Freedom lost.
How so?
Did you get married? Did I miss the memo? If so, congratulations!I'm back.
Freedom lost.
LOL! No I'm just very frustrated with the voters.
LOL! No I'm just very frustrated with the voters.
Ah; gotcha. Sorry, did not process. :)
|
I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home as long as it doesn't harm/impede the freedoms of others, and I'm a tightwad when it comes to government spending.Of course that's true of me as well... but the thing is -- nearly everyone says this is true of them -- they just pick and choose which spending is OK vs. "waste," and which social constraints are "values-based" vs. "excessive government control."
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.
This one (apparently) never gets old.
Some functions cannot be efficiently handled by private industry. Negative externalities exist. Governments cost money. Argue about the limits of legitimate government power, or the optimal tax structure, etc., all you like. The fact remains that there will always be the need for some kind of government. Therefore, it is clear that some level of taxation is justifiable -- blanket declarations that any and all taxes are opression and the moral equivalent of theft are actively counterproductive. And unless you're an anarchist, they're also not cogent. Or do you want to do away with national defense? Should everyone maintain their own fire department? Their own courts?
I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I really don't see the point of taking a theoretical hard-line stance against all taxation. I can only hope cooler heads prevail. I know compromise is a dirty word in many circles, especially right now, but if both sides don't give, the split legistlature is going to result in exactly nothing getting done.
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.
Economic mob rule? No, thanks.
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!
Fixed.
LOL! No I'm just very frustrated with the voters.Did you get married? Did I miss the memo? If so, congratulations!I'm back.
Freedom lost.
Interesting perspective. I rarely agree with you but do respect your opinions and analysis. The Republicans did very well and a fair number of tea party candidates picked up seats. Why do you feel that the outcome was not as good as you would have liked?
minarchy! Fixed.
There are some good things in minarchy. Voluntary taxes, however, fail at every level.
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
No need to hide...BT doesn't bite.
The thing is, there's a lot to like about BT's position, which I perceive to be "taxes are a necessary evil to be kept to an absolute minimum." On the other hand, extreme positions like "all taxation is equivalent to armed robbery," which seems to be the position of many so-called tea-partiers, go past not useful, straight to downright counter-productive. I seriously doubt many who make those arguments even know what they're asking for, let alone what life would be like if they got it.
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
Does our current fascist model protect freedom? What else can the state criminalize today? Our current system of imprisoning and brutalizing millions "for their own good" seems wrong to me, but plainly I'm part of a tiny minority.
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
No need to hide...BT doesn't bite.
The thing is, there's a lot to like about BT's position, which I perceive to be "taxes are a necessary evil to be kept to an absolute minimum." On the other hand, extreme positions like "all taxation is equivalent to armed robbery," which seems to be the position of many so-called tea-partiers, go past not useful, straight to downright counter-productive. I seriously doubt many who make those arguments even know what they're asking for, let alone what life would be like if they got it.
Oh I'm sure BT knows I'm pulling his legs. There are some things about minarchy I like too. At its most noble, it sounds very much like romantic neo-feudalism. At its worse..well..no taxes, cops or fire departments for anyone. You own what you hold, but if your grip weakens, its your own fault when someone takes it from you.
Does our current fascist model protect freedom? What else can the state criminalize today? Our current system of imprisoning and brutalizing millions "for their own good" seems wrong to me, but plainly I'm part of a tiny minority.
No; I agree with you 100% about prisons. I simply disagree that any form of taxation is automatically "fascist."
Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.
The voters do not have either the time or the inclination to spend hundreds of hours reading in depth synopsis of everything the government is involved in. This is just giving all our money to feel good groups like the fire fighters and nurses. You'll end up with a Cholera outbreak because water testing is not very sexy even if its absolutely critical.
Does our current fascist model protect freedom? What else can the state criminalize today? Our current system of imprisoning and brutalizing millions "for their own good" seems wrong to me, but plainly I'm part of a tiny minority.
No, it doesn't, and I don't think most people disagree with you. I believe most reasonable people see either extreme (anarchy or fascism) as problematic. Unfortunately, our two-party system seems to lead to false dichotomies and the accompanying lesser-of-two-evil choices.
Oh I'm sure BT knows I'm pulling his legs. There are some things about minarchy I like too. At its most noble, it sounds very much like romantic neo-feudalism. At its worse..well..no taxes, cops or fire departments for anyone. You own what you hold, but if your grip weakens, its your own fault when someone takes it from you.Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
No need to hide...BT doesn't bite.
