Wacka Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 You've convinced me. Government bans are bad. Let's put lead back into gasoline. While we're at it, let's get rid of the government ban on slavery. 734077[/snapback] Now you're talkin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 You've convinced me. Government bans are bad. Let's put lead back into gasoline. While we're at it, let's get rid of the government ban on slavery. 734077[/snapback] Nothing like comparing apples to footballs while pretending you're making a point for your argument. WTG Chachi. You're ever increasing your credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Nothing like comparing apples to footballs while pretending you're making a point for your argument. WTG Chachi. You're ever increasing your credibility. 734142[/snapback] Just out of curiousity, do you consider yourself a conservative or a libertarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Just out of curiousity, do you consider yourself a conservative or a libertarian? 734148[/snapback] If I may......... Its not one thing, or for one specific party that, maybe Darin, or myself follow. Its a variety of things that spread across all "Labels" of the political spectrum. Don't label me man........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 If I may......... Its not one thing, or for one specific party that, maybe Darin, or myself follow. Its a variety of things that spread across all "Labels" of the political spectrum. Don't label me man........... Hopefully Darin's answer will be more informative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 will be more informative. 734183[/snapback] Kind of like your posts, eh?........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 Just out of curiousity, do you consider yourself a conservative or a libertarian? 734148[/snapback] Neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Neither. 734196[/snapback] You're even worse than eyrnthered. That post conveyed almost no information at all about your political ideology. If you're ashamed of your ideology, or if you're unable to articulate it . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 You're even worse than eyrnthered. That post conveyed almost no information at all about your political ideology. If you're ashamed of your ideology, or if you're unable to articulate it . . . 734208[/snapback] If you search the PPP archives, you will find that CTM outed AD as a LaRouche Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Just out of curiousity, do you consider yourself a conservative or a libertarian? 734148[/snapback] If you can convey your beliefs in such vapid simplistic terms, then your belief amounts to nothing more than just another empty political ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 If you can convey your beliefs in such vapid simplistic terms, then your belief amounts to nothing more than just another empty political ideology. 734252[/snapback] I disagree. A political ideology is--or is supposed to be--an internally consistent worldview. Take liberalism for example. One of its implicit assumptions is that people are a product of circumstances rather than genetics. So there's a strong effort to improve people's circumstances via social programs, but no effort whatsoever to improve, or even preserve, the gene pool. Or take libertarianism. The core tenet there is that government involvement is far more likely to do more harm than good; so government interference should be kept to a minimum. Then there's Puritanism. The Puritans came here because they wanted a more moral society here than they had in England. To them, the purpose of government was to create a moral community; and they passed a number of laws to achieve this effect. In each of the three cases there's a clearly defined purpose for government (improving people's circumstances, staying out of their way, or enhancing the morality of the community). To define the purpose of government is to define your own political ideology. If you can't define government's purpose, you've got problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickW Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Talking loud to get your thunder back I see. You ask how I can favor banning secondhand smoke in public places such as bars without also wanting a ban on alcohol. I agree with you the world would be better off without alcohol. The harm it does in terms of drunk driving, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, spousal abuse, alcoholism, etc. more than makes up for whatever good it might do. But however much I may favor a ban on alcohol personally, proposing such a ban on a football board didn't seem like the surest path to agreement. 733894[/snapback] I am certain that you already realize this but......rudeness, aggressiveness, etc. are characteristics of a person who is either defending a weak position or one who is incapable of rational debate. The argument that opponents to smoking restrictions use, either openly or conveniently buried in a more altruistic framework, is based on some form of "rights". Since rights imply duties it is an interesting, albeit weak, argument that those who desire a healthy living environment have a somewhat abject duty to protect the rights of those who do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Yes, coal mining is a dangerous job. Typically the pay is much higher in dangerous jobs, to compensate people for the danger. My concern for that specific coal mining job is that employees were being subjected to a far greater level of danger than was standard for the industry, and that they were neither aware of, nor being compensated for, this extra danger. Obviously, it's in people's interests to do research about the companies they intend to work for. But I'm guessing the average coal miner doesn't know how to do thorough research about a company he intended to work for. Well, you say, all he has to do is to go on Google and do a search. But if the company is smart, they'll create a fully owned media subsidiary, which would basically be one guy typing things out on his computer. He'd write a number of glowing articles about this company, and then he'd contract with some web developer to use linking to get this corporate propaganda to appear near the top of the Google search results. Larger companies wouldn't have to go through this. If you buy full page ads in Newsweek on a regular basis, there's a pretty good chance Newsweek's coverage of you will be favorable. Personal responsibility is important, but it's not some magic wand capable of making the effects of market inefficiencies and information asymmetries disappear. 733906[/snapback] Again, it gets back to personal responsibility. You are saying that the government should step in because people are too lazy to take care of themselves. I say "Tough!" It is not the government's job to do things for you because it would require effort on your part. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, don't use my tax dollars to counteract your laziness. Get up off your lazy fvcking azz and do it yourself. Does investigating a company require work? Yup. Life's tough. Deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 In each of the three cases there's a clearly defined purpose for government (improving people's circumstances, staying out of their way, or enhancing the morality of the community). To define the purpose of government is to define your own political ideology. If you can't define government's purpose, you've got problems. 734262[/snapback] I think what Simon and AD are referring to is not that there are specific viewpoints regarding the role of government in each philosophy, but that each person's individual viewpoint does not always fit neatly into a pre-defined philosophy. Take me for example. I am between an old-school conservative and a Libertarian. I feel that the old-school conservatives do not go far enough in reducing the role of government, while the Libertarians take things too far. My personal viewpoint does not fit a specific political philosophy, but is a combination of philosophies. Therefore, I would answer "Neither" to your question, as well. Basically, it was a bad question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 I think what Simon and AD are referring to is not that there are specific viewpoints regarding the role of government in each philosophy, but that each person's individual viewpoint does not always fit neatly into a pre-defined philosophy. Take me for example. I am between an old-school conservative and a Libertarian. I feel that the old-school conservatives do not go far enough in reducing the role of government, while the Libertarians take things too far. My personal viewpoint does not fit a specific political philosophy, but is a combination of philosophies. Therefore, I would answer "Neither" to your question, as well. Basically, it was a bad question. 734284[/snapback] Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Thank you. 734353[/snapback] Oh common guys, granted he was looking to box you in a nice rhetorical package, but AD your answer "neither" was pretty lame. I think the question was more ignorant and lazy, all he had to do was do some research and properly gather an opinion. AD you must be loosing it, perfect chance to flip that question...liberal wanting all the answers spoon fed...or give him some examples, not everything, let some assumptions be made and then have chance to correct the inaccuracies. Not enough sleep last night or just bored with the post. P.S. While I don't currently own a gun, I have been an NRA member, best darn training programs out there. No where in the constitution does it say that guns cannot be regulated, banned no, regulated yes. And while many liberals would like to ban them to address violence, regulation is better. As tougher drunk driving laws have been enforced, DWIs have and deaths related have gone down significantly despite more drivers on the road. Don't have recent stats, but the old 70s stat was 25,000 deaths a year due to cars and alcohol. The last stat I saw, a couple of years old was that stats was down to 15,000. AD do you support any kind of gun regulation and if so what do you think would work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Take me for example. I am between an old-school conservative and a Libertarian. 734284[/snapback] Actually, you're a communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Actually, you're a communist. 734413[/snapback] I have been trying to talk him into joining the Liber-Totalitarian party. No luck yet. We are small but growing everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Actually, you're a communist. 734413[/snapback] Only during the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Only during the day. 734433[/snapback] Nocturnal Libertarianism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts