# Can We Have a Club for us Conservatives/ Libertarians?



## Church2224 (Oct 3, 2013)

I hope I am not starting something, but I just want a thread or a safe haven for those of us who lean more to the right on the political spectrum to discuss our influences, who we support, our views, ect. 

I know that we are a minority here but I think that we should at least be given a chance to speak our opinions. 

Note I just ask that everyone just respect other's opinions and please no neg rep and calling some one an idiot because they have a different view, if they act like a jackass then by all means. I know I am treading on dangerous ground.


----------



## ElRay (Oct 3, 2013)

As a small-L libertarian (also correctly known as a "Classic Liberal" -- but that's a whole different can of worms), I wouldn't want to be lumped with Conservatives any more than I'd like to be lumped with Modern Liberals. Both sides use the government for their social engineering aims and both sides use the government for the fiscal benefit of their own "politically connected" friends.


----------



## Baelzebeard (Oct 3, 2013)

Wow elray, you took the words right out of my fingers.


----------



## mcd (Oct 3, 2013)

ElRay said:


> As a small-L libertarian (also correctly known as a "Classic Liberal" -- but that's a whole different can of worms), I wouldn't want to be lumped with Conservatives any more than I'd like to be lumped with Modern Liberals. Both sides use the government for their social engineering aims and both sides use the government for the fiscal benefit of their own "politically connected" friends.



this


----------



## icos211 (Oct 5, 2013)

Wait, WHAT?! I'm not the only one on this site?! Sweet Zombie Jesus!


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Oct 5, 2013)

I always thought that I was alone D:


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 5, 2013)

Yeah, I don't really know exactly where I fall on the political map (I always come out right in the middle on those online quizzes) but I'd agree that libertarian is technically as related to liberals as it is conservatives. I've always seen the political map divided along two lines: fiscal policy and social policy, with the views placed along a plus sign (or compass points) such that if they were North, East, etc it would be:
North = libertarian
East = conservative
South = authoritarian 
West = liberal


----------



## mniel8195 (Oct 5, 2013)

i think it would be awesome if we talked about guitars.


----------



## skeels (Oct 5, 2013)

Only if the Anarchists can have a club too.

Oh wait. 

The Anarchists don't want a club. 

Stupid Anarchists...


----------



## mcd (Oct 6, 2013)

skeels said:


> Only if the Anarchists can have a club too.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> ...



They do have a club, its right next to my Atheist Church.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 6, 2013)

Can I just get something in an say that in the vast majority of the world, liberal means libertarian.

Actually exactly what ElRay said.


----------



## lurgar (Oct 6, 2013)

skeels said:


> Only if the Anarchists can have a club too.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> ...



Technically Anarchists are left-leaning libertarian, so you would be right to want to join a club that welcomes libertarians.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Oct 6, 2013)

No, Church. You can't.


----------



## fwd0120 (Oct 6, 2013)

Thought I was alone, too.  Not too conservative, but I do lean to the right.


----------



## ElRay (Oct 6, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Can I just get something in an say that in the vast majority of the world, liberal means libertarian.



QFT. 

The textbook correct term in the U.S. is: "Classic Liberal"; however, in the U.S., "liberal/left" has come to mean "government controlled business/laissez-faire social" and "conservative/right" is used to mean "government controlled social/laissez-faire business". Unfortunately, we've become worse than that -- Both sides are "government controlled social & business". 

Conservatives are over-the top religious-based-social-engineering and a weird mix of hands-off business-unless-it-offends-my-religious-views and regulations-that-benefit-my-buddies. This comes to a dangerous combination in the realms of healthcare and education.

Liberals have been more true to their "roots"; however, they have gotten into an odd/hypocritical "so far left they're fascist" social regulation/management to force their views on others.

That said, something has definitely changed when you have Conservatives fighting for 4th & 5th Amendment Rights and Liberals fighting against them. What we (in the U.S.) seem to have now are "We want to force everybody to follow our rules based on Pentecostal/Protestant/Evangelical Christianity including Education and Health Care" vs. "We want to strongly push everybody to live the way we feel is best for them based on our non-specific but still Abrahamic Religions Dominated views through government regulations and social programs."

That's why I've started to use the terms "Red-Flavored Republocrats" and "Blue-Flavored Republocrats" when it comes to talking about broad, Party-level politics. There are differences between the parties, but they've both "betrayed their roots" and are far too micromanaging/controlling where they shouldn't be and not enough "sensible, logical, evidence-based" coordination/leadership/management where they should be.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Oct 6, 2013)

lurgar said:


> Technically Anarchists are left-leaning libertarian, so you would be right to want to join a club that welcomes libertarians.



I used to use the term "minarchist" (minimal amount of government to prevent anarchy) to describe my politics, but that was even less well understood than "Classical Liberal" or "Libertarian". 

"Small-L Libertarian seems to work (currently) because it invites specific questions and not knee-jerk labeling.

Ray


----------



## mcd (Oct 7, 2013)

ElRay said:


> That's why I've started to use the terms "Red-Flavored Republocrats" and "Blue-Flavored Republocrats"



stealing this, thanks friend!


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 7, 2013)

Dang, Ray, that was an awesome post. I'm not particularly well versed in these things, but I've intuitively known what you spelled out, but just never thought about it enough to articulate it. But that seems dead on. It also explains why I never know who or what to vote for, despite doing oodles of homework on it, because there doesn't ever seem to be any straightforward answer, but rather a whole bunch of weird contortions that seem paradoxical to whatever is trying to be done.


----------



## ElRay (Oct 7, 2013)

Hollowway said:


> It also explains why I never know who or what to vote for, despite doing oodles of homework on it, because there doesn't ever seem to be any straightforward answer, but rather a whole bunch of weird contortions that seem paradoxical to whatever is trying to be done.



It has become so tough to vote these days. It also doesn't help that many elections are "winner takes the district, whomever has the most districts wins"-style votes. Add to that the fact that so many folks erroneously think that (A) Voting for a non-winner is a wasted vote and/or (B) voting for a non-Republocrat is a wasted vote. If the number of people I've heard say, "I'd vote for ......, but they don't have a chance." actually voted for their preferred candidate, we'd have a whole lot more 3rd Party candidates in office. Also, the big two would have to take notice, because they'd see how many votes their losing. What people need to realize that it only takes 1 vote to win the election, so if your vote was one of the hundreds (small town), thousands (city, state representative) to millions (federal elections) of "extra" votes for the winner and you did not vote for your real choice, you wasted your vote. Likewise, if you voted for the candidate that lost by hundreds to millions of votes, and you did not vote for your preferred candidate, you wasted your vote. People underestimate the value of candidates losing a significant portion of the votes to a non-Republocrat. That is noted, and one or both of the parties typically change to be more encompassing.

The other problem is that a lot of areas it's very hard to get a 3rd Party Candidate on the ballot, in fact, there's a lot of areas where it's even tough to get both flavors of Republocrat on the ballot (e.g. the entire state of N.C.).

My generic voting strategy:
If there's somebody you really, truly, like, vote for them regardless.
If there's somebody you can't stand, *and the election is likely to be close*, vote agaist them. AKA, the "lesser of two evils" vote.
If your "lesser of two evils" vote won't make a difference, vote for the 3rd Party Candidate, and if you're lucky enough to have a choice, for the most popular 3rd Party Candidate (unless their politics are intolerably against your own).

