Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 145

Thread: Nicely Put

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559

    Nicely Put

    If only a GOP candidate, just one, anywhere, could articulate their case the right way like this guy does.

    Thought I'd put this out there for discussion.

    http://sufficient-reason.tumblr.com/...-im-so-hostile

    Dear Liberal…Here’s Why I’m So Hostile

    Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers. I know that thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.

    Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.

    First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.

    Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor. The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem — it’s our attitude towards the solution. We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved. For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began. You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away. We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,

    Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.

    Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are. While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.

    Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda. First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”. In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress. What is the ideal towards which you are striving? An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away. So, what is your ideal society?

    Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. The rights that FDR cited are:

    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
    The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
    The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
    The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
    The right of every family to a decent home;
    The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
    The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
    The right to a good education.
    At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”

    I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America. After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right? Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human? Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.

    If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list — none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet — and it is unconditional.

    FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”. It’s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?

    You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he? If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not? Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.

    You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It’s quite simple — your political beliefs are a threat to liberty — not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.

    How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.

    The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.

    However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea — you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket — you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

    Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty — it’s an axiomatic truth.

    What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.

    I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.

    I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:

    “If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

    Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

    In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it — why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

    In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

    Bring it.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,833
    TLDR.

    Your side sucks. Bunch of a holes.

  3. #3
    Very nicely put. Also literally impossible to square with social conservatism enforced by government fiat. When the GOP decides which of the two visions it believes in - liberty or government control - it will have a coherent vision and a shot. Until then, it will continue to be a useless waste of space on the national level.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,440
    Excellent. Explains things perfectly.

    I disagree with this: If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket — you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

    The liberal will not take money from his own pocket, but he will hold the gun to your head to make you give up your $20.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Very nicely put. Also literally impossible to square with social conservatism enforced by government fiat. When the GOP decides which of the two visions it believes in - liberty or government control - it will have a coherent vision and a shot. Until then, it will continue to be a useless waste of space on the national level.
    In fairness don't all political parties pitch some exotic blend of liberty and government control?

    You might not like where the GOP draws the lines (i don't either), but even libertarians draw it somewhere.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    This opinion piece is correct on many levels, but the author loses me by willingly ignoring some of the same logical flaws and policies from so-called conservatives. They are just as much for "big government" as many liberals. They just support it in the form of conservative social policy and an ever increasing police state.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    This opinion piece is correct on many levels, but the author loses me by willingly ignoring some of the same logical flaws and policies from so-called conservatives. They are just as much for "big government" as many liberals. They just support it in the form of conservative social policy and an ever increasing police state.
    I agree with the second bolded, but i don't think it makes the first bolded true.

    Does the GOP want to expand the power of government in many instances? Absolutely.

    Does the increase in government the GOP wants even begin to compare to their liberal counterparts? Hell no.

    That said, historically the GOP has been a lot more interested in expanding the parts of the Fed they like, than shrinking the parts they don't. With Obamacare that is not currently true however.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Very nicely put. Also literally impossible to square with social conservatism enforced by government fiat. When the GOP decides which of the two visions it believes in - liberty or government control - it will have a coherent vision and a shot. Until then, it will continue to be a useless waste of space on the national level.
    Exactly.

    Religious Social Tyrant Theocrats and Liberty-based Free-Market Individual-Rights Conservatives cannot co-exist.

    They are as diametricly at-odds as Social Democrat/Democratic Socialists are from Liberty-based Free-Market Individual-Rights Conservatives.

    Social Democrats want to control all. Religious Social Conservatives do too.

    Till they're banished from the right (to the corners of fringe where they belong with their like-minded Jihadist and Taliban ilk) there really is no choice, no alternative.

    You have two parties dominated by people who want to control you. Only their motivation ("greater good" vs "God says so") differs.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    Does the increase in government the GOP wants even begin to compare to their liberal counterparts? Hell no.
    How do you even quantify such a thing? Expanded government is expanded government. Conservative social engineering, surveillance, and military build up can be just as dangerous as distribution of wealth, liberal social engineering, and government health care.

  10. #10
    He blows it in the 2nd paragraph. He sets up the stereotypical liberal moonbat boogeyman that is easy to take down.

    If that fictitious boogeyman actually made up a majority of liberals, he might have a case.

    Instead, he should try making an argument aimed at the people who actually make up the MAJORITY of liberals.

    Railing at the strawman gets your base all nodding their heads in unison, but does nothing to advance your cause.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    He sets up the stereotypical boogeyman that is easy to take down.

    If that fictitious boogeyman actually made up a majority of liberals, he might have a case.

    Instead, he should try making an argument aimed at the people who actually make up the MAJORITY of liberals.
    Logical. Except that the majority votes FOR the minority, and that minority are the ones who express the viewpoint in question. Belive it or not, they're still supporting it.

    Also, using your logic, can you then explain this:



    Or do you think when a (D) says it, says that Tea Party is racist, it's ok?

    Personally, I find the above kind of imagery (which is representative of a beleif held by the MAJORITY of Liberals) to be no different than the imagery used by the Nazi Party to paint Jews as the enemy circa the 1930's.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    How do you even quantify such a thing? Expanded government is expanded government. Conservative social engineering, surveillance, and military build up can be just as dangerous as distribution of wealth, liberal social engineering, and government health care.
    You can quantify it in dollars and cents.



    You can pin defense spending on the GOP if you like. But SS, Medicare, and Welfare make up 54% of the budget, and there's no way you can convince me those aren't predominantly liberal programs.

