What are conservatives so afraid of? - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Swoop187 · #91 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

I'm afraid of corporate monopolies which control government legislation and are unanswerable to the public.

At least We The People are supposed to be the government, not so with huge corporations. There's a difference. The former is what constitutes our democratic republic, the latter, neo-fascism.

So the answer is more government?

Its astounding how the capitalist haters hide behind big government.

As far as monopolies are concerned you can look no further then your federal government to find them.

What the fuck you call this new health care plan?

Hating big business out of envy is totally immature and irrational.

Furthermore I don't see any monopolies outside of utilities.

I have been thinking for a good 5 minutes of a monopoly here and I cant even think of a single one.

Anti-USA · #92 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

So the answer is more government?

Its astounding how the capitalist haters hide behind big government.

As far as monopolies are concerned you can look no further then your federal government to find them.

I say that the answer is NEITHER the government NOR big businesses. Both of them are sources of oppression.

Do you seriously deny that, armed with the Supreme Court decision from a few years ago as a tool, wherein businesses can have a local government seize private land for them, big businesses who take advantage of this and take people's property for non-public uses are NOT oppressive?

Quote:

Hating big business out of envy is totally immature and irrational.

Many people hate big businesses for fucking things up and screwing people over (Enron, car manufacturers that cut corners and people end up getting killed, Microsoft and its plethora of dirty tactics).

Quote:

Furthermore I don't see any monopolies outside of utilities.

I have been thinking for a good 5 minutes of a monopoly here and I cant even think of a single one.

Operating systems are an example.

Swoop187 · #93 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-USA

You're correct. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" play these asinine games whereby each respective side ridicules bad things x, y, and z when the opposite side does them and praises them when their side does them. We're talking about tens of millions of immature adults, on both sides [sic---they really are on the same side, e.g., the USA political mainstream] who are acting like children with their selective criticism, hypocrisy, and fickle behavior.

Hey, what do you really expect when people throw shit from sidelines?

People will throw shit back, no?

I think conservatives do their fair share but liberals take the cake as far as acting immature.

You can look no further then the Republican Nation Convention Welcoming Committee, they tried to recreate the 68 DNC.

Liberals are always trouble.

Liberals idea of activism is a full scale riot, however they will be the first ones to object over a peaceful protest over dissenting views.

I guarantee you I can start a Bill Ayers thread right now and many will defend his actions.

Swoop187 · #94 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-USA

I say that the answer is NEITHER the government NOR big businesses. Both of them are sources of oppression.

Do you seriously deny that, armed with the Supreme Court decision from a few years ago as a tool, wherein businesses can have a local government seize private land for them, big businesses who take advantage of this and take people's property for non-public uses are NOT oppressive?

Many people hate big businesses for fucking things up and screwing people over (Enron, car manufacturers that cut corners and people end up getting killed, Microsoft and its plethora of dirty tactics).

Operating systems are an example.

So all big business is fucked because some pricks screwed people over?

Our economy depends on the free market....

What do capitalists have to gain screwing people over? The more money you have in your pocket the better for them because you will spend that money, hence putting profit into the investors pockets and last but not least stimulating the economy.

Absolutely and yes their are jerkoffs like Madoff but to use those ass holes as the poster boys of capitalism is absurd.

There are plenty of good people who run an own business', the funny part is all these anti-capitalists know absolutely nothing about business outside of op ed pieces demonizing profits.

I can tell you right now that 9 of 10 businesses flat out fail and those who invested in those businesses lost massive money... I can tell you that those who invest in businesses initially loose tons of money from the get go.

Those anti-capitalists need to quit their endless crying.

Rude Boy · #95 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by California Girl

I mean, quite simply, that in our country you make your own success. In truth, I'm not intending to 'get the mansion' either. But if that is what a person wants, they are at liberty to achieve it in the US. At least, they stand a significant chance of obtaining it.

We are probably not so very different, you and I. It's just that I believe in helping my fellow man whereas you seem to think that we should mandate it. I don't believe the government should mandate - I do believe that those of us who can should help those less fortunate. And I don't mean by throwing a few bucks into a tax deductible charity, I mean giving up your time, your knowledge, your support to others.

I don't believe in class, I don't recognize anyone as 'better' than me or 'worse' than me due to their personal circumstances. I treat everyone the same.... "prince or pauper."

We may not be that different. I don't advocate mandates. I want free association based on accurate information. Imperator and I were specifically talking about NAFTA. My reply is that I don't advocate a mechanism, dictated by elites, that would exploit people in foreign lands, while undermining the labor class here in the US. My anathema to NAFTA is not a "mandate." If anything, NAFTA is mandating the US worker to accept his defeat while already extremely wealthy people exploit the working class of third world countries so they can make even more money. I have a major problem with that.

I have no problem with someone being successful and becoming wealthy, if it's free and fair, not by exploitation.

So, we may not be that different, just different ways of achieving the goal, perhaps.

wiggidy · #96 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of the government spying on our phone conversations without a warrant.

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of the government holding american citizens prisoner while suspending habeus corpus for them.

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of violating geneva conventions regarding prisoners.

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of torturing prisoners of war.

Under bush, conservatives WERE afraid of terrorists, but WEREN'T afraid because bush kept us safe, and WEREN'T pissed as all hell that 9/11 occurred under bush's watch.

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of running the national debt up 3 trillion more dollars.

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of starting the afghan war.

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of starting the iraq war.

Under bush, conservatives weren't afraid of bailing out banks with no strings attached.

These aren't superstitions, these are well documented undeniable practices of the bush admin.

What do we have today:

Obama: still spying on citizens without a warrant.
Obama: still holding prisoners outside of geneva conventions and habeus corpus.
Obama: still no terrorist attack yet
Obama: still running up the national debt
Obama: Ramping up afghanistan while ramping down Iraq.
Obama: bailing out banks with no strings attached.

These aren't superstitions, these are well documented undeniable practices of the Obama admin.

I honestly don't understand what FACTUAL evidence there is for being afraid of Obama ... unless of course you were afraid of bush. It seems to be highly hypocritical to be scared/opposed to Obama and pro-bush since so many of their key anti-american practices are the same. The only difference so far is we haven't been attacked yet under Obama's admin (maybe thats why conservatives hate Obama).

Conservative outrage over Obama, is actually inexplicable from a rational context unless you conclude its simple hypocrisy. The strange thing is, conservatives always lament bush because he wasn't a conservative. Well then, why did you support him so vehemently?

I was afraid of bush's policies listed above, and I am EQUALLY if not MORE afraid of Obama's continuation of those policies (more afraid because Obama is more competent than bush - which means he can abuse those things even more). I'm NOT however afraid that Obama is a muslim or a native kenyan or a racist or the anti-christ --- those are NOT well documented undeniable things about Obama, those are irrational superstitions.

Now in all fairness, Liberals/progressives who don't recognize that Obama is bush 3.0 for the reasons listed above are just as big of hypocrites. I'm not even sure Liberal is the right word, I think Obama-apologist is more correct. There are plenty of progressives who despise the bush3.0 direction that Obama is pursuing.

Can anyone tell me what it is that makes Obama so scary to conservatives? FACTS not superstitions.

Where were all of these conservatives that supported Bush? Did you see his approval ratings?

Disillusioned_1 · #97 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

I'd say you use the term conservative to fit your debate but have not asked us the prime question; how many of us think Bush was a conservative.

I said in the original post that most conservatives lament that bush wasn't a conservative. Yet conservatives still supported him. He was still 'their guy'.

Quote:

and some of those quotes of yours have been mischaracterized or lack applicable qualifiers ala 'spying' on American citizens, re: wire taps.

I have a problem with spying on American tele. calls etc. BUT I don’t have one when one caller is from offshore and they have evidence that the offshore caller may be a T or have ties to such or the caller here is calling offshore and has same.