Even this takes a lot of research, because too often the non-Republocrats (especially in local elections) can be true crackpots.

Ray


----------



## estabon37 (Oct 8, 2013)

ElRay said:


> Add to that the fact that so many folks erroneously think that ... (B) voting for a non-Republocrat is a wasted vote. If the number of people I've heard say, "I'd vote for ......, but they don't have a chance." actually voted for their preferred candidate, we'd have a whole lot more 3rd Party candidates in office. Also, the big two would have to take notice, because they'd see how many votes their losing. What people need to realize that it only takes 1 vote to win the election, so if your vote was one of the hundreds (small town), thousands (city, state representative) to millions (federal elections) of "extra" votes for the winner and you did not vote for your real choice, you wasted your vote.



I don't want to divert too much from the larger conversation, especially as it has been really interesting, but what you've said above has kind of an example from the most recent Australian election. Because voting is compulsory, and because our two major parties were not appealing to a huge amount of Australians, we wound up with a LOT of people voting for independent candidates and 'other' parties. Unfortunately, just as you suggested in your post, some have kind of turned out to be crackpots. 

Interestingly, my vote in the Upper House - I voted for the Sex Party (for their policies, not just their cool name) - led to 'preference votes' being given to strange micro-parties that I'd never heard of until after the election. Now, I admit that my vote for the Sex Party was as much a vote against the major parties as it was in favour of the minor party, but it has led to something that I didn't know about, didn't understand until too late, and I feel as if my vote has been misrepresented to an extent.

I realise that the US voting system is vastly different to the Australian one, but some of the principals behind supporting Third Party candidates are quite similar. While I agree wholeheartedly with this:



> If there's somebody you really, truly, like, vote for them regardless.


I've now formed the opinion that because minor parties simply don't have to endure the level of scrutiny and criticism that major parties deal with every day, it's so easy for them to mislead or misrepresent their supporters that it seems they'll capitalise on the opportunity. Hell, even the Wikileaks Party largely failed to gain traction because it was revealed that the Party that champions transparency and accountability was full of people who were competing with one another and keeping secrets from one another and all the infighting led to the resignation of senior party members mere weeks before election day. Politics is so messed up that, even in small parties, people who seem ideologically identical willingly backstab and mindf_u_ck one another over little things.


----------



## skeels (Oct 12, 2013)

lurgar said:


> Technically Anarchists are left-leaning libertarian, so you would be right to want to join a club that welcomes libertarians.



I would never belong to a club that would allow someone like me as a member. 


Does that make me a Marxist?


----------



## mcd (Oct 12, 2013)

skeels said:


> I would never belong to a club that would allow someone like me as a member.
> 
> 
> Does that make me a Marxist?



makes you a hipster


----------



## 7stg (Oct 12, 2013)

Here are the political spectrum charts.
Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Political compass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pournelle chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I land in the libertarian quadrant on any test I have taken.

as ElRay said - "If the number of people I've heard say, "I'd vote for ......, but they don't have a chance." actually voted for their preferred candidate, we'd have a whole lot more 3rd Party candidates in office."  If only people would vote their conscious.


----------



## skeels (Oct 12, 2013)

mcd said:


> makes you a hipster



I'm too old to be a hipster.

Marxism it is. Groucho, Harpo, Zeppo...


----------



## mcd (Oct 12, 2013)

skeels said:


> I'm too old to be a hipster.
> 
> Marxism it is. Groucho, Harpo, Zeppo...



sounds like another self loathing hipster to me


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 13, 2013)

This is too funny/pathetic not to post.
It's just an exert of the longer full program but it focuses in on another system milker named Jason, who is living the "rat life" as he calls it.
He's chill'n. he's surf'n, he's jam'n, he's liv'n the dream, and he's eat'n for free on the tax payer's dime.
I would admit it to be the exception and not the norm, except that it is the norm.

For anyone who's willing to take an honest view of the situation will easily see that there is an effort by those at the top of government to get as many people as possible to become reliant on governmental assistance of any and all kinds.

It's such a complete sham in every way.
Go stand at your local grocery store and just watch all the obese people with fat kids sponging the free grub and then loading it into their late model SUV while yacking on their iphone with a Marlboro hanging out of their mouth lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQaJ8n3R3lY&list=PLu9f0elebjVIFX7LUZ_s9IemM5WhwbLGb&index=2


It really does sicken me to see how completely spoiled and pussyfied this nation has become.
Want to save the healthcare system, then everyone needs to quit running to the doctor for every little ailment. People need to get tough and take some pain.
Want to cut taxes, then be willing to live off beans, rice, milk, tuna ect. when times get financially tough.
Suffering (a little healthy suffering) is the way out, not borrowing from the future to sustain our current pleasures.


edit; And I'll be so bold to say that the vast MAJORITY of food stamp users (and Americans in general) would be HEALTHIER if they ATE LESS, not more.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 13, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Want to save the healthcare system, then everyone needs to quit running to the doctor for every little ailment. People need to get tough and take some pain.



That's cool. If you'd like, I can give you my sister's email address, so you can email her and tell her that. I'm sure she'll be comforted by the fact that all this time all she really needed to be doing was getting tough and taking some pain, instead of all that prohibitively expensive chemotherapy she's been getting to help control the rare autoimmune disease she has that's causing her kidneys to slowly fail and kill her, and keeps her too weak to be able to hold a job because sometimes she literally can't even get out of bed. 

She keeps trying to move out from our parents house to go work a job because she HATES not being able to do anything, but she inevitably moves back home to suffer in silence as her medical debt slowly builds up to ever more frightening levels. Who'd have thought that instead of worrying about how she'll continue to pay for the medical care that's keeping her alive and the mountainous debt payments she has when she's physically unable to work, all she needed to do was sack up and walk it off?

Seriously, fvck off with that shit. Some people genuinely need help with medical care, and if the government can't help them, their options are to become ever more buried in debt, or just go die in a field somewhere.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 13, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> That's cool. If you'd like, I can give you my sister's email address, so you can email her and tell her that. I'm sure she'll be comforted by the fact that all this time all she really needed to be doing was getting tough and taking some pain, instead of all that prohibitively expensive chemotherapy she's been getting to help control the rare autoimmune disease she has that's causing her kidneys to slowly fail and kill her, and keeps her too weak to be able to hold a job because sometimes she literally can't even get out of bed.
> 
> She keeps trying to move out from our parents house to go work a job because she HATES not being able to do anything, but she inevitably moves back home to suffer in silence as her medical debt slowly builds up to ever more frightening levels. Who'd have thought that instead of worrying about how she'll continue to pay for the medical care that's keeping her alive and the mountainous debt payments she has when she's physically unable to work, all she needed to do was sack up and walk it off?
> 
> Seriously, fvck off with that shit. Some people genuinely need help with medical care, and if the government can't help them, their options are to become ever more buried in debt, or just go die in a field somewhere.


 
No, you can screw off with that same old shit.
There'd be much more revenue to assist people who really need it (like your sister) if the system wasn't getting raped by the millions of sponges.

People on the Obama side (and it's very evident you are) always do that.
They try to mislabel common sense values as "heartlessness" .

I, and most others are in complete support of helping those who are in TRUE need.

