Most idiotic assertion of conservatives. - Page 3

Giancarlo · August 30, 2002, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

aw I missed Fez's post, darn....

actually Fez, my beliefs are quite logical. Everyone deserves a fair opprotunity in life to be successful. I.E. Free health care, education, and job placement assistance. I guess you wouldn't understand since there's no goose-stepping involved.

In my beliefs everybody has a chance. In your beliefs everybody is screwed by high progressive taxes.

Sava · August 30, 2002, 21:57

A chance to be exterminated? A chance to be forced into labor camps? A chance to be forced to be slaves to an aristocracy of ultra rich people who control the government?

Seriously... the super-rich don't need or deserve the money they have when millions in this world die every year due to starvation, disease and war.

Giancarlo · August 30, 2002, 21:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
A chance to be exterminated? A chance to be forced into labor camps? A chance to be forced to be slaves to an aristocracy of ultra rich people who control the government?

Okay I see what went wrong here... I never proposed any of that. Rather that is nazism. And I hate nazis.

Quote:

Seriously... the super-rich don't need or deserve the money they have when millions in this world die every year due to starvation, disease and war.

Oh really.. and I don't care for those problems? Actually I do and my solution is more possible. Old world stabilization.

Sava · August 30, 2002, 22:03

It's obvious that you don't care about those problems. You'd probably conscript the people in third world countries to fight other countries that resisted your sick authoritarian government.

Giancarlo · August 30, 2002, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
It's obvious that you don't care about those problems.

You stuck up impudent... I do care about those problems... you rather have no right to say what I don't care about.

Quote:

You'd probably conscript the people in third world countries to fight other countries that resisted your sick authoritarian government.

You pathetic pig... I would never do anything like that.

Stop this... your trolls suck like crap. I had fun with Civnation but you are no fun.

Sava · August 30, 2002, 22:13

Fez, getting you mad is so fun!

Giancarlo · August 30, 2002, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

Fez, getting you mad is so fun!

You truely are a pig. Why are you obsessed with me? I am not your type anyways... so don't try...

Sava · August 30, 2002, 22:17

MUHAHAHAH you're so sexy Fez, especially when you're angry.

Giancarlo · August 30, 2002, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
MUHAHAHAH you're so sexy Fez, especially when you're angry.

STOP IT, YOU ARE MAKING ME TURN RED!

Do you really want a relationship... then contact me by Private Message or ICQ (65368669)....

Sava · August 30, 2002, 22:21

Giancarlo · August 30, 2002, 22:22

Sava, I am open...

Guynemer · August 30, 2002, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
Actually the whole idea of labeling people one thing or another is misleading. When I rail against liberals I must say that I really do not know any who fit the sterotype (except for some who post here). A true liberal should be thought of as a kind hearted person who wants to share the world's resources with the less fortunate.

On the other hand a true conservative is one who wants to conserve things that have been proven to work to accomplish justice and opportunity for everyone. It should be remembered that it was conservatives who have fed and clothed the poor for centuries. They did and still do have compassion for less fortunate people just like the true liberal does. The difference really is the methods used to accomplish the same end. One side would compell the other would do it freely.

Of course now everything is twisted. The conservatives are viewed as greedy businessmen and the liberals are viewed as elitist know-it-alls who think they have the wisdom to rule the world and distribute other peoples resources. I belong to neither group and most of my liberal friends do not either. Too bad that jerks have taken these labels so that real compassionate conservatives and liberals are at each other's throats.

Well said, Lincoln. This liberal agrees 100%.

Don't let it go to your head.

connorkimbro · August 30, 2002, 23:10

Quote:

Troll: 0.0001 out of 10. Better luck next time.

At least we right-wingers are not as braindead as the left.

I'm starting to look forward to your posts. They're becoming really really funny to me.

connorkimbro · August 30, 2002, 23:12

awww, i see your gay again! how cute

little gianny

nationalist · August 30, 2002, 23:13

I think that the stupidest assertion of Republicans is that the best system is laissez-faire capitalism. It has been shown time and again that businessmen care only about profit, regardless of the damage they do to their nation or to society. I disagree greatly with many assertions of moderate conservatives. That's why I didn't vote Republican.

Giancarlo · August 30, 2002, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
awww, i see your gay again! how cute

little gianny

No, I am just really desperate.

Nationalist: I fail to see your point. I am completely pro-free market and hate government interference... and I think differently. For now on I would like for you to not categorize me with your political beliefs because it just doesn't work.

mindseye · August 31, 2002, 02:20

Boris on Rush, et al:

Quote:

I said "Non-authoritarian," not "non-authoritative."

Asher · August 31, 2002, 02:27

The most idiotic assertion of conservatives is that the market should be left alone.
Anyone with a frickin clue can tell that letting the government have tons of control over the economy is an ultimate good thing. This way everyone can get paid $100000 per hour, and goods can have a price ceiling on them at $0.01 each (even cars!). When will the idiot righties learn that we're all better off making $10B per year each with goods restricted at $0.01 each?

