And if you had read that article, you would know that their ideology bears little resemblance to the principles conservatives espouse in the U.S. They are content, for example, to maintain the basic social programs that define Swedish society.

 

*hanging my head* I try and I try....but I just can't seem to be good.

 

Yes, but the basic social programs have no comparision to the US system. They have had severe problems with it as well, this 1990's NY Times piece talks about some of them:
*not_secure_link*query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7D6103CF933A15751C0A966958260

And you might want to read these articles by Nima Sanandaji,

*not_secure_link*www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2027/print

*not_secure_link*www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji1.html

 

Kimi you do use facts, you have proven me wrong many times and I have capitulated, however they are frequently irrelevent, subject to interpretation or just plain incorrect.

 

I'm at work and pressed for time tenguy so I'm going to take these by individual points and not necessarily in order.

Here's my statement:

Quote:
Every time I totally expose the fallacy of one of your statements you come up with something like this. I didn't take anything out of context. I took your own statement that when Jesus said render the things that belong to Cesar to Cesar meant that the government shouldn't take care of the poor that people and charity should was the exact opposite of what he was saying and the context it is presented in the new testament. Again those are the facts in the face of your ridiculous claims.
Here's your statement:

And here's the statement you made that I was referring to:

Now that's one proven bullshit on your part and I will be back soon with more.

 

Kimi said very early in the thread

"Jesus had it right."


Quote:
On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!" -- Mother Teresa




I responded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenguy
None of the countries that are socialistic have worked whether dictatorships or not. Do not confuse totalitarianism with socialism.

And do you think that Jesus was wrong when he said "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesars..........." Jesus, I believe was speaking to the masses on how to care for one another, not for how Caesar was to care for them.

BTW I find it strange for you to be quoting Jesus, I thought you were not a religious person.


Now do you see what I was responding to, next time read the thread before jumping my ass.

 

I don't care what Kimiko said. I was simply pointing out that your interpretation of this piece of scripture is dead wrong.

 

Stumbler this is so fucking stupid of you. Why do you persist???


Read my lips:

MY REPLY WAS TO KIMI AND HER POST ABOUT WHAT MOTHER TERESA SAID< WHICH WAS ENTIRELY ABOUT CARING FOT ONE ANOTHER. I TIED THE "RENDER UNTO..." QUOTE TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION.

Now will you please knock it off or get another interest like grenade fucking?

 

No reason to get hysterical or insulting tenguy the Biblical facts are that in the scripture you quoted someone comes to Jesus complaining of a new tax the Romans had imposed, and asking Jesus what they should do about the new tax and Jesus asked to see the coin that they paid the taxes with which had Cesar's picture on it. That's when Jesus said Render unto Cesar the things that a Cesar's and to God the things that are God's. In other words just pay the tax.

The is the opposite of what you contended when you said: ""Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesars..........." Jesus, I believe was speaking to the masses on how to care for one another, not for how Caesar was to care for them.

See Jesus was a liberal as I have said before.

 

Not hysterical at all, bored by your thickheadedness. Last reply on this subject guaranteed.

 

On bullshit point two I said:

Then you said:

Below you will find the relevant quotes and citations that prove what I originally said that that is bullshit point two.

Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

At the beginning of the 1980s, the US administration run by Ronald Reagan introduced the idea of a North American Free Trade Zone. After the rise to power of the Brian Mulroney government in 1984, Canada decided to begin bilateral free trade negotiations with the United States. The negotiations resulted in the conclusion of a free trade agreement (FTA) in 1987. Three years later, Mexico in turn opened free trade negotiations with the United States. The negotiations became trilateral at Canada’s request at the beginning of 1991. The three governments concluded the negotiations and signed NAFTA in December 1992.

*not_secure_link*www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/alena.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ



The agreement was pursued by the conservative governments in the US and Canada. In Canada, the Government was led by Brian Mulroney of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The Canadian government worked aggressively with Republican President George H. W. Bush to create and sign the agreement. There was considerable opposition on both sides of the border, and the Clinton administration made passage of the agreement its major legislative initiative in 1993. After intense political debate and the negotiation of several side agreements, the House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the Senate passed it by 61-38. Some opposition persists to the present day. Recently in Canada, labour unions have removed their objections to the agreement from their platforms.



*not_secure_link*www.vancol.com/resources/the-history-of-nafta-north-american-free-trade-agreement/

 

Now I think we need to address what are your contradictions when it comes to the article you posted and what it actually says.

I pointed out that while conservatives claim they want very little government and object to social welfare programs and oppose any government interference in what they see as human failure that is actually a lie, because conservatives consistently seek and receive assistance from the government when it comes to saving their businesses or industries.

As I said:

Then you responded with:

This in no way addresses the obvious contradiction in conservative philosophy that I have pointed out. It does not address the fact that when it comes to these and other contradictions conservatism as it is preached and then actually practiced makes it a lie and those who preach it liars.

