CDZ Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic

[320 Years of History]

Meh, you sound like a young man. In my dottage I prefer the quiet pub to think in as I drown my brain like playful teen boys at a public pool.

Off Topic:
I'm not much of a bar-goer these days. I really only go for two reasons:

• When I'm out of town on business and get cajoled into doing so with the younger folks on my staff. I don't mind it once in a while as for a one night stand, I find 21-30-ish year old women are ideal. They generally aren't expecting more out of the experience than I am, and that works fine for me.
• When I hang out with my kids, although my daughter being a newlywed doesn't much go to bars. Strangely, my sons are much better wingmen than are men of my own age ever are or were 30+ years ago. LOL I get a kick out of going with them since they are both good looking, fit, fratboy-jock types. They're always amazed to find my "game" is better than theirs. I don't know why that comes as such a surprise to them. <winks>

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

yes, preventing the country from becoming a socialist hellhole is so wrong

Classic Conservatism would not be opposed to socialism nor a strong man either as both are within the range of acceptable Western Christian forms of government. The American brand of 'classic' conservatism is more minarchist and democratic than the Western Classic Conservatism which also includes the traditions, viewpoints and governments of Christendom from Constantine to Churchill.

I dont have a problem with the Sanders brand of 'democratic socialism' because it is not Marxist in origin nor does it advocate confiscation of all means of production to be run solely by the national government.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Off Topic:
I'm not much of a bar-goer these days. I really only go for two reasons:

• When I'm out of town on business and get cajoled into doing so with the younger folks on my staff. I don't mind it once in a while as for a one night stand, I find 21-30-ish year old women are ideal. They generally aren't expecting more out of the experience than I am, and that works fine for me.

Lol, my preference in women is more long term. I prefer to talk to older women, but it seems younger ones are more willing when they see I am not trying to hook up or whatever they call it today.

Sex is not the primary driver of my desire for female companionship and my wife is all I need in that department usually. I do like talking with young people, though not very young people; mid-20s is my preference. I find their attitudes, optimism and young view of the world to be refreshing, invigorating and hopeful and I am addicted to it. I have to not engage too much though as it seems I get a creep label, when I dont have any such intention. Yeah, an American male not obsessed with sex, imagine that.

Sometimes too my mind is hyperactive and I get this run away train thing going and I cant put the breaks on it unless I get smashed. The good thing is that I dont drive home any more afterwards and in the morning I dont get hangovers any more.

• When I hang out with my kids, although my daughter being a newlywed doesn't much go to bars. Strangely, my sons are much better wingmen than are men of my own age ever are or were 30+ years ago. LOL I get a kick out of going with them since they are both good looking, fit, fratboy-jock types. They're always amazed to find my "game" is better than theirs. I don't know why that comes as such a surprise to them. <winks>

Well, to each his own. Just be careful and remember that most sex protection has a higher failure rate than most people realize.

I would say more, but that should be in a different thread; "Risks of Sexual Activity; 2016" roflmao

 

[Two Thumbs]

"Five Types of Conservative; The Reflective, the Reflexive, the New, The Real and the Classic"

And each equally wrong on the issues.

yes, preventing the country from becoming a socialist hellhole is so wrong

Classic Conservatism would not be opposed to socialism nor a strong man either as both are within the range of acceptable Western Christian forms of government. The American brand of 'classic' conservatism is more minarchist and democratic than the Western Classic Conservatism which also includes the traditions, viewpoints and governments of Christendom from Constantine to Churchill.

I dont have a problem with the Sanders brand of 'democratic socialism' because it is not Marxist in origin nor does it advocate confiscation of all means of production to be run solely by the national government.

socialism is great

in theory

In practice it doesn't work, it requires punishing the successful, and pols pander to that, like bern and the rest of the dnc.

socialism should be limited to helping others, but not cradle to the grave or for as long as you have a kids under 18 in your house

I support public schools, but not government monopolies run by a monopoly union where teachers can't be fired unless they defend themselves from being murdered by minority kids

 

[JimBowie1958]

socialism is great

in theory

In practice it doesn't work, it requires punishing the successful, and pols pander to that, like bern and the rest of the dncs

Of course DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM can work because it simply moderates the extremes of a capitalist market. IT does not do away with capitalism, it enhances capitalism to make it easier on the moral stomach.

As to taxes 'punishing' people, seriously? The taxes you pay dont go to maintain one of the best road systems in the world? The best public hospitals? The best military protection? The best schools...well, never mind schools, the best fire departments, police and EMT services? That is punishment?