The thing is, there's a lot to like about BT's position, which I perceive to be "taxes are a necessary evil to be kept to an absolute minimum." On the other hand, extreme positions like "all taxation is equivalent to armed robbery," which seems to be the position of many so-called tea-partiers, go past not useful, straight to downright counter-productive. I seriously doubt many who make those arguments even know what they're asking for, let alone what life would be like if they got it.
A key distinction between anarchy and minarchy is that in the minarchist model the states only legitimate function is to protect human rights like property rights, so the last sentence would not apply to minarchy and might not for some anarchists.
Does our current fascist model protect freedom? What else can the state criminalize today? Our current system of imprisoning and brutalizing millions "for their own good" seems wrong to me, but plainly I'm part of a tiny minority.No; I agree with you 100% about prisons. I simply disagree that any form of taxation is automatically "fascist."
I concede that government is a necessary evil and it must be funded through some kind of tax. I still find income tax especially odious though. To me it smacks of serfdom. I would prefer some form of use or consumption tax and radically smaller government.
In any case, my model still results in the government taking money through the threat of force.
|
That's not quite true, no one who says that we need laws preventing gays from marrying/adopting or wants harsher anti-drug laws, or who are pro-life can say that.You've just described the views of at least 50% of the self-described "libertarians" I know, and of 100% of the self-described "Tea Partiers" that I personally know.
Right and those 100% of Tea Partiers wouldn't call themselves social liberals, they would call themselves conservatives without any adjective to define a subset of conservatism. And any libertarian who advocates drug laws/anti-gay laws clearly has no clue what the libertarian party is about, but also wouldn't in that case define themselves as socially liberal.
|
|
A key distinction between anarchy and minarchy is that in the minarchist model the states only legitimate function is to protect human rights like property rights, so the last sentence would not apply to minarchy and might not for some anarchists.Oh I'm sure BT knows I'm pulling his legs. There are some things about minarchy I like too. At its most noble, it sounds very much like romantic neo-feudalism. At its worse..well..no taxes, cops or fire departments for anyone. You own what you hold, but if your grip weakens, its your own fault when someone takes it from you.Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
No need to hide...BT doesn't bite.
The thing is, there's a lot to like about BT's position, which I perceive to be "taxes are a necessary evil to be kept to an absolute minimum." On the other hand, extreme positions like "all taxation is equivalent to armed robbery," which seems to be the position of many so-called tea-partiers, go past not useful, straight to downright counter-productive. I seriously doubt many who make those arguments even know what they're asking for, let alone what life would be like if they got it.
What if you believe in minimal property "rights" or that most of the rights people claim for themselves are not in fact rights but rather privileges our society gives.
What if you believe in minimal property "rights" or that most of the rights people claim for themselves are not in fact rights but rather privileges our society gives.A key distinction between anarchy and minarchy is that in the minarchist model the states only legitimate function is to protect human rights like property rights, so the last sentence would not apply to minarchy and might not for some anarchists.Oh I'm sure BT knows I'm pulling his legs. There are some things about minarchy I like too. At its most noble, it sounds very much like romantic neo-feudalism. At its worse..well..no taxes, cops or fire departments for anyone. You own what you hold, but if your grip weakens, its your own fault when someone takes it from you.Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
No need to hide...BT doesn't bite.
The thing is, there's a lot to like about BT's position, which I perceive to be "taxes are a necessary evil to be kept to an absolute minimum." On the other hand, extreme positions like "all taxation is equivalent to armed robbery," which seems to be the position of many so-called tea-partiers, go past not useful, straight to downright counter-productive. I seriously doubt many who make those arguments even know what they're asking for, let alone what life would be like if they got it.
I need an example here, dood.
What if you believe in minimal property "rights" or that most of the rights people claim for themselves are not in fact rights but rather privileges our society gives.A key distinction between anarchy and minarchy is that in the minarchist model the states only legitimate function is to protect human rights like property rights, so the last sentence would not apply to minarchy and might not for some anarchists.Oh I'm sure BT knows I'm pulling his legs. There are some things about minarchy I like too. At its most noble, it sounds very much like romantic neo-feudalism. At its worse..well..no taxes, cops or fire departments for anyone. You own what you hold, but if your grip weakens, its your own fault when someone takes it from you.Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
No need to hide...BT doesn't bite.
The thing is, there's a lot to like about BT's position, which I perceive to be "taxes are a necessary evil to be kept to an absolute minimum." On the other hand, extreme positions like "all taxation is equivalent to armed robbery," which seems to be the position of many so-called tea-partiers, go past not useful, straight to downright counter-productive. I seriously doubt many who make those arguments even know what they're asking for, let alone what life would be like if they got it.