    I'm not suggesting the GOP wants to eliminate these programs, only that they would not stand in the way of major cuts and reform, just as the Dems wouldn't stand in the way of major cuts and reforms to military spending.

    That's not to say i don't think some of the GOP programs are dangerous and terrible. I would repeal the entire patriot act in a heartbeat. I was a little surprised how easily Obama was able to continue to erode our liberties in that arena, i'm starting to think it's difficult to label "police state, and extreme, invasive surveillance" as vices of the GOP.

    *edit* is there a way to crop or resize images via the forum tags? Or do i really have to rehost these giant things?

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    This opinion piece is correct on many levels, but the author loses me by willingly ignoring some of the same logical flaws and policies from so-called conservatives. They are just as much for "big government" as many liberals. They just support it in the form of conservative social policy and an ever increasing police state.
    Not sure if he's willingly ignoring this, or just happens to fall on the side of the divide in the GOP that is a result of the above.

    To some extent, we all knowledge there's got to be a strong federal government. No one is advocating otherwise, despite the picture that the left likes to paint. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians are still a far, far cry of anarchists. The focus however needs to be on the protection of its citizens' rights, not redistribution (which IMO is the opposite). An important component to remember here too is not IF certain government departments/regulations are funded, but HOW they are funded (i.e. tiered income tax vs. flat tax vs. sales tax).

    As alluded to by many here, the problem is far too many politicians on the "right" bear such a resemblance to those on the left, as a direct result of how their campaigns are funded and the favors they are able to give/take. All the while, demonizing those who look to fight that system.

    Anyway, good thread so far with the exception of one completely worthless post. Thanks guys.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    This is a great distillation of modern conservatism.

    Uninformed, victimized angst without any solutions to any problems.

    The political philosophy of proudly closing ones' eyes, covering ones' ears and yelling "No" at the top their lungs.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    This is a great distillation of modern conservatism.

    Uninformed, victimized angst without any solutions to any problems.

    The political philosophy of proudly closing ones' eyes, covering ones' ears and yelling "No" at the top their lungs.
    And this is a great distillation of modern Dem talking points.

    If you don't agree with me you're: Uniformed/Ignorant/Racist (You forgot racist)

    If my party won't vote to pass your solutions they don't count as solutions.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    This is a great distillation of modern conservatism.

    Uninformed, victimized angst without any solutions to any problems.

    The political philosophy of proudly closing ones' eyes, covering ones' ears and yelling "No" at the top their lungs.
    Make that 2

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    And this is a great distillation of modern Dem talking points.

    If you don't agree with me you're: Uniformed/Ignorant/Racist (You forgot racist)

    If my party won't vote to pass your solutions they don't count as solutions.
    LOL

    Are there any solutions put forth in this 'piece'?

    Any plans?

    What is this person arguing FOR in this? Lower taxes? Less regulation?

    Or does the author evade specifics and simply speak in banal generalities about freedom and tyranny, all-the-while b*tching, just like you did, about how the other side views you.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    LOL

    Are there any solutions put forth in this 'piece'?

    Any plans?

    What is this person arguing FOR in this? Lower taxes? Less regulation?

    Or does the author evade specifics and simply speak in banal generalities about freedom and tyranny, all-the-while b*tching, just like you did, about how the other side views you.
    I'm not arguing that this "piece" forwarded any particular, actionable plan. I don't think that was the intent. It was supposed to lay out the differences in political principles and ideologys.

    You however claimed this was representative of "modern conservatism".

    The house passed budgets. The tried to defund Obamacare too. Those things are pretty damn specific. Were they going to go anywhere no? But that falls on both parties equally. Just as the shut down did.

    As for my "*****ing", two of the characterizations are yours. The other i threw in, in order to be representative of the party in general.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    He blows it in the 2nd paragraph. He sets up the stereotypical liberal moonbat boogeyman that is easy to take down.

    If that fictitious boogeyman actually made up a majority of liberals, he might have a case.

    Instead, he should try making an argument aimed at the people who actually make up the MAJORITY of liberals.

    Railing at the strawman gets your base all nodding their heads in unison, but does nothing to advance your cause.
    I thought he was spot on. The man was referring to self identified progressives not your typical Democrat voters. This is the Barack Obama wing of the D party supported by the wingbats on MSNBC that literally say that all those things he mentioned are fundamental human rights. If employment is a human right in your country, you are living in a communist or collectivist country. That's just fact. I've read your posts for enough years to know that you are not a dedicated progressive. More of a social lib that voted D. The article doesn't apply to you directly.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    You can quantify it in dollars and cents.

    You can pin defense spending on the GOP if you like. But SS, Medicare, and Welfare make up 54% of the budget, and there's no way you can convince me those aren't predominantly liberal programs.

    I'm not suggesting the GOP wants to eliminate these programs, only that they would not stand in the way of major cuts and reform, just as the Dems wouldn't stand in the way of major cuts and reforms to military spending.

    That's not to say i don't think some of the GOP programs are dangerous and terrible. I would repeal the entire patriot act in a heartbeat. I was a little surprised how easily Obama was able to continue to erode our liberties in that arena, i'm starting to think it's difficult to label "police state, and extreme, invasive surveillance" as vices of the GOP.

    *edit* is there a way to crop or resize images via the forum tags? Or do i really have to rehost these giant things?
    Fair enough. Although one can argue that all of these programs are very intertwined between the two major parties. The Democrats' military spending is egregious, and generally the Republicans (aside from the occasional Paul Ryan) are very hesitant to make any type of changes to entitlements.

    We're stuck in status quo politics with both sides pointing fingers at the other side while most govern exactly the same.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us