The original idea of taxes was that it would take from a persons excess, or left overs from the regular cost of their existence. The government did not want to take the food off your table, but just didnt want you to throw away the untouched left overs. Donate them so the family down the street could eat too. That was the original idea, but certain processes kicked in, like fixed tax brackets and run away inflation that pushed the average family well up into the tax range meant for the wealthy by 1976.

But the problems are fixable. Not having taxes is also fixable, but treating it like it is theft or punishment is very strange. Governments have always taxed people in various ways. That was how the expenses were paid to keep the barbarians from pillaging the nation was paid.

Please, read this article that addresses coming welfare,survival, social stability issues that are coming down the road - what you call socialism is going to get a lot bigger and it will have to in order for us to survive as a nation.

Zoltan Istvan: 'Half of Americans Will Probably Have a Robot in Their House' Within 5 Years - Breitbart

We’ve followed two seemingly disparate lines of thought, so let’s take them to their logical conclusion: Let’s say that we do that. Let’s say that we accomplish sort of “science-industrial complex,” that we can win this battle against mortality itself. At the same time, we’re developing these technologies with increasing automation, and we’re making human workers literally redundant. What happens when those two concepts meet? It seems to me that we would have a more and more long-lived population, with fewer and fewer occupations available for them. How can those conclusions co-exist without becoming hopelessly entangled?

Oh yeah, no. Indeed it will be tangled. But, you know, this is where I think that in my own campaign and the Transhumanist party, we support, very deeply, a Universal Basic Income. Now when you hear the words “Universal Basic Income,” it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s some kind of socialist perspective. There’s also ways to create a universal basic income through Libertarian means and our Libertarian ideas and stuff like that.

One of our ideas is that with a Universal Basic Income, with the automation coming that’s going to replace so many workers, is going to be a huge amount of prosperity for the companies who are replacing the human workers with machines. That prosperity can go towards creating Universal Basic Income, so that we don’t create a society even moreso of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

And, I think more prosperity is going to mean more money in the system. Let’s spend more taking care of those Americans who have lost their jobs. In fact, it’s not just those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m not just interested in only those Americans who have lost their jobs. I’m actually interested in every single American.

The reason I’ve always liked the Universal Basic Income is because it allows for every single person to get a certain amount of money — enough to feed and clothe themselves, and house themselves — and on top of that, they can create whatever kind of world they want. They can build empires. But nobody is left out of that system.

And a Universal Basic Income can do a lot of other things too. It would wipe — it would essentially replace — welfare.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Of course DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM can work because it simply moderates the extremes of a capitalist market. IT does not do away with capitalism, it enhances capitalism to make it easier on the moral stomach.


government telling corps what they can or can't do, or else, is the same as running it.

also it chokes out the competition, so to big to fail stays that way.

 

[Two Thumbs]

As to taxes 'punishing' people, seriously? The taxes you pay dont go to maintain one of the best road systems in the world? The best public hospitals? The best military protection? The best schools...well, never mind schools, the best fire departments, police and EMT services? That is punishment?


I said punishes the successful. If I recall, bern wants near 90% on top earners

 

[JimBowie1958]

I said punishes the successful. If I recall, bern wants near 90% on top earners

No, it is somewhere around 54%

 

[JimBowie1958]

government telling corps what they can or can't do, or else, is the same as running it.

also it chokes out the competition, so to big to fail stays that way.

Democratic Socialism doe snot necessarily coddle or chose who is eliminated in competition, but it does try to make it more humane for the greater good.

IF you want the government choosing winners and losers you cant get than our current crony capitalist system.

 

[Two Thumbs]

government telling corps what they can or can't do, or else, is the same as running it.

also it chokes out the competition, so to big to fail stays that way.

Democratic Socialism doe snot necessarily coddle or chose who is eliminated in competition, but it does try to make it more humane for the greater good.

IF you want the government choosing winners and losers you cant get than our current crony capitalist system.

socialism won't change whats going on except give more power and control to the Fed gov.

the idea that it won't, that you will get what you want is fantasy, and is why socialism fails, every time

 

[JimBowie1958]

socialism won't change whats going on except give more power and control to the Fed gov.

the idea that it won't, that you will get what you want is fantasy, and is why socialism fails, every time

I am simply at a loss to see where you get this nonsense from. You post no links or evidence to support your claim. You just keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true.

No, democratic socialism does not lead to failure every time. In fact some of our best years have been under democratic socialism and some of the worst have been under open borders free trade nonsense.

 

[Two Thumbs]

socialism won't change whats going on except give more power and control to the Fed gov.

the idea that it won't, that you will get what you want is fantasy, and is why socialism fails, every time

I am simply at a loss to see where you get this nonsense from. You post no links or evidence to support your claim. You just keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true.

No, democratic socialism does not lead to failure every time. In fact some of our best years have been under democratic socialism and some of the worst have been under open borders free trade nonsense.

then pack up and go.

I don't want government cradle to the grave.


China is a socialist democracy, check it out

 

[320 Years of History]

socialism won't change whats going on except give more power and control to the Fed gov.

the idea that it won't, that you will get what you want is fantasy, and is why socialism fails, every time

I am simply at a loss to see where you get this nonsense from. You post no links or evidence to support your claim. You just keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true.

No, democratic socialism does not lead to failure every time. In fact some of our best years have been under democratic socialism and some of the worst have been under open borders free trade nonsense.

then pack up and go.

I don't want government cradle to the grave.


China is a socialist democracy, check it out

If there is anything democratic about the Chinese system of governance, it's perceived to be that in the Western sense of the term only by you.

• Chinese Democracy Isn't Inevitable
  
• What China means by "democracy"
  
• Is China a democracy?
  
• Understanding Democracy: Data from Unlikely Places

 

[Two Thumbs]

socialism won't change whats going on except give more power and control to the Fed gov.

the idea that it won't, that you will get what you want is fantasy, and is why socialism fails, every time

I am simply at a loss to see where you get this nonsense from. You post no links or evidence to support your claim. You just keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true.

No, democratic socialism does not lead to failure every time. In fact some of our best years have been under democratic socialism and some of the worst have been under open borders free trade nonsense.

then pack up and go.

I don't want government cradle to the grave.


China is a socialist democracy, check it out

If there is anything democratic about the Chinese system of governance, it's perceived to be that in the Western sense of the term only by you.

• Chinese Democracy Isn't Inevitable
  
• What China means by "democracy"
  
• Is China a democracy?
  
• Understanding Democracy: Data from Unlikely Places

it's the end result of the ignorance of any socialist system

 

[Wry Catcher]

And thus is shown why I can't stand labels...conservative, liberal, X kind of conservative, Y kind of libertarian, etc.

I'm happy to share my thoughts about most things. I'm never going to label them as "this or that." They need to be evaluated on their own, not in the context of how closely or distantly they align with anything else. I feel the same way about others' ideas. I don't care whether one thinks one is a "classic conservative" or "neocon" or whatever.

I do care what they have to say, whether it has merit, whether it is scaleable, what are its limits, etc. Merely branding the speaker of an idea with a label doesn't at all indicate precisely what he thinks on a matter. At best it gives me a general idea, but when discussing policy, one needs to know precisely what one thinks, not merely that s/he has conservative views.

Once again a thoughtful and thought provoking post on a thoughtful and thought provoking thread.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

 

[320 Years of History]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Red (and related sentence):
Factual inaccuracy combined with an absurd comparison:

• America is a country; Europe is not. Neither is Asia.
• America has more natural resources than every other country on the planet except Russia. The quest for resources was very much a driver behind the Age of Exploration.

Surely you don't think the leaders of the Western European nations of that era weren't aware of their relative dearth of resources in comparison to Russia?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Some posts are thoughtful and thought provoking, this one ^^^ is not; this one ^^^ is an Idiot-Gram, CF's specialty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Some posts are thoughtful and thought provoking, this one ^^^ is not; this one ^^^ is an Idiot-Gram, CF's specialty.

^ Freddo, the Useful Idiot

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism gave America the most prosperous economy on the planet in record time. Europe and Asia were all far older and had far more natural resources but their systems of government and economics strangled prosperity.

Socialism blows and only leads to progressively greater poverty and misery until to get to Flint where they can't figure out safe drinking water or Venezuela where there's no toilet paper.

Red (and related sentence):
Factual inaccuracy combined with an absurd comparison:

• America is a country; Europe is not. Neither is Asia.
• America has more natural resources than every other country on the planet except Russia. The quest for resources was very much a driver behind the Age of Exploration.

Surely you don't think the leaders of the Western European nations of that era weren't aware of their relative dearth of resources in comparison to Russia?

We have the same geography as Mexico and Canada, yet we became the most prosperous nation on the planet. Why do you suppose that is?

So why did Russia become an economic basket case that collapsed? Any guesses?