Conquer Club

Ditocoaf wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:What's wrong with a nanny state? I think most people could do with a nanny...

And I think that most people could do with a swift kick to their rear end. It varies, I guess, from person to person.

Heh. It's funny how what you just said pretty much validated my statement above...

When you view it literally, then I guess so, and also if it is just to give a swift kick. BUT! (no pun intended) I was meaning that too many people want to sit back and have someone else do their work for them, instead of doing it themselves. Not someone to coddle them all of their lives, but instead someone to set them on the right path, simple as that. Sometimes it takes a swift kick to the rear end to get someone motivated, other times, something else.

I like the whole rationalization concept. It just kinda makes conservatives come across as dicks. Happy dicks, but still dicks. Also, I enjoy the parts of speech discussion.

Neoteny wrote:I like the whole rationalization concept. It just kinda makes conservatives come across as dicks. Happy dicks, but still dicks. Also, I enjoy the parts of speech discussion.

and i thought it makes liberals look like fools. they worry sooooo much about everyone else in the world that the worrying kills them.

so where are the liberals worrying about the liberals worrying about everyone else in the world ?

I'll let a nanny-state florish here over my rotting corpse.

Napster has a point: All a welfare system does is bleed the economy dry and create unemployment.

Jenos Ridan wrote:I'll let a nanny-state florish here over my rotting corpse.

Napster has a point: All a welfare system does is bleed the economy dry and create unemployment.

Best reason yet for a nanny state

The biggest problem that most liberals have is the notion that "government" can solve everything. It's not that they are wrong but they don't go far enough. It's not that "government" can solve everything it is that goverment by the people, of the people and for the peope can solve everything because it is really "the people" who solve things, not the government.

Both church and state share one interesting feature; they are both pulpits of a sort where one can rally the people to a cause. This is the power of government, the ability to motiate the people to a cause and the resources necessary to carry it out. In a sense this is why the "free market" people are closer to reality than the liberal position because in a true free market it is the people who drive the system. (The problem is no market is even remotely free in the truest sense of the word thanks to all the P.T. Barnums in the world and the lack of true transparent information.)

One of the reasons why the Founding Fathers of the United States was able to draft a constitution that lasted several hundred years was that they were very pragmatic. They understood the failings of people and worked on a system that would function even when those forces would be working against it. The rich, the greedy, the liars will always be with us.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Leftists get angry and afraid because their vast mollycoddling superstructural nanny-state is threatned with destruction by authentic liberals, and along with it's demise would come the inevitable necessity for them to fend for themselves in the real world, like real men, a prospect they are thoroughly terrified by, since most of them are incapable, lazy, pathetic flower-coller wearing cactus-smokers who, vampire-like, live by sucking the fruits of others' labor, and live the more, the more they leech.

i find it funny that you claim the "liberals" leech and suggest that conservatives do not.

tell me, off the backs of how many laborers are fortunes gained? by the blood of how many innocents are empires built?

you play it off like the wealthy do it all on their own, when they don't. between being given things like fancy educations and venture capital to then withholding the same start up advantages from others, they easily climb through the ranks by exploiting others.

you'll learn this as you get older. the mark of a truly liberal thinker is one who recognizes the disparity and while still making a buck off the labor of others, doesn't inhibit their attempts to eventually do the same. the truly liberal thinker pays his employee enough to get by on and to move up with. the self-righteous and self-justifying thinker will pocket as much of the profits as possible, and keep his employee scraping by -- justifying it by claiming that those employees would just waste the money on booze, card games, drugs or women. the liberal thinker just fires the employees who do, and maintains the loyalty and consistent job performance of those employees who use their wages to better their lives.

you'll learn about this more later in life. this is why some "liberal" universities open their doors to the disadvantaged. this is why the government attempts to help make up the difference between the haves and the have-nots. because the wealthy conservatives aren't going to help.

greenoaks wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I like the whole rationalization concept. It just kinda makes conservatives come across as dicks. Happy dicks, but still dicks. Also, I enjoy the parts of speech discussion.

and i thought it makes liberals look like fools. they worry sooooo much about everyone else in the world that the worrying kills them.

so where are the liberals worrying about the liberals worrying about everyone else in the world ?

