Is it me or are social conservatives the biggest hypocrites ever?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. No worse that liberals who believe in social freedom but not economic freedom. As though one could exist without the other! Dems and Pubs are both nothing but hypocracy.

Thanks for that Ayn.

Am I wrong?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Great idea, OP! Let's name a select few Republicans, who make up 0.000000000000000001 percent of the population of Republicans, and bash them. You know, I laugh at some of the posters on this board so often. Sometimes at night I shed tears at the ignorance on this board. I CANNOT believe that this flamebait topic is allowed here, where a liberal bashing thread would be promptly locked and deleted. Hypocrites, you say?

Rant off.

Oh there is a trend.
Locked
Locked

But This thread lives on, along with this troll.

not unexpected of course.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Great idea, OP! Let's name a select few Republicans, who make up 0.000000000000000001 percent of the population of Republicans, and bash them. You know, I laugh at some of the posters on this board so often. Sometimes at night I shed tears at the ignorance on this board. I CANNOT believe that this flamebait topic is allowed here, where a liberal bashing thread would be promptly locked and deleted. Hypocrites, you say?

Rant off.

Oh there is a trend.
Locked
Locked

But This thread lives on, along with this troll.

not unexpected of course.

This is true. I lost respect for ATPN back when the liberal bias became obvious. Then all the right-leaning posters got banned for things the lefties do everyday (i.e. Rip got banned for doing what McOwen still does everyday), and now a moderate like myself looks to the right of Attila the Hun here... it's pretty sad. Obviously, the left are cowards who are afraid of friendly debate, which is the only reason I come here.

 

[zendari]

I mentioned nothing about liberals or liberalbashing in the Hillary thread at all. Kudos to HayabusaRider and a couple others for some reasonable discussion, of course the Anandtech Liberal Attack Squad came in and did their thing first.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I really enjoy envrionutz hypocrisy.

Dont like fossil fuel consumption
Wont let nuclear plants be built to replace coal plants.

Need to weed ourselves off foreign oil
Wont let anybody drill for oil within the United States

Yes, Jeb Bush is an "environutz", not!
"''Our goal would be to have a moratorium 100 miles from Jacksonville to Pensacola,'' Bush said, adding that the section of water adjacent to the Florida line into Alabama should be included in the 100-mile buffer zone. ``If that could be achieved, it would be a great victory for Florida.''"
Republican Environutz ban oil exploration on Florida's coasts!

It amazed me how swiftly the Florida coasts were opened to drilling and exploration after Bush's 2001 inauguration. But then, environutz luminaries like Armando Codina and Jeb Bush led the charge to prevent much of the windfall from falling.

Actually, the root cause of the Florida governor and associates challenging the rash of permissions to develop the waters off Florida were developer centric. If you were a luxury coastline property developer, you would fight tooth and nail to prevent the erection of rigs within sight of your highrise condominium balconies.

In this case, Jeb did the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. No worse that liberals who believe in social freedom but not economic freedom. As though one could exist without the other! Dems and Pubs are both nothing but hypocracy.

Thanks for that Ayn.

Am I wrong?

You are wrong, because what Ayn Rand espoused was complete freedom, or as close to that ideal as possible. Historical evidence suggests that such an ideal is an impossibility, though Dissipate would be quick to suggest that this is not the case.

In any event, in the real world, there will always be some limit to both social and economic freedoms, barring a successful anarchist revolution (and even then, there will be social orgnizations of one sort or another).

So if some people think there should be a few more (or less) economic (or social) restrictions, this does not translate into the sort of absolute statement you made; it's like stating, in a vacuum, that you support tax cuts: if you have any real intelligence, you support tax cuts when taxes are too high, and tax increases when they are too low (AND there is a need for such increases). The only time the answer is absolutely clear is if tax rates are beyond the limits of efficient taxation (such as before the JFK tax cuts, but not today).

Similarly, supporting some economic restrictions is not the same as rejecting economic freedom in general.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. No worse that liberals who believe in social freedom but not economic freedom. As though one could exist without the other! Dems and Pubs are both nothing but hypocracy.

Thanks for that Ayn.