This is a nation that's absolutely polluted with wimps, sponges, and hypochondriacs.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 13, 2013)

We have an economist here who has apparently been around the entire U.S. and KNOWS without a doubt that ALL (or most) people receiving any form of government aid is just a sponge. Not going to pretend there aren't any, but you do a fair bit of 'mislabeling' yourself. Starting with anyone receiving government aid and ending with how YOU perceive ANYONE who disagrees with you as a Luddite, 'libtard', 'commie', fascist, hippy, Obama supporter, etc.. I'd suggest looking in a mirror before passing judgment lest we look like a hypocrite.

He postured a story that is very close to him and your perception comes off as a direct personal attack given said situation, thus his response is initially jaded (understandably so). Your initial response certainly doesn't help your case any as you do come off as a heartless ass. 

All of the suggestions I here for reform in welfare generally revolve around cutting and putting the money back in taxpayers pockets not redistributing in a more appropriate manner. Politicians here in Texas do that shit all the time. They claim something is a waste of money and that if we don't spend it on X then we can use it on Y instead. Only Y never actually happens. It's a polite manipulation to justify ones more selfish nature 9/10 (recently occurred with an education bill here in Texas). People don't like spending money and people don't like paying taxes which isn't hard to understand, but lets not pretend it's anything more than that.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 13, 2013)

flint757 said:


> We have an economist here who has apparently been around the entire U.S. and KNOWS without a doubt that ALL (or most) people receiving any form of government aid is just a sponge. Not going to pretend there aren't any, but you do a fair bit of 'mislabeling' yourself. Starting with anyone receiving government aid and ending with how YOU perceive ANYONE who disagrees with you as a Luddite, 'libtard', 'commie', fascist, hippy, Obama supporter, etc.. I'd suggest looking in a mirror before passing judgment lest we look like a hypocrite.
> 
> He postured a story that is very close to him and your perception comes off as a direct personal attack given said situation, thus his response is initially jaded (understandably so). Your initial response certainly doesn't help your case any as you do come off as a heartless ass.
> 
> All of the suggestions I here for reform in welfare generally revolve around cutting and putting the money back in taxpayers pockets not redistributing in a more appropriate manner. Politicians here in Texas do that shit all the time. They claim something is a waste of money and that if we don't spend it on X then we can use it on Y instead. Only Y never actually happens. It's a polite manipulation to justify ones more selfish nature 9/10 (recently occurred with an education bill here in Texas). People don't like spending money and people don't like paying taxes which isn't hard to understand, but lets not pretend it's anything more than that.


 
Time for another Flint scolding huh .
You guys are just trying to pick fights.

My post was obviously directed towards the system abuse that is all over the place. 
You and Tim and many others always do this. You restate my post in a distorted and flat out inaccurate way so that it fits the picture you want it to.

How can you even argue with my original points? 
-That obesity is a national health problem, and that many obese people are not really being helped by all the extra food that the program provides people that sure seem to have plenty of money for other common luxuries (like newer vehicles and alcohol/cigarettes).

-That if more people would conserve "self police" their medical spending (being gov. paid, private paid, cash ect.) the whole system wouldn't be as stressed, and that would leave much more resources to care for the NEEDY.


----------



## flexkill (Oct 13, 2013)

ElRay said:


> As a small-L libertarian (also correctly known as a "Classic Liberal" -- but that's a whole different can of worms), I wouldn't want to be lumped with Conservatives any more than I'd like to be lumped with Modern Liberals. Both sides use the government for their social engineering aims and both sides use the government for the fiscal benefit of their own "politically connected" friends.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 13, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, you can screw off with that same old shit.
> There'd be much more revenue to assist people who really need it (like your sister) if the system wasn't getting raped by the millions of sponges.
> 
> People on the Obama side (and it's very evident you are) always do that.
> ...




I don't give five fvcks and a handshake about Obama. I didn't vote for him for either of his terms. I don't like the ACA for the most part, either, because I don't think it does enough, and goes about fixing a problem that NEEDS fixing in the wrong way. I do think, however, that it's a step in the right direction, because SOME government healthcare assistance is better than NO government healthcare assistance.

My reaction may be what you deem typical of an Obama supporter, but it's no less typical than just throwing out the blanket statement that people need to just suck it up instead of seeking medical care. There are exceptions to that, obvious and _important_ exceptions, and you don't do yourself or your argument any favors by leaving them out and then acting surprised when someone reacts negatively to your nonsense.

And for what it's worth, here in South Korea healthcare is _heavily_ subsidized by the government and everyone pays into a national healthcare plan. Koreans (the ones I know, at least) are far worse about going to the doctor for every fvcking thing than I and most Americans I know, and their system seems to be working fine, for the most part. It's common for them to leave work to go to the hospital to get a subscription because they have watery eyes or a measly cold, and that doesn't drive the cost of medical care up to insane heights here. I paid about $4k out of pocket for a five week hospital stay, two knee surgeries, two MRIs, and countless X-rays and bloodwork, and getting my prescriptions filled tended to be either free or less than five dollars.

Yes, I know, the plural of anecdote isn't data. I'm just saying that, from where I'm sitting, people being able to seek medical attention whenever they need it, for whatever reason, doesn't appear to have to drive costs through the roof, and government assistance to that end seems to be doing far more good than harm.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 13, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You *and Tim* and many others always do this. You restate my post in a distorted and flat out inaccurate way so that it fits the picture you want it to.



No, I don't. In fact, I have more of a reputation around here for butting heads with the same people who butt heads with you because of my own (perhaps overzealous) sense of patriotism compared to the average poster here. I rarely stick my nose into the Let's All Call Trench an Idiot parties that pop up from time to time, and often find myself agreeing with the things you say.

This particular case just hits closer to home for me, because of my sister. As I've said before, to me, people who think the government doesn't need to be involved in healthcare are telling me my sister can fvck off and die.

Perhaps saying you think the government doesn't need to be involved in healthcare is oversimplifying your position, I don't know. I just know that the commonly portrayed view of healthcare from the Red side of the playing field is that the government should stay out. Forgive me if that's not how you feel, but I'm only human and have buttons that can be pushed.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 13, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> No, I don't. In fact, I have more of a reputation around here for butting heads with the same people who butt heads with you because of my own (perhaps overzealous) sense of patriotism compared to the average poster here. I rarely stick my nose into the Let's All Call Trench an Idiot parties that pop up from time to time, and often find myself agreeing with the things you say.
> 
> This particular case just hits closer to home for me, because of my sister. As I've said before, to me, people who think the government doesn't need to be involved in healthcare are telling me my sister can .... off and die.
> 
> Perhaps saying you think the government doesn't need to be involved in healthcare is oversimplifying your position, I don't know. I just know that the commonly portrayed view of healthcare from the Red side of the playing field is that the government should stay out. Forgive me if that's not how you feel, but I'm only human and have buttons that can be pushed.


 
No worries, it's just politics lol.
I do think we need to maintain a government safety net for food, shelter, medical care, and I do think the money would be there for it if it weren't for our culture of total gluttony.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 13, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> My post was obviously directed towards the system abuse that is all over the place.



