Author Topic: The Sarah Palin VP announcement  (Read 21850 times)

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #120 on: October 08, 2008, 06:46:43 AM »
You don't want your candidate to be on a show with somebody who has a reputation like OReilly.  He would make her look good because he's so blatantly conservative, but any undecided voters (who are who they need to appeal to) could very easily see it as Palin being SUPER conservative being a show with a reputation for being conservative (whether or not it is).  Undecided voters are usually very moderate, so you want to show yourself as moderate.  If you're a conservative, you try to find a liberal source to put your message on, hope to grab some  voters, then you can also take advantage of the victim card and say you were attacked by "liberal media", turning moderate voters against the liberal side.

The problem is, even without editing techniques making Palin look stupid, she often comes across as uninformed or as a question-dancer, refusing to answer questions she doesn't know the perfect "party" answer to.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #121 on: October 08, 2008, 04:58:24 PM »
You are out of your mind.  Obama went on O'Reilly, as did Hilary. McCain, and Biden.  They were all grilled pretty hard, and as usual, he had messages from both Reps and Dems criticizing him for being either too soft or too hard, depending on who was interviewed.  It's funny how the PEW review found that more Independants watch FoxNews than any other network, and more people overall watch O'Reilly than any other Talk Show, yet liberals call FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly evil and ultra-conservative.  Like I have said before, when everything else leans way left, the middle will appear way off to the right.  The fact is, O'reilly's show is the most watched of any news talk show, so if you want your candidate to get exposure by the most viewers, you get them on that show.
Since we have brought up the media bias issue again, the link below is interesting.  This is not the only one I found, but it had the most data.  Even the most ethical person can't help but be influenced by his or her views, so if the majority of journalists are liberal leaning, their news will follow suit.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#TV%20and%20Newspaper%20Journalists
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #122 on: October 08, 2008, 05:33:21 PM »
You'll notice I said "whether or not it is."  It doesn't matter if he is the most liberal person in the WORLD, if he has a reputation for being conservative, which he does.  He is a registered Republican, or at least was in 2000, despite denials that he was.  Since being ousted as a Republican, he re registered as an independent, probably because of the negative affect being associated with a party would have on his commentator career.  It says in his wikipedia that he generally supports a conservative viewpoint.  That doesn't mean it is true, it doesn't mean it isn't.  But it is a pretty good indicator of his reputation.

My point didn't have anything to do with media bias as an attack on media, any of it.  The point was, and I'm sure I conveyed this well if you weren't putting words in my mouth, that you want to go to media sources with the reputation of polar bias at this point in time in the election.  That way you're more likely to pick up the moderate, undecided voters.

The fact that Obama and Biden went on his show support this view.  The fact that Hilary and McCain went on the show support the fact that he is pretty widely watched.  The fact that I'm biased for liberalism is partially true.  However, you continuously misconstrue my remarks, especially about the media, and I'm starting to think it is on purpose.  I wasn't attacking O'Reilly as conservative.

