Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
rtwngAvngr said:How libs destroy civilization is they accept that individuals pursue self interest, but they ironically only condone the ANTISOCIAL form of self interest (crime, which they explain away as a function of social inequality) and villify the SOCIALIZED form of self interest(success through commerce and serving the market demands of others).
ConchoBill said:They may not destroy civilization, but they surely keep it from being all it can be. I mean socialism is communism's little brother, and IMO that is exactly where people like J Kerry and Hillary want to take us (to be fair, John Edwards probably just wants to preserve big fees for the Plaintiff's bar).
Do we want a nanny state? It's on the way in Europe, if it's not there already. There are people here that see how to have a good living on your backs by always staying in power, and using taxes and that power for their own gain.
?
Bonnie said:Remember the mightyist empire Rome? When it got Liberal it fell.....It can easily happen again :whip3:
DKSuddeth said:what a load of horseshit.
KarlMarx said:Very True....Edward Gibbon, author of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" concluded that (and I paraphrase) "the fact that the Roman Empire fell is not in itself remarkable, but the fact that the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did. The Romans slowly abandoned those virtues which made the Roman Empire the greatest in history and instead abandoned themselves to licentiousness, corruption, effeminacy and a weak military"....
Furthermore, the Great Roman Empire was toppled by the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals...foreigners which were allowed to come into the Roman Empire thanks to its porous borders and the reluctance (or inability) of the Emperors to do anything about defending those borders. And in fact those foreigners were eventually made part of the troops that defended the Roman borders. These troops considered themselves not as Roman but as Goths, Vandals etc, so the idea of a Roman Empire was weakened. In addition, the extravagent spending by the Roman Emperors on building projects, frivolous entertainments and so on left little for the defense of the Empire and left the common citizen oppressed with taxes of which he could scarcely afford and with runaway inflation.
So, to help defend the Empire from the invasions of the many invaders, the Empire was split in two by the emporer Diocletian. The Eastern Empire was set up to defend the Eastern borders and the Western Empire was to defend Gaul, Spain, Italy and the western Empire. Unfortunately, this made both empires weaker and easier to topple. Which is exactly what happened to the Western Roman Empire in 475AD.
ConchoBill said:My question is, why does a board like this have a moderator like DK Sudderth, and, my second question is, does anyone know where a REAL Republican/Conservative board is? On this board, I really see more libs than conservatives.
rtwngAvngr said:What a compelling and persuasive argument.
rtwngAvngr said:How libs destroy civilization is they accept that individuals pursue self interest, but they ironically only condone the ANTISOCIAL form of self interest (crime, which they explain away as a function of social inequality) and villify the SOCIALIZED form of self interest(success through commerce and serving the market demands of others).
nakedemperor said:Liberals condone crime. Right. :nine:
This I LOVE: "The only people who will dispute that, will be the specific ones it applies to."
Or: "The only people who will take offense are the people you're offending."
NO SHIT SHERLOCK
DKSuddeth said:thats the only argument one needs for a false assumption.
rtwngAvngr said:Or "people who benefit from criminal and destructive policies will never admit it. "
I have repeatedly heard libs justify crime due to social problems. "He stole cuz he had to" etc. The thing is: poverty does not justify criminal acts, yet libs attempt to use it as a mitigating circumstance. You know they do.
DKSuddeth said:I have NEVER justified it with the reason of poverty but why do you say its not a mitigating circumstance? Should a man let his family starve or his child die just because?
rtwngAvngr said:Maybe if the economy were actually bad or there really were NO opportunities this argument may hold some water. More and more people will commit crime first, having heard of these rationalizations that will let them off the hook.
DKSuddeth said:so as a blanket statement, what would you hold as the 'line' on using poverty as a mitigating factor? 6% unemployment? less than 10k a year? sick child? help me out here, lets give a hard line definition on what we can use to understand why someone feels its necessary to break the law for survival.