I'm completely aware that abuse takes place as I too have seen it first hand. That being said, other than getting statistics on how many people use each form of aid and people you've observed personally you cannot actually know how wide and deep the abuse is. You can assume, but that is pretty much it. Maybe your state just sucks and has more deadbeats than the norm. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> You and Tim and many others always do this. You restate my post in a distorted and flat out inaccurate way so that it fits the picture you want it to.



I didn't quote you at all. Kind of silly for you to say that anyhow when nearly all posts you respond to you do this exact thing a lot of the time.



TRENCHLORD said:


> How can you even argue with my original points?
> -That obesity is a national health problem, and that many obese people are not really being helped by all the extra food that the program provides people that sure seem to have plenty of money for other common luxuries (like newer vehicles and alcohol/cigarettes).



Are we really going with only poor people are fat? Weight problems are not class biased. As a society, in general, we have gotten lazier (fitness wise) and eat shittier food. It isn't the amount of food anyhow that has led to the rise in obesity, it is what people eat. The cheapest food in a grocery store and at restaurants are typically the absolute worst food for you. Food stamps didn't cause this. Correlation does not prove causation.

I don't know anyone who is truly poor and on welfare driving brand new vehicles.  



TRENCHLORD said:


> -That if more people would conserve "self police" their medical spending (being gov. paid, private paid, cash ect.) the whole system wouldn't be as stressed, and that would leave much more resources to care for the NEEDY.



This I can agree with to an extent, but that isn't the big issue with medical care right now. Some people have medical issues beyond being able to simply conserve too. In fact not going to the doctor and sucking it up is what typically leads to worse and more expensive problems (for the system and the individual). 

I'd say it is about 40/60 in my personal experience on who does and doesn't go to the doctor. I know tons of people who avoid it like the plague (not covered everywhere, not enough money or too lazy to wait in the ER) and those who just go. The lack of coverage at doctors office is actually a huge waste of money on the system. Most people on medicaid end up going to the ER instead of a GP because most medical practices don't take it. ER's for the same boo boo's you'd go to a GP for cost 10 times as much and are 100% covered by medicaid.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 13, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I'm completely aware that abuse takes place as I too have seen it first hand. That being said, other than getting statistics on how many people use each form of aid and people you've observed personally you cannot actually know how wide and deep the abuse is. You can assume, but that is pretty much it. Maybe your state just sucks and has more deadbeats than the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

You're doing it again already.

Yes Illinios is one of the worst ran states, and system abuse is huge huge huge.

No, I never said only poor people are fat.
Where do you get these assumptions?

No, you're wrong about your nutrition facts.
The cheapest foods are some of the best nutritionally speaking.
It's the middle isles at the store, you know the ones with all the bagged and boxed stuff, the ones that most food stampers go crazy on, that are the most expensive in the long run, and that lead to all the health issues,
POP, CHIPS, FROZEN DINNERS, COOKIES, ect.., those are the worst and most expensive.

No, I never said there's a lot of welfare recipients driving brand new vehicles (there sure are some though).
I said that one helluva lot of them are driving later model vehicles (that's 3-5yrs old or so, but why does that even matter?)
It's true. They are/do.

No, I never said that nobody should ever go to the doctor if they have a problem.
I said that far to many people take anything as a reason to go to the doctor, especially when they are insured by either a company or the government.

Once again you are just trying to pick an E-fight .


----------



## flint757 (Oct 13, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, I never said only poor people are fat.
> Where do you get these assumptions?



Wasn't an assumption. You said that obesity is a national health problem and then directly implied that government aid programs are a large cause of this. Only poor people need this aid so it wasn't exactly a leap. Unless you're saying being overweight is ONLY a problem when you're poor (oh dear I'm 'doing it again' ).



TRENCHLORD said:


> No, you're wrong about your nutrition facts.
> The cheapest foods are some of the best nutritionally speaking.
> It's the middle isles at the store, you know the ones with all the bagged and boxed stuff, the ones that most food stampers go crazy on, that are the most expensive in the long run, and that lead to all the health issues,
> POP, CHIPS, FROZEN DINNERS, COOKIES, ect.., those are the worst and most expensive.



Whatever dude. Go down the meat aisle, vegetable aisles, the seasoning aisle, nut aisle, etc. and get back to me. Buying ramen noodles, hamburger helper, sweets, etc. are WAY cheaper than the above. Seriously though, post an article and statistics that support your points and I'll actually consider them. Otherwise you're just making accusations based on your limited experience (on a national scale).



TRENCHLORD said:


> No, I never said there's a lot of welfare recipients driving brand new vehicles (there sure are some though).
> I said that one helluva lot of them are driving later model vehicles (that's 3-5yrs old or so, but why does that even matter?)
> It's true. They are/do.



Statistics. That aside 'newer' entry level vehicles aren't exactly expensive. I drive an 11 year old truck and my sister drove a 13 year old SUV. She paid $500 for it. That vehicle has had nearly EVERYTHING break on it. Sometimes it is a better investment to spend more up front than $1000's down the line. In Texas unless you live literally inside the city there is absolutely no public transportation so owning a vehicle that isn't going to breakdown is practically mandatory for anyone who wants to work.

Still I've never personally observed this. I have an uncle who takes advantage of SSI benefits (he's a total douche). He owns a shitty vehicle too. Every single person within the poverty line that I know all drive shitty vehicles. In any case, it is mark against ones credit so like you said it is hardly relevant.



TRENCHLORD said:


> No, I never said that nobody should ever go to the doctor if they have a problem.
> I said that far to many people take anything as a reason to go to the doctor, especially when they are insured by either a company or the government.
> 
> Once again you are just trying to pick an E-fight .



Statistics. I have insurance and I've been needing to go to the doctor for 2 weeks and haven't. I've been needing to go to the dentist for several months and haven't. Insurance doesn't mean it is cheap either so it isn't like people are going to go for 'any reason' because it still isn't free. I assume you are basing ALL of this on personal observation, but if you actually have an article or statistics to back your thoughts up I wouldn't mind seeing them.

Just because YOU think someone at the doctors office didn't need to be there doesn't mean they didn't. The only time I've observed someone wasting a doctors time is when a child or an adult needs a doctors note for work/school. That is a systematic problem though. If you're going to get fired if you don't go to the doctor I think that's a pretty good reason to go.


In any case we are straying way off topic so lets get back to discussing libertarian-ism (l and L).


----------



## Andrew91 (Oct 13, 2013)

So, it was my understanding that libertarianism meant that one believes the government should allow citizens to do as they please, with minimal regulation, so long as they don't interfere with others' rights to do the same..
But I guess everything has to be complicated, because answers can never be simple, and everything has to be a debate.

This site is your friend.


----------



## Church2224 (Oct 14, 2013)

You guys already make me regret starting this thread. I thought we could be mature about this, guess not. 

I was afraid of name calling and people being condescending, guess people who are over 18 cannot act like adults over the internet.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Oct 14, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> This is too funny/pathetic not to post.
> It's just an exert of the longer full program but it focuses in on another system milker named Jason, who is living the "rat life" as he calls it.
> He's chill'n. he's surf'n, he's jam'n, he's liv'n the dream, and he's eat'n for free on the tax payer's dime.
> I would admit it to be the exception and not the norm, except that it is the norm.