The source of rights is an important distinction. If fundamental human rights are merely privileges given by the state or society I think they have little if any meaning. It seems to me in that scenario that you never really own anything including yourself. This seems to be the direction we are moving in very quickly here in the US.
It's part of why the distinction between the Constitution enumerating or recognizing rights rather than granting them is so important.
I need an example here, dood.What if you believe in minimal property "rights" or that most of the rights people claim for themselves are not in fact rights but rather privileges our society gives.A key distinction between anarchy and minarchy is that in the minarchist model the states only legitimate function is to protect human rights like property rights, so the last sentence would not apply to minarchy and might not for some anarchists.Oh I'm sure BT knows I'm pulling his legs. There are some things about minarchy I like too. At its most noble, it sounds very much like romantic neo-feudalism. At its worse..well..no taxes, cops or fire departments for anyone. You own what you hold, but if your grip weakens, its your own fault when someone takes it from you.Forced taxation is harming/impeding the freedom of others. We could make taxes voluntary and donators could specify what they would like their money to go to.Evidently so are police, which require taxes. I know! Let's go full minarchy! Then we can all harm/impede each other's freedoms!Fixed.
No need to hide...BT doesn't bite.
The thing is, there's a lot to like about BT's position, which I perceive to be "taxes are a necessary evil to be kept to an absolute minimum." On the other hand, extreme positions like "all taxation is equivalent to armed robbery," which seems to be the position of many so-called tea-partiers, go past not useful, straight to downright counter-productive. I seriously doubt many who make those arguments even know what they're asking for, let alone what life would be like if they got it.
In the US the government may allow you to keep some of the money you earn. The government grants you the privilege of keeping some of the money you earned.
How awesome would it be if the only thing Congress ever did was play Pathfinder?but if both sides don't give, the split legistlature is going to result in exactly nothing getting done.
I'm a big fan of gridlock in general, but if we don't change course we will go off of the cliff.
|
How awesome would it be if the only thing Congress ever did was play Pathfinder?but if both sides don't give, the split legistlature is going to result in exactly nothing getting done.
Errata would change back and forth every few years, the core book would be 3,000 pages long and would be a steaming pile - that's if it every came out at all.
Oh wait, you said play pathfinder.....
|
|
The source of rights is an important distinction. If fundamental human rights are merely privileges given by the state or society I think they have little if any meaning. It seems to me...
What if you believe in minimal property "rights" or that most of the rights people claim for themselves are not in fact rights but rather privileges our society gives.
Fair enough. Source of rights is an important distinction. One in which I think we are very much up in the air about. At one point it was "G~D given rights" however in todays current climate that is not only not the right way to go about it, but could lead to other unforeseen situations.
Fair enough. Source of rights is an important distinction. One in which I think we are very much up in the air about. At one point it was "G~D given rights" however in todays current climate that is not only not the right way to go about it, but could lead to other unforeseen situations.The source of rights is an important distinction. If fundamental human rights are merely privileges given by the state or society I think they have little if any meaning. It seems to me...
What if you believe in minimal property "rights" or that most of the rights people claim for themselves are not in fact rights but rather privileges our society gives.
I believe human rights are a function of simply being human, but many people do see human rights in the light of God given rights, and quite a few people see human rights as privileges granted by the state.
Fair enough. Source of rights is an important distinction. One in which I think we are very much up in the air about. At one point it was "G~D given rights" however in todays current climate that is not only not the right way to go about it, but could lead to other unforeseen situations.
I'd argue that we don't need any gods in order to claim inalienable rights. Can we not recognize for ourselves that, as sentient creatures, we expect certain rights and won't tolerate a government that unduly abridges them?
EDIT: I see that BT and I are in agreement yet again!
|
|
Fair enough. Source of rights is an important distinction. One in which I think we are very much up in the air about. At one point it was "G~D given rights" however in todays current climate that is not only not the right way to go about it, but could lead to other unforeseen situations.I'd argue that we don't need any gods in order to claim inalienable rights. Can we not recognize for ourselves that, as sentient creatures, we expect certain rights and won't tolerate a government that unduly abridges them?
EDIT: I see that BT and I are in agreement yet again!
I am not claiming that we are, or should, just that we did at one time.
|
Right and those 100% of Tea Partiers wouldn't call themselves social liberals, they would call themselves conservatives without any adjective to define a subset of conservatism. And any libertarian who advocates drug laws/anti-gay laws clearly has no clue what the libertarian party is about, but also wouldn't in that case define themselves as socially liberal.That's not quite true, no one who says that we need laws preventing gays from marrying/adopting or wants harsher anti-drug laws, or who are pro-life can say that.You've just described the views of at least 50% of the self-described "libertarians" I know, and of 100% of the self-described "Tea Partiers" that I personally know.
Um, Libertarians nominated anti-gay/anti-drug warrior Bob Barr in '08. The principles the LP stands for may be sound, but the actual party is a bunch of sell out whores and no longer enjoy my support.
*shrug*
|
|
Right and those 100% of Tea Partiers wouldn't call themselves social liberals, they would call themselves conservatives without any adjective to define a subset of conservatism. And any libertarian who advocates drug laws/anti-gay laws clearly has no clue what the libertarian party is about, but also wouldn't in that case define themselves as socially liberal.That's not quite true, no one who says that we need laws preventing gays from marrying/adopting or wants harsher anti-drug laws, or who are pro-life can say that.You've just described the views of at least 50% of the self-described "libertarians" I know, and of 100% of the self-described "Tea Partiers" that I personally know.Um, Libertarians nominated anti-gay/anti-drug warrior Bob Barr in '08. The principles the LP stands for may be sound, but the actual party is a bunch of sell out whores and no longer enjoy my support.
*shrug*
Its amazing isnt it. The one thing that would have saved the USA is the one thing OBAMA and every other President fears. A Space Commonwealth with Sovereignty over Everything beyond Low Earth Orbit. All we do is borrow 2 billion-billion from the USA and Subcontract Lunar and Martian Colonization - The US economy benifits from 200 years of growth in Space Industry.
Haw about Houston Derek run For President.
"Houston, we have a problem."
On the subject of gridlock: It does seem likely that the only things that will get done are the ideas both parties share: The citizens are to be controlled, under surveillance, data mined, and directed by huge amounts of authorities, all tax funded.
On a larger scale, there is a reason why building empires isn't a very good idea. A state is dependent on people believing in it, so that they are willing to legitimize its actions. "Yeah, it's no fun paying a tax hike, but I know the state will use it for better schools." and so on. Without that, people start guarding their assets, specifically against the state, and the state will start to find exactly how much that trust and goodwill was worth while they still had it. Transactions will start to cost more, which will further hurt the economy. A widespread suspicion of the politicians and their actions and priorities means that even good or necessary suggestions will have a hard time gaining support, which in turn will weaken them even if pushed through. A legal system perceived to be used to control the population will weaken respect for the laws, leading to a worsened crime situation. And so on. At some point, the would-be empire will either have to change its course, or the country will collapse into some sort of dictatorship.
Besides which: You're still fighting the war in Afghanistan, a situation that's looking more and more like the Soviet Union's struggles there. Not long after leaving Afghanistan in the 80:s, the Soviet Union crashed and burnt. Do you really want that, americans?
|
|
"Houston, we have a problem."
On the subject of gridlock: It does seem likely that the only things that will get done are the ideas both parties share: The citizens are to be controlled, under surveillance, data mined, and directed by huge amounts of authorities, all tax funded.
On a larger scale, there is a reason why building empires isn't a very good idea. A state is dependent on people believing in it, so that they are willing to legitimize its actions. "Yeah, it's no fun paying a tax hike, but I know the state will use it for better schools." and so on. Without that, people start guarding their assets, specifically against the state, and the state will start to find exactly how much that trust and goodwill was worth while they still had it. Transactions will start to cost more, which will further hurt the economy. A widespread suspicion of the politicians and their actions and priorities means that even good or necessary suggestions will have a hard time gaining support, which in turn will weaken them even if pushed through. A legal system perceived to be used to control the population will weaken respect for the laws, leading to a worsened crime situation. And so on. At some point, the would-be empire will either have to change its course, or the country will collapse into some sort of dictatorship.
Besides which: You're still fighting the war in Afghanistan, a situation that's looking more and more like the Soviet Union's struggles there. Not long after leaving Afghanistan in the 80:s, the Soviet Union crashed and burnt. Do you really want that, americans?
Soviet Union's problem with Afghanistan was distinctly different to USA's problem with Afghanistan. For Starters The USA was financing the Terrorist Uprising against the Soviets. It would take China dumping suitcase Nukes off the Back of a Truck in the Middle of a Taliban stronghold to even escalate the problem on scale with the Soviet v Taliban conflict.
