Conservatives have to lie to support their agenda

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Conservatives have to lie to support their agenda

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives

Timetheos
Known Associate

Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 469
Location: Seattle

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: Conservatives have to lie to support their agenda

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/....._1125.html

Quote:

President George W. Bush's Labor Department misled Congress in an effort to prove outsourcing jobs to private companies was more efficient than assigning the jobs to government employees, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Monday.

The report (pdf here) found that the Department used fictional projected numbers to improve "savings reports" -- even when real numbers were already available. And when the government did find private firms to take a government job, that employee generally was either reassigned to another task with the same title or promoted...

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3576

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Conservatives have to lie to support their agenda

Not sure of your point here. So the Bush admin might not be entirely honest. Is that your point? seems sort of lame. who really thinks politicians are honest.

At any rate, private sector jobs are far better than public sector jobs. agree?

private sector jobs create new wealth. public sector jobs just transfer wealth around. nothing new is created. Do you understand this?

Timetheos
Known Associate

Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 469
Location: Seattle

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:01 am Post subject:

Better late than never eh Corno

>
Not sure of your point here. So the Bush admin might not be entirely honest. Is that your point? seems sort of lame. who really thinks politicians are honest.
<
Not necessarily. I find it funny that conservatives are whining because Obama is passing a budget with directives that he promised to try and pass (e.g., health care for all...)

Generally, Liberals are more straightforward about their goals: universal health care, gay rights,...

Conservatives have to lie. For example, the logical conclusion to anti-abortion laws is the nullification of invitro fertalization. If you can only do one egg at a time because every zygote is sacred, the procedure becomes too expensive. Currently, spares are made and frozen, and eventually they are either used in science or thrown out (of course, many like to hype the very few snowflake babiies, but they're negligible for the most part).

Conservatives know that this will never fly, so they try and hide it from the public. They don't protest in front of fertility clinics.

>
At any rate, private sector jobs are far better than public sector jobs. agree?
<

No I do not. My dad was a firefighter and so was my Grandfather, they have every right to be proud of what they did. If they didn't get paid enough, it was because of idiot conservatives.

>
private sector jobs create new wealth. public sector jobs just transfer wealth around. nothing new is created. Do you understand this?
<

You don't know dick about this so why do you even try? Public works verify that road construction meets code. Roads facilitate trade, and trade often creates wealth. And that's just one simple example.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3576

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:40 pm Post subject:

Timetheos wrote:

Conservatives have to lie. For example, the logical conclusion to anti-abortion laws is the nullification of invitro fertalization. If you can only do one egg at a time because every zygote is sacred, the procedure becomes too expensive. Currently, spares are made and frozen, and eventually they are either used in science or thrown out (of course, many like to hype the very few snowflake babiies, but they're negligible for the most part).

Conservatives know that this will never fly, so they try and hide it from the public. They don't protest in front of fertility clinics.

Where is the lie? I see cons as wanting to start with the worst cases and then move to the other cases. We first want to stop partial birth. then all abortions. then invitro, etc.

but.....I don't see any lie here. ?

Quote:

No I do not. My dad was a firefighter and so was my Grandfather, they have every right to be proud of what they did. If they didn't get paid enough, it was because of idiot conservatives.

No you missed my point. Of course, your dad and grandfather have every reason to be proud of their work. I didn't mean to imply that. I meant to imply that for an economy's health, we need private sector jobs. think about it. when someone works for the govt, they get paid by the govt. but the govt has no money of its own. it has to take money from taxpayers and use that money to pay the wages/salary of the govt workers. so govt jobs do not create any new wealth for an economy. they simply transfer wealth around.
that is why FDR's public works programs actually depressed the economy, not help it.

Quote:

You don't know dick about this so why do you even try? Public works verify that road construction meets code. Roads facilitate trade, and trade often creates wealth. And that's just one simple example.

I agree that govt projects can grease the wheels of an economy. but the govt's role here should be minimal. for example, an economy can't function well when criminals go unchecked and terrorists are blowing up shopping centers. There IS a role for the govt in an economy, but that role needs to be limited and hedged in on every side or it will grow unchecked. This is the genius of Thomas Jefferson. He recognized more than any other that a govt that is not limited will quickly grow to be socialist. that is what we see now. politicians are just giddy with all the good they think they can do with OTHER people's money. But that is just the problem with socialism......eventually you run out of other people's money.