You can't eat sushi and lobster dinner every day on SNAP. He said himself he got $200 a month, but who's surprised FOX news would distort reality for their own agenda? You say "it is the norm," let's review some actual facts about SNAP. I can't link to the USDA site because of the shutown, but this page at least lists the references.

The evidence available suggests very little abuse of the program, and statistics on Welfare fraud for last year show it well under 10%. People upset about social safety net fraud talk like it's a vast drain on our economy, fact is these programs are a relatively small portion of our national budget and the extent to which they are defrauded is verifiably miniscule.

If you're really concerned about your tax dollars being misappropriated, a single MQ-1 predator drone costs $4.03M and the hellfire missiles they shoot cost $98,000 apiece. Your money is being used to fund imperialism on the other side of the world, and FOX has you worried about some statistical minority surf bum.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 14, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Wasn't an assumption. You said that obesity is a national health problem and then directly implied that government aid programs are a large cause of this. Only poor people need this aid so it wasn't exactly a leap. Unless you're saying being overweight is ONLY a problem when you're poor (oh dear I'm 'doing it again' ).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And once again , you just distorted everything I originally posted .
Then you accuse me of going off topic.


Fraud stats? What a joke dude. It only makes it to the stat if it's caught.

Diet? You get far more bang for the buck nutritionally with whole food.
If we are going to foot the grub bill for the lazy and needy people then only good nutrition packed whole food should be allowed on the stamp, not pop, chips, cakes, ect.
Whole food is very cheap but you are getting it confused with gourmet.

You just got done saying that if people went to the doctors more often it would save us money in the long run and help the struggling system.
You honestly believe that?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 14, 2013)

Church2224 said:


> You guys already make me regret starting this thread. I thought we could be mature about this, guess not.
> 
> I was afraid of name calling and people being condescending, guess people who are over 18 cannot act like adults over the internet.



I think you're reading too much into people having conflicting opinions on the internet. People are going to disagree, _especially_ when it comes to politics. If you just wanted a place where libertarians and/or conservatives can hang out and just agree with eachother about everything, then perhaps it'd have been better to start a group dedicated to that, rather than a public discussion thread.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 14, 2013)

Church2224 said:


> You guys already make me regret starting this thread. I thought we could be mature about this, guess not.
> 
> I was afraid of name calling and people being condescending, guess people who are over 18 cannot act like adults over the internet.


 

I don't start these back and forths man.
I make my post which state my feelings, beliefs and opinions.
It's my opinion that they are factual which is plenty good enough for me.

If people want to constantly and consistently tell me I'm wrong about everything that's fine, but don't blame me for defending my position.

I've been around the block many times and I know what i'm saying is true.
People in our country these days have gotten EXTREMELY spoiled by the high standard of living that we've enjoyed over the last few decades.

Don't believe me? Just talk to some old-timers from your parents and grandparents generation. 
People (in general mind you, in general (no flint, that doesn't mean everyone) have gotten very lazy and spoiled and un-self-reliant.
That is the core of the problem. 

You can spend billions treating the societal symptoms and it won't solve a damned thing.
You have to make it to where people are self-forced to be more self-reliant in every way, which is the very opposite of what is happening now.


----------



## Church2224 (Oct 14, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I think you're reading too much into people having conflicting opinions on the internet. People are going to disagree, _especially_ when it comes to politics. If you just wanted a place where libertarians and/or conservatives can hang out and just agree with eachother about everything, then perhaps it'd have been better to start a group dedicated to that, rather than a public discussion thread.



No I completely understand people will disagree but the issue I have is people just insulting each other and their "I am right, you are wrong, screw you attitude" that some people seem to be displaying...


----------



## dethFNmetal (Oct 14, 2013)

how to find where you lie on the political spectrum

The Political Compass - Test


----------



## dethFNmetal (Oct 14, 2013)

the problem with the republican/libertarian thread.... liberals still think that they need to post in it to protect their honor


----------



## Watty (Oct 14, 2013)

Church2224 said:


> No I completely understand people will disagree but the issue I have is people just insulting each other and their "I am right, you are wrong, screw you attitude" that some people seem to be displaying...



I didn't read every word of every post here, but it seems like the general tone is just one of disagreement with evidence to support. I don't see what the problem is. Granted, this could easily devolve into a proverbial s*&t-storm, but if Congress can't maintain the dignity and decorum you're looking for...(insert appropriate comparison to our behavior here).

Tim's brought up a good point and I know there are many more. I believe there was an open letter floating around from a 26 year old that said unless the ACA gets rolling and she's able to enroll, her 27th birthday is something she'll never see due to a terminal, pre-existing condition. For every example of "gaming the system" there's one like this, and I think we should perhaps focus on helping those in need first and then working on cleaning up the "trash" that burdens the system, preventing it from working as you might expect from the "best" country in the world.



dethFNmetal said:


> the problem with the republican/libertarian thread.... liberals still think that they need to post in it to protect their honor



It's less about honor and more about honest discourse. If all you hear all day, every day is the persistent reinforcing of your opinions, whether right or wrong, there's little point (ahem....FoxNews). We're seeing this position thoroughly represented in the ongoing shutdown. Many of the people who are blaming the Democrats are relying on the programs they're trying to maintain funding for. It's astounding to think how far some political education would go in this country, which is exactly the goal of ensuring that multiple points of view are represented in any discussion of related topics.
____

Perhaps more on topic:

I've never really bothered to look into the details that differentiate Libertarianism from the elephant, anyone care to share? I'm interested in seeing just how far the "self-reliance" mentality goes with regards to how our society is evolving. I mean, I work in an industry that's regulated by the government (energy) and I just took a course that detailed the finer points of how our business model works. Despite hating finance, I found it thoroughly interesting, especially given that the government (more state than federal) is largely responsible for how low your rates are. In a "smaller" government situation without the corresponding regulation and oversight, you could easily see your rates triple overnight for something that's just about as essential as anything in today's society.

That said, how far does the reduction in the reach of the government go? Should the states be more autonomous in your view? How does that affect the overall success we've had as a nation because we've been just that, a nation? What do you expect to change if there government were to get smaller? What wouldn't you expect to change?

I think that there are some people that think about the ramifications of these questions and believe that it won't matter, if not only because their particular lot in life wouldn't be overly affected. Considering I'm not really affected by the shutdown now, I could easily discount the importance of it "not being around," but just a year a ago, I was a government employee. I would have been out of work right now and wondering what the hell I was going to do to pay the bills. It's easy to rationalize when you're not part of the group being directly affected. And what stems from that realization is the fact that we need to look at the country as a group, not as two political agendas fighting for the affections of the national debt. Heck, even if Senate caved right now, the House has already done irreparable damage to our world standing and the country's economy. How is that okay when viewed from the perspective of EVERYONE living here not just those who want the ACA (among other things) out?


----------



## dethFNmetal (Oct 14, 2013)

Watty said:


> It's less about honor and more about honest discourse. If all you hear all day, every day is the persistent reinforcing of your opinions, whether right or wrong, there's little point (ahem....FoxNews). We're seeing this position thoroughly represented in the ongoing shutdown. Many of the people who are blaming the Democrats are relying on the programs they're trying to maintain funding for. It's astounding to think how far some political education would go in this country, which is exactly the goal of ensuring that multiple points of view are represented in any discussion of related topics.



aaaand i rest my case


----------



## Watty (Oct 14, 2013)

dethFNmetal said:


> aaaand i rest my case



Glad you felt I reinforced your point? (More than you did mine for not posting about the content of my post with regards to the larger issue, but eh...)