All one needs to do is look at the massive budget deficits conservatives like Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush ran up at tax payers expense and it is obvious that it is the conservative presidents and congresses that have racked up more national debt then the liberals ever have.

But I guess it should also be obvious that I read your original article much more carefully than you did. You erroneously claim the article was about not being able to discuss things with liberals. But then explain what this means:

I said:

But then you would still contend:

But again I must point out the article you posted said:
There has always been the elite and there has always been the poor --- in each and every society that has ever existed.

That is another direct contradiction of the article you posted and I think again makes your contentions in this regard bullshit.


That's why I contend and believe:

And your only response to all those points is:

To me it appears you are the one who commits the sin your original post accuses liberals of when it says:

Except instead of liberals doing that I think it is obvious you are the one doing that.

I think I made that more than obvious when I said:

Here again I am pointing out the direct contradictions in the way conservatism is preached and practiced and you come back with:

This seems to be like "arguments (that) are chock full of sentimentality" to me. Either government interference is acceptable or it is not. But while conservatives constantly preach that it a persons own fault because: "Thus there is such a thing as intellectual poverty and poverty of potential. Being without possession of these things is enough to virtually guarantee a man a life of poverty." The same is not true for industries and business? How can that be? The only way it can be is conservatism as it is preached and practiced is a lie.

 

I once took a test called the "Politics test" it said I was a Socialist Liberal

and after reading that I guess I am

 

how can we be expected to evolve and grow as a species if we continually help the little guy up? we will slowly but surely dilute the gene pool till we're all mediocre... like that movie idiocracy

how did the rich get rich in the first place?
Take say, Rockefeller:

Rockefeller was the second of six children born in Richford, New York, to William Avery Rockefeller (November 13, 1810 - May 11, 1906) and Eliza Davison (September 12, 1813 - March 28, 1889). Genealogists trace his roots back to Germany in the 1600s[6][7]. His father, also referred to as "Big Bill", was a sworn foe of conventional morality who had opted for a vagabond existence. Throughout his life, William Avery Rockefeller expended considerable energy on tricks and schemes to avoid plain hard work.[8] As Will was frequently gone for extended periods, Eliza struggled to maintain a semblance of stability at home. Young Rockefeller's contemporaries described him as articulate, methodical, and discreet.
When he was a boy, his family moved from Cleveland, Ohio to Moravia and, in 1851, to Owego, where he attended Owego Academy. In 1853, his family bought a house in Strongsville, a town close to Cleveland. When Rockefeller was 16 he got his first job as a clerk. At that time he promised when he retired he would give one tenth of his money to charity.


He started off with nothing, and ended up being one of the richest men ever because he was smart. That kind of intellect and cleverness didn't come because of his upbringing, it came from his genes. So why shouldn't children, who have the same genetics, get his money. If they're dumb they'll squander it all away, if they're smart they'll build wealth from wealth.

Oh and at the time of his adolescence, there was little if any social welfare.

Answer me this: If I am born with the potential, work hard, and make tons of money, why should I have to pay higher taxes? Shouldn't at we at least have a flat rate tax.

 

Actually while the exception you provide tends to prove the rule that while some people can over come humble beginnings and achieve success the odds are astronomically against it regardless of genes and intellect. And so it begs the question of what should we do about the ones who can't for any number of reasons. Should we leave them and their children to survive or die anyway they can? Do you think that would be a problem free approach?

But while your post seems rather confusing to me I would still have to point out a couple of things. Rockefeller was not born into abject poverty in a poor and desolate neighborhood. He was not the product of a single parent household and he did receive an education not actually available to most people of his time or our time for that matter.

And to answer you question I would have no problem with a flat tax. As long as that was it actually was but the truth is that even in their elevated tax brackets rich people don't usually pay their fair share of taxes. Thats what they have accountants and tax shelters for.

Now answer me this. If our system is so unfavorable to the rich why is it that 1 percent of the population of this nation control 95 percent of the wealth? And if Rockefeller was born today do you think he would still be able to do what he did?

 

Funny quote I heard on Bill Mahar. "If you can't pay your mortgage, you're a deadbeat. If you can't pay thousands of mortgages, you're Bear Stearns and you get bailed out by the government."

 

Great line.

When supposedly conservative businessmen take advantage of government largesse, corporate welfare, etc., it's tempting to say that their ideology is muddled....but I actually think it's more straightforward than that: their greed trumps their ideology, always. They BELIEVE in small government, low taxes, and unfettered free enterprise, but if they can get the government to give them a subsidy, or provide them an endless supply of cheap labor, or eliminate their competition, or protect them from being sued...and if all that takes is buying a few Congressmen...well, gee, we'd be fools not to take advantage of that and game the system, wouldn't we?

 

Are there no prisons? Are there no work-houses?

 

Well there's plenty of prisons. Its one of our new growth industries but I think the workhouses got outsourced with everything else.

 

So Bill Clinton didn't sign it into law???? Hillary didn't go to events touting it???