http://www.tv.com/shows/top-shows/talk-shows/13/today.html.  You must be defining talk show pretty weird to not include that list of "News Talk Shows".  He has the routinely highest rated show of the major cable news television networks.  Big difference.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #123 on: October 08, 2008, 06:12:15 PM »
I don't deny he has a conservative viewpoint.  You stated that he was ultra-conservative, and that is not true.  I was going for Primetime news talk shows, although even the Today show has been steadily losing viewers.  I would love to see how close Fox and Friends is to them now.  Irrespective of that, there is still research that shows that more independents watch Fox News, and those voters are the ones you want.  Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to go on the most watched program that is shown on a cable network that is shown to have a high number of independant voters?  I am not putting words in your mouth, I am simply showing that you have some established beliefs that don't always have accurate facts to back them up. I may have been a little strong with the out of your mind thing, but I only said it because even John Kerry said, in an interview after he lost, that he regretted not going on O'reilly's show during the campaign because of the number of independant viewers who watch him.  O'Reilly would not go easy on Palin.  Sean Hannity is a different story.  I debate with people to test my own beliefs as much as my opponents.  I don't watch O'Reilly every day.  In fact, I usually only read the transcripts of some of his interviews.  You know what would be an even greater indicator of his reputation?  Watching him yourself!  Take a notebook, and write down the number of times he blames republicans for things, the number of times he smacks down a conservative person who comes on his show, etc.  I did this with Olbermann's show, because he is supposed to be the Anti-O'Reilly.  He was so blatant in his distortion of the truth that he didn't even bother to choose things that weren't on tape to distort!  Every time he attacked a position, there was a transcript or tape of what was actually said and it was completely different from what he was trying to convey.   To be honest, I am not sure exactly what constitutes a Conservative viewpoint anymore.  If you're not 100% pro-choice?  If you believe that people should take at least some responsibility for their situations, instead of blaming everyone else?  If this is true, than I am guilty as well. 
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #124 on: October 09, 2008, 06:23:53 AM »
OReilly isn't a straight Republican, but he is very conservative.  Usually when I see him belittle or disagree with a Republican, it is for not being conservative enough.  For example, I haven't watched him in a while (I don't avoid it, but I'm never around when he's on), but I would be willing to bet that he's belittled a republican on his show about the 700 billion dollar fix for being too "big government", which is a conservative standpoint.

Conservatism comes down to the argument between Big Government and Small Government, generally.  This gets muddled when the "conservative" party wants laws against abortion, for example.  But, yeah, the more conservative you are, the less national government interaction you want running society.  We really shouldn't use "conservative" for "republican", but we do because it is convenient.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, it wouldn't matter if OReilly went easy on Palin or not.  He tends to not go easy on anybody, I'd agree with that.  Because he tends to shut down anybody who remotely disagrees with him as stupid.  The thing is, his reputation (my reputation, Iago, my reputation!  I've lost my reputation!) is conservative, and THUS the PERCEIVED outcome of the interview is that he went easy on Palin, whether or not he did.  Rather, if you can get yourself to the opposite end of the independents and grab a few with an interview with a liberal journalist, and then get bonus points for "being attacked by liberal media", it is a strong move.  She probably should have gone on BOTH, but her party, at least up to this point, has been trying to keep her from being too exposed for whatever reason.  If you can only pick one, I think the move they made had solid strategical reasoning behind it.

I did call OReilly ultra-conservative, in a much earlier statement.  Knowing my opinion about somebody may make it easy to misconstrue what I say.  But that is not what I was saying recently.  It's all about reputation.

That being said, I'm ultra-liberal (by the same logic that OReilly is ultra-conservative), because I believe that government involvement in regulating capitalism is a good thing, and I like limiting capitalism and the idea of government help to those who need, under restrictions. That being said, I don't agree with all (or even most) democrats on a lot of issues, and I am not a democrat.  The same, but opposite, ideas can be applied to OReilly.  He could be harsh on Republicans because he's farther conservative than them, just as I am with democrats.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #125 on: October 09, 2008, 07:05:23 PM »
If he is harder on republicans, why to Democrats hate him so much?  Obviously, there must be something they don't like about him.  He was against the 700 Billion for the same reason most Americans were.  It allows big companies to be more reckless because they know they will be bailed out.  Also, since Congress both Nationally and locally have proven time and again that they absolutely suck with money, why would we want them to have their hands in anything?  Everyone wants government to get out of their lives and let them have all their rights, but as soon as things get tough, they go crying out to "where were you government, why didn't you protect me?"  There are evil people out there, and you have to protect yourself.  This bailout of those who bought mortgages they couldn't afford is the equivalent of all the money the taxpayers have had to pay to continually rebuild houses on flood plains.  Blah!  I believe I am responsible for me.  I guess that has become a "Conservative" viewpoint.  So be it, then.
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #126 on: October 10, 2008, 01:56:53 AM »
Let me explain where I stand (briefly), which may help you understand my viewpoint a little better.

I believe that the governments responsibility is to the people it represents.  I believe all people have natural rights which should never be denied by the government, or other people.  I do not believe corporations have these same rights, at which point I disagree with modern law.  I believe corporations and organizations, as groups of people which often become run in the self-interest of an individual or, even worse, no individual--but the "soulless corporation" itself.  I believe it is the government's job to regulate its corporations to keep them acting responsibly, because corporations have more power than individuals and are not naturally held to acting responsibly, as people will always have to hold them up.

I think there should be no laws except protecting the rights and safety of individuals (which includes corporate supervision).  In this matter I disagree with many, as well.  I don't think our laws should be dictated by cultural morality, and activities such as homosexuality, nudity, crudeness/manners, etc. should not be regulated because they do not trample the natural rights of others.  These rights include a right to free speech (which should protect everything from lingual speech in its most disrespectful forms to artistic speech), the right to be free from physical assault, the right to life (for people, not fetuses...which is a sticky subject, and the definition of which I and many who agree with me would be happy to negotiate), the right to pursue happiness (when it does not inflict on others' rights).

In this sense, I think there are many laws that do not need to exists.  I disagree with laws about marital customs, and I think if a man/woman wants more than one husband/wife of the same or opposite sex, it is not the government or anybody else's business.

The only exception to this that I can think of off the top of my head is laws protecting children from their own ignorance--for example, obviously children should not be be allowed to choose to smoke until they are old enough to make an informed decision, probably around fifteen or sixteen.

I think in this nature, I agree with you in the "I am responsible for me" statement.  I am responsible for me, and you are responsible for you--and as long as you don't interfere with my ability to be responsible for me, and have no right to be responsible for any action you partake in, whether or not I find it distasteful or offensive.

I understand that explained briefly, there are logical gaps in this argument, but it is a discussion for a different thread entirely, as it is mostly unrelated to the topic of this thread.

Also, technically this is a mix between an extraordinarily conservative and an extraordinarily liberal viewpoint, as I am for small government when it comes to individuals, but big government when it comes to social work, social aid, social services and corporation maintenance.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #127 on: October 10, 2008, 03:29:34 PM »
Your are almost a Libertarian, but you lose the monniker when you say you want big government for anything.  What you don't seem to get is that some of those things do in fact trample on someone's natural rights.  If someone's behavior is making someone else uncomfortable, is that fair?  There are some things that should either be done in private, or with others of similar belief.  Whether you realize it or not, your beliefs lend themselves toward Less personal responsibility, because there are less behavioral guidelines.  Do you feel it is right to cry FIRE in a crowded theatre?  Insight a panic?  Openly insult someone or intimidate them?  Rouse a crowd into a riot?  You don't know how people will react to things.  Are they automatically wrong because they disagree with you?  Who then decides where the line is drawn?  I can find examples of every Right you have mentioned that, when left unchecked, have caused very bad things to happen.  By what you say, special interest groups and other community organizations or clubs (like political parties), will get the same mentality as that "soulles corporation".  People always want a little bit more than what they get, and tend to keep pushing until someone pushes back.  When you put a group of people  together who validate their beliefs, those beliefs can spiral into the extreme if gone unchecked (Nazis, anyone?).   

As for corporations, since they are ultimately owned and controlled by people, regulating the corporation regulates the person.  If a person's pursuit of happiness is to run the biggest and best company the world has ever seen, by your logic he or she should be allowed to do that without restriction.  You are making an exception for someone who is business savvy, so that leaves room for other exceptions to be made.  The current laws against collusion, Monopoly, and Fraud need to be checked and adjusted constantly, but allowing the government to control the economy is incredibly dangerous.  Ironically enough, you want the ultimate soulless conglomerate to have control over the entire economy.  Governmental control over business is the ultimate Monopoly.  Not only does the government spend other people's money, but there is no consequence for them screwing it up.  Sure, a couple of individuals may be sacrificed, but the machine will keep chugging.

Finally, polygamy.  Ahh, one wonders why you would want more than one spouse, unless of course you want to establish control over people by marrying your way to riches and influence.  How much easier it could be to accomplish this if you didn't have to divorce the first wife to marry another.  Not only that, but unless you meet both spouses at the same time, it means it OK to cheat.  That encourages jealousy, spread of disease, more broken homes, incredibly complicated divorce proceedings, I am sure I can go on.  Believe me when I tell you that there are often very good reasons laws have been implemented.  Few were intended to control and subjugate (although abuses do happen), but were instead designed to prevent control and subjugation.  Think about this; if fear of eternal damnation and suffering are not enough to keep people honest, what would they do if there were no real consequences? 
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #128 on: October 10, 2008, 07:43:57 PM »
A) I don't want to be a polygamist, I just don't have problems with those that do.  Similarly, I'm not gay, but I have no problems with those who want to marry in the same sex.  There are plenty of societies which existed perfectly capably with polygamy without those things you mentioned.  The law was initiated because of our ethno-religious background as a culture, and for few, if any, other reasons.  If a husband, for example, goes into a marriage knowing his wife will want to have another husband, things such as jealousy become a personal issue, if an issue at all.  Broken homes?  The divorce rate is around 50% and rising, is monogamy really doing that much better?  Spread of disease?  First of all, those people who would have unprotected sex enough to spread a disease under a polygamy allowing system spread it anyway with unprotected sex outside of a marriage.  Secondly, when polygamy laws were written, STDs were not an issue.

If somebody is using a right, such as free speech, to incite illicit activities which are intended to lead to harm, such as inciting a riot, then they are seen as causes of said harm.

Yes, it is perfectly fair for somebody's behavior to make somebody else uncomfortable.  I'm made uncomfortable anytime somebody is on the street, asking me for money.  I'm made very uncomfortable when people come to my house to "talk to me about Jesus".  Being comfortable with other people's actions is a personal problem.

There is nothing stopping somebody from making the world's best business when businesses are regulated.  They will just have to do it without intentionally harming others, and, like I said, rights only last as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others.  My pursuit of happiness cannot allow me to become a mass murderer, and for the same reasons, to a lesser extreme, others cannot trample on their workers for their pursuit of happiness.

I am very close to libertarian.   But I'm not.

I see many laws as unnecessary, that doesn't mean they weren't made for a reason.  I don't feel the reason for many is good.  I also think that if the agencies which now exist to regulate business spent a little more time actually regulating business instead of being paid off, etc., it would be a good thing, not a bad thing.  I happen to think the people need to keep the government more accountable as well, and I would like to see the system made a little more direct.


I don't get your last statement.  Nobody is saying take away consequences for harming others.  I'm saying that it isn't a crime to NOT harm others, no matter what form your are not harming them in.  I don't really get what context that statement was supposed to be in, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #129 on: October 10, 2008, 08:52:55 PM »
I was making a correlation.  Even with strong deterrents and fiercely enforced laws, people still regularly break the rules.  The moment we reduce rules, people take advantage of them.  You're analysis of marriage in today's society helps make my point.  We can't handle things the way they are now, what would happen if we made them more complicated.  There may be functional societies where polygamy is involved, but are there any societies as free as ours, particularly with women as equal to men as they are here, that allow polygamy?  It is one thing to have many wives when they are considered trophies or property.  It is something entirely different when they are your equal.  Now, while I disagree with you, I don't believe you are necessarily wrong.  With the right people, societies like the one you envision are possible, and I would love to be in a world where people could be trusted to be honest and fair.  It just doesn't exist yet.  More importantly, at least in my opinion, is that our opposing viewpoints are necessary to prevent the other side from going too far.  Ironically, the extremes of both liberalism and conservativism lead to an Autocracy style of government, where the few control the many.  The correlations are amazing.  Conservatives censor speech due to moral beliefs, Liberals censor speech because it is offensive to certain groups.  If you think those two statements mean the exact same thing, you're right.  I can work out some other examples, but it would be better if you read Animal Farm.  While it is an allegory on the problems with Communism, it can be said that any governmental style could end up this way, if one way of thinking begins to dominate a society. 
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #130 on: October 10, 2008, 10:09:59 PM »
I do love Animal Farm, though that's more of a statement on the evolution of communism in the USSR (which I now notice you've stated).  But, while you can say that the same thing could occur with change, any system can grow to have those type of problems (and unchecked, every society will).

 Also, I mean Polygamy, not Polygymy.  In a society that simply allows Polygymy, women often do become property.  I'm not encouraging forcing polygamy, either--just allowing it legally.  No person, group or establishment has to allow or engage in polygamy (or anything else for that matter)--they just can't stop others from doing so.  For example, I would have no problem if the private institution of some religion (we'll say Lutheranism, for example) did not allow its congregation to religiously engage in polygamy.  I just don't think there should be laws governing everybody.

I also don't agree with censoring speech for either of the reasons you just mentioned (while I strongly disagree with, for example, somebody saying that one race is lesser than another, as long as that person is not advocating physically harmful action or political devolution, they have every right to say what they believe). 

Doesn't every society come down to an Autocracy, in some way or another?  In our country, there is definitely a group of economic and social elite that more or less has the important government jobs.

One way 9f thinking does dominate society.  Every society.  That's culture.  Just because other ways of thining exist doesn't mean there isn't a dominate one.  I am proposing that there should be a different way of thinking which is dominant, one in which people are allowed to pursue what they wish so long as they do not hold back others from doing the same (within reason.  You'll always be able to come up with examples for me to counter, but you know the spirit of what I mean, and I think you know that outside of playing with semantics, it could be worked out).  Is it perfect?  No.  Am I saying we should drop everything and make society today like it?  No.  But I do think that it is a goal that we should strive towards because it is much more realistic than our "perfect societies" people often try to strive for--a perfect socialism in which everybody is working and happy, a perfect capitalism in which those who are naturally talented and work hard always get ahead.  These are just fabrications which could not possibly come true.  But a society with a checked capitalism, in which those who have trouble achieving are aided and people are left to judge what is right for their own lives is perfectly possible--if not immediately so.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #131 on: October 10, 2008, 10:39:11 PM »
But how far are we away from that now?  Most people who work and study hard DO get ahead.  If we paid enough attention as a group, we would realize that these "elite" depend on us, as they always have.  The difference is we can do something about it.  If small special interest groups can affect change, then large groups can do great things.  We already have programs galore to help people who struggle receive aid, both private and governmentally backed.  As funny as it may seem, the most helpful and charitable people in this country are also the most religious, and tend to vote Republican.  Funny how those who want bigger government control don't want to help anyone directly.  Here's a fun assignment:  Name me 2 main stream charitable organizations that are not backed by a religious organization.  Good Luck.  Our government is not Autocratic because we can change things if we really want to. 
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #132 on: October 10, 2008, 11:06:15 PM »
Primarily, I never assaulted the religious here--and it's true that the most generous people groups (in private life) tend to be the most religious.  That's one of the good things religion has to offer.

We're pretty far away, considering the number of people who are locked into debt and poverty.  There are tons of people who make it in life because their parents were well off, and didn't have to do a thing for it.  That's certainly not an ideal society.  I have a fun assignment for you.  Find the number of people in this country alone who work more than one full time job.  I would consider that working hard, and a very small percentage, if any, of those people will go up in the socio-economic strata because of it.

I don't want to help anyone directly, I want to help groups of people who need aid.  I also don't support blatant and flat-out welfare, because sad as it is, that does lead to some people not willing to work. 

As for charitable organizations that aren't religious, most scientific research grants are not religious, and do qualify as charity.  The NAACP does charity work, and the AARP Foundation is a non-religious charity.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Toys for Tots is not backed by a religious organization, and is only religious in the sense that it gives Christmas presents (Christmas is considered a national holiday as well as a religious one, and I know many non-religious persons who celebrate it, including my own family).  There are also plenty of non-religious scholarships and educational grants, even if you take out government sponsored ones.  There are also plenty of veteran affairs charities or non-profit organizations which are not religiously backed.  Make-a-Wish is a very well known and mainstream charity which is not religiously sponsored.  This is all off the top of my head, I'm sure if I did research I could find a slew of others. 

In fact, I think Wikipedia is classified as a charity, though that is not the type of charity I think you were looking for.

But, yeah, I'm not entirely sure where that challenge came from, but the aid we are giving simply does not cut it.  I don't know about you, but I feel like people should be able to get medical care when they need it, no matter where in society they were born.   I would be more than willing to pay out of my pocket to make sure that everybody who can't pay out of pocket receives care.   And this would be much cheaper to achieve if we didn't rely on for-profit insurance agencies.  There are lots of people trying to help, but there are also lots of people taking advantage of those who cannot economically defend themselves.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

Skar

  • Moderator
  • Level 54
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
  • Fell Points: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #133 on: October 11, 2008, 07:14:53 AM »
Quote
There are tons of people who make it in life because their parents were well off, and didn't have to do a thing for it.  That's certainly not an ideal society.

Here lies the problem.  At the root of socialism and communism we find the desire to punish those who have more than others.  It's not about giving people an equal chance at success, it's about making sure no one gets ahead. Because if someone gets ahead while others don't it is, by there definition, not an ideal society.

The infuriating thing for liberals is that giving people an even playing field doesn't guarantee equal outcomes. Some people really are lazy and/or stupid.  Since legislating equal opportunity doesn't work, they have to start legislating equal outcomes, which means taking from the rich and giving it to the poor at the point of a gun.  Not where I want to live.
"Skar is the kind of bird who, when you try to kill him with a stone, uses it, and the other bird, to take vengeance on you in a swirling melee of death."

-Fellfrosch

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: The Sarah Palin VP announcement
« Reply #134 on: October 12, 2008, 07:32:20 AM »
I'm not a violent revolutionary marxist, nor do I believe in taking from the rich and handing to the poor (especially at the point of a gun).  I do believe that those with more money should give a larger amount of money to the society they live in, in the form of taxes--this is not the same as giving to the poor.  Also, yes, I do believe it's a terrible shame that some people get ahead by birthright.  In fact, it flat out disgusts me that this is true.  I would love to live in a society where birthright had no standing to life outcome--but, alas, I understand such a society is essentially impossible.

Perfect equality is ridiculous.  Some people are naturally more intelligent, more athletic, etc.  Some people are raised in a way that they gain these traits through hard work.  There is no point to trying to make everybody equal.  I want to take steps towards making sure everybody can earn a living wage, no matter where they come from.  I'd like to see steps taken to make sure everybody can at least put food on the table and not have to skip going to the doctor because they can't afford it.  I wouldn't want to live in a world where everybody was perfectly equal, because to truly be equal two people must be identical.  I would like to live in a world where the welfare of a society as a whole is considered a societal imperative, not a personal one.  I find it silly for people to say they love America, but not be willing to hold up the Americans who make it run how it does.  I also find it ridiculous that being poor is a personal problem--poverty is correlated with crime, young pregnancy (and thus abortion), under education, young death, drug use, and other problems which we consider societal problems.  I we can consider any of these a public issue which requires government funding, then poverty should be just as important, if not more so.

We spill plenty of taxpayer money every year into each of these other categories which are correlated with poverty (and some into poverty as well).  Why is it okay to take away from everybody and give to the poor after-the-fact, where it doesn't help the root of the problem?  Is it cheaper to hold a thousand petty thief in jail, or to reduce the probability that the person will become a petty thief (both monetarily and in other costs)?  The fact is, we're taking money and giving it to the poor, sometimes at gunpoint, as it is.  Why don't we make it a national policy to help those in need, not by handing them money, but by providing the services which they cannot afford, so they can spend the little money they do earn on other living expenses?  We already have started this trend with public education and other public services which are a cornerstone of our society.   I don't think we've taken that far enough.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!