----------



## dethFNmetal (Oct 14, 2013)

Watty said:


> Glad you felt I reinforced your point? (More than you did mine for not posting about the content of my post with regards to the larger issue, but eh...)



what im saying is, your talking about how if you always have your opinions reinforced you will think your right. thus is the life of this forum with the liberals. this forum is 90% liberals. so you guys are always doing just exactly what you are claiming that is going on in this ONE thread. hypocrisy man....


----------



## Watty (Oct 14, 2013)

dethFNmetal said:


> what im saying is, your talking about how if you always have your opinions reinforced you will think your right. thus is the life of this forum with the liberals. this forum is 90% liberals. so you guys are always doing just exactly what you are claiming that is going on in this ONE thread. hypocrisy man....



Fair point, but given that we've established that one of the more right leaning members on the forum is posting here with his opinions and we're engaging him in discourse, how are we ONLY reinforcing our own views?


----------



## dethFNmetal (Oct 14, 2013)

the original post was asking for ONE place in which more conservative members could voice their opinions without being totally eaten alive by the large amount of liberal/democrats on this site.

its not a place where they voice their arguments, just have simple discussion. cant you guys at least give them that? i mean come on now...


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 14, 2013)

I hope you guys know that it's possible to be a left-leaning libertarian, too. This kind of confusion is what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were trying to avoid when they said the Republican party should reform itself instead of people branching out into this other stuff. 

I think that the government's two main roles in society are to serve and protect its citizens, a statement I think most would agree with. I support social welfare programs, and public funding for the arts and science, but I don't support the government intruding negatively into the lives of individuals. I disagree with laws that govern what we can say and do, up to the point where it would infringe on another's rights. I believe that the government should protect the people from manipulation at the hands of huge corporations and foreign interests, but only as far as a certain point that should be decided upon democratically.


----------



## dethFNmetal (Oct 14, 2013)

lib·er·tar·i·an (l




b






r-târ






-



n)_n._*1. * One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
*2. * One who believes in free will.

that doesnt sound left leaning....


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 14, 2013)

dethFNmetal said:


> lib·er·tar·i·an (l
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDIT: Political standpoints are less like religions with static definitions and more like a spectrum, hence the term 'political spectrum.'


----------



## Watty (Oct 14, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> I believe that the government should protect the people from manipulation at the hands of huge corporations



It's really too bad it's doing a poor job of this right now...


----------



## dethFNmetal (Oct 14, 2013)

^thats a whole separate set of view points, none similar to a classic libertarian. their names just sound similar.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 14, 2013)

Watty said:


> It's really too bad it's doing a poor job of this right now...



Too true. It's doing a bad job at pretty much everything it should do, though.



dethFNmetal said:


> ^thats a whole separate set of view points, none similar to a classic libertarian. their names just sound similar.



Nope, it's very much related to classical liberalism, which is what the libertarian movement draws from in its most well-known form today.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 14, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And once again , you just distorted everything I originally posted .
> Then you accuse me of going off topic.



I said this conversation has strayed off topic (there you go again 'distorting everything'). For a grown man you are such a baby sometimes. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Fraud stats? What a joke dude. It only makes it to the stat if it's caught.



Yes, your gut feeling on this is probably much more accurate than actual facts. It goes back to what I said originally, there is no way at all for you to know the extent of the 'corruption'. All you have is your personal experience which is severely limited both geographically and by your own perceptions.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Diet? You get far more bang for the buck nutritionally with whole food.
> If we are going to foot the grub bill for the lazy and needy people then only good nutrition packed whole food should be allowed on the stamp, not pop, chips, cakes, ect.
> Whole food is very cheap but you are getting it confused with gourmet.



Nut's, meat, and veggies are gourmet? I did not get anything mixed up you just disagree with me. FWIW I do agree about what food should be allowed (a little childish though), but I imagine there is a reason they didn't and it probably has to do with being able to execute such a policy. It is a burden on the system and the stores to execute. Same reason you don't have an official knocking on everyone's door making sure they are holding their end of the bargain. It is inefficient considering how little money is involved (irrelevant to corruption, if any, it is a drop in the national budgets bucket compared to things like military spending).

I appreciate for once you distinguishing lazy and needy people. Normally you just lump them together.



TRENCHLORD said:


> You just got done saying that if people went to the doctors more often it would save us money in the long run and help the struggling system.
> You honestly believe that?



System isn't struggling because people go to the doctor. That's their ....ing job. It'd be like saying mechanics are struggling because people are showing up who need their car fixed. They're struggling because of the cost of medical care and the insurance companies.

That aside, yes I do believe that. I have bronchial scarring so when I get a cold it inevitably turns into bronchitis. If I don't go to the doctor to take care of a cold I'm left with a far more severe ailment. It may not always be the case, but as a whole we are better off when people go to the doctor. The healthier each individual is the less likely they are going to get others sick as well. How is THAT hard to comprehend?



TRENCHLORD said:


> I don't start these back and forths man.
> I make my post which state my feelings, beliefs and opinions.
> *It's my opinion that they are factual* which is plenty good enough for me.



 

Here's the source of your problem. Your opinions are not facts. Facts are facts. Speculation, hearsay, gut feelings, limited observation, etc. do not equate to a nationwide problem. If the stats are 'impossible' to get, the objective facts say otherwise and all you have is your VERY limited experiences to go off of it is a far safer bet that there isn't a 'huge' problem. There 'could be', but there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim so it is NOT fact at all.



TRENCHLORD said:


> People (in general mind you, in general (no flint, that doesn't mean everyone) have gotten very lazy and spoiled and un-self-reliant.
> That is the core of the problem.





Your sarcasm is appreciated, truly. 



dethFNmetal said:


> the problem with the republican/libertarian thread.... liberals still think that they need to post in it to protect their honor



Yes because no one from the republican/libertarian camp ever posts in them 'liberal' threads. 

As Watty said discourse is healthy. If you wanted a group to just pat each other on the back that option is available to you, otherwise this is a public forum.


----------



## mcd (Oct 14, 2013)

Welcome back Watty!

I look forward to reading banter while I should be working tomorrow


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 14, 2013)

OT: I'm pretty sure this site has a feature where you can create groups. Maybe instead of a thread you should look into starting a conservative group?


----------



## mcd (Oct 14, 2013)

dethFNmetal said:


> the problem with the republican/libertarian thread.... liberals still think that they need to post in it to protect their honor



OT: The problem is that Libertarians are grouped into the same category as Repulsicans.


----------



## Watty (Oct 15, 2013)

mcd said:


> Welcome back Watty!
> 
> I look forward to reading banter while I should be working tomorrow



Thanks...



mcd said:


> OT: The problem is that Libertarians are grouped into the same category as Repulsicans.



Hadn't heard that one before...


----------



## mcd (Oct 15, 2013)

Watty said:


> Hadn't heard that one before...



how 'bout Demonicrats? I like that one too, and dislike them equally


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 15, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I said this conversation has strayed off topic (there you go again 'distorting everything'). For a grown man you are such a baby sometimes.


 

Now who is doing the name calling here? 
That's OK though, because I like it when you call me baby  .


And yes, you make it your M.O. to exaggerate the majority of what I say, then you have a debate against the exaggeration.

If you have all these facts you claim to have, then why can't you ever actually debate my literal statements?

I say something is a problem, and you change it to "it's the only problem or the sole problem".

FYI it's not fraud that's the issue, it's abuse and dependency.
Jason on the FOX video I posted is doing nothing fraudulent or illegal, but does that make it all-right? No, he's a sponge.
It's system abuse, and it's not only hurting our economy, it's creating a culture of dependency that will take years to undo, if ever.

IMO if some one is going to collect food stamps longer than 3 months then they should have to lose the un-needed luxury items and services, like the dish, cable, internet (unless it's required for the job they probably don't have ).


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Oct 15, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> EDIT: Political standpoints are less like religions with static definitions and more like a spectrum, hence the term 'political spectrum.'




Fun fact: the term Libertarian was first coined by a French Anarchist Communist named Joseph Dejacques to get around the censors. In most countries what Americans call a Libertarian (limited government, limited economic intervention) is actually called a liberal! Hence the term "neo-liberal", which is used everywhere but the United States to refer to the current trend of deregulating previously controlled markets.

America is also relatively unique in its related "anarcho-capitalism" phenomenon. Historically the international anarchist political movement was socialist/syndicalist oriented, with a few individualist anarchists here and there in the literary and philosophical community. In this country most people I meet don't even understand how its possible to be a socialist and an anarchist. 

We is one f*cked up polity, yo.

I tend to think of myself as a libertarian in the traditional sense of the word.


----------



## mcd (Oct 15, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> IMO if some one is going to collect food stamps longer than 3 months then they should have to lose the un-needed luxury items and services, like the dish, cable, internet (unless it's required for the job they probably don't have ).



i had to write a proposal paper recently and it was to re-structure America's social spending....I pretty much said that exactly, and a bunch of other stuff.

Get out of my brain!


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 15, 2013)

Hey all, I just looked up a few stats on the cdc website regarding obesity. Turns out the prevalence of obesity in poor children (less than 130% of the poverty line) is around twice that of children who are not poor (above 350% of the poverty line). The same is true for women. For men there wasn't much of a difference.

I was also interested in whether junk food was more expensive than healthy food, so I found a US Dept of Agriculture paper from last year where they looked into it, and junk food was indeed discovered to be more costly than healthy food when compared by weight or portion size. There are a number of studies that show junk food is cheaper, they said, but that only results if you compare based on calories. In other words, ounce for ounce healthy food will cost less and have less calories than junk food. The study was more about going shopping than eating out. (Likely because fast food restaurants are exceptionally competitive on price, and would probably be cheaper than ordering a salad at a regular restaurant.)

Now, I'm not looking to get into an argument here, and I point these out not to say I'm a conservative or liberal, but I will go on record saying that I'm disappointed how far my country has fallen in terms of education and health when compared to the rest of the world. And that might well be related to the above data.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 15, 2013)

I'm sure some of you are familiar with the W.I.C. program.
In the program there are only certain nutritious and cost effective foods allowed.
It's designed to help provide a nutrition safety net to mothers and young children who need it.
Department of State Health Services, WIC

The federal food stamp program should follow this model IMO.


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 15, 2013)

Yeah. WIC is a pretty cool program. I know people on that, and I was pretty surprised how good it is. And on a slightly off topic note, I'm seeing more schools dump the crap they're serving the kids for more nutritious stuff. Finally!


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 15, 2013)

Yeah, vending machines with candy bars, chips and soda was never a good idea for the students.
It was convenient though for those of us who were hungry but still needed time to catch one (one what? lol).


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 15, 2013)

How do you reconcile that, though? People flipped shit when New York tried to ban large soda cups, but if you're on welfare you should eat only government selected foods? I definitely support eating healthy being encouraged, as it contributes to the well-being of our country, but I would have a problem with the government telling me what I could and could not eat if I had no choice but to seek out food stamps. 

Big government is big government, small government is small government.


----------



## lurgar (Oct 15, 2013)

"Poor people do not fit my image of what poor should be therefore I say that the poor should be pulled down to whatever level I have in my head of what poor should be."

SNAP and WIC both provide a great service and I'd rather have the chance that there are people abusing the program and buying food than to risk having people who need assistance and can't get it. This is before you consider that these food benefits are some of the best stimulus we have.


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 15, 2013)

My view of a lot of these government programs is not that they are inherently bad, but that they are run by people who don't have the incentives to run them well. I don't consider myself a conservative, per se, and I'm not sure I've thought enough about it to say with any certainty how small or large our government should be, but I can say that I think the government is set up in a way that does not increase quality or efficiency or decrease overhead. I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems that when similar projects are undertaken by a private entity and a government entity the private entity always does it better, faster and cheaper. In that sense I get really irritated about the government, because it seems that they blow through money all the time, and the excuse, at least at the local level, is that if the money isn't spent it has to be sent back and will be spent by someone else. It's just disheartening to see what the government pays for supplies (like those stories in previous decades where a hammer would cost $500), the number of people needed to accomplish a set of tasks, or the customer service of a governmental department. In contrast to a lot of conservative groups, I do not mind regulation of some industries. However, I also feel like a lot of things would run better if they allowed private companies to do them, and kept them on the straight and narrow with regulations and oversight. Is that lunacy, or am I not out of line with others' thinking?


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 15, 2013)

Hollowway said:


> My view of a lot of these government programs is not that they are inherently bad, but that they are run by people who don't have the incentives to run them well. I don't consider myself a conservative, per se, and I'm not sure I've thought enough about it to say with any certainty how small or large our government should be, but I can say that I think the government is set up in a way that does not increase quality or efficiency or decrease overhead. I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems that when similar projects are undertaken by a private entity and a government entity the private entity always does it better, faster and cheaper. In that sense I get really irritated about the government, because it seems that they blow through money all the time, and the excuse, at least at the local level, is that if the money isn't spent it has to be sent back and will be spent by someone else. It's just disheartening to see what the government pays for supplies (like those stories in previous decades where a hammer would cost $500), the number of people needed to accomplish a set of tasks, or the customer service of a governmental department. In contrast to a lot of conservative groups, I do not mind regulation of some industries. However, I also feel like a lot of things would run better if they allowed private companies to do them, and kept them on the straight and narrow with regulations and oversight. Is that lunacy, or am I not out of line with others' thinking?



Companies as a rule operate much more efficiently than the federal governments, or any other level, really. The problem is that companies don't exist to serve people, as the government ostensibly should. That's why we see large companies laying people off just short of retirement, playing with hours to avoid giving employees benefits, etc. 

Another disturbing thing to think about is that quite a few heads of national departments come from the corporate or academic world, with vested interests that often conflict with practical solutions. There's far too much interplay between companies and government entities for my liking.


----------



## skeels (Oct 16, 2013)




----------



## Jakke (Oct 16, 2013)

Even with me being an avid opponent to philosophical marxism, and especially marxist academic disciplines*, that is one marxism that I would support.



