AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@mysteryman,

Affirming this. Cyclop and I have gone almost a whole day with some pretty energetic back and forth with little agreement, but I think he only slipped in one or two minor ad hominem references the whole time. That demonstrates a great deal of class and maturity. Kudos to him, hats off, and much appreciation for that.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Do you believe I am being heartless when I say these things to you?

No, I believe you are advocating personal responsibility, just like most conservatives do.

You are starting to come around, albeit slowly.

The difference is, I am willing to pay more in taxes to help improve your situation, put in bike lanes or help get some sort of public transit. I would support a tax hike on my income to pay for stuff that I will never use; because to improve your section of America, and your situation, improves all of us.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You however usually won't answer counter questions presented to you and rarely post anything to support any statement of merit or to support your sometimes self-righteous, hypercritical opinion. So....I've done my part to support what I wrote. It's your turn to show that you have anything other than prejudice to support yours.

Okay.

What claim have I made that I refuse to back up?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Affirming this. Cyclop and I have gone almost a whole day with some pretty energetic back and forth with little agreement, but I think he only slipped in one or two minor ad hominem references the whole time. That demonstrates a great deal of class and maturity. Kudos to him, hats off, and much appreciation for that.

Well, you've been pretty restrained yourself today.

Coming back to our earlier conversation,

Quote:

Quote:

And how do you determine who gets to receive the freebies and who must be the provider in any kind of fair manner?

Everyone is a provider. That's an easy one.

Only the very, very poor receive the freebies. Also an easy one.

We all help provide for each other, and none of us truly wish to be the ones provided for. While it may sound nice to get money from the gov't, the truth is that it really isn't.

I will readily agree with you and other Conservatives that generational poverty/ignorance, and 'learned helplessness' are a big problem. But a solvable one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The thing is, bike lanes in my town are of negligible benefit to MM and his town might not need or want those. So, my town should vote on those in a bond issue or referendum or in some way that assumes responsibility for those bike lanes. MM's town may need something entirely different that would be of little or no interest or value to Albuquerque, and that too could be handled on the local level.

It isn't that MACs are opposed to these things. They are opposed to one-size-fits-all solutions managed from a federal level that siphons off a huge chunk of the available money to manage the bureaucracy.

The federal government should do only those things that it is constitutionally mandated to do and that cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector and/or more local governments.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You however usually won't answer counter questions presented to you and rarely post anything to support any statement of merit or to support your sometimes self-righteous, hypercritical opinion. So....I've done my part to support what I wrote. It's your turn to show that you have anything other than prejudice to support yours.

Okay.

What claim have I made that I refuse to back up?

Here's your posts. You can dig them out for yourself:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-279#post-3601989

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-280#post-3602051

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-280#post-3602076

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

The difference is, I am willing to pay more in taxes to help improve your situation, put in bike lanes or help get some sort of public transit. I would support a tax hike on my income to pay for stuff that I will never use; because to improve your section of America, and your situation, improves all of us.

And all of those are worthwhile, valid reasons to raise taxes.

The difference between you and I is that you will support raising taxes to support people that REFUSE to work, or to support a woman that CHOOSES to have as many kids as she can, just to get more money, you support raising taxes to support drug addicts that CHOSE to become that way, or to support illegal immigrants that have knowingly CHOSEN to break our laws, etc.

I do not support raising taxes for those reasons.
That is the main difference we have regarding taxes.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
At least that's the way it is here in America.

Foxfyre wrote:
MACs and/or conservatives in general are by far the most compassionate and generous of all Americans and probably at or near the top of generous people of the world.

Contradiction alert.

Are you conceding that you have nothing to back up your earlier post, or are you subtly changing the topic, acting all insulted, so that you can argue the topic from more secure ground and from a point of moral superiority?

Her previous post does not support her grandiose statement. And speaking of contradictions, here's what her alleged source, Arthur C. Brooks, wrote elsewhere:

Quote:

The working poor are America’s most generous givers when we measure giving as a percentage of income.

Barack as Scrooge? By Arthur C. Brooks

I detect an anti-liberal, anti-Obama bias. I strongly suspect that Brooks manipulates his alleged data to make it say whatever he wants it to say. I think this is his source:

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The thing is, bike lanes in my town are of negligible benefit to MM and his town might not need or want those.

