Why do conservatives belieave the earth is 8K years old and global warming is false?

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from fhl:

The wall street journal does a piece on economic freedom (including tax rates) and compares it to general prosperity and well being of the populace in the world's countries. There is an inverse correlation to freedom and tax rates. That is the real truth. How you can come down on this issue by saying, in effect, "we're going to take your money away from you in order for you to be free" is beyond me.

I'll quote Walter Williams:
" Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.

There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation."

Thank you fhl for that beautiful example of Libertarian/Conservative logic. I think I even got a tear in my eye while reading it.

James, you're gonna have to try ALOT harder to convince some of us Libertarians, that Liberals stand for Individual Freedom. For example:

1) Don't you want to take away my guns?

2) Don't you want to make it illegal to see a doctor of my choice (Universal Healthcare)?

3) Don't you want the government to re-distribute my income through higher taxes?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you have a socialist agenda, and that would hardly qualify you as a freedom fighter.

 

[Cache Landing]

This thread is laughable.

Conservatives are afraid to acknowledge that government has its purpose. Liberals like to blame one man (currently Bush) for failure of unnatural distribution of wealth. As if there is a good way to take something that rightfully belongs to someone and give it to the person who should have no claim to it.

Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with opinion. Opinions are debatable. Of course government has its place. The problem comes in the gray area of where federal government should or shouldn't get involved. All these points are debatable. Unfortunately those debating them refuse to look at the entire picture. They simply want to be right.

Do liberals protect the "rights" of people to make their own decisions. Absolutely, until it comes to deciding to own a gun or give to the less fortunate as one sees fit.

Conservatives think that rich people will take care of the poor. Liberals think the poor shouldn't be poor in the first place. The fact is, there will always be those whom are less fortunate than others. It's life. People are different with different abilities.

Our problem isn't poor distribution of wealth. Our problem is an incredibly inefficient government. Both sides think that the best way to fix something is to throw money at it. A profitable company stresses itself on occasion to figure out where it can cut back. Our government never does this because we've ruined it with a two-party system. The only thing each party wants is for the other to fail, not for the whole to succeed.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is this. Partisan voters are uninformed and need to get a clue. We are surrounded by information. It isn't difficult at all to figure out what each candidate stands for. There shouldn't be primary elections for each party. There should be one primary election that includes all candidates regardless of opinion. Then narrow it down to the two or three favorites and vote again. The idea that someone has to be either liberal or conservative is absurd. You should vote for the best person. Parties are simply clubs designed for weaseling someone into office who should never have had a chance.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from fhl:

I suppose it would come down a few percentage points if a canadian style system was implemented, but then as the chief justice of the canadian supreme court was quoted as saying, "access to a waiting list is not access to health care".

Guess that would solve the problem of only the poor having their gonads squeezed. Everyone would have their gonads squeezed. Except Hillary. No lines for her to wait in, of that I would be sure.

True, the Canadian system is far from perfect. But perhaps you need to get squeezed in order that you will appreciate, and not simply dismiss out of hand, the potentially dire circumstances of others. I certainly don't have the answers, but I'm fairly confident that ignoring a segment of the society you live in is not one of them.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

Thank you fhl for that beautiful example of Libertarian/Conservative logic. I think I even got a tear in my eye while reading it.

James, you're gonna have to try ALOT harder to convince some of us Libertarians, that Liberals stand for Individual Freedom. For example:

1) Don't you want to take away my guns?

2) Don't you want to make it illegal to see a doctor of my choice (Universal Healthcare)?

3) Don't you want the government to re-distribute my income through higher taxes?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you have a socialist agenda, and that would hardly qualify you as a freedom fighter.

You're wrong. The answers to your questions are no, no, and no.

You're believing the conservative definition of liberalism. We've been listening to their propaganda for too long, and don't know how to think for ourselves.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Cache Landing:

This thread is laughable.

Conservatives are afraid to acknowledge that government has its purpose. Liberals like to blame one man (currently Bush) for failure of unnatural distribution of wealth. As if there is a good way to take something that rightfully belongs to someone and give it to the person who should have no claim to it.

Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with opinion. Opinions are debatable. Of course government has its place. The problem comes in the gray area of where federal government should or shouldn't get involved. All these points are debatable. Unfortunately those debating them refuse to look at the entire picture. They simply want to be right.

Do liberals protect the "rights" of people to make their own decisions. Absolutely, until it comes to deciding to own a gun or give to the less fortunate as one sees fit.

Conservatives think that rich people will take care of the poor. Liberals think the poor shouldn't be poor in the first place. The fact is, there will always be those whom are less fortunate than others. It's life. People are different with different abilities.

Our problem isn't poor distribution of wealth. Our problem is an incredibly inefficient government. Both sides think that the best way to fix something is to throw money at it. A profitable company stresses itself on occasion to figure out where it can cut back. Our government never does this because we've ruined it with a two-party system. The only thing each party wants is for the other to fail, not for the whole to succeed.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is this. Partisan voters are uninformed and need to get a clue. We are surrounded by information. It isn't difficult at all to figure out what each candidate stands for. There shouldn't be primary elections for each party. There should be one primary election that includes all candidates regardless of opinion. Then narrow it down to the two or three favorites and vote again. The idea that someone has to be either liberal or conservative is absurd. You should vote for the best person. Parties are simply clubs designed for weaseling someone into office who should never have had a chance.

Thank you. I agree with you 100%.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This is the first post from you that makes some sense.

Liberalism is not libertarian. An unregulated, "free-for-all" society, will not have any individual liberty to speak of. Protection of individual liberty, the foundation of liberalism, requires very much government intervention. Take the tax as an example. Libertarians would want to demolish all taxes. We know that it is easier to make more money once you have money. Without any taxes to act as a brake, there will be a rapid concentration of wealth. From human experience in the past, a society with an extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of few is not one in which free market flourishes. In fact, in that case liberty would die as well. Therefore a progressive tax system is necessary to prevent such a concentration of wealth.

Progressive tax is an important part of liberalism, not because liberals want big government. It is needed for the protection of the free market and individual liberty from the super rich. Many so-called modern "liberals" forget the principle, and misuse the tax system to serve other political purposes, such as using it to favor one segment of the society over another, or to erect trade barriers. That's not liberalism.

This is not accurate. Libertarians do not want to, as you say, demolish taxes. We simply want smaller government and less taxes. I personally would like to eliminate the current tax code and replace it with the FairTax. A progressive tax is just a way to soak the achievers and redistribute to the non-achievers.

If you were truly for free markets and individual liberty (which to me includes personal responsibilty), I don't think you'd be posting like you do.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

If you were truly for free markets and individual liberty (which to me includes personal responsibilty), I don't think you'd be posting like you do.

Yea right. Anyone who disagrees with you is not sincere, is a liar, or should not be posting. What an arrogant ***hole. If that is the best a libertarian can do, then they'll never have any chance in this country.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from Thunderdog:

True, the Canadian system is far from perfect. But perhaps you need to get squeezed in order that you will appreciate, and not simply dismiss out of hand, the potentially dire circumstances of others. I certainly don't have the answers, but I'm fairly confident that ignoring a segment of the society you live in is not one of them.

I'm sure you mean well by your statement, and I don't want to see a certain part of our society without healthcare either, however, noone has a RIGHT to healthcare. Rather than give EVERYONE lousy healthcare, through Univ. Healt., supply the rest with private donations.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Yea right. Anyone who disagrees with you is not sincere, is a liar, or should not be posting. What an arrogant ***hole. If that is the best a libertarian can do, then they'll never have any chance in this country.

Well maybe a logical asshole . No, really, I think you would do yourself a favor by looking into how debilitating higher taxes are to any country's economy and how progressive taxes can be a real dream killer to entrepreneurs.

This country is great, not because of big government, but because of American business.

Laissez Faire.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from AlpineTrout:

Well maybe a logical asshole . No, really, I think you would do yourself a favor by looking into how debilitating higher taxes are to any country's economy and how progressive taxes can be a real dream killer to entrepreneurs.

This country is great, not because of big government, but because of American business.

Laissez Faire.

You're making the same mistake as fhl in equating higher tax with progressive tax. Whatever the tax rate that you want to have, making it progressive (ie, lower the tax rate for those who are making less than a certain amount) would make it better.