There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
JoinTour
Login
Search
 
Civilized Debate
Tag Cloud
acer backup bios boot bsod computer connection crash dell driver drivers error excel firefox freeze hard disk hard drive hardware hijackthis internet kb977165 keyboard laptop linksys macro malware network outlook outlook 2003 outlook 2007 password problem recovery redirect server slow sound toshiba trojan usb video virus vista vpn windows windows 7 windows vista windows xp wireless youtube
Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy Forums > Community > Civilized Debate >
The Growing Rift Between Libertarians and Republicans

Tip: Click here to scan for System Errors and Optimize PC performance
[ Sponsored Link ]

 
Thread Tools
ekim68's Avatar
Community Moderator with 27,481 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Experience: Still kickin'
12-Nov-2009, 11:47 PM #31
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacor View Post
Capitalism is not perfect and never will be. I am not for anarchy with zero regulations but regulations that are realistic and based on needs and common sense and not knee jerk crap like we get.
So does that mean we cannot legislate greed? And, when is one person's greed more important than the next person?
wacor's Avatar
wacor has a Photo Album
Distinguished Member with 25,452 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: You will never know
Experience: Depends on the definition
13-Nov-2009, 06:18 AM #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim68 View Post
So does that mean we cannot legislate greed? And, when is one person's greed more important than the next person?
Admit it you were drinking when you posted this
LANMaster's Avatar
Community Moderator with 52,767 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
13-Nov-2009, 11:58 AM #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim68 View Post
So does that mean we cannot legislate greed? And, when is one person's greed more important than the next person?
Dude ... That is a pretty broad statement, even for you.

Firstly,
What is your definition of greed?
Fyzbo's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,942 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina, USA
Experience: Programming-Advanced|EVER
13-Nov-2009, 02:19 PM #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster View Post
I'd love to:

But you parse the question so interestingly, that I feel I must fiokrst ask, What are Liberals liberating? .... aside from liberating earnings from earners? (BTW Progressive is just another word for Liberal)

What are Conservative values?

Well, the dictionary defines Conservative as preserving existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I do not think that generalized definition grasps the essense of what Conservative valies are, IMO.

I decided to search out some key points, so many of these are either not my words or modified from what I found.
  • Don't over tax
  • Limit Government so that each American is responsible for success or failure
  • Hold People accounable for their actions.
  • Support our military. This cannot be accomplished while opposing their mission.
  • Support each persons right to exercize their religion (or lack there of)
  • Oppose socailism.
  • Abortion is wrong. Stop teaching that it is merely a mistake, or somehow virtuous to abort a human being, or that there is nothing wrong with abortion.
  • Global warming is not the fault of humanity or Capitalism. Current legislation will have no impact, whatsoever, on the global climate. Saving jobs and the economy are far more important at this time. Surrendering US sovereignty is utterly idiotic.
  • The public education system is poor. Private education is far superior. Why not support vouchers to give parents the FREEDOM to sent their kids wherever they want?
  • Preserve American Capitalism. Regulate with reasonable expectations, and reward companies that provide American jobs, and reduce their impact on the environment.
  • The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
  • Conservatives believe that freedom and private property are closely linked.
  • Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
  • The Conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
  • Traditional family values and the sanctity of marriage
  • A small, non-invasive government
  • A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism
  • A respect for faith and religion
  • The right to life for every human being
How can you respect faith and religion, while at the same time support those with no religion?

I will say that this list does not represent Republican values.
LANMaster's Avatar
Community Moderator with 52,767 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
13-Nov-2009, 03:41 PM #35
Easily. Most religious entities are concerned with charity and good will.
IMO that is respect worthy.
But at the same time we have the freedom to worship or not to worship, to believe in something or not.

The values are not in conflict.

Problems with any of those other values?
ekim68's Avatar
Community Moderator with 27,481 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Experience: Still kickin'
16-Nov-2009, 11:55 PM #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyzbo View Post
How can you respect faith and religion, while at the same time support those with no religion?

I will say that this list does not represent Republican values.
What are the Republican values in your opinion? IMO, they seem to be reduced to soundbites...
wacor's Avatar
wacor has a Photo Album
Distinguished Member with 25,452 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: You will never know
Experience: Depends on the definition
17-Nov-2009, 07:27 AM #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim68 View Post
What are the Republican values in your opinion? IMO, they seem to be reduced to soundbites...
and you probably think the democrats are not reduced to soundbites I suppose??

