Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 346 to 358 of 358

Thread: Libertarians

  1. #346
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    Um, nope, they paid them a clear wage, one that was agreed upon by the workers up to that point. Negotiating for higher pay is one thing, but what the Bakers union did was put a gun to Hostess's head and demand higher pay. At that point, it is no longer a negotiation between equal parties, it's a terrorist trying to extort someone for money. Per constitutional guidelines, that is just flat wrong.
    Now, in this, I have no argument with you .. I agree with your assessment. 'It's a terrorist trying to extort someone for money' is an excellent way of putting it.

    The thing that Libertarians bear in mind is that BOTH the individual employees, and the individual business owners, have the same rights. An employee's rights should never come up to the level of, "I can put you on your knees, and kill your livelihood", period. That's no point at which that is okay behavior.
    Again, very good point.

    As well, both Unions and Corporations are authoritarian groups, capable of influence, and thus also capable of abusing that influence. Both need to be reined in, or else people's rights are just flatly going to get trampled. They should be equal in power, but because Unions started out at the low level of power, in answer to abuses by the companies of the time, they continued to receive more power to be able to balance out against the companies they worked for. As is the case with most social pushes, that level of power was not reduced when the unions became powerful enough to stand against the corporations, and thus the power swung unfairly in favor of Unions.

    That is neither fair, nor just. It does nothing to enhance liberty, and only ensures a form of back and forth tyranny.
    A somewhat fair overall point, though perhaps more open to question. A Corporation may exist, in effect, as an authoritarian group ... but to be factored into this is the right of the Corporation to actually run its own affairs as it chooses !

    Along comes a Union, formed out of individuals' stated wishes for, as they claim, 'fair pay', 'fair conditions', proper respect to be shown to each individual member. Now ... I do NOT agree that Corporations and Unions should meet as 'equals', because in that scenario, you detract from the right the Corporation has to run its affairs as it sees fit. Those Corporations didn't plan for, nor ask for, a bunch of Union types to come along and act as any sort of brake for any of the Corporation's aspirations or goals. But if those two groups meet as equals, the Corporation's right and freedom to determine its own direction, much less its destiny, is thrown into perhaps fundamental doubt.

    I cannot believe that a Union can have the right to do that. HOWEVER ... the individuals within the Union involved will use strength in numbers to try and fight their plans, if those plans clash with their own. A group of individuals fighting an 'authoritative body' ... and for what ? A recognisable LEFT WING victory ?

    A total lack of government is just anarchy, which is asinine. Anarchy will always lead to tyranny, just the way that one shakes down. The libertarian ideal is to always make sure we are handling things at the lowest level possible (Increased states rights vs federal rights), and to restrict government from exceeding its authority.
    ... which sounds actually laudible. However, this assumes that society's conditions are unchanging. This is rarely, if ever, true.

    The unfortunate problem is there is always an excuse for increasing power to the government when it shouldn't be, whether it's "For the children" or "Otherwise, the terrorist's win" or any of the whole slew of other runs of it.
    Excuse, or, REASON ? 9/11 really did happen, and a new and pernicious enemy came within everyone's radar. Conditions changed, as did imperatives. Al Qaeda committed what was essentially an act of war, this necessitating that the US adopt a war footing to meet that challenge, a challenge it hadn't asked for.

    You can't expect peacetime conditions to persist in such circumstances. Government needed more powers, and took them. GW Bush did nothing more than meet a new situation in properly realistic terms ... AND IN DOING SO, SHOWED THE ADAPTATION WHICH HIS CONSERVATIVE INSTINCTS REQUIRED.

    It is Left wingers who rail against the War on Terror, and 'loss' of liberties which a war footing can and will cause. As would LIBERTARIANS.

    When tested, Libertarians take a LEFT WING mindset on board.

    Do you know that UK Libertarians, as the Libertarian Party's recent election manifesto made clear (.. yes, UK Libertarian are so 'individualistic' that they formed their own political Party !), that they were totally opposed to seeing Britain ever come to the aid of the US again in such circumstances ? That's something that our hard Left Parties would applaud.

    For instance, when Bush threatened to put us into war using the War Powers Act, that was a direct abuse of the authority given in that Act. The idea of the bill was to make it so that the Commander-in-Chief could respond quickly to an attack, so that we wouldn't be bogged down in Congress while the enemy went on the offensive. It wasn't put in so that the President could get around Congress.

    The Patriot Act is another example of this, wherein politicians used fear to get people to go along with a bill that hugely tilted the government's power and authority.
    Perhaps my ignorance of American politics is playing its part here ... but I'm struggling to see the problem. Bush did not 'put you into war', all he was doing was providing the necessary and appropriate response to a war already STARTED BY YOUR ENEMY.

    In other words, Conservative realism took hold, just as it should. Bush defended your country. In the meantime, all the disgusting Left could do was carp.
    Last edited by Drummond; 05-21-2015 at 09:59 AM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  2. Thanks LongTermGuy thanked this post
  3. #347
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    583
    Thanks (Given)
    388
    Thanks (Received)
    708
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    340515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunny View Post
    my "rewad" for a successful tour as a hat was a trip to hqmc when it was still in arlington at the navy annex. I got the asshattery down pat.

    Barbara boxer loved me. In fact, i was invited to never come back.
    lol

  4. #348
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    'Copious' links ... seriously ?

    More typically, you spend your time on abusive (and diversionary) rewrites and misrepresentations of my 'quoted' postings ...

    If, above, you're referring to my failure to provide a link (a clear statement of evidence) between the Libertarian Movement and Trade Unions, can I point out that you, in turn, have failed to do the same to prove beyond doubt that a pencil is a pencil ?? I actually HAVE asked you to ...

    It's highly relevant that you do so. It must be. Because, you see, Libertarians and Trade Unions are THE SAME. Just as a pencil is the same as .. a pencil.

    Compare what it is that a Trade Unionist claims he'd be fighting for, with what Libertarians say they want. Consider particularly the record British Trade Unions have in taking on Governments, with a view to defying and diminishing their power (even to outright nonexistence, as happened in February 1974), and their insistence upon shrugging off any and all strictures Governments would seek to apply to them ?

    Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian (... yet, you seem to be ??). She fought the Unions, she did so effectively, and through by far the most effective means available to her .. THE POWER OF THE STATE.
    Yes, copious links that you've been ignoring. And if you'd spend less time whining and more time discussing then all of this would take less time.

    But you are incredibly wrong; Of course I grant that a pencil is a pencil but a pencil not a hammer which is what you're suggesting when you state that Libertarians are the same as the Trade Unionists. That's why you need a link because what you state is ridiculous.

    And I never stated that Mags was a Libertarian. Plenty of others have made a connection which is one of the copious links you've ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    .. See, there's the flaw in your 'reasoning', right there.

    You refuse to see that 'big Government' solutions can be, or ever are, Conservative ones. That is your big mistake.

    Anyone claiming that I fight for big Government, because I want big Government, is misrepresenting my viewpoint. I, along with other Conservatives, much prefer small Government, with the individual taking as much responsibility for his or her own life and destiny as is possible. THAT SAID .... there are times, in life, when only a big Government solution will do.

    Whether or not you like or dislike that is irrelevant. It happens to be the truth. Deal with it.

    A true Conservative is not so completely enslaved to dogma that realism cannot be accommodated when necessary. It's one of the things separating us from Lefties .. Lefties are all about only recognising their insisted-upon vision of a worldview as valid. No .. sometimes, the power of the State just has to intervene.

    I'm sure this was what drove Reagan during those examples you cite. Equally, in the UK, Trade Union reform via State legislation was .. simply .. NECESSARY. The alternative would've been a wrecked economy and a basket-case of a trading base.

    Consider the response necessary to 9/11, by the way. What ELSE but a 'big Government' approach could have possibly served ???

    One of the chief things marking you out as a Leftie, FJ, is how completely wedded you are to dogma. You CANNOT move past it. You cannot approach issues with realism guiding you, just as a Leftie can't. Lefties have their worldview, which they insist upon, come-what-may .. didn't Stalin have his five year plans ?

    But Conservatives, in power, have to be different. It isn't lacking in Conservatism to apply whatever solutions best fix a problem ! Only a Leftie mind would absolutely insist that narrow dogma must never, ever, be deviated from by even a fraction of an inch.
    Big government solutions are NEVER conservative solutions. That is your mistake. If you defend big government as some sort of solution then clearly you see the need for big government to solve some sort of problem. Conservative is small government because small government is superior, conservatism is NOT small government unless we happen to think big government is better.