Am I wrong?

You are wrong, because what Ayn Rand espoused was complete freedom, or as close to that ideal as possible. Historical evidence suggests that such an ideal is an impossibility, though Dissipate would be quick to suggest that this is not the case.

In any event, in the real world, there will always be some limit to both social and economic freedoms, barring a successful anarchist revolution (and even then, there will be social orgnizations of one sort or another).

So if some people think there should be a few more (or less) economic (or social) restrictions, this does not translate into the sort of absolute statement you made; it's like stating, in a vacuum, that you support tax cuts: if you have any real intelligence, you support tax cuts when taxes are too high, and tax increases when they are too low (AND there is a need for such increases). The only time the answer is absolutely clear is if tax rates are beyond the limits of efficient taxation (such as before the JFK tax cuts, but not today).

Similarly, supporting some economic restrictions is not the same as rejecting economic freedom in general.

With all due respect, you've clearly never read Rand, so kindly quit trying to pass off the impression that you have. She never espoused anarchy or anything even close to it. She had the deepest respect and commitment to law and order and the necessity of government (much more so than my own views, in fact, which tend to be closer to Jefferson and Thoreau than Rand).

And are not taxes too high right now? It's pretty obvious that they are. Is not the liberal agenda of the nationalization of certain key industries (i.e. healthcare) akin to socialism? And is not socialism in itself anathema to freedom? Therefore, how am I wrong?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Great idea, OP! Let's name a select few Republicans, who make up 0.000000000000000001 percent of the population of Republicans, and bash them. You know, I laugh at some of the posters on this board so often. Sometimes at night I shed tears at the ignorance on this board. I CANNOT believe that this flamebait topic is allowed here, where a liberal bashing thread would be promptly locked and deleted. Hypocrites, you say?

Rant off.

Oh there is a trend.
Locked
Locked

But This thread lives on, along with this troll.

not unexpected of course.

This is true. I lost respect for ATPN back when the liberal bias became obvious. Then all the right-leaning posters got banned for things the lefties do everyday (i.e. Rip got banned for doing what McOwen still does everyday), and now a moderate like myself looks to the right of Attila the Hun here... it's pretty sad. Obviously, the left are cowards who are afraid of friendly debate, which is the only reason I come here.

True, so true. I'm just here to make them angry. I'm a libertarian who is very socially liberal and vote as such, but I've been called a nazi or a neocon numerous times just because I don't march along with the liberal goosestep here. (Where's Harvey? I want that size 13 he promised.)

This forum is a joke. I'd really like to know who the moderators are.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
With all due respect, you've clearly never read Rand, so kindly quit trying to pass off the impression that you have. She never espoused anarchy or anything even close to it. She had the deepest respect and commitment to law and order and the necessity of government (much more so than my own views, in fact, which tend to be closer to Jefferson and Thoreau than Rand).

And are not taxes too high right now? It's pretty obvious that they are. Is not the liberal agenda of the nationalization of certain key industries (i.e. healthcare) akin to socialism? And is not socialism in itself anathema to freedom? Therefore, how am I wrong?

Why is it obvious that taxes are too high? Because they are higher than you would like?

I did manage to get through the Fountainhead, but not much into Atlas Shrugged. Frankly most of what Rand had to say made me want to vomit. With all due respect to you, Ayn Rand believed in socialized police forces as 'government' and nothing more - protection of man's rights from the the coercive tendencies of others. This is hardly government, in the common-definition sort of sense.

I'll certainly admit that I have some reading to do if I want to debate the finer points of Ayn Rand, but as far as economic freedom / political freedom / intellectual freedom, and especially in the context you used, I'm pretty comfortable with my take on it.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Great idea, OP! Let's name a select few Republicans, who make up 0.000000000000000001 percent of the population of Republicans, and bash them. You know, I laugh at some of the posters on this board so often. Sometimes at night I shed tears at the ignorance on this board. I CANNOT believe that this flamebait topic is allowed here, where a liberal bashing thread would be promptly locked and deleted. Hypocrites, you say?

Rant off.

Oh there is a trend.
Locked
Locked

But This thread lives on, along with this troll.

not unexpected of course.

