 |
| 30. |
Re: toon |
Apr 27, 2008, 17:28 |
cappy |
|
|
Funny how it was Ike who campaigned promising to end the Korean War and Nixon who campaigned in both 1968 and 1972 promising to end the Vietnam War. Nixon was the first President to invite the Soviet Chairman to the United States and the first President to go to both the Soviet Union and Communist China. Virtually all of the nuclear arms treaties were completed or initiated under Republican administrations.
There is a profound misunderstanding of what "conservative" or "liberal" entail. "Conservatives" in the farming communities are quite happy to accept the farm subsidies which allow them to continue. Schools, roads, and utilities rollouts are done on the county, state, or federal level.
When there are regulations that prohibit child labor, establish working standards, attempt to ensure that American businesses don't haphazardly stick dangerous substances willy-nilly into the products consumers buy, and a very long list of government interventions, which of these are conservative and which are liberal? Do they make sense, or do they not? Do most Americans really want to roll the country back 100+ years and return to the living standards that existed before? Get rid of all the protectionism that's been established? How about getting rid of public schools, public road building and maintenance, public parks, etc.? All of that is socialist. It is community-paid for but not equally utilized.
Most people who like to think of themselves as "conservatives" want to cherry-pick just a few things they don't like and use the catch-all term "liberal" to define this small subset of pissant grievances. Not to say that some more extreme programs and proposals from both "conservatives" and "liberals" aren't inherently stupid or shortsighted (the non-indexed AMT being one example), but if you can't define your argument in anything but the broadest or terms, it's probable you aren't going to be terribly effective at actually getting what you want.
Here's a thought - how about if people quit trying to call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" and just rely on common sense. Nixon was one of the most avid anti-Communists and I doubt many thought he was weak-kneed on them by having the nuts to invite them over and visit with them. Ditto for Reagan. Sometimes, people who are shall we say "confident" have the ability to deal with people they don't like and be effective at it.
I could care less about touchy-feely marketing efforts if the result that's being sold is a gold-plated turd.
Consider some simple examples:
* the FDA - is this "liberal" or "conservative?" It created all kinds of standards that regulate food and drugs, so it seems to choke free enterprise. On the other hand, gosharootie, it makes sense to have some consistency and organization rather than a free-for-all where anything goes.
* Social Security - "Liberal" or "Conservative?" Its investments are the most conservative out there and it has funding and withdrawal requirements that are a hodgepodge, but it's not exactly a big money giveaway to everyone who comes along. Maybe we should go back to the old days of having grandpa and grandma live with the adult kids. Except Americans generally don't like those kind of living arrangements. And most people don't even know that the majority of mutual funds don't even beat the S & P 500's return over time, which is about as fundamental a fact as there can be. Let alone the fact that the "investment advisor" who recommends investment strategies probably has a Series 7 license, which is not exactly the same as getting a CFP.
* Estate Tax/Death Tax - a tax on people who didn't bother to do estate planning even though they had plenty of money to do so for a small cost. A lot of family farms are S-Corps these days so they can be perpetual.
This comment was edited on Apr 27, 17:31. |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Apr 26, 15:43 |
No subject |
Prez |
| |
2. |
Apr 26, 16:03 |
Re: No subject |
Jerykk |
| |
3. |
Apr 26, 16:42 |
Re: No subject |
Acleacius |
| |
5. |
Apr 26, 17:05 |
Re: No subject |
CJ_Parker |
| |
8. |
Apr 26, 17:18 |
Re: No subject |
Nuclear Watchdog |
| |
18. |
Apr 26, 20:16 |
Re: No subject |
Talisorn |
| |
20. |
Apr 26, 22:28 |
Re: toon |
toon |
| |
21. |
Apr 26, 22:33 |
Re: toon |
Prez |
| |
22. |
Apr 27, 00:41 |
Re: toon |
Acleacius |
| |
23. |
Apr 27, 01:01 |
Re: toon |
Prez |
| |
24. |
Apr 27, 01:58 |
Re: toon |
Acleacius |
| |
25. |
Apr 27, 03:06 |
Re: toon |
Prez |
| |
27. |
Apr 27, 10:54 |
Re: toon |
Acleacius |
| |
28. |
Apr 27, 16:28 |
Re: toon |
maleitch |
| |
29. |
Apr 27, 16:39 |
Re: toon |
ibm |
| >> |
30. |
Apr 27, 17:28 |
Re: toon |
cappy |
| |
33. |
Apr 28, 00:45 |
Re: toon |
Acleacius |
| |
34. |
Apr 28, 09:35 |
Reps vs Democ. |
InBlack |
| |
35. |
Apr 28, 12:12 |
Re: Reps vs Democ. |
Acleacius |
| |
36. |
Apr 28, 19:35 |
Re: Reps vs Democ. |
Jerykk |
| |
37. |
Apr 28, 23:53 |
Re: Reps vs Democ. |
Acleacius |
| |
10. |
Apr 26, 18:10 |
Re: No subject |
Acleacius |
| |
31. |
Apr 27, 17:30 |
Re: No subject |
Teddy |
| |
32. |
Apr 27, 21:12 |
Re: No subject |
Prez |
| |
4. |
Apr 26, 16:57 |
Re: No subject |
CJ_Parker |
| |
6. |
Apr 26, 17:15 |
Combat |
Surf |
| |
7. |
Apr 26, 17:17 |
Re: Combat |
Nuclear Watchdog |
| |
9. |
Apr 26, 17:50 |
No subject |
Bone43 |
| |
11. |
Apr 26, 18:13 |
Re: No subject |
Evil Timmy |
| |
13. |
Apr 26, 18:23 |
Re: No subject |
Acleacius |
| |
14. |
Apr 26, 18:30 |
Re: No subject |
Elf Shot The Food |
| |
15. |
Apr 26, 18:35 |
Re: No subject |
Prez |
| |
17. |
Apr 26, 20:15 |
Re: No subject |
Talisorn |
| |
12. |
Apr 26, 18:22 |
Re: No subject |
Acleacius |
| |
16. |
Apr 26, 18:37 |
benefit of doubt |
Kxmode |
| |
19. |
Apr 26, 20:17 |
Re: benefit of doubt |
Bone43 |
| |
26. |
Apr 27, 08:12 |
Re: benefit of doubt |
CreamyBlood |
|
|
Twitter 
