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

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
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.

Really? That's odd... considering that Rand's concept of government comes directly from the US Constitution. I'm curious how that could not be the "mainstream concept" in the US... who is being misleading?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 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.

Uh huh. Let's have them demonstrate by riding a bike.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
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.

Really? That's odd... considering that Rand's concept of government comes directly from the US Constitution. I'm curious how that could not be the "mainstream concept" in the US... who is being misleading?

What western nation has a functioning concept of government remotely close to what Rand espouses?

Personally, I think public goods are an important function of government, which is to say that in my opinion Rand's concept of government is incomplete. I recognize that 'I say so' isn't a very good argument for objection though, so how about it - a country with strong economic and personal freedoms, and no government social programs.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
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.

Really? That's odd... considering that Rand's concept of government comes directly from the US Constitution. I'm curious how that could not be the "mainstream concept" in the US... who is being misleading?

What western nation has a functioning concept of government remotely close to what Rand espouses?

Personally, I think public goods are an important function of government, which is to say that in my opinion Rand's concept of government is incomplete. I recognize that 'I say so' isn't a very good argument for objection though, so how about it - a country with strong economic and personal freedoms, and no government social programs.

That country would be the United States pre-Roosevelt.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

That country would be the United States pre-Roosevelt.

All toll roads?

All private education?

Maybe I'm even more ignorant of history than I thought😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

That country would be the United States pre-Roosevelt.

All toll roads?

All private education?

Maybe I'm even more ignorant of history than I thought😉

The National Road (aka Cumberland Road) was a toll road. Education and city streets were all funded strictly on the local level. That was how the US was founded. Not necessarily "private" in the modern sense, but decidedly non-federal. Only those who used a service had to pay for it. If a service was public, then it was local. It was genius. You really ought to look into it.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

That country would be the United States pre-Roosevelt.

All toll roads?

All private education?

Maybe I'm even more ignorant of history than I thought😉

The National Road (aka Cumberland Road) was a toll road. Education and city streets were all funded strictly on the local level. That was how the US was founded. Not necessarily "private" in the modern sense, but decidedly non-federal. Only those who used a service had to pay for it. If a service was public, then it was local. It was genius. You really ought to look into it.

Who would fund NASA and military programs?

How would the local municipalities afford to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge?

Don't get me wrong though. I'm all for less government.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: lozina
Who would fund NASA and military programs?

How would the local municipalities afford to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge?

Don't get me wrong though. I'm all for less government.

IIRC, the federal government's inability to raise funds for an effective military was the (simplified) reason for the rewriting of your Constitution X numbers of years ago. They were correct in amending that error, but it really oughtn't have needed to go much farther than that. NASA is at its root an arm of the military and is thus taken care of.

Interstate roads and bridges are a state responsibility, are they not? They're a provincial one up here. All this is immaterial. The point is that the enormous number of public services the federal government of America provides are inevitably misallocated and wasteful because the greater the size of the bank account, the easier it is to funnel a few dollars here and there without anyone noticing. Keeping it small (municipal level) keeps it honest - to the greatest degree possible anyways.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lozina
Who would fund NASA and military programs?

How would the local municipalities afford to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge?

Don't get me wrong though. I'm all for less government.

NASA is a failure. I thought that was obvious. It would be much better if a consortium of private industry was taking us into space. We might actually get there someday.

Military should never be private. "Provide for the common defense." Where did I imply otherwise?

In 1961, an entirely toll-funded "bridge to nowhere" was proposed. It would be the longest bridge of its type in the world, and would be in a sparsely-populated rural area. Despite the controvery, the bridge was completed in 1966. In its first 6 months of operation, it collected more in tolls than had been projected for the first 2 years. By 1993, the tolls paid off the bonds (used for to pay for the construction) 2 years early, a permanent fund was established for maintenance, and the tolls were removed. The bridge is now permanently free -- tax dollars were not used for its construction nor are they used now for its maintenance. This bridge btw is the Astoria Bridge, which crosses from Oregon to Washington state at the 5 mile-wide mouth of the Columbia River.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: yllus
The point is that the enormous number of public services the federal government of America provides are inevitably misallocated and wasteful because the greater the size of the bank account, the easier it is to funnel a few dollars here and there without anyone noticing. Keeping it small (municipal level) keeps it honest - to the greatest degree possible anyways.

Yeah that makes perfect sense and I mostly agree, but it's not simply because these public services are enormous. It more has to do with their completely uneccessary complexity that leads to corruption and money misallocation. It's easy to cheat on taxes because the tax laws are so damn complex it takes alot of time and money for IRS to audit a single individual. If it were simply a flat tax rate, it would be difficult to cheat.

Just like the laws Congress passes, like this 1,800 or whatever page highway law that was recently passed, right? I don't think anybody who voted for it read it all and understands it all.

 

[Tab]

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.

Actually, I enjoy many of your threads. It's just you have some rather harsh tendacies and come of a bit as an elitist. 😉 Or maybe you just enjoy playing the devils advocate? :evil:

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Tab

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.

Actually, I enjoy many of your threads. It's just you have some rather harsh tendacies and come of a bit as an elitist. 😉 Or maybe you just enjoy playing the devils advocate? :evil:

Anytime certain posters can make statements that a president is a murderer, liar, that military are slaves, that those who disagree are traitors, and get away with such conduct, then I definitly would agree there is a bias here.

Leftists can post trolls, but let a conservative do so, and they are banned.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
Actually, I enjoy many of your threads. It's just you have some rather harsh tendacies and come of a bit as an elitist. 😉 Or maybe you just enjoy playing the devils advocate? :evil:

Oops, missed this one. 😱

Thanks. Uh, both actually. I like to stir the pot, break the mold, get the mental juices flowing in people, if you know what I mean. In my experience, most people won't think until you challenge them to do so (and often not even then). My harsh tendencies usually come from the fact that I dislike repeating myself. Surely you've noticed that sometimes you have to keep making the same argument over and over again, and I just don't always have the patience for that. And then there's those people that have such obviously contradictory and poorly-thought-out opinions that you really gotta smack 'em upside the head in order to at least show them the errors in their thinking.
I don't see anything wrong with this. First and foremost, we are all human beings, and we are all deserving of the rights to life and freedom, individually and equally. If you pay attention, you might notice that those I treat most harshly are those who have forgotten the humanity of others, and who seek (in some fashion or another) to attack the freedoms of others, be they right, left, rich, poor, I don't care.

 

[Engineer]

Not sure about social conservatives, as the do tend to get under my skin, but fiscal conservatives, or so called, are actually more of a hyprocrit than anyone social. I'm not talking about the sensible person on the street, I'm talking about so-called fiscal conservatives in Washington, DC and at the state level. No such person anymore actually in politics, as they're all two faced pandering fools.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Not sure about social conservatives, as the do tend to get under my skin, but fiscal conservatives, or so called, are actually more of a hyprocrit than anyone social. I'm not talking about the sensible person on the street, I'm talking about so-called fiscal conservatives in Washington, DC and at the state level. No such person anymore actually in politics, as they're all two faced pandering fools.

From Tom Clancy's book, The Hunt for Red October: "Listen, Jack, I'm a politician. That means I'm a liar and a cheat. When I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops."

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Not sure about social conservatives, as the do tend to get under my skin, but fiscal conservatives, or so called, are actually more of a hyprocrit than anyone social. I'm not talking about the sensible person on the street, I'm talking about so-called fiscal conservatives in Washington, DC and at the state level. No such person anymore actually in politics, as they're all two faced pandering fools.

From Tom Clancy's book, The Hunt for Red October: "Listen, Jack, I'm a politician. That means I'm a liar and a cheat. When I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops."

Taking that from you Vic, I assume you (sarcastically) agree? 😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Not sure about social conservatives, as the do tend to get under my skin, but fiscal conservatives, or so called, are actually more of a hyprocrit than anyone social. I'm not talking about the sensible person on the street, I'm talking about so-called fiscal conservatives in Washington, DC and at the state level. No such person anymore actually in politics, as they're all two faced pandering fools.

From Tom Clancy's book, The Hunt for Red October: "Listen, Jack, I'm a politician. That means I'm a liar and a cheat. When I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops."

Taking that from you Vic, I assume you (sarcastically) agree? 😉

Well... poor budget practices is big business for politicians. Taxpayers don't like paying taxes, recipients don't like having their checks stopped, bureaucrats don't like having their budgets cut, and bankers and investors like bonds.