And now Iran is funding the talibans, according to the wikileaks documents. They also still have tons of weapons and good training from the US during the Soviet conflict.
The truth is that the Afghan resistance to the invasion in the 80s kept rising throughout the conflict. The longer they stayed, the worse it got, and at no point were the scattered Afghanistani power groups near surrendering. That's exactly what we see happening to the US now.
It's not a war the US can win. It never was, and it never will be. All their presence will do is kill people. Lots of people on both sides. The Afghan military will not be able to "take over", so when the US finally leaves, chaos will consume the country again.
Besides, you know why the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan?
To "protect the Afghan women against harassment" and "build a functioning society in Afghanistan".
Sound familiar?
|
|
The US/UK/Coalition problem in Afghanistan is closer to the problems the British Empire had in Afghanistan.
Bush is Disraeli, Karzai is Abdur Rahman Khan, Russian skirmishers and expansionists are the Taliban.
It's not a perfect analogy but it works quite well.
Ultimately, history tells us that nobody gets to conquer Afghanistan without many deaths and those conquests don't last very long.
Ultimately, history tells us that nobody gets to conquer Afghanistan without many deaths and those conquests don't last very long.
WHAAA? Pashtuns are doing a great job of conquering the place, and non native Taliban were having a great time till the Yanks arrived.
|
|
Right and those 100% of Tea Partiers wouldn't call themselves social liberals, they would call themselves conservatives without any adjective to define a subset of conservatism. And any libertarian who advocates drug laws/anti-gay laws clearly has no clue what the libertarian party is about, but also wouldn't in that case define themselves as socially liberal.That's not quite true, no one who says that we need laws preventing gays from marrying/adopting or wants harsher anti-drug laws, or who are pro-life can say that.You've just described the views of at least 50% of the self-described "libertarians" I know, and of 100% of the self-described "Tea Partiers" that I personally know.Um, Libertarians nominated anti-gay/anti-drug warrior Bob Barr in '08. The principles the LP stands for may be sound, but the actual party is a bunch of sell out whores and no longer enjoy my support.
*shrug*
Um they nominated him after he said and I watched him in an interview about it say "I was wrong about that", they didn't nominate him at the height of his asshatery, and if they had, I wouldn't have voted for him. Sorry, I actually believe people can learn that they were wrong and change their minds as they get older. Now if he had then won and went on to prove that he was in fact lying about saying he was wrong, then that's one thing.
Hell there was a democratic senator who had associations with the KKK when he was younger and wound up becoming a campaigner for civil rights when he was in office and said that it was the worst mistake he ever made in his youth.
|
|
WHAAA? Pashtuns are doing a great job of conquering the place, and non native Taliban were having a great time till the Yanks arrived.Ultimately, history tells us that nobody gets to conquer Afghanistan without many deaths and those conquests don't last very long.
I was under the impression that Pashtuns were native to Afghanistan and that Omar and his fellow Taliban were mostly Pashtun.
Taliban is, I was led to believe, a Pashtun word.Would you, please, correct me with some evidence and explanation regarding the true state of affairs?
Hnn. As usual, the presence of HD and Dingo make for a more interesting thread.
|
|
Progressives believe that the goverment should take of the people that can't take care of themselves.
Liberals believe the the goverment should take care of everybody regargless if they can take care of themseleves.
Progressives believe in stuff like equal rights for all races, sexes, ages and economic status.
Liberals believe that equal rights must forced onto others with afermitive action laws.
Progressives believe in fair business practices and laws that protect them regardless of the size or connections of the company.
Liberals believe the corporations must provide positive benifets to evryone not just the stock holders.
Progressives believe the government should not interfere with a person’s right to worship unless said worship harms another.
Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Progressives believe the government should not promote any religion.
an take care of themselves.Liberals believe that worship and religion must be removed from any public venue, i.e. baseball games, schools and money.
Man, I don't even know if I responded to this when it happened, but wow. So much misinformation in one post.
"Progressive" refers to the Progressive Movement (which, to contradict an earlier post by the same person, coalesced nearly 20 years after Lincoln's assassination), which can be best described as "communism lite". Progressives are very much what this poster is calling "liberal". All one has to do, really, is read Woodrow Wilson to understand Progressive thought. Oh, and the guy felt the Constitution was an obstacle to "Progress" (in the Progressive sense). All those restraints on Federal government power were anathema to the Progressive Movement (which thought government was the answer to EVERYTHING).