This is true. I lost respect for ATPN back when the liberal bias became obvious. Then all the right-leaning posters got banned for things the lefties do everyday (i.e. Rip got banned for doing what McOwen still does everyday), and now a moderate like myself looks to the right of Attila the Hun here... it's pretty sad. Obviously, the left are cowards who are afraid of friendly debate, which is the only reason I come here.

True, so true. I'm just here to make them angry. I'm a libertarian who is very socially liberal and vote as such, but I've been called a nazi or a neocon numerous times just because I don't march along with the liberal goosestep here. (Where's Harvey? I want that size 13 he promised.)

This forum is a joke. I'd really like to know who the moderators are.

Congrats, you're a self-proclaimed troll and proud of it

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
True, so true. I'm just here to make them angry. I'm a libertarian who is very socially liberal and vote as such, but I've been called a nazi or a neocon numerous times just because I don't march along with the liberal goosestep here. (Where's Harvey? I want that size 13 he promised.)

This forum is a joke. I'd really like to know who the moderators are.

Yep. Same here. I'm a libertarian as well, and I got called a neocon just this morning.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Why is it obvious that taxes are too high? Because they are higher than you would like?

Because they are proven to be wasteful, inefficient, frequently corrupt, and punitive.

protection of man's rights from the the coercive tendencies of others. This is hardly government, in the common-definition sort of sense.

No, that IS government. To protect your rights from being violated by others. The only way government can exceed that is by violating the right of some for the benefit of others, i.e. operating in opposition to its basic principle, and that is clearly unjust and can only lead to corruption and eventual tyranny.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: yankeesfan
Great idea, OP! Let's name a select few Republicans, who make up 0.000000000000000001 percent of the population of Republicans, and bash them. You know, I laugh at some of the posters on this board so often. Sometimes at night I shed tears at the ignorance on this board. I CANNOT believe that this flamebait topic is allowed here, where a liberal bashing thread would be promptly locked and deleted. Hypocrites, you say?

Rant off.

Oh there is a trend.
Locked
Locked

But This thread lives on, along with this troll.

not unexpected of course.

This is true. I lost respect for ATPN back when the liberal bias became obvious. Then all the right-leaning posters got banned for things the lefties do everyday (i.e. Rip got banned for doing what McOwen still does everyday), and now a moderate like myself looks to the right of Attila the Hun here... it's pretty sad. Obviously, the left are cowards who are afraid of friendly debate, which is the only reason I come here.

It's dangerous to generalize. People on both sides here do things that sometimes get banned sometimes don't.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lozina
It's dangerous to generalize. People on both sides here do things that sometimes get banned sometimes don't.

Are you threatening me?

:roll:

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lozina
It's dangerous to generalize. People on both sides here do things that sometimes get banned sometimes don't.

Are you threatening me?

:roll:

😕

Hmm, I suppose now I can understand why you would feel the admins are out to get you, you seem to suffer from hypersensitivity and knee-jerk over-reaction. LoL

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
Because they are proven to be wasteful, inefficient, frequently corrupt, and punitive.

The only time it is obvious that taxes are too high is if the rate is so high that reducing it increases tax revenues. The only time it is obvious that taxes are too low is never.

All taxation results in some dead-weight loss to an economy; the real question therefore is whether the tax money generated is necessary to provide services that either can't be provided by the free market (I would put defense, roads and justice in this category), or produce bad outcomes in the free market (some utilities, possibly healthcare, possibly environmental and safety standards).

No, that IS government. To protect your rights from being violated by others. The only way government can exceed that is by violating the right of some for the benefit of others, i.e. operating in opposition to its basic principle, and that is clearly unjust and can only lead to corruption and eventual tyranny.

That is certainly part of the function of government, but there are exactly zero western countries with no socialized programs, and only a minority of people who would support such a system; as such it may be a good libertarian definition of what government 'should be' but it isn't a good definition of what government is, or from all avilable evidence, what it actually has the potential to be.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, that IS government. To protect your rights from being violated by others. The only way government can exceed that is by violating the right of some for the benefit of others, i.e. operating in opposition to its basic principle, and that is clearly unjust and can only lead to corruption and eventual tyranny.

This is what is truly ironic. Liberals are now complaining about the tyranny of the Bush administration, but they fail to realize that the reason we are in the position we are today is because we the people have been handing the federal government power since the depression. Every time the people begged the federal government to intervene when some little problem arose, they gave it more and more power. Now, the federal government has so much power, and is so intertwined in every aspect of our lives that we're totally dependant on it. Bush has us by the short and curlies, there's nothing we can do about it and he's doing it all perfectly legally. He's simply using the power he's been happily given to him by federalists for the last 75 years.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
This is true. I lost respect for ATPN back when the liberal bias became obvious. Then all the right-leaning posters got banned for things the lefties do everyday (i.e. Rip got banned for doing what McOwen still does everyday), and now a moderate like myself looks to the right of Attila the Hun here... it's pretty sad. Obviously, the left are cowards who are afraid of friendly debate, which is the only reason I come here.

True, so true. I'm just here to make them angry. I'm a libertarian who is very socially liberal and vote as such, but I've been called a nazi or a neocon numerous times just because I don't march along with the liberal goosestep here. (Where's Harvey? I want that size 13 he promised.)

This forum is a joke. I'd really like to know who the moderators are.

Ah, friends, welcome to the club. 😀 Getting the nuts in here riled up is a laugh riot. There isn't a political test in the world that would call me anything but a moderate, yet here I'm a "neocon".

Of course, when the Democrats eventually win a presidency (2016?) it'll flip-flop completely. Oh, and BoberFett, you have a PM.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lozina
It's dangerous to generalize. People on both sides here do things that sometimes get banned sometimes don't.

Are you threatening me?

:roll:

😕

Hmm, I suppose now I can understand why you would feel the admins are out to get you, you seem to suffer from hypersensitivity and knee-jerk over-reaction. LoL

No, you suffer from gross assumption. My complaint was that this board has been obviously cleared out of most ideological opposites, which is why the quality of the discussions here have fallen off so badly. That is all I said. Whatever else you read into that exists only in your own mind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
No, that IS government. To protect your rights from being violated by others. The only way government can exceed that is by violating the rights of some for the benefit of others, i.e. operating in opposition to its basic principle, and that is clearly unjust and can only lead to corruption and eventual tyranny.

This is what is truly ironic. Liberals are now complaining about the tyranny of the Bush administration, but they fail to realize that the reason we are in the position we are today is because we the people have been handing the federal government power since the depression. Every time the people begged the federal government to intervene when some little problem arose, they gave it more and more power. Now, the federal government has so much power, and is so intertwined in every aspect of our lives that we're totally dependant on it. Bush has us by the short and curlies, there's nothing we can do about it and he's doing it all perfectly legally. He's simply using the power he's been happily given to him by federalists for the last 75 years.

Yep. This is what I keep saying. Their problems are their own making. "Daddy gubment, give us this... Daddy gubment, give us that... Daddy gubment, make the bad man stop... " and so forth.
Well, Daddy gubment's fully in charge now, and he's not only got a belt, he's got a gun. Big surprise...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Because they are proven to be wasteful, inefficient, frequently corrupt, and punitive.

The only time it is obvious that taxes are too high is if the rate is so high that reducing it increases tax revenues. The only time it is obvious that taxes are too low is never.

All taxation results in some dead-weight loss to an economy; the real question therefore is whether the tax money generated is necessary to provide services that either can't be provided by the free market (I would put defense, roads and justice in this category), or produce bad outcomes in the free market (some utilities, possibly healthcare, possibly environmental and safety standards).

No, that IS government. To protect your rights from being violated by others. The only way government can exceed that is by violating the right of some for the benefit of others, i.e. operating in opposition to its basic principle, and that is clearly unjust and can only lead to corruption and eventual tyranny.

That is certainly part of the function of government, but there are exactly zero western countries with no socialized programs, and only a minority of people who would support such a system; as such it may be a good libertarian definition of what government 'should be' but it isn't a good definition of what government is, or from all avilable evidence, what it actually has the potential to be.