*Such as women studies, critical whiteness studies, critical theory, some sociology, and some modern literary criticism.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 17, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> How do you reconcile that, though? People flipped shit when New York tried to ban large soda cups, but if you're on welfare you should eat only government selected foods? I definitely support eating healthy being encouraged, as it contributes to the well-being of our country, but I would have a problem with the government telling me what I could and could not eat if I had no choice but to seek out food stamps.
> 
> Big government is big government, small government is small government.




I just want to point out a double-standard here (well, sort of a double-standard anyway) - many people who would complain about regulations on what kind of food we eat (that is, assuming the regulations cater to healthy eating) would also support the laws already in place against drug use/possession. That's a double-standard because studies abound show that we usually make poor health choices because of addictive behavior associated with the ingredients in the unhealthy food (specifically, in most cases, sugar, salt, and fat). I feel that everybody should be able to make their own choices, on one hand, but I also know how companies tend to "trick" us into trying their products, which can very easily create habits, not unlike a drug dealer. So, I feel like that subject is more complicated than we might normally make it out to be.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 23, 2013)

I probably don't belong in this thread, I consider myself to be extremely left wing. However I also kind of identify with Anarchism. You could say, the Anarchist in me simply wishes for all people to live free of any kind of oppression, and have people free to live as they choose as long as they're not harming anyone. Simple right? 

Of course, anarchism is nothing more than idealism, because it would obviously not work in practice. So, in that I believe that the roll of government should be simply to keep people from oppressing other people, and set up a basic method of economic activity (so have a currency system). I believe in a fair minimum wage, because I feel like someone being a wage slave is a form of oppression. I believe in setting environmental protection laws, because if someone elses polluting ends up hurting other people, that's a kind of oppression. In the end, people are assholes. Without rule of law, people will naturally try to harm each other. As much as I wish it wasn't the case. I think it was either Henry Rollins or Jello Bafiara who said when people are dicks, thats when we need cops. So don't be a dick, and if nobody was a dick, we wouldn't need cops, and I ....ing hate cops.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Oct 23, 2013)

Right, so I took this test and it said I'm a Neoliberal Democrat. From what I understand, this pretty much means I'm a right leaning libertarian? Someone splain this plox. Here be my results.


----------



## skeels (Nov 11, 2013)

will_shred said:


> I probably don't belong in this thread,?
> 
> Of course, anarchism is nothing less than ideal.



Fixed.









I'm such a stinker!


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 20, 2013)

I got 'National Democratic Socialist' on that test Captain Butterscotch posted, but I left a lot of things neutral if I wasn't entirely sure what my answer was 

So I'll be leaving you non-progressives to your own line-dancing devices


----------



## Jakke (Nov 21, 2013)

CrushingAnvil said:


> I got 'National "Democratic" Socialist' on that test Captain Butterscotch posted, but I left a lot of things neutral if I wasn't entirely sure what my answer was



NSDAP


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 21, 2013)

^


----------



## Jakke (Nov 22, 2013)




----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 24, 2013)

Jakke said:


> NSDAP



Yeah, no - it was totally weird, right? Because I was like "well, I'm a National Socialist" and then it threw in 'Democratic' and I was just like SUPER confused.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 24, 2013)

Jakke said:


>



GOD DAMNED JE-----.... - ....ing vortermelons, Habe ich Recht?


----------



## Jakke (Nov 24, 2013)

Verdammte Magneten.. Wie werken sie?


----------



## skeels (Nov 24, 2013)

Jakke said:


>


 
I like how it looks like he's spitting out a seed. 

Also, NSDAP Democrat? Did people vote for Hitler?

Also, I took the test and.....


Nah, I'm just ...ing with you. I didn't take any stinking test!

It would just say "We know it's you, skeels! Quit messing with us!"


----------



## Jakke (Nov 24, 2013)

skeels said:


> I like how it looks like he's spitting out a seed.
> 
> Also, NSDAP Democrat? Did people vote for Hitler?



The Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) were indeed voted into office, as they abandoned their plans of a violent takeover after the Biergarten Coup that saw Hitler arrested and sentenced to prison.


----------



## skeels (Nov 24, 2013)

I was joking actually, but I thought Hitler was appointed chancellor by the president at the time and not voted in, per se.


----------



## Church2224 (Nov 24, 2013)

So yeah this is where I sit on the political spectrum


----------



## Necris (Nov 25, 2013)

also: http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/421892/

... I'll see myself out.


----------



## fwd0120 (Nov 25, 2013)

When I took it I seem to remember it being two squares deep towards right and libertarian.

Retook it just now about 4 years after the last time.

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/421867/


----------



## skeels (Nov 25, 2013)

How can a question about abstract art have any bearing on someone's political affiliation?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 25, 2013)

skeels said:


> How can a question about abstract art have any bearing on someone's political affiliation?




Typical commie rhetoric!


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 25, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> This is too funny/pathetic not to post.
> It's just an exert of the longer full program but it focuses in on another system milker named Jason, who is living the "rat life" as he calls it.
> He's chill'n. he's surf'n, he's jam'n, he's liv'n the dream, and he's eat'n for free on the tax payer's dime.
> I would admit it to be the exception and not the norm, except that it is the norm.
> ...



Great post. Good points throughout. I tend to stay away from the political section of the forum, but its good to see I'm not alone here.

The staggeringly ignorant culture of dependency the US has created is completely out of control. Don't really see a way of ending it either. Tens of millions of people only eat and have a roof over there heads because of those of of us that go to work everyday to pay for them. I am more than ok with my tax dollars going to people that actually need it. Someone that needs some help to get back on their feet, or someone physically disabled. Military veterans without a doubt should receive whatever they need, it's just saddening that they do not.

But...watching the money I earn being handed over to people whose only problem is being too stupid to stop having children they can't support is unacceptable. I mean come on, they couldn't afford 1 child but they had 5 children with 4 different people? Ridiculous. If they'd have had to take responsibility for the life they created and actually pay for it themselves, they might have been careful not to have more children they could not support. But they don't have to face that reality or the consequences of their irresponsibility because they have politicians in place to take from others and give to them.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 25, 2013)

skeels said:


> I was joking actually, but I thought Hitler was appointed chancellor by the president at the time and not voted in, per se.



He was NOT voted in. He in fact was appointed by Hindenburg at the urging of von Papen and others, who thought Hitler could be controlled and marginalized. We know how well that worked out. In the 2 different elections of 1932 the Nazis only received like 30something% of the popular vote.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 26, 2013)

My new job bumped me up 3 or 4 tax brackets.

I didn't claim any federal tax credits and I asked my employers to take extra federal tax off each pay cheque. 

Take that right wingers. ;-)


----------



## Jakke (Nov 26, 2013)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> He was NOT voted in. He in fact was appointed by Hindenburg at the urging of von Papen and others, who thought Hitler could be controlled and marginalized. We know how well that worked out. In the 2 different elections of 1932 the Nazis only received like 30something% of the popular vote.



The nazis were voted in, and Hitler was appointed due to their popularity. It's almost the same system that the Swedes use when they elect a state minister; a party is voted for, and the party who gets the most votes picks a state minister.

The Germans did not have personal elections, so it's not like he could have been voted in according to a kind of american definition.



FILTHnFEAR said:


> In the 2 different elections of 1932 the Nazis only received like 30something% of the popular vote.



They received 44% in -33, which made it possible for them to form a majority coalition with DNVP (the national conservative party), which in turn allowed them to pass the Enabling Act.


----------