    BTW your leftie drivel is what shows you to be a talentless hack. My apologies for "attacking" you but your inane drivel when you get backed into a corner is annoying. Do you know how many on this board have Libertarian leanings? It must gall you that you can't call them lefties. You suck at this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Congratulations in recognising that, FJ. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

    BUT WASN'T IT THEIR PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO PROBLEMS, THEIR PRAGMATISM, THAT HELPED MAKE THAT TRUE ??
    If you'd been paying attention I've never said otherwise. You've been too stuck in your imagination to see what you don't want to see. But no, it wasn't their "pragmatism" that made it so. If they had to give something to get something it doesn't make what they had to give a conservative solution. That's not a hard thing to grasp... or shouldn't be.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  5. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
  6. #349
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    If by 'progressive', you mean to suggest it was somehow deemable a Left wing act ... I do indeed disagree !! Lady Thatcher had a problem to fix, and it required a practical and effective solution to do so. Since when was it a 'Left wing' act to be practical in fixing problems ??

    Perhaps, if you'd been in her shoes, you would've come up with a more 'Conservative' solution to power-crazed Union wreckers ? Can you tell me what that solution - given the absolute need to apply one - would have been ?
    A conservative solution would be one that involves deregulation and a decrease in the government granted power of a union.

    From 1979, a new Conservative government took a strongly sceptical policy to all forms of labour law and regulation. During the 1980s ten major Acts gradually reduced the autonomy of trade unions and the legality of industrial action.[30] Reforms to the internal structure of unions mandated that representatives be elected and a ballot is taken before a strike, that no worker could strike in sympatheticsecondary action with workers with a different employer, and that employers could not run a closed shop system of requiring all workers to join the recognised union. The wage councils were dismantled. A public campaign against the merits of unions paralleled the decline of membership and collective agreement coverage to under 40 per cent. In addition, the government opted out of the EUSocial Chapter in the Maastricht Treaty.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_labour_law

    footnote:
    Employment Act 1980 (trade union right to government funds for ballots, narrowed picketting immunity, reduced secondary action immunity, unions right to expel members limited), Employment Act 1982(narrowed "trade dispute" definition), Trade Union Act 1984 (secret ballots for union elections and strikes),Public Order Act 1986 (set out offences related to picketing, and increased police power over groups of over 20 people), Wages Act 1986 (deregulated restrictions on employers fining and deducting money from employees' pay, removed statutory holiday entitlement, reduced state funding for redundancies),Employment Act 1988 (worker's right to not join a union, trade union member's right to challenge strike ballots),Employment Act 1989 (restricted trade union officials' time off for duties, abolished the Training Commission, abolished government support for redundancy payments), Employment Act 1990 (removing closed shop and secondary action protection), TULRCA 1992(consolidated legislation hitherto), Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 (trade union duty to inform employers of upcoming strikes)
    That seems to be on the whole what occurred. Reagan used the power of government, because they were the employer, to vastly limit the power of a union. On the whole; a conservative solution along the lines of Thatcher's actions IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Government power has its uses, and its place. If it didn't, it could be dispensed with entirely.

    I say that a proper Conservative approach has to be one tempered by realism. Reagan and Thatcher both gave us examples of this in action. For which ... they get attacked ?!?

    You surely have to wonder WHY their very successful approaches to issues they faced earns them criticism, when that criticism comes from a source purporting to NOT be in outright opposition to them ....
    Who attacked Reagan and Thatcher? Nevertheless nobody here is arguing that their non-conservative solutions were successful... except for you so far.
    Last edited by fj1200; 05-21-2015 at 04:24 PM.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  7. #350
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    A somewhat fair overall point, though perhaps more open to question. A Corporation may exist, in effect, as an authoritarian group ... but to be factored into this is the right of the Corporation to actually run its own affairs as it chooses !
    Yes, while a Corporation should be able to run its own affairs, it is also a group made up of individuals, and a union of employees should have a degree of say in their treatment, and the ability to effect reasonable change, such as getting fair pay for their work, better working conditions, and such.

    As long as the balance of power is essentially equal, this actually aids both corporation and union, ensuring a motivated employee base that feels that they work in partnership with their employers, as opposed to being a set of disposable numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Along comes a Union, formed out of individuals' stated wishes for, as they claim, 'fair pay', 'fair conditions', proper respect to be shown to each individual member. Now ... I do NOT agree that Corporations and Unions should meet as 'equals', because in that scenario, you detract from the right the Corporation has to run its affairs as it sees fit. Those Corporations didn't plan for, nor ask for, a bunch of Union types to come along and act as any sort of brake for any of the Corporation's aspirations or goals. But if those two groups meet as equals, the Corporation's right and freedom to determine its own direction, much less its destiny, is thrown into perhaps fundamental doubt.
    But again, Corporations have a form of influence and authority, and thus, are prone to abuse. To simply left them run unchecked from within is to essentially ensure the repeated collapse of the economy through boom and bust thinking.

    Again, as long as the two are working in the same basic direction, Unions can be a great thing, a natural balance that makes certain that the corporations are still acting in a manner that is conducive to their continued growth.

    The main problem is that Unions were allowed too much power, and this is the place we find ourselves. As example of this: The Autoworkers Union. This is a unionization of an entire industry, which, really, is monopolistic, as it is made of every worker in the automotive industry, allowing them unfair leverage over the auto companies. If there were, say, the Ford Automotive Industry, that's perfectly fine. The whole sum of the employees of Ford should have a degree of say in their working conditions, as well as fair wages for their work. However, Dodge's workers should definitely not have a say in Ford's working conditions. Under the current rules, though, they do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    I cannot believe that a Union can have the right to do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    HOWEVER ... the individuals within the Union involved will use strength in numbers to try and fight their plans, if those plans clash with their own. A group of individuals fighting an 'authoritative body' ... and for what ? A recognisable LEFT WING victory ?
    It shouldn't be a fight to begin with, but that is all the current system puts forth. In allowing unchecked power of any one group, that group will assert that power over their rival. Groups that are of equal power are more likely to work together than for one to attempt domination of the other. This is simple human nature, and it is why checks and balances need to be observed.


    ... which sounds actually laudible. However, this assumes that society's conditions are unchanging. This is rarely, if ever, true.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Excuse, or, REASON ? 9/11 really did happen, and a new and pernicious enemy came within everyone's radar. Conditions changed, as did imperatives. Al Qaeda committed what was essentially an act of war, this necessitating that the US adopt a war footing to meet that challenge, a challenge it hadn't asked for.
    Yes, on 9/11 we were attacked... by the least capable, least well-armed, and least-numerous enemy we have ever face in our history. Not even when fighting opponents like The Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets did we abandon our belief in liberty, so why do these pissants get it? They have never, not once, one a single battle, getting in a single suckerpunch that precipitated us crushing whole countries.

    There's this exchange in The Avengers that I love between Coulson and Loki:

    "You're going to lose."
    "Am I?"
    "It's in your nature."

    This is the current situation as it stands. The terrorists, they're going to lose, because their nature prevents them from ever achieving victory. There is no future where they succeed, because, in the end, liberty is intrinsic to life, and they stand directly against such liberty. They might as well try to yell back the tide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    You can't expect peacetime conditions to persist in such circumstances. Government needed more powers, and took them. GW Bush did nothing more than meet a new situation in properly realistic terms ... AND IN DOING SO, SHOWED THE ADAPTATION WHICH HIS CONSERVATIVE INSTINCTS REQUIRED.

    It is Left wingers who rail against the War on Terror, and 'loss' of liberties which a war footing can and will cause. As would LIBERTARIANS.


    Yeah, it's not really that much of war. Sorry, but name a single victory our opponents have ever actually had? Whack-a-Mole isn't a war, and regardless of how it plays out, it goes badly for the moles. The only thing that they can even hope for is that we are a distracted for a moment here or there, so we don't catch their particular mole on the head before they go back to hiding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    When tested, Libertarians take a LEFT WING mindset on board.

    Do you know that UK Libertarians, as the Libertarian Party's recent election manifesto made clear (.. yes, UK Libertarian are so 'individualistic' that they formed their own political Party !), that they were totally opposed to seeing Britain ever come to the aid of the US again in such circumstances ? That's something that our hard Left Parties would applaud.