Now, to remove another misrepresentation from this thread, Progressives started calling themselves "liberals" because the term "Progressive" had a very specific meaning that people wanted to obscure. Not the other way around. Liberal had a very specific meaning once, and it has (at least in the U.S.) moved far from the principles of the original "liberals", who, philosophically, are much closer to modern libertarian thought that they will ever be to whatever modern "liberals" are selling.
Just needed to clear that up. Pretty basic history, easy to look up.
|
|
Perhaps we could reduce the cost, scope and invasiveness of the government.BINGO! We have a winner.
Rather than simply shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, we should be looking for ways to reduce the total burden for everyone. That means government reform first, not tax reform. In other words... true fiscal conservatism.Yep. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)
Again you're confusing liberal with progressive.
It's easy to do with every right-wing talking heads doing their best to link one to the other; just like left-wing taking heads try to link conservatism to the republicans. They are not the same.
Many of the most famous progressives are republicans take Lincoln and Eisenhower for example.
Ok, here's a direct quote. Actually, I am not confusing anything. I know exactly what the U.S. Progressive movement was and what it stood for. Again, it's an easy history to look up, even to the point where Progressives co-opted the "liberal" tag to try to put a different spin on their ideals.
Ok, here's a direct quote. Actually, I am not confusing anything. I know exactly what the U.S. Progressive movement was and what it stood for. Again, it's an easy history to look up, even to the point where Progressives co-opted the "liberal" tag to try to put a different spin on their ideals.Perhaps we could reduce the cost, scope and invasiveness of the government.BINGO! We have a winner.
Rather than simply shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, we should be looking for ways to reduce the total burden for everyone. That means government reform first, not tax reform. In other words... true fiscal conservatism.Yep. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)
Again you're confusing liberal with progressive.
It's easy to do with every right-wing talking heads doing their best to link one to the other; just like left-wing taking heads try to link conservatism to the republicans. They are not the same.
Many of the most famous progressives are republicans take Lincoln and Eisenhower for example.
You use the term "was"- but times do change, as to political affiliations, etc. Do you believe that a political party/movement like the Progressives can change? Or do you think they're all just snake oil salesmen and this is just a cunning move on their part?
|
|
You use the term "was"- but times do change, as to political affiliations, etc. Do you believe that a political party/movement like the Progressives can change? Or do you think they're all just snake oil salesmen and this is just a cunning move on their part?Ok, here's a direct quote. Actually, I am not confusing anything. I know exactly what the U.S. Progressive movement was and what it stood for. Again, it's an easy history to look up, even to the point where Progressives co-opted the "liberal" tag to try to put a different spin on their ideals.Perhaps we could reduce the cost, scope and invasiveness of the government.BINGO! We have a winner.
Rather than simply shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, we should be looking for ways to reduce the total burden for everyone. That means government reform first, not tax reform. In other words... true fiscal conservatism.Yep. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Tell that to the friggin' "progressives", not the choir :)
Again you're confusing liberal with progressive.
It's easy to do with every right-wing talking heads doing their best to link one to the other; just like left-wing taking heads try to link conservatism to the republicans. They are not the same.
Many of the most famous progressives are republicans take Lincoln and Eisenhower for example.
Progressives haven't changed much. They've devolved quite a bit from the pinnacle they reached under Teddy Roosevelt (still the only Progressive to ever do it right), but they're still the same big government pseudo-communists they've always been. Their version of "freedom" is still "you're free to do what we tell you to do", no different than the religious whackos on the other side.
And, um, I pretty much think all politicians are snake oil salesmen, and the people that elect them are either willing accomplices to their criminality or dupes. Cynical? Only in the Biercian sense...
WHAAA? Pashtuns are doing a great job of conquering the place, and non native Taliban were having a great time till the Yanks arrived.Ultimately, history tells us that nobody gets to conquer Afghanistan without many deaths and those conquests don't last very long.
The Pashtuns got nowhere to go. They can (and do) take as long as it takes to dominate the area.
The Americans could conquer the place its just that they don't want to commit the required resources for the required length of time. With an ironclad guarantee that the US will station a quarter million troops in Afghanistan and they will not leave for any reason for 100 years I'm sure that the Americans would be running the show with few problems within 50 years.
But its not worth it to the Americans. It'd cost a fortune and what does it really get them except higher taxes and a body count. Nor are they really guaranteed anything once they do leave in 100 years. It'd depend on the culture they left behind and they may not be able to dramatically effect that culture. Other Empires have been able to stably control places before but still loose them once they withdraw even hundreds of years later. Hence, even if they can do it - to what end?