Timetheos
Known Associate

Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 469
Location: Seattle

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:19 am Post subject:

---
Where is the lie? I see cons as wanting to start with the worst cases and then move to the other cases. We first want to stop partial birth. then all abortions. then invitro, etc.

but.....I don't see any lie here. ?
---
If you truly believe it is all murder, and a zygote is as precious as a late stage pregnancy, than there is no "worst cases"; it's all murder.

But this is another example of how anti-abortion types say it is murder, but even they don't really believe it. If they did, they would be mourning every day for the millions lost due to natural miscarriages. After all, even if it is natural causes, we mourn for the death of a 80 year old.

--
I meant to imply that for an economy's health, we need private sector jobs.
--
We need both. Countries that have little government (Afghanistan anyone) tend to be disasters.

--
that is why FDR's public works programs actually depressed the economy, not help it.
--

Bullshit. Look at the GDP charts.

--
but the govt's role here should be minimal.
--
Your opinion, not mine. Government's role should be whatever it needs to be for maximum efficiency. Sometimes it is a large role and sometimes it is very small.

--
He recognized more than any other that a govt that is not limited will quickly grow to be socialist.
--
Bullshit. First, socialism didn't exist for him to worry about it. Second, he advocated for a FEDERAL MANDATE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.

--
But that is just the problem with socialism......eventually you run out of other people's money.
--
None of the mainstream liberals here are talking about socialism just like none of the mainstream conservatives are talking about facism.

What most of us are talking about is "Welfare Capitalism" ala Norway, Sweden, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand... And even then, we advocate for more of a free market than them.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3576

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject:

Timetheos wrote:

If you truly believe it is all murder, and a zygote is as precious as a late stage pregnancy, than there is no "worst cases"; it's all murder.

not quite. We believe that all life is precious but not all life is equally precious. The life of a child nearly ready to be born is a higher priority than a baby in the first trimester. In the same way, we'd fight harder to save Barack Obama's life than mine or your's. yes?

Quote:

]
But this is another example of how anti-abortion types say it is murder, but even they don't really believe it. If they did, they would be mourning every day for the millions lost due to natural miscarriages. After all, even if it is natural causes, we mourn for the death of a 80 year old.

we do mourn every miscarriage. We had a miscarriage and we treated it as if a member of the family had died. I believe my miscarried child is now with God.

Quote:

We need both.

I agree we need both private and public sector jobs. But my point is that public sector jobs do very little for the economy and in most cases, they actually depress the economy. The only public sector jobs we need are our congressmen, president, judges and their staffs. as well as a military and a few others. Beyond that......public sector jobs hurt the economy.

Quote:

Countries that have little government (Afghanistan anyone) tend to be disasters.

Do you know how silly this is? Do you think Afghanistan's problems are b/c their govt is too small? Smile

Come on. Have you ever heard of the Taliban? I think they have something to do with Afghanistan's problems. In reality, the smaller a govt a nations has, the better off they are. The Index of Economic Freedom makes this abundantly clear.

Quote:

He recognized more than any other that a govt that is not limited will quickly grow to be socialist.

--
Bullshit. First, socialism didn't exist for him to worry about it. Second, he advocated for a FEDERAL MANDATE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.

First, socialism did exist in Jefferson's time. France was highly socialist. The govt manipulated everything and Jefferson was reacting against this.
Second, so what if Jefferson advocated for public education. Are you arguing that Jefferson was a socialist? What's your point?

Quote:

None of the mainstream liberals here are talking about socialism just like none of the mainstream conservatives are talking about facism.

They are all talking about socialism. When people start agitating for universal health care, a more progressive income tax, steep taxes on corporations, laws favoring unions, a more "generous" welfare system, bailouts of key industries, etc. etc......this is all socialism. Call it what you want......but traditionally, all of the above are tenets of socialism.

Quote:

What most of us are talking about is "Welfare Capitalism" ala Norway, Sweden, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand... And even then, we advocate for more of a free market than them.

welfare capitalism has been shown to be a failure. All of above have economies that are not nearly the equal of economies like Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Chile, etc.

Timetheos
Known Associate

Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 469
Location: Seattle

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject:

Quote:

First, socialism did exist in Jefferson's time

Socialism came out some 50 years after the resolution, and it is quite different from Communism.

Quote:

welfare capitalism has been shown to be a failure. All of above have economies that are not nearly the equal of economies like Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Chile, etc.

You see Corno, this is why I hate discussing with you: you talk in fucking circles.

We've already had complete threads on this issue.

