nice spin, glynch...make it personal, and when the other guy retaliates say something like, "pissing contest." good work.
Madmax, I attack conservatives as a class. You are the guys who choose to make it personal. P.S. I don't view attacks on liberals or liberal ideology , and there are many on this board, as a persoanl attack on me.
it's a fair point...but when you say someone arrives at a certain conclusion only because they've been brainwashed by Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, it can't help but be a bit cutting. there are logical alternatives in answering questions...the arguments between conservatives and liberals aren't new...it's not like the arguments didn't exist before rush limbaugh...and it's not like there aren't intelligent people on both sides of the argument.
You must also be the guy to go to an Irish convention and call all Irish people drunkards. Then you're so surprised when you get yelled at because you insulted the Irish...not that guy specifically.
I think it's been well established that the $300 toilet seats purchased by DOD were actually ways to hide the "black budget" items... This book came out a while ago and is still worth the read: Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget by Tim Weiner Here's part of an an article from Wired: It's the world's wildest high-tech toy catalog, the Pentagon's annual Dear Santa letter. It includes secret weapons programs with baffiing code names such as Elegant Lady, Tractor Rose, Forest Green, Senior Citizen, Island Sun and Black Light, White Cloud and Classic Wizard. These are the "black budget" programs that pay for spy satellites, invent stealth cruise missiles, tinker with Ladar - laser radar - and experiment on aircraft that change color and helicopters that evade tracking systems. Covering expenditures for intelligence and weapons research, the Pentagon's black budget is the most titillating portion of the massive classification program that has swelled almost unabated since World War II. The black budget is the government's illusory and tangled accounting of what it spends on intelligence gathering, covert operations, and - less noticeably - secret military research and weapons programs. It admits to no easy calculation, but by estimates of those who watch it, the black budget may hit US$30 billion a year - a figure larger than current federal expenditures for education. It includes spending by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and military R&D. Documented - vaguely - in funding requests and authorizations voted on by select committees of the US Congress, the black budget is published with omitted dollar amounts and blacked-out passages. It hides all sorts of strange projects, not just from enemies, foreign and domestic, but from the public and elected officials as well. Last year, for instance, it was revealed that the National Reconnaissance Office had for several years used the black budget to hide from Congress the cost and ownership of a $300 million office building, even though the structure was plainly visible from Route 28 west of Washington, DC. With "program element" numbers, obscured figures, and code names that read like dadaist poetry, the details of the black budget are revealed to only a few select Congressional committee members - and sometimes not even to them. There are several different types of black budgets buried, for example, within the Pentagon's procurement budget and Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation budget - the tab for the toy testers. Others cover defense intelligence and research. An internal Pentagon memo from August 1994, which was accidentally leaked and showed up in Defense Week, revealed some hard numbers: the National Security Agency spends $3.5 billion a year; the Defense Intelligence Agency $621 million; and the Central Imagery Office $122 million for spy-satellite work.
The question more appropriate for me is not, "Why am I a Republican?" but "Why am I no longer a Republican?" I voted Republican last for Bush Sr. As time has passed, I've become completely disillusioned with the Republican party. Their ideals of smaller government, fiscal conservatism, free trade, less taxes, freeing the private sector to do things much more efficiently than the public sector, reducing welfare dependency, "leveling" the playing field by opposing affirmative action, promoting a meritocratic society, strong defense, ad nauseum were really just pretexts for their true agenda of lining the pockets of the rich, serving the wealthy few, showing no compassion and in some cases utter contempt for the less fortunate, and preserving the racial and social inequalities in this country. Typical left-wing drivel? That's what I used to believe as well. There was a time I bought into the so-called economic and theoretical justifications for their policies, which basically can be reduced to "what's good for private business is good for America." I used to argue vehemently in defense of these policies. But I'm certain now that the pursuit of these policies has nothing to do with the best interests of the average American. And even if you argue the irrelevancy of benevolent motives -- that capitalism thrives on participants pursuing self-interest -- I'm fairly convinced that very few of the benefits of their policies become generally diffused and distributed throughtout the population as a whole. I used to be a vehement opponent to things like affirmative action. "Let everyone earn their position based on true merit." "Don't admit people into the top schools if they don't deserve it -- that would only aggravate current perceptions of racial inferiority." As if there was fairness and equity in how many people earn a place in their professions, advance in their careers, get into good schools, or are treated by the justice system. As if George W. really deserved to get into Yale. Don't waste time trying to win me back to the dark-side -- or trying to discredit my conversion. We could drill down further, and look for justifications for my conversion. But that would be a waste of time. This country has become completely polarized along ideological lines. Political discussions become an exercise in futility -- partisan pissing contests where nobody can empathize with the other side's perspective. My own personal conversion was not by driven by vicariously suffering liberals spilling blood from their compassionate hearts on me. It came from witnessing the suffering of real friends and real family as a consequence of conservative policies. It came after a long, hard effort to reconcile my theoretical, economic beliefs, with my social ideals -- which I still haven't completed. But I'm proud that I've been on both sides. I only wish that more people weren't so locked into ideology. They protest being pigeon-holed -- but it's often they themselves that have chosen the hole, and chosen not to leave or look around.
Look, sorry, I'm sure I'm out of line here, but you are an *idiot*. Seriously. You're asking me to 'prove' that the French revolution happened partially because of widespread poverty? You're asking me to 'prove' the existence of bread riots? You're asking me to 'prove' that Dickens wrote from life? For Christ's sake, where do you think the social work profession originated? I'm not wasting my time attempting to 'prove' things that anyone with basic general knowledge should know already. Read a f*cking book, lameass.
This is indicative of the problem. I breing up the history of charitable orgs in the US and you throw out things like the French revolution? Are you serious? There are others who have put forward good arguments that my theory is incorrect. I don't feel like my perceptions is that far off, but at least their arguments were relevant. Next thing you know you'll bring up how the car put all those blacksmiths out of work.
*You* are the one who said 'throughout history', Ref. *You*. Not me. I'm talking about the last 400 or so years, including the nineteenth century (not actually that long ago - some of our grandparents lived during the period, I'm sure). Now, if you're going to say something silly like 'throughout history', fully expect history to come back and bite you on the ass.
Given we were talking about social issues and taxation in the US I figured you could understand that I was talking about US history. I won't make that mistake again.
I'm talking about the nineteenth century in the US too, you know! You too had workhouses and child labour. You too had slums. You *invented* social work. I thought that was perfectly clear. My point stands: US charitable institutions have *not* been more efficient than government in helping the poor. Is that 'relevant' enough for you, Ref?
Here is an example of a charitable organization that efficiently helps the poor and indignant. They accept no government funds and rely 100% on donations. Their head takes no salary and they help over 20,000 poor a month. http://www.sharingandcaringhands.org/about.asp
OK, I just had a shower, and it's a lovely sunny Xmas Eve Day here, and stuff, so I am going to very calmly admit that it's possible that I might have been a total b**** in this thread. However, if any of you make any 'on the rag' jokes then you're going to be in big trouble. This has nothing to do with hormones and everything to do with certain other issues. I just find it really frustrating to have TAed for the same US freshman history classes you all probably took and have *no one* remember anything about them. I mean, really, all this stuff about charity and industrial societies and how much the nineteenth century sucked for most people and the introduction of government aid is covered in those American history classes! Really it is! Terribly basic stuff... Look, here's some evidence: by 1884 there were 600 almshouses (poorhouses) in New England alone, and they took the place of a system in the early republic which sold off paupers into indentured servitude. That's from Piven and Cloward, Regulating the Poor, p. 47. I have a local history of New York (currently misplaced, dammit) which talks about poverty rates and the amount of people who died penniless or in debt during the late nineteenth century. It seriously was the majority. Those privately-organised women social workers who were trying to help the poor in tenements eventually *became* government social workers because the government *had* to do something about these people. The Settlement House movement. It's in your history textbook too. Sigh. OK, look, that's all. My only point was that private charitable institutions cannot keep up with demand as Ref thinks they will. They haven't in the past, and they won't in the future. ('The poor and indignant'. That's the best typo ever. )
Taxation didn't fix that...laws did. I don't think so...you just feel very strongly about this and have a somewhat strident style...I have no complaint about that. Personally, I learned my lesson about that one when I was about 13 years old. I guess I may just be optimistic about my fellow man.
Ah yes, conservatives -- ever optimistic about their fellow man, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to other human beings and fellow citizens. Except to those in dire need, and who might just truly depend on a safety net from the government -- they're just growing fat and lazy sucking at the teat of our welfare state. But you're always optimistic about the intentions of benevolent big-money special interests, magnanimous corporate welfare recipients, and the otherwise selfless but privileged. Oh of course, you don't suffer from a lack of compassion. You just believe that private organizations can provide assistance more efficiently than the public sector! And out of the goodness of your heart, rational pragmatism, and/or being privy to profound theoretical economic wisdom, you know that the private sector will always look out for those less fortunate! The avarice and callousness often seen in our fellow man is just an ancient relic of the distant past. Oh, and since this is America, land of the brave and home of countless homeless, examples abroad have no relevance whatsoever in this here country. And speaking of ancient, foreign history -- we can always depend on Adam Smith's invisible hand to provide for all! If only the government would get off the backs of our present-day robber barrons, they could do more good deeds. If only they would cut taxes for the wealthy, they would have more resources to help the needy -- both directly and indirectly, through the magical machinery of trickle-down, supply-side voodoo whatever. And never mind that meanwhile they're contemplating increasing taxes for the "non-taxpaying class," aka the poor. Optimistic about your fellow man? Nice spin job. You make me want to spit. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and chalk it up to naiveté -- something I was once guilty of too in my Republican past. Oh, and hope you have a safe and Merry Christmas, and a prosperous New Year, Scrooge. You know, if you at least conceded some of dimsie's very reasonable arguments, instead of replying with endless new rationalizations or smug qualifiers, I wouldn't feel so obligated to flame. It's uncompromising people like you that in part drove me away from the right. My rational inner voice is asking me why I'm wasting my time with this post, when I know damn well what the response and outcome is. You'd probably accuse me of fabricating a conversion-from-Republican story to facilitate my bleeding-heart, far-left agenda.
Thanks for calling my personal beliefs "spin," jackass. Feel free. You don't NEARLY know me or my background well enough to say any of these things...I'll just chalk it up to you being a jackass. That's necessary...and interestingly enough...something I doubt you'd have the bravado to say anywhere but an anonymous BBS. Why am I not surprised? The bottom line here is that you assailed the morality, integrity and compassion of somebody you have never met. Yet you expect me to take you seriously. You are a joke.