The only candidate that ran for president that was not into soundbites but had an actual core set of principles was Ron Paul. But all the soundbites deriding him as a kook sure did get plenty of attention.
__________________
Conservatives in Exile Club
http://forums.techguy.org/group.php?groupid=34
if you want an invite just ask
TooBad's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,951 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Experience: Intermediate
17-Nov-2009, 07:59 AM #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacor View Post
and you probably think the democrats are not reduced to soundbites I suppose??

The only candidate that ran for president that was not into soundbites but had an actual core set of principles was Ron Paul. But all the soundbites deriding him as a kook sure did get plenty of attention.
I agree, but when it came to foreign policy, Ron Paul was a kook. Sorry, but that is a fact. His domestic policies were terrific and he follows the Constitution like no one else. If we had always had his philosophy on foreign policy, that would have been a fairly good thing. Not in every case, but better than we have. To attempt to intitute that policy now, is too late in the game to do so without severe consequences that we are not prepared to pay.
__________________
"The people who are scariest to me are the people who don't even know enough to realize how little they know." Dr. Thomas Sowell
wacor's Avatar
wacor has a Photo Album
Distinguished Member with 25,452 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: You will never know
Experience: Depends on the definition
17-Nov-2009, 08:04 AM #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooBad View Post
I agree, but when it came to foreign policy, Ron Paul was a kook. Sorry, but that is a fact. His domestic policies were terrific and he follows the Constitution like no one else. If we had always had his philosophy on foreign policy, that would have been a fairly good thing. Not in every case, but better than we have. To attempt to intitute that policy now, is too late in the game to do so without severe consequences that we are not prepared to pay.
I never believed he would be able to completely pull out. I agree he was over the top on some foreign policy but you have to start somewhere. The two parties are not minding the house very well. If nothing else it would have been 4 years of pretty good gridlock and the country would have been in better shape for it. He had the right message in general but was the wrong messenger. If you had anybody with charisma talking about things he did then he would have been elected IMO.
__________________
Conservatives in Exile Club
http://forums.techguy.org/group.php?groupid=34
if you want an invite just ask
TooBad's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,951 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Experience: Intermediate
17-Nov-2009, 08:12 AM #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacor View Post
I never believed he would be able to completely pull out. I agree he was over the top on some foreign policy but you have to start somewhere. The two parties are not minding the house very well. If nothing else it would have been 4 years of pretty good gridlock and the country would have been in better shape for it. He had the right message in general but was the wrong messenger. If you had anybody with charisma talking about things he did then he would have been elected IMO.
That is true. If Fred Thompson had not muffed his entry so badly, he might have been a good choice. My one concern with Fred is his CFR membership as I am not sure whether or not that organization has ulterior motives to the "One World" government or not. But he blew it and we will never know.
__________________
"The people who are scariest to me are the people who don't even know enough to realize how little they know." Dr. Thomas Sowell
iltos's Avatar
iltos has a Photo Album
Community Moderator with 17,081 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sierra Madre, CA
Experience: Beginner
17-Nov-2009, 09:44 AM #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooBad View Post
I agree, but when it came to foreign policy, Ron Paul was a kook. Sorry, but that is a fact. His domestic policies were terrific and he follows the Constitution like no one else. If we had always had his philosophy on foreign policy, that would have been a fairly good thing. Not in every case, but better than we have. To attempt to intitute that policy now, is too late in the game to do so without severe consequences that we are not prepared to pay.
that's a darn good assessment, TooBad
tho to change direction, there is gonna be some major costs at this point, any way you slice it.
i agree, however, that the electorate is too far gone to willingly support those changes
TooBad's Avatar
Senior Member with 1,951 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Experience: Intermediate
17-Nov-2009, 11:58 AM #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by iltos View Post
that's a darn good assessment, TooBad
tho to change direction, there is gonna be some major costs at this point, any way you slice it.
i agree, however, that the electorate is too far gone to willingly support those changes
Thanks, even a blind mouse finds the cheese once in a while!
Reply Bookmark and Share   techguy.org/873002

Smart Search

Find your solution!



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY! Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question -- for free! Our site is run completely by volunteers who want to help you solve your computer problems. See our Welcome Guide to get started.

Thread Tools


You Are Using:
Server ID
Advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 AM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2010 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.