First, Welfare capitalism has less poverty than the countries you list. Second, they tend to have higher QOL.

Read the fucking threads we've been through earlier you moron.

I'm off this board. I can't discuss things with a fucking moron such as yourself; it's like talking to a brick wall. The others on this board were right about you. Have fun talking to yourself.[/quote]

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3576

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject:

Timetheos wrote:

Socialism came out some 50 years after the resolution, and it is quite different from Communism.

what are you talking about? 50 years after what resolution? Plato knew about socialism.

and I love it when academic types wisely reply that socialism is different than communism. Wow. that's great. Basically communism is socialism taken to the extreme. beyond that....noone can tell us the difference between the two.

Quote:

You see Corno, this is why I hate discussing with you: you talk in circles.

We've already had complete threads on this issue.

First, Welfare capitalism has less poverty than the countries you list. Second, they tend to have higher QOL.

that is b/c you base all your argument on QOL. but QOL is a very unreliable guide. People in Haiti think they have high quality of life when they can find a pair of shoes. QOL is worthless. All economists rely on the big three when measuring economies: 1. unemployment, 2. GDP, 3. inflation.

There is another pretty reliable guide to the prosperity of a nation....IMMIGRATION! What country do people want to come to? Well that's rather obvious, isn't it?

and if we had a standard measurement for poverty rates, we could use this stat, but we don't.

joeyjock
Forum Elder

Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2113
Location: Fort Lauderdale

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject:

See ... we have it assed backwards here in the US\

Instead of collectives where the proceeds go to the masses our proceeds go to the corporations

Now .... I'll bet my bottom dollar that the repubs on here who rant and rave about Obama being a Socialist and the bailout of GM didn't say Jacksh*t when Ronnie, Bush One and Bush Dolt gave all that corporate welfare out for decades

Time to clean house boys

Spartacus
Newbie

Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 42

Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am Post subject:

Of course they lie to support their agenda.

Conservatives have to lie to get out of their coffins in the evening.

If conservatives didn't like they'd be liberals.

Dave Randal
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:00 am Post subject:

First of all take conservatives out of that title. Most Republicans as we know them today are not conservative. George W Bush may have been morally conservative but he was not economically conservative in just about any way. He screwed up big in his last two years and started this big trend of Government spending that Obama has continued putting us even more into debt.

You want to know who the true conservatives are you look up the word Libertarian and Ron Paul.

shankarsingam
Forum Elder

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1145

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:28 am Post subject:

Dave Randal wrote:

Bush jr didn't start the trend of big government spending, Reagan did.

And is Obama spending money on weapons and fantasy defense programs like Reagan? Is he spending it on foreign countries and wars like Bush Jr?
No, he is spending the money back in the US and Americans.

BTW Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world

jsciscoe
Newbie

Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 2

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject:

I agree that complete and total capitalism may not be a perfect system. But you dont have to be a genius to see that as welfare and public assistance becomes easier to obtain, more and more people take advantage of it and it is those hard-working citizens who have to pay for it. And to the moron who said public-sector jobs are better because his family is firefighters, you have absolutely no grasp on reality. I do not think anyone would disagree that being a firefigher or police officer is a respectable job. But every job cannot be paid for by taxes. The private sector is what drives innovation and progression. The reason wealthy people who live in countries with federal health care systems travel to the U.S. for major operations is because our private health care system is far superior. Without the incentive to make money, I have a hard time believing people would work so hard to research new medicines among other things. Capitalism is what has made our country so far ahead of many others. It gives all of the us OPPORTUNITY to succeed. That is what a "free" country that is truly equal stands for. It does not mean that all of us should be financially equal. It means that everyone has the opportunity to do so, but it is up to every individual whether that will be attained or not. Too many people think they deserve a handout when they should get off their butts and make it happen themselves. welfare is not the answer

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1568

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:40 am Post subject:

jsciscoe wrote:

The reason wealthy people who live in countries with federal health care systems travel to the U.S. for major operations is because our private health care system is far superior.

Or that our system treats the wealthy the way the wealthy want to be treated. I pay my share into the health insurance system but I sure as hell don't get all the wonderful benefits our system supposedly endows because I'm not rich. That's how capitalism works so it doesn't really bother me, but you can't say rich people come here because our system is automatically better. Money buys preferential treatment. That's why they come here.

Quote:

welfare is not the answer

I don't think you'd find many people who turn to welfare as the answer to everything.

	LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory