Can I be conservative, liberal, progressive all at once or do I have to pick only one

[Bombur]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves. It is a movement that is funded by billionaires who don't like that government tells them not to pollute the environment. They are anti-science and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves.

Bullshit.

If government's powers are properly limited, corporate lobbyists will not even exist.

The billionaires LOVE a massive incredibly powerful government that can be bought to do their bidding and suppress competition.

You're a mindless bed wetter.

They won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

 

[Pete7469]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves. It is a movement that is funded by billionaires who don't like that government tells them not to pollute the environment. They are anti-science and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves.

Bullshit.

If government's powers are properly limited, corporate lobbyists will not even exist.

The billionaires LOVE a massive incredibly powerful government that can be bought to do their bidding and suppress competition.

You're a mindless bed wetter.

They won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

Uhhh, why do they exist at all now dipshit? If senators, legislators and bureaucrooks are stripped of the power to advance the interests of corporations what purpose would these lobbyists serve?

It takes a complete ******* retard to believe that a powerful central government won't be consumed by self serving parasites that enrich themselves selling influence to the highest bidder. An even more insipid asshole can't comprehend the simple logic that if you reduce the government's power, you reduce the incentive for corporations to invest the money that buys the influence, SINCE IT WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

There is no conflict in my thinking.

It is the fact that you're stealing oxygen from the rest of us in spite of having absolutely no thinking skills at all that gives me the headache.

 

[The T]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Anything wrong with being an individual?

Didn't think so. ARE YOU looking for approval? IF you are? Good luck with that...and you'll be pissing up a rope the rest of your days.

 

[The T]

Seriously OP? Good luck with finding yourself...Consult the nearest mirror and your SOUL.

 

[Bombur]

Bullshit.

If government's powers are properly limited, corporate lobbyists will not even exist.

The billionaires LOVE a massive incredibly powerful government that can be bought to do their bidding and suppress competition.

You're a mindless bed wetter.

They won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

Uhhh, why do they exist at all now dipshit? If senators, legislators and bureaucrooks are stripped of the power to advance the interests of corporations what purpose would these lobbyists serve?

It takes a complete ******* retard to believe that a powerful central government won't be consumed by self serving parasites that enrich themselves selling influence to the highest bidder. An even more insipid asshole can't comprehend the simple logic that if you reduce the government's power, you reduce the incentive for corporations to invest the money that buys the influence, SINCE IT WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

There is no conflict in my thinking.

It is the fact that you're stealing oxygen from the rest of us in spite of having absolutely no thinking skills at all that gives me the headache.

So since you didn't actually address what I said I assume your answer is "magic."

 

[Vox]

the way you can identify yourself it the way you VOTE.

because the paradigm is always either-or - there are only 2 ways to identify it.

I agree that one might have more conservative fiscal views and more liberal social ones or vice verse - but it is what you want to compromise when you choose whom you you vote for - THAT identifies you.

If you state that you are socially conservative but consistently vote dimocrap because you also receive hefty union benefits - there is no question where you really belong to in classification

If you state that your views on social issues coincide with Noam Chomsky but you still vote for a conservative candidate as you can't stand government waste and intrusion - that is also very telling what you are and where you belong in classification.

It is pretty easy in the political system we have in the US.

It is a bit more complicated in a system where more than 2 parties exist.

 

[Vox]

Seriously OP? Good luck with finding yourself...Consult the nearest mirror and your SOUL.

meh, just the letter after the last name of the candidate he/she/it voted for last time

 

[Ava]

Can I be conservative, liberal, progressive all at once or do I have to pick only one

Only if you are a woman, in or near, your menstrual cycle...

 

[eflatminor]

You are now arguing with your own point and denying what you said.

Not at all. A flat tax is a flat tax and it is the only "fair" tax. Where that tax begins to take effect is a matter of debate, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a flat tax as I originally stated. And, as I said, I'm fine with it starting after $X of income in order to shield the poor from any tax burden. This in no way denigrates the libertarian ideals you seem to be so much against, though without any specifics, logic or reason.

Referencing the Constitution tells no one anything about what you actually think about how taxes would work today

Wrong. It tells us that we THRIVED with no income tax in the past. We can do so again, but not if folks like you keep supporting the nanny staters that meddle beyond the Constitution's limited powers. What's so ironic, and sad, is that you lament the things brought about by those very politicians you support! Again, the irony is overwhelming!

Now, how about those specific examples to support your claims. Still looking for them. Don't tell us you got nothing!

Just because you call a tax "fair" that doesn't mean it is fair. You are proposing the government impose a tax that is regressive(some poor excluded). What does that have to do with "liberty" or really anything at all? Sounds like just another example of you placating to billionaires.

Also saying something worked in 1820 and assuming it would work today is just the kind ignorant and naive crap I already accused you of. Honestly I didn't think you would say something so ignorant and naive as that. So thanks. Feel free to try and rationalize your position with something more than appeals to emotion.

Those examples to back up your statements, still looking for 'em. I mean, you can't even provide a SINGLE one? Well that's just pathetic...

Wow, you really do just pull this out of your ass. How sad.

 

[Pogo]

the way you can identify yourself it the way you VOTE.

because the paradigm is always either-or - there are only 2 ways to identify it.

I agree that one might have more conservative fiscal views and more liberal social ones or vice verse - but it is what you want to compromise when you choose whom you you vote for - THAT identifies you.

If you state that you are socially conservative but consistently vote dimocrap because you also receive hefty union benefits - there is no question where you really belong to in classification

If you state that your views on social issues coincide with Noam Chomsky but you still vote for a conservative candidate as you can't stand government waste and intrusion - that is also very telling what you are and where you belong in classification.

It is pretty easy in the political system we have in the US.

It is a bit more complicated in a system where more than 2 parties exist.

It's amusing you think we actually have two parties here.

[MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]:

 

[Destroyer2]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Who cares? It's just a label often used to overgeneralize anyway; every person has a different set of beliefs and those beliefs can (and often will) encompass multiple ideologies.

 

[Bombur]

Not at all. A flat tax is a flat tax and it is the only "fair" tax. Where that tax begins to take effect is a matter of debate, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a flat tax as I originally stated. And, as I said, I'm fine with it starting after $X of income in order to shield the poor from any tax burden. This in no way denigrates the libertarian ideals you seem to be so much against, though without any specifics, logic or reason.



Wrong. It tells us that we THRIVED with no income tax in the past. We can do so again, but not if folks like you keep supporting the nanny staters that meddle beyond the Constitution's limited powers. What's so ironic, and sad, is that you lament the things brought about by those very politicians you support! Again, the irony is overwhelming!

Now, how about those specific examples to support your claims. Still looking for them. Don't tell us you got nothing!

Just because you call a tax "fair" that doesn't mean it is fair. You are proposing the government impose a tax that is regressive(some poor excluded). What does that have to do with "liberty" or really anything at all? Sounds like just another example of you placating to billionaires.

Also saying something worked in 1820 and assuming it would work today is just the kind ignorant and naive crap I already accused you of. Honestly I didn't think you would say something so ignorant and naive as that. So thanks. Feel free to try and rationalize your position with something more than appeals to emotion.

Those examples to back up your statements, still looking for 'em. I mean, you can't even provide a SINGLE one? Well that's just pathetic...

Wow, you really do just pull this out of your ass. How sad.

I wasn't referencing anything in that post. I was laughing at you for claiming we can just revert back to the government of the past and everything will be magically better.

You have already hung yourself a couple times in this thread with ridiculous assertions. Feel free to do it again or run away. I don't really care.

 

[eflatminor]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves. It is a movement that is funded by billionaires who don't like that government tells them not to pollute the environment. They are anti-science and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves.

Bullshit.

If government's powers are properly limited, corporate lobbyists will not even exist.

The billionaires LOVE a massive incredibly powerful government that can be bought to do their bidding and suppress competition.

You're a mindless bed wetter.

They won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

Let's give this mindless bed wetter one more chance to answer a question with a specific example...or hell, even a modicum of logic or reason. Here goes...

If government did not meddle outside of their limited powers and therefore had NO ability to grant favors, tax loopholes, bailouts, or any other forms of favoritism to these evil corporations, tell us EXACTLY how these companies would be able to exert their power over people. When you answer, please remember that you can't point to something that is already covered by those limited powers granted to the government (like child slavery for instance). No, you must tell us how companies would exert their power over people in a world where government was limited to its enumerated powers.

Please be specific and give us one example. The floor is yours...

 

[eflatminor]

Just because you call a tax "fair" that doesn't mean it is fair. You are proposing the government impose a tax that is regressive(some poor excluded). What does that have to do with "liberty" or really anything at all? Sounds like just another example of you placating to billionaires.

Also saying something worked in 1820 and assuming it would work today is just the kind ignorant and naive crap I already accused you of. Honestly I didn't think you would say something so ignorant and naive as that. So thanks. Feel free to try and rationalize your position with something more than appeals to emotion.

Those examples to back up your statements, still looking for 'em. I mean, you can't even provide a SINGLE one? Well that's just pathetic...

Wow, you really do just pull this out of your ass. How sad.

I wasn't referencing anything in that post. I was laughing at you for claiming we can just revert back to the government of the past and everything will be magically better.

You have already hung yourself a couple times in this thread with ridiculous assertions. Feel free to do it again or run away. I don't really care.

Speaking of running away, how about providing an example I asked for. Just one will do.

Why are avoiding that?

 

[Bombur]

Employers put kids into mines and factories to work and get hurt and even die.

None of this changes the fact you made a ridiculous assertion about the government of the past working today and that you are pushing regressive taxation because to do otherwise is crony capitalism.

I love it when libertarians actually start to describe their world view into detail.

 

[Vox]

Employers put kids into mines and factories to work and get hurt and even die.

None of this changes the fact you made a ridiculous assertion about the government of the past working today and that you are pushing regressive taxation because to do otherwise is crony capitalism.

I love it when libertarians actually start to describe their world view into detail.

Bullshit.

FAMILIES put the kids into mines - so they can earn money for the family, or themselves.

If the family considered it acceptable - why employers won't?

and, btw, it is not the government achievement that child labor was actually banned - it is the union achievement and the people's uprising.

Governments then as governments now do not do good for the people becasue that is their function - governments then and governments now ( and always) only cave to the pressure of the mighty.
At the moment the people became mighty and the government caved to that pressure.

Gosh,, government worshipers are ignorant to the core.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves. It is a movement that is funded by billionaires who don't like that government tells them not to pollute the environment. They are anti-science and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves.

There’s little ‘clever’ about libertarianism.

But in essence, yes, although most libertarians are unaware of it, the dogma of libertarianism is used by corporations to indeed combat appropriate, necessary, and Constitutional regulatory policy those corporate entities perceive as a ‘threat’ to their interests and profits.

 

[Howey]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

I love libertarians.

They're the poster child of ignoring everything unless it involves what they want and thinking a nation created as such doesn't exist.

Leave and make your own country.

 

[eflatminor]

Employers put kids into mines and factories to work and get hurt and even die.

Which is already illegal and perfectly covered for government intervention under the enumerated powers of limited government.

Really, you can't come up with a SINGLE example?

Fail.

None of this changes the fact you made a ridiculous assertion about the government of the past working today

Then explain to us exactly why you believe this is so. "Because I say so" won't cut it. And if you're going to cite "Modern Times", you'll have to tell us SPECIFICALLY what is different today that would prevent the ideals of limited government powers from working.

Again, looking for a single example...

and that you are pushing regressive taxation because to do otherwise is crony capitalism.

How in the **** is a flat tax, particularly one that does not even touch the poor, "regressive"? You're okay with all the current loopholes for the rich who can afford high priced tax attorneys? With a flat tax, those accountants would have ZERO ability to manipulate the tax code. How is that regressive? What in the **** in wrong with you?

I love it when libertarians actually start to describe their world view into detail.

If only we could get a modicum of detail from you, perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion. Any chance of that?

 

[eflatminor]

Bullshit.

If government's powers are properly limited, corporate lobbyists will not even exist.

The billionaires LOVE a massive incredibly powerful government that can be bought to do their bidding and suppress competition.

You're a mindless bed wetter.

They won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

Let's give this mindless bed wetter one more chance to answer a question with a specific example...or hell, even a modicum of logic or reason. Here goes...

If government did not meddle outside of their limited powers and therefore had NO ability to grant favors, tax loopholes, bailouts, or any other forms of favoritism to these evil corporations, tell us EXACTLY how these companies would be able to exert their power over people. When you answer, please remember that you can't point to something that is already covered by those limited powers granted to the government (like child slavery for instance). No, you must tell us how companies would exert their power over people in a world where government was limited to its enumerated powers.

Please be specific and give us one example. The floor is yours...

Something...anything?

Hmm...crickets