    Perhaps my ignorance of American politics is playing its part here ... but I'm struggling to see the problem. Bush did not 'put you into war', all he was doing was providing the necessary and appropriate response to a war already STARTED BY YOUR ENEMY.

    In other words, Conservative realism took hold, just as it should. Bush defended your country. In the meantime, all the disgusting Left could do was carp.
    That is the fault of our president in the manner in which he went to war. He could have easily told the truth and gotten people in on it, or alternatively, kept focus on our real enemy, Bin Laden, but no, he allowed Bin Laden to distract him into going into Iraq, who knew it would turn into a total cluster fuck.

    We created these enemies, Saddam, AQ, ISIS. They're our monsters, created because we don't go show the patience to go about things the correct way. Even the English have had their hand in stirring the pot in the middle-east in the way they handled Israel. Government power used irresponsibly leads only to suffering.

    Iraq started no war with us, they just started a pissing contest, one they'd run pretty much every year or two so that Saddam could make the various groups that wanted to murder each other more afraid of him, and stay in line. Bin Laden decided to institute his own mugging, nothing more. Again, he cannot and will not win, that was never a possibility, due to the sheer costs such victory would require. Why shame our morals and ethics for such a pathetic opponent?

    Calling it a war really isn't the best term, because really, it isn't a war. It's a bunch of guys constantly losing almost every single engagement, and once in a blue moon getting off a single jab at us, once about every decade or so as they are driven further into hiding. Again, there is no world in which they are a worthy opponent to us. The only thing that makes the even newsworthy is us deciding they're newsworthy. Sort of like the Steelers.

    What you call realism is the worst form of self-delusion. It was our forefathers who saw the reality, and set our system to protect us against our own nature to rationalize away our own rights. This is what the Libertarians here strive to protect.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  8. Thanks Kathianne, fj1200 thanked this post
  9. #351
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Of course I grant that a pencil is a pencil but a pencil not a hammer which is what you're suggesting when you state that Libertarians are the same as the Trade Unionists. That's why you need a link because what you state is ridiculous.
    You're playing games here. What's the same about Libertarians and Trade Unions isn't concerned with strength of actions, but an interlocking of individuals' beliefs, what Unions and Libertarians alike say they want to represent.

    Trade Unions are all about 'strength in numbers'. Whilst Libertarians might not be nearly as willing to openly admit the soundness of that principle, the British Libertarians aren't as shy about doing so. They play the 'political party' game, which is ultimately ALL about that, along with Governmental power ... and the wielding of it through a unified effort. And that is the same power-in-numbers game as forms the bedrock of Union power.

    Analyse what drives Trade Unionists. Analyse what drives Libertarians. See if you can insert so much as a cigarette paper between any differences at all.

    And I never stated that Mags was a Libertarian.
    No, I don't believe you did. Nonetheless, don't you identify as either a Libertarian yourself, or, someone sympathetic to their stated ideal ? Which is curious behaviour isn't it, coming as it 'does' from 'The One True Thatcherite', or 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'.

    Use such expressions of support for her, and you say that you are THE most loyal follower of all she stood for, that the world has seen !! Yet, you also identify with Libertarianism ??!?

    Doesn't make sense, FJ. UNLESS YOU ARE A FRAUD.

    Plenty of others have made a connection which is one of the copious links you've ignored.
    Such perceptions came from people who wanted to explain away her departure from the old bog-standard, comparatively non-evolved, version of British Conservatism that had existed before her. And they are only PERCEPTIONS, borne of opinions. There is a better way to view what Lady Thatcher was all about ... namely, FACTUALLY, based on evidence of what she SAID and DID.

    Big government solutions are NEVER conservative solutions. That is your mistake. If you defend big government as some sort of solution then clearly you see the need for big government to solve some sort of problem. Conservative is small government because small government is superior, conservatism is NOT small government unless we happen to think big government is better.
    Small Government is superior, you say. I note you've been a little shy about saying that big Government ACTIONS are inferior. How come ?

    Well, it's obvious. There are times when nothing else will do. Margaret Thatcher couldn't have stemmed Trade Union wrecking actions by small Government methodology. Then again, GW Bush couldn't have come up with any appropriate and effective response to 9/11 unless he'd used the full weight of Government powers to do it.

    If you argue otherwise .. and since you say that small Government is superior .. I challenge you to come up with small Government solutions to each of these two problems I've touched upon.

    I say you can't do so. And, why ? BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ONLY A BIG GOVERNMENT SOLUTION WILL DO, AND IS THE ONLY ANSWER POSSIBLE.

    Recognising the nature of a problem, then fixing it realistically, IS the mark of a Conservative, FJ. What you're not grasping - this because you're so bogged down with your Left-wing thinking - is that Conservatives, UNLIKE LEFTIES, are not so totally enslaved to dogma that they refuse to deal with the real world in a real way.

    Only a Leftie stays stuck in a self-crafted dreamworld, unable and unwilling to step out of it for a second and face reality.

    My apologies for "attacking" you but your inane drivel when you get backed into a corner is annoying.
    Your apology doesn't mean anything, when you follow it up with another attack. Don't waste my time.

    Do you know how many on this board have Libertarian leanings? It must gall you that you can't call them lefties. You suck at this.
    But I've seen posts where people seem to think that Libertarianism is not left wing. Which could mean that they're right wing at heart, but have been duped.

    UK Libertarianism is a little more transparent. British Libertarians play the 'power in numbers' game (as the formation of their own Political party amply proves in itself), and do so without being worried about any ideological fallout.

    But no, it wasn't their "pragmatism" that made it so. If they had to give something to get something it doesn't make what they had to give a conservative solution. That's not a hard thing to grasp... or shouldn't be.
    ... BUT ... I thought that, according to you, small Government was superior ? So, tell me .. why would any Conservative Government, or leader, ever opt for something seen as an 'inferior' approach ?

    Answer .. because, at the times and under the circumstances which apply, IT ACTUALLY ISN'T. That's because dealing with problems realistically IS a superior approach. Now .. either prove that small Government solutions to problems is ALWAYS possible, and ALWAYS works better, OR, accept that your slavish adherence (apparently so, anyway) to the superiority of small Government leads to an imperfect and on occasion an unworkable approach to real decision-making.

    It is NOT inconsistent with Conservatism to come up with the best solutions to issues and scenarios. However, a Leftie would love to box Conservatives into limitations which make their politics observably undesirable ... eh, FJ ?
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  10. Thanks LongTermGuy thanked this post
  11. #352
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    Yes, while a Corporation should be able to run its own affairs, it is also a group made up of individuals, and a union of employees should have a degree of say in their treatment, and the ability to effect reasonable change, such as getting fair pay for their work, better working conditions, and such.

    As long as the balance of power is essentially equal, this actually aids both corporation and union, ensuring a motivated employee base that feels that they work in partnership with their employers, as opposed to being a set of disposable numbers.
    'A say' ... yes, I agree. But accepting equality between Unions and Corporations is a recipe for disaster. Each, at times and under circumstances making it appropriate to be at all adversarial, would fight to win out.

    But again, Corporations have a form of influence and authority, and thus, are prone to abuse. To simply left them run unchecked from within is to essentially ensure the repeated collapse of the economy through boom and bust thinking.
    You're suggesting that Corporations are some form of evil ? I don't accept that, and won't, because I have faith in Capitalism and the Capitalist system ! Corporations aren't a perfect entity by any means, but then, what in life IS ?

    Again, as long as the two are working in the same basic direction, Unions can be a great thing, a natural balance that makes certain that the corporations are still acting in a manner that is conducive to their continued growth.
    Now, here I can agree in principle. BUT, how often does that work out in real life ? Corporations want to expand, want to profit. They exist to make money for themselves. Unions exist to grab as big a share of that as they can get their hands on.

    Thus, Unions do not engage in a symbiotic relationship, but a broadly parasitic one.

    Ideally that wouldn't be true. But it so very often IS. A general rule of thumb would have to be not to trust in Unions as anything benevolent.

    The main problem is that Unions were allowed too much power, and this is the place we find ourselves. As example of this: The Autoworkers Union. This is a unionization of an entire industry, which, really, is monopolistic, as it is made of every worker in the automotive industry, allowing them unfair leverage over the auto companies. If there were, say, the Ford Automotive Industry, that's perfectly fine. The whole sum of the employees of Ford should have a degree of say in their working conditions, as well as fair wages for their work. However, Dodge's workers should definitely not have a say in Ford's working conditions. Under the current rules, though, they do.
    You make my case for me, it seems to me.