Compare "we care enough about other people that it really bothers us when they are being wronged" to popular conservative texts. A bit ironic, yes?

reminisco wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Leftists get angry and afraid because their vast mollycoddling superstructural nanny-state is threatned with destruction by authentic liberals, and along with it's demise would come the inevitable necessity for them to fend for themselves in the real world, like real men, a prospect they are thoroughly terrified by, since most of them are incapable, lazy, pathetic flower-coller wearing cactus-smokers who, vampire-like, live by sucking the fruits of others' labor, and live the more, the more they leech.

i find it funny that you claim the "liberals" leech and suggest that conservatives do not.

tell me, off the backs of how many laborers are fortunes gained? by the blood of how many innocents are empires built?

you play it off like the wealthy do it all on their own, when they don't. between being given things like fancy educations and venture capital to then withholding the same start up advantages from others, they easily climb through the ranks by exploiting others.

you'll learn this as you get older. the mark of a truly liberal thinker is one who recognizes the disparity and while still making a buck off the labor of others, doesn't inhibit their attempts to eventually do the same. the truly liberal thinker pays his employee enough to get by on and to move up with. the self-righteous and self-justifying thinker will pocket as much of the profits as possible, and keep his employee scraping by -- justifying it by claiming that those employees would just waste the money on booze, card games, drugs or women. the liberal thinker just fires the employees who do, and maintains the loyalty and consistent job performance of those employees who use their wages to better their lives.

you'll learn about this more later in life. this is why some "liberal" universities open their doors to the disadvantaged. this is why the government attempts to help make up the difference between the haves and the have-nots. because the wealthy conservatives aren't going to help.

Is that right...and apart from Das Kapital illustrated children's edition, what economic textbooks have you read? Do you understand what the word "liberal" means?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Do you understand what the word "liberal" means?

yes, i do. i also know how it is misappropriated and misunderstood when used as a political label. just like conservative is.

i am, in many ways, conservative. (i hope i don't blow your mind here)

i practice conservation of energy, resources, and nature as much as i am able.

It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that Nappy is unlikely to ever grow up.

greenoaks wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I like the whole rationalization concept. It just kinda makes conservatives come across as dicks. Happy dicks, but still dicks. Also, I enjoy the parts of speech discussion.

and i thought it makes liberals look like fools. they worry sooooo much about everyone else in the world that the worrying kills them.

so where are the liberals worrying about the liberals worrying about everyone else in the world ?

Y'know, that's something I often worry about.

joecoolfrog wrote:It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that Nappy is unlikely to ever grow up.

It would seem from yet another snide and pointless post that joecoolfrog is unlikely to ever get an IQ.

reminisco wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Do you understand what the word "liberal" means?

yes, i do. i also know how it is misappropriated and misunderstood when used as a political label. just like conservative is.

i am, in many ways, conservative. (i hope i don't blow your mind here)

i practice conservation of energy, resources, and nature as much as i am able.

But I take it you've never actually read any economic textbooks or economic-related texts?

Napoleon Ier wrote:But I take it you've never actually read any economic textbooks or economic-related texts?

um, actually, yes i have.

have you ever read anything about economics that wasn't spoon fed to you by Rush Limbaugh?

and by the way, you didn't pick up on my attempt at a cynical put down -- about how much of a misnomer conservative is, when the neo-cons are the ones destroying the environment with the most zeal.

reminisco wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:But I take it you've never actually read any economic textbooks or economic-related texts?

um, actually, yes i have.

have you ever read anything about economics that wasn't spoon fed to you by Rush Limbaugh?

and by the way, you didn't pick up on my attempt at a cynical put down -- about how much of a misnomer conservative is, when the neo-cons are the ones destroying the environment with the most zeal.

Oh no, that's right, I didn't! Hahahahahahah! You are soooooo drôle reminisco! What a brilliant satire that would be, of ecological conservation and politcal conservatism weren;t two completely separate fucking things. I'd also suggest you stop making things up (yet again): you clearly have no clue what liberalism actually means, and you clearly haven't read any economics. Your crude pseudo-post-Marxist analysis shows anyone with a clue just how ignorant you are.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Oh no, that's right, I didn't! Hahahahahahah! You are soooooo drôle reminisco! What a brilliant satire that would be, of ecological conservation and politcal conservatism weren;t two completely separate fucking things.

Once they used to be good friends and both true Republicans. Then T.R. lost out to W.H. Taft and from then on a good deal of the party has forgotten about the ideas of the man who put Lincoln on the U.S. penny. A true Republican is faithful to the legacy of Abe and Teddy, and both their legacies. To ecological conservation and the man who started it all I say "Bully!"

tzor wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Oh no, that's right, I didn't! Hahahahahahah! You are soooooo drôle reminisco! What a brilliant satire that would be, of ecological conservation and politcal conservatism weren;t two completely separate fucking things.

Once they used to be good friends and both true Republicans. Then T.R. lost out to W.H. Taft and from then on a good deal of the party has forgotten about the ideas of the man who put Lincoln on the U.S. penny. A true Republican is faithful to the legacy of Abe and Teddy, and both their legacies. To ecological conservation and the man who started it all I say "Bully!"

Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

tzor wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Oh no, that's right, I didn't! Hahahahahahah! You are soooooo drôle reminisco! What a brilliant satire that would be, of ecological conservation and politcal conservatism weren;t two completely separate fucking things.

Once they used to be good friends and both true Republicans. Then T.R. lost out to W.H. Taft and from then on a good deal of the party has forgotten about the ideas of the man who put Lincoln on the U.S. penny. A true Republican is faithful to the legacy of Abe and Teddy, and both their legacies. To ecological conservation and the man who started it all I say "Bully!"

Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

Abe Lincoln was elected the last 2 terms? I thought he died a long time ago.

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

tzor wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Oh no, that's right, I didn't! Hahahahahahah! You are soooooo drôle reminisco! What a brilliant satire that would be, of ecological conservation and politcal conservatism weren;t two completely separate fucking things.

Once they used to be good friends and both true Republicans. Then T.R. lost out to W.H. Taft and from then on a good deal of the party has forgotten about the ideas of the man who put Lincoln on the U.S. penny. A true Republican is faithful to the legacy of Abe and Teddy, and both their legacies. To ecological conservation and the man who started it all I say "Bully!"

Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

Abe Lincoln was elected the last 2 terms? I thought he died a long time ago.

What the f*ck are you blathering about?

... I read a news article recently that compared charitable donations, as a percentage of income, in a Red State vs Blue State fashion.

... The study found that the red staters vastly out-gave the blue staters. So all this talk about the "evil conservatives" is, in truth, just so much anger from the left aimed at people who disagree with them and their socialist ideas.

... Interestingly, many Blue Staters thought that high taxes represented a form of personal generosity (saving them the hassle, I guess).

...

Nobunaga wrote:... I read a news article recently that compared charitable donations, as a percentage of income, in a Red State vs Blue State fashion.

... The study found that the red staters vastly out-gave the blue staters. So all this talk about the "evil conservatives" is, in truth, just so much anger from the left aimed at people who disagree with them and their socialist ideas.

... Interestingly, many Blue Staters thought that high taxes represented a form of personal generosity (saving them the hassle, I guess).

...

if you read it, then you can provide us with a citation, please.

secondly, red state vs. blue state is itself a flawed method of delineation, considering how many of those red states are about 49% blue, or vice versa.

thirdly, that's no real measure of "giving" -- charitable donations are tax deductible and in some cases can be given by the super rich to charitable organizations they run, providing themselves with a tax shelter. point being -- you can't look at one single facet in order to make a blanket statement, as you do here. the same applies to the "liberal" side of the argument, of course.

finally, your tangent here reads more like it would fit a new thread, than this one, even though i've already provided the response i probably would in that thread, albeit without getting to read this article to which you allude.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

That's Millard Filmore and everyone knows that!

Abraham Lincoln was tall and ugly, a model for all us tall not so handsome people (especially when I was young, I've gotten better with age you know ... I'm like a fine wine ... soon I'll be vinegar) to look up to as a young adult. Proof that you can get anywhere if you cover up your ugly face with a beard!

tzor wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Abraham Lincoln. Worst. President. Evah.

That's Millard Filmore and everyone knows that!

Abraham Lincoln was tall and ugly, a model for all us tall not so handsome people (especially when I was young, I've gotten better with age you know ... I'm like a fine wine ... soon I'll be vinegar) to look up to as a young adult. Proof that you can get anywhere if you cover up your ugly face with a beard!

you must be average in the looks department. your face is only half covered.

reminisco wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:But I take it you've never actually read any economic textbooks or economic-related texts?

um, actually, yes i have.

have you ever read anything about economics that wasn't spoon fed to you by Rush Limbaugh?

and by the way, you didn't pick up on my attempt at a cynical put down -- about how much of a misnomer conservative is, when the neo-cons are the ones destroying the environment with the most zeal.

And what economic text have you ever read that wasn't presented to you in a lecture by some wacko Liberal college proffesor?

Limbaugh does get out of line occasionaly, but he is definetly inteligent. I'll listen to what he says, and then check it. this can be very enlightening.

Really? You'll bring up the enviroment platform of of whichever canidate you will undoubtably be voting for? Do you drive around in a private jet like said canidate does, making them the biggest hypocrits on Earth... or did you not know that almost all major politicians have private jets (including the one's spoutting the enviromental argument).

Why don't we turn this to the original topic... why ARE we, conservatives, more happy? Maybe because we aren't constantly making nightmares about the enviroment, and unfairness, and all that for ourselves. And thier just that... NIGHTMARES, BAD DREAMS. Wake up people!