CapitanGarlic · August 31, 2002, 02:35

Optomistic or Idealistic?

also, is that canadian currency?

Asher · August 31, 2002, 02:36

That post was not to be taken seriously, btw.

And there is no Canadian currency. It's all a big conspiracy.

KrazyHorse · August 31, 2002, 02:39

We just use maple syrup and hockey pucks....

CapitanGarlic · August 31, 2002, 02:40

Don't worry; I try never to be serious.

Giancarlo · August 31, 2002, 09:45

Where is Canada? Isn't it that big state of the US up north?

Sava · August 31, 2002, 09:47

laissez faire capitalism is anarchy... you don't let the inmates run the prison.

Giancarlo · August 31, 2002, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
laissez faire capitalism is anarchy... you don't let the inmates run the prison.

What an incorrect correlation. So you let the state run the economy?

So the economy screws up like that of the Soviet Union?

Sava · August 31, 2002, 09:59

No, it's a balance.

COmmunism ---------- IDEAL ---------- Laissez Faire

The Ideal is somewhere in the middle. In terms of American Capitalism...

Communism ---------- IDEAL ---- American Cap ------ Laissez Faire

We need to be more to the left

Giancarlo · August 31, 2002, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
No, it's a balance.

COmmunism ---------- IDEAL ---------- Laissez Faire

The Ideal is somewhere in the middle. In terms of American Capitalism...

Communism ---------- IDEAL ---- American Cap ------ Laissez Faire

We need to be more to the left

Nobody is extreme laissez faire around here Sava, not even me. I do advocate policing of the economy so more Enron type incidents do not occur. I would be more towards the right though as I am against general government interference besides law enforcement.

And I am not for socialism, that is no ideal.

Sava · August 31, 2002, 10:10

All I want is free, or extremely low cost health-care and education. I also think that profiteering shouldn't run rampant in the energy industry. Don't think that I want extremely high progressive taxes, or the state taking property. I don't. I just look at the current situation in the US, and I think that corporate America is profiting off of some industries where profits should take a backseat to safety, health, and the general welfare of people.

The number thing that I would be for, is the creation of non-profit drug companies that would provide medical supplies and low cost drugs to people and hospitals. Drug companies are taking money left and right from the sick and needy.

The second thing that I would like to see done is more government intervention in the energy industry. If Reagan hadn't de-regulated things, Enron would have never even existed, let alone committed such a heinous act of greed. Enron's only function was buying energy from power plants, raising the price, and then selling it to consumers. They didn't produce one watt, one BTU of energy. They didn't improve its efficiency, or make it cleaner and less polluting. They simply raised the price to make money.

I think that certain industries could be almost laissez faire. Luxury goods, etc. Basically, things that people don't need to survive.

Education is another area where corporations should not be allowed to profit.

EDIT: Government as we know it is just a swollen bureaucracy. I sure as hell don't want some bureaucrat in charge of things. The problem in this country is that we elect politicians, bureaucrats, and greedy CEO's when we need leaders.

Giancarlo · August 31, 2002, 10:23

Sava, you have your opinions and I have mine.

I think deregulation was good in the energy market as Reagan was completely right about the economy. Additionally, free or low cost health care and education? How would you achieve this without raising taxes? I really want to know.

I think most if not all industries should be laissez faire but law enforcement must be apparent.

You have your leaders... CEOs are better than some hot air windbag political activist.

Sava · August 31, 2002, 11:19

Fez, the only "good" thing (and I use that term loosely) that came from de-regulation of the energy market was that Enron type companies made money. And they made that money at the expense of consumers. So I ask you... is it better that consumers have more money, or energy trading corporations?

Second... public schools in the United States are funded by tax-payer money. I would suggest the creation of non-profit corporation(s) that would serve as publishers, suppliers, and be responsible for hiring and maintaining a high standard for teachers. All things being equal, this would lower costs. After that is done, I would lower property taxes and pass the savings on to the tax payer. Consumers have more money.

As for health care. I would do the same non-profit thing for drug companies and medical suppliers. Which would drastically reduce costs across the board. Did you know that, for instance, companies routinely have profit margins of 2,000% on medical supplies? And drug companies are just plain evil. There is more than enough info out there. All things being equal, you lower the cost of health care to the consumer based on the savings. Consumer have more money.

With the combined savings from just those two industries, consumers would save enough money to be able to buy more. This would strengthen the economy. The only loser(s) in all of this are the CEO's and executives that won't be getting huge bonuses and outrageous salaries from these non-profit entities. You could even pay employees who work for these companies slightly more and still have a susbstantial savings for the consumer.

This is more of an indirect way of re-distributing wealth down to the lower classes. But keep in mind, that most of this wealth would be put back into the economy in the form of luxury goods.

Sure, my model is little more than scratchings on a napkin. But the basic concepts are sound and could be implemented rather easily. What, in particular, do you disagree with here Fez?