    And it isn't so much that Unions are ALLOWED power, so much as they are GIVEN power. If they abuse it, it should be taken away from them.

    Mrs Thatcher understood that well. So, she applied the remedy, and legislated to curb those powers. Some might say that, being a 'big Government' decision, it shouldn't have been made. Anyone doing so argues the cause of the LEFT WING Unions involved.

    It shouldn't be a fight to begin with, but that is all the current system puts forth. In allowing unchecked power of any one group, that group will assert that power over their rival. Groups that are of equal power are more likely to work together than for one to attempt domination of the other. This is simple human nature, and it is why checks and balances need to be observed.
    A good description, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Groups of equal power will jockey for ways to gain an edge ! You'd have an endless power struggle on your hands. And, enter Left wing interests into the mix, who infiltrate Unions, put up their own candidates for election, grab Union leadership, them foment fight after fight.

    I know what I'm talking about ... I've seen Unions taken over in just that way, with the incidence of strikes skyrocketing shortly thereafter.

    Yes, on 9/11 we were attacked... by the least capable, least well-armed, and least-numerous enemy we have ever face in our history. Not even when fighting opponents like The Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets did we abandon our belief in liberty, so why do these pissants get it? They have never, not once, one a single battle, getting in a single suckerpunch that precipitated us crushing whole countries.

    There's this exchange in The Avengers that I love between Coulson and Loki:

    "You're going to lose."
    "Am I?"
    "It's in your nature."

    This is the current situation as it stands. The terrorists, they're going to lose, because their nature prevents them from ever achieving victory. There is no future where they succeed, because, in the end, liberty is intrinsic to life, and they stand directly against such liberty. They might as well try to yell back the tide.
    I agree with you - terrorists are bound to lose. However, in losing, how much damage will they do in the interim ? What if a terrorist faction gets a nuke and deploys it, killing millions of people ?

    Use of that weapon just has to rebound against the group using it. But what if they're crazy enough to do it ?

    And what if, BY doing our absolute utmost in the War on Terror, that group is robbed of the chance to gain that edge ? Al Qaeda was wrongfooted by the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan in 2001, they had to reorganise and regroup .. losing many of their 'people' in the process.

    Other War on Terror actions have kept them wrongfooted. Coalition forces kept their efforts tied up in Iraq.

    'Long may it be so' .. EXCEPT, IT WASN'T. Obama interfered, put a spanner in the works, gave them a reprieve, by withdrawing from Iraq. He was even obliging enough to them to announce his intention, well in advance !!

    We see the result, with ISIS.

    ... it's not really that much of war. Sorry, but name a single victory our opponents have ever actually had?
    I think that the successes ISIS are enjoying help answer that.

    The War on Terror was relaxed, when troops were taken out of Iraq. That 'relaxation' supplied an edge which has been fully taken advantage of.

    That relaxation should never have happened. If there are more incidences of it, terrorists will exploit them.

    That is the fault of our president in the manner in which he went to war. He could have easily told the truth and gotten people in on it, or alternatively, kept focus on our real enemy, Bin Laden, but no, he allowed Bin Laden to distract him into going into Iraq, who knew it would turn into a total cluster fuck.
    How did he lie ? Everyone had concerns about WMD stockpiles in Iraq, the UN included. To not invade Iraq would've sent the signal to any maverick regime that it can create such stockpiles without fearing any consequences.

    We created these enemies, Saddam ...
    You didn't create WHAT he was. Namely, a brutal maverick who was a terrorist friend, and who even bankrolled one terrorist group.

    .. AQ ..
    Untrue. You helped create the Mujahiddeen, a freedom-fighting group. Al Qaeda was a mutated reinvention of them, and you had no hand at all in that.

    .. ISIS
    There I agree, for the reason I've given, a relaxation of the War on Terror, courtesy of Obama.

    They're our monsters, created because we don't go show the patience to go about things the correct way. Even the English have had their hand in stirring the pot in the middle-east in the way they handled Israel. Government power used irresponsibly leads only to suffering.
    Government inaction could be worse. Not responding to 9/11 with the War on Terror would've strengthened terrorism. Al Qaeda were decimated in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the vital lesson was taught that if WMD stockpiles were built up by a maverick force, undesirable consequences CAN be expected from it. And ISIS has grown on the back of insufficient Governmental countermeasures !

    Iraq started no war with us, they just started a pissing contest, one they'd run pretty much every year or two so that Saddam could make the various groups that wanted to murder each other more afraid of him, and stay in line.
    Iraq started a security scare by refusing for a decade to admit accountability to the UN for whatever weaponry they had -- and bear in mind that this period of unaccountability began with the certain knowledge that, then, Iraq definitely DID have WMD's. All of this perpetuated a security concern that could not go undealt-with indefinitely. And so, ultimately, it WAS dealt with.

    Bin Laden decided to institute his own mugging, nothing more.
    3,000 dead on 9/11 is a bit more than a 'mugging'. It needed a response, and it got one. Terrorist training camps were set up across much of Afghanistan. They HAD to be dealt with. If not ... more 9/11's would've followed, with terrorists emboldened through lack of countering action.

    Why shame our morals and ethics for such a pathetic opponent?
    Would it shame your morals and ethics by, through not strongly responding, instead choosing to play Russian roulette with many thousands of future innocent victims' lives ??

    Calling it a war really isn't the best term, because really, it isn't a war. It's a bunch of guys constantly losing almost every single engagement, and once in a blue moon getting off a single jab at us, once about every decade or so as they are driven further into hiding. Again, there is no world in which they are a worthy opponent to us. The only thing that makes the even newsworthy is us deciding they're newsworthy. Sort of like the Steelers.
    It's a different form of war. Because it's different, doesn't mean that winning it isn't vitally important.

    What you call realism is the worst form of self-delusion. It was our forefathers who saw the reality, and set our system to protect us against our own nature to rationalize away our own rights. This is what the Libertarians here strive to protect.
    You have the right to fight terrorists. I believe you should do so, to the very maximum ability at your disposal.

    Meanwhile, OUR Libertarians are self-centred enough to pledge to put British interests so far to the forefront of their thinking, that they'd not consider coming to your aid as an ally should you be attacked again in any future 9/11. Had our Libertarians gained real power .. and ours DID seek power through our political system, through their own political Party .. their manifesto wording effectively ruled it out. Indeed, though they also pledged to continue in NATO, that was with the qualification that NATO membership continued to serve British interests .. a rather lukewarm commitment, it seems to me.

    Our Left wing Parties would've heartily approved.
    Last edited by Drummond; 05-22-2015 at 09:35 AM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  12. #353
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    'A say' ... yes, I agree. But accepting equality between Unions and Corporations is a recipe for disaster. Each, at times and under circumstances making it appropriate to be at all adversarial, would fight to win out.
    There's always going to be give and take, which is why I chose "essentially equal" as the statement. Much like a marriage, things are never going to be exactly 50/50, it just isn't feasible to expect.

    The key is that one group shouldn't be able to fundamentally cripple the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    You're suggesting that Corporations are some form of evil ? I don't accept that, and won't, because I have faith in Capitalism and the Capitalist system ! Corporations aren't a perfect entity by any means, but then, what in life IS ?
    Um, no, I'm not. In fact, I've been on here previously about how people need to stop treating companies like they're Captain Planet villains. Faith is one thing, blind adherence is something else, and not a helpful thing.

    Any group that has authority, has the capacity for abuse of that authority, period. The Church has abused its authority before, such as when they signed off on excommunications basically for money back in the middle ages, or the many wars against other Christian denominations for being "not catholic". Even good, well-meaning organizations can severely exceed their power.

    It's that whole "Road to hell is paved with good intentions" thing. Unions and Corporations have the same capacity for this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Now, here I can agree in principle. BUT, how often does that work out in real life ? Corporations want to expand, want to profit. They exist to make money for themselves. Unions exist to grab as big a share of that as they can get their hands on.
    Not really. Unions exist to negotiate for the betterment of the workforce, but unfortunately, that is almost always decided as "pay us more money" by the union and its members, because it's the most direct way of improving a worker's lot, since work safety has pretty much become standardized across the board. A solid Union, like my mother's, doesn't push too hard on trying to increase wages just to increase, instead maybe trying to improve the health insurance, or maybe get the company to run a shuttle for employees to who are without transport.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Thus, Unions do not engage in a symbiotic relationship, but a broadly parasitic one.
    Power granted by the government reversed, most companies would do the same. The Unions are operating within what the government has deemed "acceptable practices", and that will always pretty much be the line. Because that line is a very lax one, and has been stacked in an unbalanced manner, we come to a huge problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Ideally that wouldn't be true. But it so very often IS. A general rule of thumb would have to be not to trust in Unions as anything benevolent.
    No group with authority or influence, be it government, company or union should be trusted as being totally benevolent. That's the whole problem, is we always try to frame things in a "good guys/bad guys" light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    You make my case for me, it seems to me.

