Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
To be fair though, Dr. Manhattan was not an alien. He was a scientist who gained extreme super human powers through a lab accident. He became so powerful that he lost touch with the human race and its suffering.
The reason you remind me of him is that many of your views seem to be a bit overly objective, as if you have no stake in being human.
But you're right. I really shouldn't be judging you at all. I guess I've just been taking your extreme views as provocative. I shall release myself from the hook now.
A lot of us with a conservative/libertarian view of government seem to be viewed that way; like we are detached from the realm of human suffering with our desire for some sort of soulless society. It's not true of course, but it's clearly a PR problem on our part.
The most fundamental reason that I am opposed to much of what Barrack Obama does is that he supports a much larger, more powerful State (I capitalize "State" for good reason). I on the other hand am still among the few who still believe in Jefferson's words; "Government governs that governs least governs best."
I want people to be left alone to their own devices and free from the burden of oppressive taxes and a bloated bureaucracy that gets involved in every nook and cranny of life. Despite what people say, I am in fact not pro-big business. I'm pro-free markets which means big and small businesses alike succeed or fail and the government doesn't get involved in any of it.
I think bigger government leads to the stifling of the human spirit. In the extreme form, society was robbed of a soul under communism. Now in Europe, where the government sees fit to take care of you cradle to grave, the same thing is happening, though at a slower rate. Europeans just aren't reproducing anymore.
If believing that people should ultimately have more individual liberty makes me somehow "extreme" or "soulless," then I live in an upside down world.
KoB, you mention Thomas Jefferson and his views about government, but what do you think about his views regarding the dangers of the inequal distribution of wealth (e.g., Thomas Jefferson Letter to Rev. James Madison)?
Also, what are your views on monopolies and their effect on the market?
The most fundamental reason that I am opposed to much of what Barrack Obama does is that he supports a much larger, more powerful State (I capitalize "State" for good reason). I on the other hand am still among the few who still believe in Jefferson's words; "Government governs that governs least governs best."
I want people to be left alone to their own devices and free from the burden of oppressive taxes and a bloated bureaucracy that gets involved in every nook and cranny of life. Despite what people say, I am in fact not pro-big business. I'm pro-free markets which means big and small businesses alike succeed or fail and the government doesn't get involved in any of it.
I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of this graph.
The most fundamental reason that I am opposed to much of what Barrack Obama does is that he supports a much larger, more powerful State (I capitalize "State" for good reason). I on the other hand am still among the few who still believe in Jefferson's words; "Government governs that governs least governs best."
I want people to be left alone to their own devices and free from the burden of oppressive taxes and a bloated bureaucracy that gets involved in every nook and cranny of life. Despite what people say, I am in fact not pro-big business. I'm pro-free markets which means big and small businesses alike succeed or fail and the government doesn't get involved in any of it.
I thought it was the Republicans who were all about strengthening the executive branch, giving tax cuts to big business only, and legislating into peoples personal lives.
I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of this graph.
I'm well aware of all that. That being said, I think Bill Clinton was a great president. And I was horrified by Bush's spending, especially of all the bailouts and the auto companies. The monstrous debt that's being accumulated right now is troubling as well. So I dislike when either party goes on spending binges.
I thought it was the Republicans who were all about strengthening the executive branch, giving tax cuts to big business only, and legislating into peoples personal lives.
I've never understood why conservatives are always vilified for some sort of mythical alliance with big business. In the beginning of the 20th century, it was the big businesses of America who welcomed collusion with government and regulation. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and others were all too happy to instill regulation. So why would the businesses want it? Because they stood to benefit from it! Complying with regulation cost a lot of money, and big businesses could easily absorb those costs, where as small businesses couldn't.
There's this myth that businesses are inherently right wing, and it's just not true. As for tax cuts, I'm all in favor of them for as many individuals and companies as possible. Yes, how dare a business be successful and make money! They need to be punished! Again, I go back to free markets. Businesses should succeed or fail without the assistance or hindrance of government.
The so-called monopolies in the early 20th century were not the result of stiff competition (that's why businesses wanted regulation), but because of government intervention and regulation that favored bigger businesses. Can anyone name one legitimate monopoly today?
Generally, social conservatives want to control abortion and the definition of marriage. And that's it.
I've heard all sorts of loony things that liberals want to do. They want to control where I can smoke, and recently, what temperature my house is. Many want the government to control health care. They want to control how much people are allowed to make and control guns as well.
Stem cells. Prostitution. Marijuana use. Death penalty. Euthanasia. Gay adoption rights. Censorship of porn. The definition of obscenity. "Nuclear family" model.
You missed a few.
I don't know how stem cells, the death penalty, euthanasia, or the "nuclear family" has anything to do with legislating into peoples' lives. Prostitution and marijuana use I acknowledge are debatable of course. And I don't know of any prominent conservatives asking for the banning or censoring of porn. But just because the federal government has previously not funded stem cells, that has nothing to do with interfering in peoples' lives. Neither does executing murderers. Euthanasia is another issue, but hardly affects the lives of everyday people in the same way that smoking bans and other legislation does.
And I don't think there is anything obstructionist with believing that a family with a mother and father is the ideal.
Also, it's largely the liberals in politics who favor censoring speech on radio in the so called "fairness doctrine."
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Comments
A lot of us with a conservative/libertarian view of government seem to be viewed that way; like we are detached from the realm of human suffering with our desire for some sort of soulless society. It's not true of course, but it's clearly a PR problem on our part.
The most fundamental reason that I am opposed to much of what Barrack Obama does is that he supports a much larger, more powerful State (I capitalize "State" for good reason). I on the other hand am still among the few who still believe in Jefferson's words; "Government governs that governs least governs best."
I want people to be left alone to their own devices and free from the burden of oppressive taxes and a bloated bureaucracy that gets involved in every nook and cranny of life. Despite what people say, I am in fact not pro-big business. I'm pro-free markets which means big and small businesses alike succeed or fail and the government doesn't get involved in any of it.
I think bigger government leads to the stifling of the human spirit. In the extreme form, society was robbed of a soul under communism. Now in Europe, where the government sees fit to take care of you cradle to grave, the same thing is happening, though at a slower rate. Europeans just aren't reproducing anymore.
If believing that people should ultimately have more individual liberty makes me somehow "extreme" or "soulless," then I live in an upside down world.
Also, what are your views on monopolies and their effect on the market?
I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of this graph.
I want people to be left alone to their own devices and free from the burden of oppressive taxes and a bloated bureaucracy that gets involved in every nook and cranny of life. Despite what people say, I am in fact not pro-big business. I'm pro-free markets which means big and small businesses alike succeed or fail and the government doesn't get involved in any of it.
I thought it was the Republicans who were all about strengthening the executive branch, giving tax cuts to big business only, and legislating into peoples personal lives.
I'm well aware of all that. That being said, I think Bill Clinton was a great president. And I was horrified by Bush's spending, especially of all the bailouts and the auto companies. The monstrous debt that's being accumulated right now is troubling as well. So I dislike when either party goes on spending binges.
I've never understood why conservatives are always vilified for some sort of mythical alliance with big business. In the beginning of the 20th century, it was the big businesses of America who welcomed collusion with government and regulation. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and others were all too happy to instill regulation. So why would the businesses want it? Because they stood to benefit from it! Complying with regulation cost a lot of money, and big businesses could easily absorb those costs, where as small businesses couldn't.
There's this myth that businesses are inherently right wing, and it's just not true. As for tax cuts, I'm all in favor of them for as many individuals and companies as possible. Yes, how dare a business be successful and make money! They need to be punished! Again, I go back to free markets. Businesses should succeed or fail without the assistance or hindrance of government.
The so-called monopolies in the early 20th century were not the result of stiff competition (that's why businesses wanted regulation), but because of government intervention and regulation that favored bigger businesses. Can anyone name one legitimate monopoly today?
Generally, social conservatives want to control abortion and the definition of marriage. And that's it.
I've heard all sorts of loony things that liberals want to do. They want to control where I can smoke, and recently, what temperature my house is. Many want the government to control health care. They want to control how much people are allowed to make and control guns as well.
Just who legislates into peoples' lives more?
You missed a few.
I don't know how stem cells, the death penalty, euthanasia, or the "nuclear family" has anything to do with legislating into peoples' lives. Prostitution and marijuana use I acknowledge are debatable of course. And I don't know of any prominent conservatives asking for the banning or censoring of porn. But just because the federal government has previously not funded stem cells, that has nothing to do with interfering in peoples' lives. Neither does executing murderers. Euthanasia is another issue, but hardly affects the lives of everyday people in the same way that smoking bans and other legislation does.
And I don't think there is anything obstructionist with believing that a family with a mother and father is the ideal.
Also, it's largely the liberals in politics who favor censoring speech on radio in the so called "fairness doctrine."
You don't...?? I would say less prominently than the above!
It would probably be highly hypocritical if they did.....
I beg to differ... there's the matter of ethics involved....
I would think the execution of a living being probably does have some kind of impact....
Given that there are thousands of Americans who would probably welcome the choice......
Or a father and father....or mother and mother....??