Gah... why is it that authoritarians always believe that their political philosophies are somehow enlightened when there are several thousand years of history to prove that they are not?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lozina
It's dangerous to generalize. People on both sides here do things that sometimes get banned sometimes don't.

Are you threatening me?

:roll:

😕

Hmm, I suppose now I can understand why you would feel the admins are out to get you, you seem to suffer from hypersensitivity and knee-jerk over-reaction. LoL

No, you suffer from gross assumption. My complaint was that this board has been obviously cleared out of most ideological opposites, which is why the quality of the discussions here have fallen off so badly. That is all I said. Whatever else you read into that exists only in your own mind.

Well, this is what you said:

Originally posted by: Vic
This is true. I lost respect for ATPN back when the liberal bias became obvious. Then all the right-leaning posters got banned for things the lefties do everyday (i.e. Rip got banned for doing what McOwen still does everyday), and now a moderate like myself looks to the right of Attila the Hun here... it's pretty sad. Obviously, the left are cowards who are afraid of friendly debate, which is the only reason I come here.

And you cite one guy who got banned. People on both the right and left have been banned here for all the same reasons (trolling, flaming). And people on both sides have gotten away with doing those things without a ban. Whining about being picked on while only looking at one side of the coin is a bit childish wouldn't you say?

and now a moderate like myself looks to the right of Attila the Hun here...

Maybe that has something to do with how most of your posts I've recently read from you are either "Dems this" or "Dems that". For a self-proclaimed moderate you sure like to bash Dems and Libs alot.

...friendly debate, which is the only reason I come here.

Yeah you love friendly debate. That's why when I say something harmless like "it's dangerous to generalize", you get into a spastic hostile defensive mode interpreting it as some sort of threat :laugh:

"Hey Johnny, it's dangerous to cross the road without looking both ways!"

*Johnny puts up his fists* "YOU THREATENING ME?!"

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I really enjoy envrionutz hypocrisy.

Dont like fossil fuel consumption
Wont let nuclear plants be built to replace coal plants.

Need to weed ourselves off foreign oil
Wont let anybody drill for oil within the United States

Yes, that's annoying. But not hypocrisy. They want Americans to use less energy, so we don't have to pollute so much, or rely on nuclear power so much, or continue to be Saudi Arabia's bitch. And they're right.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lozina
Maybe that has something to do with how most of your posts I've recently read from you are either "Dems this" or "Dems that". For a self-proclaimed moderate you sure like to bash Dems and Libs alot.

The Dems and Libs are the ones in power on this board. That is obvious. Not only that, they're about the only ones left. I can't bash the Pubs who aren't here, now can I?

That's why when I say something harmless like "it's dangerous to generalize"

It is never harmless to tell anyone that something they are doing is "dangerous." Especially in this context, it is most certainly an implied threat.
Now, what is the point of this?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lozina
Maybe that has something to do with how most of your posts I've recently read from you are either "Dems this" or "Dems that". For a self-proclaimed moderate you sure like to bash Dems and Libs alot.

The Dems and Libs are the ones in power on this board. That is obvious. Not only that, they're about the only ones left. I can't bash the Pubs who aren't here, now can I?

If you go here:

link

you'll see some pubs chimed in. And there's always people like TastesLikeChicken who always have extreme right ideas

and generally, we don't 'bash' eachother here since none of us have any political records to criticize. Instead we talk about who's in power in the 'real world'. The people who are actually in public office. And there's plenty of loonies on both sides of the political coin to make fun of out there.

That's why when I say something harmless like "it's dangerous to generalize"

It is never harmless to tell anyone that something they are doing is "dangerous." Especially in this context, it is most certainly an implied threat.
Now, what is the point of this?

Nope, never heard of anyone going ballistic and interpreting it as a perosnal threat when they are told something is dangerous. That's a new one for the record books.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
Gah... why is it that authoritarians always believe that their political philosophies are somehow enlightened when there are several thousand years of history to prove that they are not?

All I'm saying is that the statement about Ayn Rand believeing in the necessity of government has to be qualified with an explanation that her conept of government does not particularly equate to the mainstream concept - i.e. it would be misleading to leave out the explanation.