    And it isn't so much that Unions are ALLOWED power, so much as they are GIVEN power. If they abuse it, it should be taken away from them.

    Mrs Thatcher understood that well. So, she applied the remedy, and legislated to curb those powers. Some might say that, being a 'big Government' decision, it shouldn't have been made. Anyone doing so argues the cause of the LEFT WING Unions involved.
    Problems with are several:

    1. Simply taking away power only swings the imbalance the other way, and then we have to snatch power away from the corporations, and keep cutting away rights until even. This is going to basically screw everyone up.

    2. Unions should have power, but that power needs to be equivalent. Government pretty much never cedes power once given, being prone to grow, not retract. When they added power to the Unions for collective bargaining, they did actually need the aid, as companies were far more powerful than them. The problem is that those extra supports were never taken away when the innate power of the unions grew.

    3. Many politicians, both on the right and left here, have unions donating significantly to their campaigns. How many campaign contribution do you think they'll lose if they go against the unions. That's the issue of them having gotten too big. Where do you even start? Cause you're basically gonna get tagged as wanting the average worker to die in the streets.





    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    A good description, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Groups of equal power will jockey for ways to gain an edge ! You'd have an endless power struggle on your hands. And, enter Left wing interests into the mix, who infiltrate Unions, put up their own candidates for election, grab Union leadership, them foment fight after fight.

    I know what I'm talking about ... I've seen Unions taken over in just that way, with the incidence of strikes skyrocketing shortly thereafter.
    Yeah, there's always going to be a vie for power, the corporation's going to try to win, too. Just human nature on that one, which is when equal rights must be protected, but as long as we do it with a scalpel, and not the blunt force of federal government, it can be handled well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    I agree with you - terrorists are bound to lose. However, in losing, how much damage will they do in the interim ? What if a terrorist faction gets a nuke and deploys it, killing millions of people ?
    Not much, all figured. I mean, yeah, the WTC destruction is basically their elvis numbers, and that was a decade and a half ago.

    As to nukes getting involved, I pose this: We blew apart two whole countries, pretty much literally carpet-bombed Afghanistan, and then did another rendition of it for Shock and Awe in Iraq, hunted the leaders of both to their holes, and both are now dead, along with almost every other major figure of their respective regimes. They really don't wanna do any real sort of damage to us. We do not take it well, and respond viciously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Use of that weapon just has to rebound against the group using it. But what if they're crazy enough to do it ?

    And what if, BY doing our absolute utmost in the War on Terror, that group is robbed of the chance to gain that edge ? Al Qaeda was wrongfooted by the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan in 2001, they had to reorganise and regroup .. losing many of their 'people' in the process.

    Other War on Terror actions have kept them wrongfooted. Coalition forces kept their efforts tied up in Iraq.
    1. OBL was in Pakistan the whole time, the next country over from Afghanistan. Iraq was a planned distraction by Bin Laden, who wanted us to do exactly as you put forth here. So, no, they weren't wrongfooted, we were doing exactly what the enemy wanted us to do, abandon reason to fight "what ifs". Bin Laden was more than willing to sacrifice Afghanistan in order to achieve his overarching goal, and us resorting to torture only insures that we give him further recruitment fuel, not just from those we torture, but from their family and loved ones.

    2. As to crazy, have you ever noticed that people with anger management issues never seem to act up around someone who they know will kick the shit out of them? You're not getting their prevailing tactic, which is a calculated point to get us t

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    'Long may it be so' .. EXCEPT, IT WASN'T. Obama interfered, put a spanner in the works, gave them a reprieve, by withdrawing from Iraq. He was even obliging enough to them to announce his intention, well in advance !!
    That place was a total cluster fuck before we pulled out, and again, our actual enemy wanted us there, as opposed to the enemies we created when we interfered. First rule of winning a war: Don't do the exact thing your enemy wants you to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    We see the result, with ISIS.

    I think that the successes ISIS are enjoying help answer that.

    The War on Terror was relaxed, when troops were taken out of Iraq. That 'relaxation' supplied an edge which has been fully taken advantage of.

    That relaxation should never have happened. If there are more incidences of it, terrorists will exploit them.
    So, your strategy to win over Bin Laden and AQ is to continue doing exactly what they want you to do? Somehow, I don't see that plan of attack working. Why do we even need to send troops? Our spec ops guys physically outnumber most terrorist organizations, are better trained and equipped, and can move in where the enemy can't see us coming. And shit, they're the ones who found Bin Laden in the end, so I don't see an upswing in continuing a non-working tactic that our enemy wants us to use, versus going a route that doesn't work in their favor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    How did he lie ? Everyone had concerns about WMD stockpiles in Iraq, the UN included. To not invade Iraq would've sent the signal to any maverick regime that it can create such stockpiles without fearing any consequences.
    Well, there was the direct intelligence that he flatly ignored, which stated there weren't WMDs. Then, there's the fact that Iraq didn't actually have them, and had done this trick a bunch of times before, acting tough until we go away, then declaring victory over the US. I mean, seriously, we'd been in this exact neighborhood every year or two since the Gulf War.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    You didn't create WHAT he was. Namely, a brutal maverick who was a terrorist friend, and who even bankrolled one terrorist group.
    And we'd been fine with him to that point. We knew who he was every since the 90s, and nothing had changed. And we learned something new after deposing him: He was the only thing holding Iraq together, and the different groups, their devil dead, went for one another's throats.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Untrue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    You helped create the Mujahiddeen, a freedom-fighting group. Al Qaeda was a mutated reinvention of them, and you had no hand at all in that.
    We directly supplied Bin Laden, and backed him. We helped train his troops. Whatever he became, we gave him the foundations. At the time, we were scared of the Soviet Union (Who Bin Laden was fighting).



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    There I agree, for the reason I've given, a relaxation of the War on Terror, courtesy of Obama.
    You're incorrect, because without us toppling Saddam, here's a question: What would Saddam have done to a group like ISIS? Remember that he actually drove AQ out of Iraq, and while he did send money to some terror groups, note that they didn't operate inside his country. Many things Saddam was, naive enough to believe that they wouldn't try to usurp him, no.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Government inaction could be worse. Not responding to 9/11 with the War on Terror would've strengthened terrorism. Al Qaeda were decimated in Afghanistan. In Iraq, the vital lesson was taught that if WMD stockpiles were built up by a maverick force, undesirable consequences CAN be expected from it. And ISIS has grown on the back of insufficient Governmental countermeasures !
    Could be, might be, what if? Actually, what the world learned from Iraq is that the US is unstable, and that if we've decided we're coming for you, no amount of exonerating evidence will be enough, and then, when our people get tired of the war, we'll back and let it fall in on itself. We came out of Iraq looking weak, and far before Obama started pulling troops.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Iraq started a security scare by refusing for a decade to admit accountability to the UN for whatever weaponry they had -- and bear in mind that this period of unaccountability began with the certain knowledge that, then, Iraq definitely DID have WMD's. All of this perpetuated a security concern that could not go undealt-with indefinitely. And so, ultimately, it WAS dealt with.
    You mean those buried, dead weapons that were out in the middle of the desert that they'd already disposed of? Yeah, no, that's not what we were talking about, and if they had so many, why didn't they use even a single one when it became obvious we were coming in on full assault with the direct intent to take the country out from under Saddam? If you're going to die by missiles and Marines, it is not the time for restraint.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    3,000 dead on 9/11 is a bit more than a 'mugging'. It needed a response, and it got one. Terrorist training camps were set up across much of Afghanistan. They HAD to be dealt with. If not ... more 9/11's would've followed, with terrorists emboldened through lack of countering action.
    No, I said they instituted their own mugging. Yes, going to Afghanistan was fine, it was Iraq where things went right down the shitter. Going to war for specific cause is fine, but we didn't just go after the guys who hit us, and there's absolutely no reason to abandon morals, ethics, and reason against the cowards.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Would it shame your morals and ethics by, through not strongly responding, instead choosing to play Russian roulette with many thousands of future innocent victims' lives ??
    Strong response, and allowing ourselves to be brutal warmongers are different things, Drummond. When we went into Iraq, we took innocent lives, period. That's the truth of war, and why it should be the last resort. Going after terrorists tactically, using our strengths (occupying countries is not one of them), would have been more efficient, and likely yielded better all around results.



