monetary pie, to be distributed as decided by those in position to decide - typically a government entity.
As a socialist and one who supports a greater redistribution of wealth, please sign on to my site proposal..."any photographer who sells a print on this site, should divy up those profits amongst all the other photographers here who have not sold anything. After all, we want all those photogs who don't have enough talent or initiave or creativity to feel equal don't we?" We could divert some of it to the many needs of this world, like paid training for photographers that haven't sold anything or take lousy pictures or can't understand photoshop, or have lower grade lenses or poor speedlights. Please support this additional tax on those who have some success in marketing their work. This redistribution will help the psycological impact of those seemingly failing in this photographic pursuit (those with a lower self esteem or an economicly disadvantaged studio). Never mind the potential to stagnate those mediocre photographers and eternally illicit a dependency on those who do "earn" their money or unnecessarily burden the creativity of those who have found success.
Please do support this site action. It is certain to promote goodwill and expansive growth. We may need to be prepared for photographers from other sites fleeing their repressive forums to for the better opportunity to partake in our wealth sharing here on DPC. They wouldn't have to contribute, just sign on as a member and they too could siphon off money from those that have earned it. Shortly, we could have just a few photographers selling prints, supporting masses and masses of photographers who with no exertion, could receive stipends from the communal account. |
|