It does not matter that stuff in your town does not benefit him personally; it benefits America as a whole, and our entire future, to improve the place.

For example, bridges and highways. It would be very difficult to keep the interstate highway system operating safely if individual townships and cities were responsible for their own upkeep of this stuff. I don't mind that my tax money pays for roads I will never drive on; keeping other people safe is worth the money.

I get the feeling that Conservatives, in their quest for Efficiency, forget that efficiency isn't the purpose of Government; it's Redundancy. Yes, it takes some money to keep the bureaucracy going and it has to be closely managed, but the system that you rail against ensures that our country and government remains year, after year, after year, in operating fashion...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

I

Quote:

think this is his source:

Would that be the same source you have used in some of your pro-illegal immigrant comments over the years?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You however usually won't answer counter questions presented to you and rarely post anything to support any statement of merit or to support your sometimes self-righteous, hypercritical opinion. So....I've done my part to support what I wrote. It's your turn to show that you have anything other than prejudice to support yours.

Okay.

What claim have I made that I refuse to back up?

Here's your posts. You can dig them out for yourself:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-279#post-3601989

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-280#post-3602051

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-280#post-3602076

Okay.

In those three posts, what claim have I made that I refuse to back up?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
The difference is, I am willing to pay more in taxes to help improve your situation, put in bike lanes or help get some sort of public transit. I would support a tax hike on my income to pay for stuff that I will never use; because to improve your section of America, and your situation, improves all of us.

And all of those are worthwhile, valid reasons to raise taxes.

The difference between you and I is that you will support raising taxes to support people that REFUSE to work, or to support a woman that CHOOSES to have as many kids as she can, just to get more money, you support raising taxes to support drug addicts that CHOSE to become that way, or to support illegal immigrants that have knowingly CHOSEN to break our laws, etc.

I do not support raising taxes for those reasons.
That is the main difference we have regarding taxes.

It is very difficult to distinguish between people who choose their situations, and those who do not. I don't know how you guys would propose we do this.

It's almost as if you guys feel there's some group out there, lazing about, living the high life on your dime. They don't have to work, the US government and all those hard-workers actually take care of them, and that's that. This is false. These people's lives are shitty. They certainly aren't happy about their situation, I guarantee you.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

For example, bridges and highways. It would be very difficult to keep the interstate highway system operating safely if individual townships and cities were responsible for their own upkeep of this stuff. I don't mind that my tax money pays for roads I will never drive on; keeping other people safe is worth the money.

But you just said it, the INTERSTATE highway system.

BTW, each state is responsible for the upkeep of the Interstates in their state, with money from the federal govt.

But things like bike paths do not fall into the govts perview (at least not the federal govts).
Those are entirely local matters, and should be decided and financed by local citizens, not somebody on the other side of the country.

BTW, you said earlier that someone living in a rural area could move to the city to find work or to be closer to work, and that is true.
But have you considered all of the ramifications of that?
If everyone moved to the cities, then who would grow the crops that feed this country?
Who would raise the beef and hogs and chickens and sheep that feed this country?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The thing is, bike lanes in my town are of negligible benefit to MM and his town might not need or want those.

It does not matter that stuff in your town does not benefit him personally; it benefits America as a whole, and our entire future, to improve the place.

For example, bridges and highways. It would be very difficult to keep the interstate highway system operating safely if individual townships and cities were responsible for their own upkeep of this stuff. I don't mind that my tax money pays for roads I will never drive on; keeping other people safe is worth the money.

I get the feeling that Conservatives, in their quest for Efficiency, forget that efficiency isn't the purpose of Government; it's Redundancy. Yes, it takes some money to keep the bureaucracy going and it has to be closely managed, but the system that you rail against ensures that our country and government remains year, after year, after year, in operating fashion...

Cycloptichorn

I'm sorry, but bike lanes in Albuquerque do not benefit America as a whole. They don't benefit any other places even in New Mexico. Yes, the federal government should maintain the federal highway system--that truly is essential for both national defense and promoting the general welfare. The federal government should not be responsible for rebuilding the bridge on Farm to Market road A41 in Chaves County New Mexico, however. Chaves County should take care of its own bridge.