    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    It's a different form of war. Because it's different, doesn't mean that winning it isn't vitally important.
    It's a war against an emotion. You're right, it is different, because it's a war that cannot possibly be won, just like the war on drugs cannot be won. All we can do in either is shit more money down the drain, and add to the stack of the dead.

    Stopping terror is vitally important, but brutal war only increases terror, not lessening it. We cannot win by force alone, we have to win in the court of public opinion as well. The people of these countries have to want our aid, not be afraid of us, or want vengeance on us for the death and destruction we cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    You have the right to fight terrorists. I believe you should do so, to the very maximum ability at your disposal.
    Fighting to my maximum ability, means doing so tactically, not simply trying to crush them with a hammer. Making them our prey is key, as is winning hearts and minds. We can't do that with tanks and missiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Meanwhile, OUR Libertarians are self-centred enough to pledge to put British interests so far to the forefront of their thinking, that they'd not consider coming to your aid as an ally should you be attacked again in any future 9/11. Had our Libertarians gained real power .. and ours DID seek power through our political system, through their own political Party .. their manifesto wording effectively ruled it out. Indeed, though they also pledged to continue in NATO, that was with the qualification that NATO membership continued to serve British interests .. a rather lukewarm commitment, it seems to me.

    Our Left wing Parties would've heartily approved.
    lol, our Libertarians support open carry, many, like Gunny and I, are former military ourselves, and we also did back the war in Afghanistan. We were going after the guys that went after us, but where we break off is basically Iraq.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  13. Thanks Gunny thanked this post
  14. #354
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    There's always going to be give and take, which is why I chose "essentially equal" as the statement. Much like a marriage, things are never going to be exactly 50/50, it just isn't feasible to expect.

    The key is that one group shouldn't be able to fundamentally cripple the other.
    In an ideal world, I'd be happy to agree. But we do not have such a world. Reality demands otherwise.

    Because I have much to say, I'll concentrate on the following issue as my main subject in reply.

    So .. let me give you an example from recent British history, and one which I think might help illustrate why Trade Unionism and Libertarianism are so identifiable with each other. And why Unions and Managements will always be rival forces.

    GCHQ.

    .. OR, 'Government Communications Headquarters'.

    The UK's GCHQ could be adequately described as the technical wing of our security services. More specifically, though their precise duties have evolved according to contemporary need, they basically monitor others' communications capabilities and actions .. surveillance duties, debugging of hostile computer programmes, looking out for and pre-empting possible cyber attacks, that sort of thing. It's said that GCHQ has the technical capacity, right now, to monitor all emails, phone calls, internet activity, that the British are involved with in our territory .. and far beyond.

    In the world of the 1980's, though, they were centred on Cold War duties. A priority for them was to monitor communications traffic emanating from the Soviet Union. Though always a British setup, when directed to, they shared their findings with other allies, such as, for example, the US.

    So, in the early 1980's, the Thatcher Government gave consideration to whether a Trade Union could be permitted in GCHQ. Their considered belief was that it couldn't be. Imagine a strike called there, at the time of a national / international emergency, when to gain intelligence from the USSR could be vital to us all.

    So, Mrs Thatcher and her Government banned Union activity there. They offered a 'staff association' in its place, along with a one-off compensatory payment to every staff member willing to give up Union membership. For those who weren't ... they could expect dismissal.

    The understanding was clear. Whether or not they ACTUALLY posed a security threat, they potentially could. That was deemed unacceptable, absolutely requiring remedial action.

    The Unions hit back. They were determined to not accept the decision. They mounted a protracted legal challenge to it. They consulted with other Unions in other walks of life, as it were, for secondary support. And they got it.

    The legal challenge ultimately failed, and the Union ban persisted at GCHQ (Unions were reinstated there, but not before 1997, when Blair's Labour Government was elected). But nobody in the 'Union world' was prepared to take that ban lying down. Strikes broke out in various industries. Supportive walkouts happened across the spectrum of other Government Departments.

    At the heart of all this was the understood imperative to maximise national security. The argument was well understood. BUT THE UNIONS DIDN'T CARE. TO THEM, THE CAUSE OF TRADE UNIONISM TRUMPED ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ELSE.

    So you see, DragonStryk, your idea of a 'partnership' between Unions and their management 'counterparts' is fanciful at best. Yes, IDEALLY, they should see themselves as a form of partnership. But the REALITY is that one is a dangerous parasitic entity, interested only in surviving, thriving, and exercising power, NO MATTER HOW ULTIMATELY DESTRUCTIVE THE OUTCOME.

    [It was that particular issue, by the way, that cured me of any faith in Trade Unions. I quit my own, and I've never been tempted to rejoin. To me, taking the smallest risk of selling my country down the river is utterly unthinkable. To me, to adopt a contrary position, such as that which all our Unions adopted, was borderline treasonous.]

    Do you see, DragonStryk ? Unions and 'managements' are on opposite sides, irreconcilably so. All Trade Unions want is to be adversarial, REGARDLESS of its consequences.

    - Now. Ask yourself what the Libertarian position would be. How on earth could it fail to side with that of the Trade Unions ? Here, we had an example of a Big Government decision foisted on a Union, and the Union fighting for their individual members' right to belong to one. Do you seriously think that the Libertarian answer to this could oppose that taken by the Unions, namely, to fight Big Government interference against a supposed 'fundamental freedom' ?

    One other detail from this might interest you. At the affected Union's Annual Conference in Brighton, the GCHQ delegate, in stating his case to all other attending delegates of other Departments, said they didn't WANT the strike weapon. Their idea was that Union strikes in non security-sensitive Departments could be called in the event of a dispute in GCHQ. BUT ... another Department delegate, from DSS Newcastle, argued that it was vital that full Union freedoms persist at GCHQ and be considered inviolable, including the ability to go out on strike at GCHQ.

    DSS Newcastle won the day, and the Conference voted that part of their struggle against Government had to include the right to strike at GCHQ.

    DragonStryk, you cannot reconcile this with your considerably rosier picture of Unions and Managements entering into a cooperative partnership. Our Union experience in the UK is that fundamental differences in attitude cannot be reconciled. Unions here would rather place their obviously Libertarian values ABOVE ALL ELSE REGARDLESS OF COST, OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

    No group with authority or influence, be it government, company or union should be trusted as being totally benevolent. That's the whole problem, is we always try to frame things in a "good guys/bad guys" light.
    The 'good guys/bad guys' choice didn't necessarily apply in the example I've supplied. Government saw a possible security issue, and they worked to plug it. In so doing, they managed to turn the whole of the Trade Union movement against them.

    The Trade Unions could have been said to have a valid concern. But I'd always argue that the Government's national security needs trump it. Libertarians would hate the 'Big Government' decision-making involved, but the fact is, THE JUSTICE INVOLVED IN TAKING IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SUPERIOR TO TAKING A SMALL GOVERNMENT, 'NONINTERFERENCE' LINE.

    To another argument ....

    As to nukes getting involved, I pose this: We blew apart two whole countries, pretty much literally carpet-bombed Afghanistan, and then did another rendition of it for Shock and Awe in Iraq, hunted the leaders of both to their holes, and both are now dead, along with almost every other major figure of their respective regimes. They really don't wanna do any real sort of damage to us. We do not take it well, and respond viciously.
    So are you saying that because of those military actions, terrorists have learned their lesson ? In which case ... that supports the Big Government decision taken to launch them, surely.

    Except .. that Obama has pretty much brought the War on Terror to an end, by his decision to prematurely (and VERY publicly announced beforehand) withdraw troops from Iraq. ISIS, and all the associated brutalities and destabilisations, is the result.

    1. OBL was in Pakistan the whole time, the next country over from Afghanistan. Iraq was a planned distraction by Bin Laden, who wanted us to do exactly as you put forth here. So, no, they weren't wrongfooted, we were doing exactly what the enemy wanted us to do, abandon reason to fight "what ifs". Bin Laden was more than willing to sacrifice Afghanistan in order to achieve his overarching goal, and us resorting to torture only insures that we give him further recruitment fuel, not just from those we torture, but from their family and loved ones.
    You speak of 'recruitment fuel'. Well .. just before 9/11, therefore before any response to it, including Iraq, of course ... Al Qaeda had terrorist training camps dotted across Afghanistan. Were those camps empty ? Or, were they full of terrorist recruits ??