The government abused that power and there is evidence (its hard as hell to get evidence because its all national security and no warrants to track) that the government on several occasions was spying without warrants on american-to-american phone calls within the US. Is Holder, under Obama pursuing criminal charges against that illegal spying? No. Are conservatives crying foul over that illegal spying? No. (one quick link I found, there are many others: http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic..._nobody_wanted )

Quote:

Also, the habeas corpus for POWS, no we hadn’t extended habeas corpus to POWS but a SC ruling changed that, so?

Bush was holding american citizens in suspension of habeus corpus (Padilla and at least a couple of others). I don't think habeus corpus has ever (or should ever) extend to POWs. But thats why we have the geneva convention .... which is being violated with torture.

Quote:

So Afghan. is not a 'good' war?

There was at least some justifiable pretense for going into afghanistan. If bush had provided Omar with proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, Omar would have turned him over. For the record, I was in favor of the Afghan war, but there probably was a way to avoid the war and still achieve our goals as well. In fact, since bin laden was never captured/killed, one might argue war was the inferior choice at achieving our goals.

California Girl · #98 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-USA

First you follow me around this message board, and make snide remarks, such as (1) you will take the opposite position that I take on every issue, in my thread on the constitutionality of disorderly conduct laws, or (2) when you rudely barged into a discussion that I was having with another poster (Daddio), wherein I was asking him for clarification on health care reform, because he has been closely following it, whereas I have not, and made the erroneous assumption that I am not a USA citizen. Then, when I ask you a question, you dodge it. Thank you for letting everyone know that you're a gun grabber, because I support the private ownership of guns.

I am not beneath you. If you have the right to address me, then I have the right to address you.

P.S. Maybe this isn't a case of you thinking that you're above me (though your insipid post in my disorderly conduct laws thread would seem to indicate otherwise) for some unknown reason (unknown because you have made several hostile posts directed at me, when I wasn't even addressing you), but rather, a case of (1) you not being aware that Bush II sold out to China during his entire eight years, or (2) the yes/no question being too complex for you.

I do not address you because your signature is offensive to me.

bg85 · #99 (**permalink**) 08-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by California Girl

I do not address you because your signature is offensive to me.

read: "I do not address you because I have no answer for your arguments and I'm afraid I'll look stupid if I try to come up with one."

El Jefe · #**100** (**permalink**) 08-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-USA

I say that the answer is NEITHER the government NOR big businesses. Both of them are sources of oppression.

Do you seriously deny that, armed with the Supreme Court decision from a few years ago as a tool, wherein businesses can have a local government seize private land for them, big businesses who take advantage of this and take people's property for non-public uses are NOT oppressive?

Big government and big, monolithic corporations are equally problematic. More government to control / regulate business = bad. Larger, merged companies for the sake of the "people" = bad.

Quote:

Many people hate big businesses for fucking things up and screwing people over (Enron, car manufacturers that cut corners and people end up getting killed, Microsoft and its plethora of dirty tactics).

Buyer beware, it is NOT the job of government to protect us from business. We must take responsibility for our choices, actions, purchases..., our lives. Every time something goes wrong or happens in our lives we have to stop making other people responsible for it. Shit happens. If it's criminal, prosecute.

Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform.

Quote:

Operating systems are an example.

Good example, but not what I would call a monopoly. They (Microsoft) certainly have the market cornered. Apple has been giving them a good run lately and you still have Linux, UNIX, the new Google OS, etc. Is Microsoft way to large and into our daily lives too much? Yes, but it is not the governments place to step in. We must vote with our wallets.

California Girl · #**101** (**permalink**) 08-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

read: "I do not address you because I have no answer for your arguments and I'm afraid I'll look stupid if I try to come up with one."

I don't think any poster, including Anti-USA, is stupid enough to need you to translate a clear sentence.

Do you actually like to make yourself look like an ass or what? Cuz you seem to have a certain flair for it.