In my line of work I happen to see a lot of financial records for federal projects, state projects, county projects, city projects, and private enterprise. I am 100% convinced that private enterprise is by far the most efficient, effective, and economical means to get most things done. (So are most of the contractors who actually do the work.) The more layers of government get added on to anything, the more expensive it is going to be. That is not saying that there are no valid responsibilities for the federal government, however.

Liberals, by definition, tilt left toward more government. MACs by definition tilt right toward less government. I don't think many, if any, American liberals want total government control nor do many, if any, conservatives want no government involvement. For me it comes down to the most efficient and effective way to get something accomplished and I think most things are better accomplished by other than the federal bureaucracy.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
For example, bridges and highways. It would be very difficult to keep the interstate highway system operating safely if individual townships and cities were responsible for their own upkeep of this stuff. I don't mind that my tax money pays for roads I will never drive on; keeping other people safe is worth the money.

But you just said it, the INTERSTATE highway system.

BTW, each state is responsible for the upkeep of the Interstates in their state, with money from the federal govt.

But things like bike paths do not fall into the govts perview (at least not the federal govts).
Those are entirely local matters, and should be decided and financed by local citizens, not somebody on the other side of the country.

BTW, you said earlier that someone living in a rural area could move to the city to find work or to be closer to work, and that is true.
But have you considered all of the ramifications of that?
If everyone moved to the cities, then who would grow the crops that feed this country?
Who would raise the beef and hogs and chickens and sheep that feed this country?

I didn't recommend that everyone move to the city; only that those who wish to not have a car do so.

The inter-state highway system is the loose term I use for 'American roads.' We have a responsibility to ensure that methods of transport in this country are safe and reliable no matter where they are. And that includes bike paths as well, why would it not? It is not as if you have to live in a certain area to bicycle there.

Quote:

Those are entirely local matters, and should be decided and financed by local citizens, not somebody on the other side of the country.

Why do you believe this? Improving one area of the country is akin to improving the country itself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

All of them OE.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I
Quote:
think this is his source:

Would that be the same source you have used in some of your pro-illegal immigrant comments over the years?

Have I been posting statistics, manipulated or otherwise, in support of illegal immigration? I can't remember ever doing that "over the years." Give me a link to one of these posts.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It is very difficult to distinguish between people who choose their situations, and those who do not. I don't know how you guys would propose we do this.

Are you serious?
If someone is a drug addict, they CHOSE to be.
If a woman is on welfare, and has more kids after she starts getting money, its because she CHOSE to.

The solution is simple.
If you are on welfare, we will pay benefits for the kids you have now.
But if you CHOOSE to have more kids, we will NOT pay any more benefits, nor will we pay your medical bills.

If you are a drug addict, you are on your own.
You CHOSE to become an addict, you CHOSE to start using drugs, so you CHOSE to accept the consequences.

If you apply for welfare and cannot produce documents that show you are here legally,you do not get any help.
After all, you CHOSE to violate the law, so you CHOSE to accept the consequences.

Notice the highlighted word.
It all comes back to personal responsibility.
I have no problem helping those that truly need it, but if they CHOSE to put themselvs in the position of needing it, they are on their own and get no help at all.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I'm sorry, but bike lanes in Albuquerque do not benefit America as a whole.

Sure they do. And why not? Having desirable infrastructure installed in the country benefits the country as a whole.

It's like claiming that improving your kitchen doesn't make the entire house better. Of course it does! Logically you could extend this and say, 'well, how does improving your NEIGHBORS' kitchen make things better?' But of course it does, it improves the neighborhood itself; as home values rise, all of your property becomes more valuable.

Quote:

For me it comes down to the most efficient and effective way to get something accomplished and I think most things are better accomplished by other than the federal bureaucracy.

I don't think that things necessarily have to be done in 'the most efficient way.' Redundancy is also a great part of how things should be done. As an example, I would point out that the Government of America has been undertaking various projects to improve the place for well over 200 years now; what private company has or will be doing things for that long?

The Government undertakes projects which cannot be profitable; how many private investors would sink money into something which will never return a profit, or generate income?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, When you don't know or understand drug addiction, you shouldn't blab your ignorance. There's a reason they call it "addiction." Try to figure out why.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know