    So what makes you think that bin Laden had problems with recruiting ? What makes you think that America's total response to 9/11, including whatever interrogation techniques were used, makes the 'harmful difference' you seem to be suggesting ?

    That place was a total cluster fuck before we pulled out, and again, our actual enemy wanted us there, as opposed to the enemies we created when we interfered. First rule of winning a war: Don't do the exact thing your enemy wants you to do.
    Afghanistan: riddled with terrorist training camps requiring neutralisation.

    Iraq: ruled by a dictator determined to remain unaccountable for any WMD stocks. Had he succeeded, every nutcase out there would be happy to infer the same 'freedom'.

    Perhaps you think that keeping a maverick, brutal dictator who even bankrolled a terrorist group free to think himself free to keep a WMD stockpile would be better for world security than actually dealing with him. I do not.

    So, your strategy to win over Bin Laden and AQ is to continue doing exactly what they want you to do? Somehow, I don't see that plan of attack working.
    Well, DO they want to be blown to bits, and kept busy in their own backyard ?

    And when American troops withdrew from one such backyard, namely Iraq, do you think that ISIS neither saw, nor took, any advantage from that withdrawal ?

    Why do we even need to send troops? Our spec ops guys physically outnumber most terrorist organizations, are better trained and equipped, and can move in where the enemy can't see us coming. And shit, they're the ones who found Bin Laden in the end, so I don't see an upswing in continuing a non-working tactic that our enemy wants us to use, versus going a route that doesn't work in their favor.
    History surely answers that one. The ISIS successes I've just referred to, for one, at least in part attributable to removing troops from a region. Afghanistan's training camps were too numerous for other than full-blown military action to be the answer, and besides, in the bombing's aftermath, there was a need to ensure that the Taliban was properly dealt with.

    Well, there was the direct intelligence that he flatly ignored, which stated there weren't WMDs.
    You're referring to Saddam's own statement on them ?

    The true situation needed proper, effective verification. The UN's version of it was feeble and would've been inconclusive even if their inspection teams had spent years longer in Iraq, just going to the sites Saddam's people told them about !!!

    Then, there's the fact that Iraq didn't actually have them,
    Untrue ... they DID have SOME. Degraded, perhaps, but in the wrong hands, still viable enough weapons to be useful to terrorists.

    And did UN Resolution 1441 specifically refer to pristine weapons, or JUST whether WMD's were held ? Fact is that Saddam really WAS in violation of that Resolution, and that couldn't go unanswered.

    and had done this trick a bunch of times before, acting tough until we go away, then declaring victory over the US. I mean, seriously, we'd been in this exact neighborhood every year or two since the Gulf War.
    Then ... THANK GOD FOR GW BUSH'S UNCOMPROMISING SOLUTION !

    And we'd been fine with him to that point. We knew who he was every since the 90s, and nothing had changed. And we learned something new after deposing him: He was the only thing holding Iraq together, and the different groups, their devil dead, went for one another's throats.
    Mass graves. Torture establishments. Rape rooms. Giving shelter to a top Al Qaeda terrorist. Funding Hamas. Gassing the Kurds (.. and with a WMD !). Being maverick enough to invade neighbouring countries, therefore remaining a continuing threat that he might do it again sometime. Defying the whole world on WMD accountability.

    Did the world 'need' that particular brand of 'holding Iraq together' .. ?

    We directly supplied Bin Laden, and backed him. We helped train his troops. Whatever he became, we gave him the foundations. At the time, we were scared of the Soviet Union (Who Bin Laden was fighting).
    Bin Laden was not, then, leader of Al Qaeda .. not least because Al Q didn't even exist. He was, and acted as, a freedom fighter.

    The US holds no responsibility for what bin Laden became. They did not create Al Qaeda.

    You're incorrect, because without us toppling Saddam, here's a question: What would Saddam have done to a group like ISIS?
    I've no idea. Maybe he'd have fired a few Scuds at them and hoped for the best (.. as he did against Israel, remember). Or perhaps he'd have done a dodgy deal with them.

    Who knows ... an unmolested Saddam might've built up a very formidable WMD arsenal by the time ISIS came knocking, that courtesy of Left-wing approved-of American inaction against him !! Maybe ISIS would've left him alone, in exchange for some of those WMD's ?

    Or then again, maybe ISIS would've defeated Saddam, and taken ALL of such a stock by force .....

    Remember that he actually drove AQ out of Iraq, and while he did send money to some terror groups, note that they didn't operate inside his country. Many things Saddam was, naive enough to believe that they wouldn't try to usurp him, no.
    But you can't know what a future Saddam would've done. These scenarios don't remain static .. they evolve. Taking a chance on a known bloodthirsty maverick whose regard for human life was zero, would really have NOT been a good idea !!!!!!

    Could be, might be, what if? Actually, what the world learned from Iraq is that the US is unstable, and that if we've decided we're coming for you, no amount of exonerating evidence will be enough, and then, when our people get tired of the war, we'll back and let it fall in on itself. We came out of Iraq looking weak, and far before Obama started pulling troops.
    I'm curious. What 'exonerating evidence' did Saddam ever supply, proving that he had no WMD's ???

    I recall that Hans Blix was taken to a handful of sites where WMD's had been destroyed. But Blix had no way of determining the numbers destroyed. For all anyone knew, a good 90 percent of the original stock might have remained.

    So tell me what 'exonerating evidence' was available.

    You mean those buried, dead weapons that were out in the middle of the desert that they'd already disposed of? Yeah, no, that's not what we were talking about,
    Covered already. Pristine OR degraded, their existence violated UN Resolution 1441, mandating 'serious consequences'.

    and if they had so many, why didn't they use even a single one when it became obvious we were coming in on full assault with the direct intent to take the country out from under Saddam? If you're going to die by missiles and Marines, it is not the time for restraint.
    It might well be, if in using WMD's you use them in your own territory, in your own backyard. And to what result, the killing and poisoning of people AND territory, both invader and resident alike ??

    No, I said they instituted their own mugging. Yes, going to Afghanistan was fine, it was Iraq where things went right down the shitter. Going to war for specific cause is fine, but we didn't just go after the guys who hit us, and there's absolutely no reason to abandon morals, ethics, and reason against the cowards.
    So, the War on Terror couldn't be justified ?

    I know plenty of Lefties who'd agree with you.

    Strong response, and allowing ourselves to be brutal warmongers are different things, Drummond. When we went into Iraq, we took innocent lives, period. That's the truth of war, and why it should be the last resort. Going after terrorists tactically, using our strengths (occupying countries is not one of them), would have been more efficient, and likely yielded better all around results.
    But who was, or was not, an enemy ? A non-enemy may be recruited to BECOME that enemy (and plenty were recruited, pre-9/11).

    And the War on Terror was a defensive action, defending against terrorist aggression. No 'warmongering' was ever involved, not on the US side, anyway (... though again, it's the Left who'd stridently assert otherwise).

    This is a very lengthy post, so I'll break off here. Suffice it to say that I note you are expressing opinions which the Left wing of my own country would applaud you for ... loudly. This, of itself, should be cause for concern, surely, for any avowed NON Left-winger !

    Oh, a final quick point. Thank you, DragonStryk, for being willing to debate in reasonable terms, as should be standard on a site like this. I regard that as an infinitely better exchange than those I get from the individual you've been happy to defend of late.
    Last edited by Drummond; 05-23-2015 at 11:09 AM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  15. #355
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    A conservative solution would be one that involves deregulation and a decrease in the government granted power of a union.
    Not only an evasion, but a total reversal of the reality involved. I wanted you to supply an alternative solution, something 'small Government', which you claimed would be superior .. but you've ducked giving one.

    Powers aren't 'granted' to a Union, if what we're talking about involves fundamental rights. The opposite is involved ... you have to introduce regulations to curb the power a union has. This is what Margaret Thatcher did .. she introduced restrictive legislation.

    That seems to be on the whole what occurred. Reagan used the power of government, because they were the employer, to vastly limit the power of a union. On the whole; a conservative solution along the lines of Thatcher's actions IMO.
    And you have still not suggested any specific alternative. Quite.

    Realism demanded the solutions which Reagan and Thatcher employed.

    Who attacked Reagan and Thatcher? Nevertheless nobody here is arguing that their non-conservative solutions were successful... except for you so far.
    Are you seriously denying that the solutions were successful ? On what basis ? Here in the UK, nobody, to this day, has had the guts to try and reverse Mrs Thatcher's anti-Union legislation. THEY DARE NOT, because they know what they'd be unleashing if they did.

    And I say again: realism is, of itself, a Conservative trait. It's the Left that insists upon avoiding it, in favour instead of their preferred worldview and propaganda stances.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  16. #356
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Not only an evasion, but a total reversal of the reality involved. I wanted you to supply an alternative solution, something 'small Government', which you claimed would be superior .. but you've ducked giving one.

    Powers aren't 'granted' to a Union, if what we're talking about involves fundamental rights. The opposite is involved ... you have to introduce regulations to curb the power a union has. This is what Margaret Thatcher did .. she introduced restrictive legislation.
    How many more links do I need to show you that you're full of BS? Power was granted to unions by government. That is how closed shop works for example; the government mandates to the company who they must hire or where from. Relaxing those rules is not an increase in government, it's an increase in freedom. She introduced liberalizing (as in increasing liberty) legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    And you have still not suggested any specific alternative. Quite.

    Realism demanded the solutions which Reagan and Thatcher employed.
    An alternative to big government bad legislation? A conservative alternative would be better in the long run. Reagan signed a big tax cut in '87 but also went along with the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC was poorly designed which doesn't make it a good thing just because Reagan signed it. I'll go with that he had to agree to it to get income tax rates simplified and down to 28% but that doesn't mean the EITC was good. Your logic maintains that Reagan signed it so EITC good. Many on this very forum will disagree with that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Are you seriously denying that the solutions were successful ? On what basis ? Here in the UK, nobody, to this day, has had the guts to try and reverse Mrs Thatcher's anti-Union legislation. THEY DARE NOT, because they know what they'd be unleashing if they did.

    And I say again: realism is, of itself, a Conservative trait. It's the Left that insists upon avoiding it, in favour instead of their preferred worldview and propaganda stances.
    They dare not because it would be crap legislation. Crap legislation that involves an increase in government rules and regulations. If you agree with that and I don't see how you can't then the rest of your argument goes out the window; if rolling back Thatcher means an increase in government then Thatcher's reforms meant a decrease in government, i.e. a conservative solution.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  17. #357
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,811
    Thanks (Given)
    34243
    Thanks (Received)
    26347
    Likes (Given)
    2312
    Likes (Received)
    9910
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    368 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    lol, our Libertarians support open carry, many, like Gunny and I, are former military ourselves, and we also did back the war in Afghanistan. We were going after the guys that went after us, but where we break off is basically Iraq.
    Howso? I never supported the invasion of Iraq. I knew THEN, and posted it, that what is happening NOW, would happen.

    The only thing I supported was once we were in, we needed to finish the job. We didn't. The results are on Fox and CNN daily.

    I'm not even going to take credit for knowing what was going to happen. Back in 91, Bush I's advisers told him the same thing, and it made perfect sense. And, as conveniently not remembered by the left, was the reason given for not invading Iraq. The left was whining for how long "Bush didn't finish the job"? Then they criticized Bush II for trying to.

    However, invading Iraq was short-sighted with no appreciation for global, geo-political situations.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  18. Thanks fj1200, Max R. thanked this post
  19. #358
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,893
    Thanks (Given)
    4180
    Thanks (Received)
    4524
    Likes (Given)
    1412
    Likes (Received)
    1065
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    You're playing games here. What's the same about Libertarians and Trade Unions isn't concerned with strength of actions, but an interlocking of individuals' beliefs, what Unions and Libertarians alike say they want to represent.

    Trade Unions are all about 'strength in numbers'. Whilst Libertarians might not be nearly as willing to openly admit the soundness of that principle, the British Libertarians aren't as shy about doing so. They play the 'political party' game, which is ultimately ALL about that, along with Governmental power ... and the wielding of it through a unified effort. And that is the same power-in-numbers game as forms the bedrock of Union power.

    Analyse what drives Trade Unionists. Analyse what drives Libertarians. See if you can insert so much as a cigarette paper between any differences at all.
    I'm playing games yet you maintain that two completely disparate organizations are in essence the same. Your logic is ridiculous and unsupported by almost anyone. If it were you would be able to find supporting links to help your case. You cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Thatcherite', 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'.
    Anything to add to all the links you can't find to your vacuous argument or do you want to prattle on about Mags?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Such perceptions came from people who wanted to explain away her departure from the old bog-standard, comparatively non-evolved, version of British Conservatism that had existed before her. And they are only PERCEPTIONS, borne of opinions. There is a better way to view what Lady Thatcher was all about ... namely, FACTUALLY, based on evidence of what she SAID and DID.
    So you choose to ignore the obvious connections and fail to provide any support for yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Small Government is superior, you say. I note you've been a little shy about saying that big Government ACTIONS are inferior. How come ?

    Well, it's obvious. There are times when nothing else will do. Margaret Thatcher couldn't have stemmed Trade Union wrecking actions by small Government methodology. Then again, GW Bush couldn't have come up with any appropriate and effective response to 9/11 unless he'd used the full weight of Government powers to do it.

    If you argue otherwise .. and since you say that small Government is superior .. I challenge you to come up with small Government solutions to each of these two problems I've touched upon.

    I say you can't do so. And, why ? BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ONLY A BIG GOVERNMENT SOLUTION WILL DO, AND IS THE ONLY ANSWER POSSIBLE.

    Recognising the nature of a problem, then fixing it realistically, IS the mark of a Conservative, FJ. What you're not grasping - this because you're so bogged down with your Left-wing thinking - is that Conservatives, UNLIKE LEFTIES, are not so totally enslaved to dogma that they refuse to deal with the real world in a real way.

    Only a Leftie stays stuck in a self-crafted dreamworld, unable and unwilling to step out of it for a second and face reality.
    Wow, and you maintain that you don't adhere to some sort of dogma. All we get is dogma from you and leftie prattle.

    I've already explained how Mags used government to deregulate UK labor markets. Deregulation is a small government solution based on conservative ideals. I've also never disputed that national defense is a necessary function of government so I reject your strawman.

    Having said that though there can be (at least) two ways to fight a war. When FDR was deciding how to prosecute WWII he was being encouraged to take a command and control approach by his advisors, wife, etc. but he also spoke with the GM CEO? who suggested that he let rely on the private sector in providing the means by which he could do his job as CiC. Thankfully he completely rejected his previous ways of governing for the conservative approach of relying on the free markets to supply the war materials.

    Your leftie prattle proves you to be a dogmatic fool who can't step out of his imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    Your apology doesn't mean anything, when you follow it up with another attack. Don't waste my time.
    I don't care, you're a fool who can't see what people have been telling him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    But I've seen posts where people seem to think that Libertarianism is not left wing. Which could mean that they're right wing at heart, but have been duped.

    UK Libertarianism is a little more transparent. British Libertarians play the 'power in numbers' game (as the formation of their own Political party amply proves in itself), and do so without being worried about any ideological fallout.
    Logic that is stupid beyond belief. And that first part made no sense. You've offered no proof that Libertarians are left other than your imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    ... BUT ... I thought that, according to you, small Government was superior ? So, tell me .. why would any Conservative Government, or leader, ever opt for something seen as an 'inferior' approach ?

    Answer .. because, at the times and under the circumstances which apply, IT ACTUALLY ISN'T. That's because dealing with problems realistically IS a superior approach. Now .. either prove that small Government solutions to problems is ALWAYS possible, and ALWAYS works better, OR, accept that your slavish adherence (apparently so, anyway) to the superiority of small Government leads to an imperfect and on occasion an unworkable approach to real decision-making.

    It is NOT inconsistent with Conservatism to come up with the best solutions to issues and scenarios. However, a Leftie would love to box Conservatives into limitations which make their politics observably undesirable ... eh, FJ ?
    You bring stupid to a whole new level. No, it (the big government solution) actually is inferior. As mentioned previously because Reagan wanted a huge tax cut but had to sign EITC doesn't mean EITC was a good solution at the time. It was merely a cost to getting the tax cut.

    Trivia question for you; Who proposed the tax legislation that Reagan signed?
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums