Most idiotic assertion of conservatives.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
Fez, the only "good" thing (and I use that term loosely) that came from de-regulation of the energy market was that Enron type companies made money. And they made that money at the expense of consumers. So I ask you... is it better that consumers have more money, or energy trading corporations?

What was lacking during the Clinton adminstration was law enforcement of these different sectors. Reagan did the right thing but this later broke down because of the lack of law enforcement.

This is more of an indirect way of re-distributing wealth down to the lower classes. But keep in mind, that most of this wealth would be put back into the economy in the form of luxury goods.

Sure you have well intended ideas even some that I agree with (why the hell are CEO's paid so much?) but we will never agree on the general picture. I am more for a deregulated economy where the government only does law enforcement. Law enforcement is necessary to prevent crooked dirty corporations from existing... so clean or close to clean corporations can do what they do best... bring us products.

Sure, my model is little more than scratchings on a napkin. But the basic concepts are sound and could be implemented rather easily. What, in particular, do you disagree with here Fez?

I don't really disagree with much of what you propose. However the financial model I propose for countries other than the US having problems like Argentina is the Chilean Model. A solid economic model that has given Chile a high standard of living, a highly liquid banking system and one of the most strongest soverign bond ratings in the world.

[Sava]

I believe we agree on more than we would both like to admit. I am for more de-regulation in certain areas. Government interference does hamper things. But you must remember that the economy IS the government (basically). All banks borrow money from the government which is why Alan Greenspan is the God of Commerce. I would agree with almost total de-regulation in luxury and consumer goods if corporations can behave themselves and if the gov't just does law enforcement.

[Sava]

We can argue Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush problems later ... BTW I think Clinton was just as bad a president as Reagan. Clinton might have been a self-proclaimed liberal, but he certainly did a lot for corporate America to be called the "Best Republican President" (courtesy of Michael Moore).

[Giancarlo]

We always fight with each other when it comes to politics so I guess we don't want to admit that we agree on more things then we think.

BTW is that you in the avatar? Man you are cute...

Originally posted by Sava
We can argue Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush problems later ... BTW I think Clinton was just as bad a president as Reagan. Clinton might have been a self-proclaimed liberal, but he certainly did a lot for corporate America to be called the "Best Republican President" (courtesy of Michael Moore).

Clinton didn't actually do anything when he was in power so that is where corporations actually cashed in on. He didn't do anything to help law enforcement... his own adminstration reeked with scandals.

Reagan might of had a couple of scandals but at least he was honest about them... in my opinion... that is why I like Reagan as a president.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez
We always fight with each other when it comes to politics so I guess we don't want to admit that we agree on more things then we think.

BTW is that you in the avatar? Man you are cute...

yeah that's me, thx...

I think that because we tend to associate ourselves with generalized stereotypes (right, left, liberal, conservative), our own predespositions and closed minded preconceptions of each others' political views and motives tend to cloud reality when it comes down to what we really believe.

Plus, a relationship between us could work out, you're an atheist

All right, I've got to cruise the net for some naked Kylie Minogue pics before I start wearing fish-net T shirts and leather pants.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava


yeah that's me, thx...

I think that because we tend to associate ourselves with generalized stereotypes (right, left, liberal, conservative), our own predespositions and closed minded preconceptions of each others' political views and motives tend to cloud reality when it comes down to what we really believe.

That is true... I generally associate myself with a neo-classicist free market movement that officially started in the 80s with the election of Ronald Reagan.

Plus, a relationship between us could work out, you're an atheist

Haha... I think I am a bit too young for you... But you are straight and probably wouldn't want to hop into bed with me.

All right, I've got to cruise the net for some naked Kylie Minogue pics before I start wearing fish-net T shirts and leather pants.

[Sava]

Bah, I'm flexible it depends on how much money you've got. I'm such a wh0re.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
Bah, I'm flexible it depends on how much money you've got. I'm such a wh0re.

I am a sexually deprived teenager... So you will be in for some fun...

Damn it Giancarlo, stop flirting with the supposeably straight posters here...

[MrFun]

Cyber, that was a good comic -- because to some extent, it is true.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Actually the whole idea of labeling people one thing or another is misleading. When I rail against liberals I must say that I really do not know any who fit the sterotype (except for some who post here). A true liberal should be thought of as a kind hearted person who wants to share the world's resources with the less fortunate.

On the other hand a true conservative is one who wants to conserve things that have been proven to work to accomplish justice and opportunity for everyone. It should be remembered that it was conservatives who have fed and clothed the poor for centuries. They did and still do have compassion for less fortunate people just like the true liberal does. The difference really is the methods used to accomplish the same end. One side would compell the other would do it freely.

Of course now everything is twisted. The conservatives are viewed as greedy businessmen and the liberals are viewed as elitist know-it-alls who think they have the wisdom to rule the world and distribute other peoples resources. I belong to neither group and most of my liberal friends do not either. Too bad that jerks have taken these labels so that real compassionate conservatives and liberals are at each other's throats.

The most intelligent statement in this thread.
But really, I did not expect this troll thread of mine to live this long.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Fez


Infact I have some liberal elements in my social beliefs... if I didn't meet some of you people here I would still hold my old beliefs. I am now tolerant towards gays and am no longer a McCarthyist.

Oh good those two thoughts went so well together.

McCarthy was sleaziest looking politician I have ever seen. And sitting at the elbow of Senator Sleaze at the Army-McCarthy hearings was a smaller younger sleaze ball. Smarter too. Roy Cohn, gay basher extraordinaire who took Senate Pages to bed. Male Senate pages only. After selling out everyone he could he then went on to sleaze his way to wealth by defending Mafia members.

The only thing sleazier looking than McCarthy and Roy Cohn at work was McCarthy's speach after he was raked over the coals by Eisenhower. Slime, sleaze and nervous sweat all at once. Its a wonder the creature was ever elected. I figure he must have been able to look more honest in person than he did on TV.

[leftover_crack]

Most Idiotic assertion of Liberals

1) Everyone is who is not a white heterosexual male is "oppressed" somehow (im a white heterosexual. I feel oppressed by Liberal PC garbage)

On the other side
1) Everyone who doesnt have a job is a lazy bum who doesnt deserve to eat or there is somthing wrong with him. (Im not lazy I work hard as hell. I dont have a job cause nobody wants to hire me. I try, try, and try...more of the same"Well get back to you")

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
The most idiotic assertion of conservatives is that the market should be left alone.
Anyone with a frickin clue can tell that letting the government have tons of control over the economy is an ultimate good thing. This way everyone can get paid $100000 per hour, and goods can have a price ceiling on them at $0.01 each (even cars!). When will the idiot righties learn that we're all better off making $10B per year each with goods restricted at $0.01 each?

Glonk, have you read any of Dicken's books? Victoria England is Laissez Faire Capitalism at its best. Guess what? It's horrible to 95% of the population.

I am in one of the most - if not the most - Laissez Faire region in the world. It doesn't look pretty up and close. We have people living in "cage homes" - these are literally cages around small beds. We have people picking up cardboards and soda cans to eke out a miserable existence. Of course, we are better those kids in Manila, who spend all their time scrounging in trash heaps looking for stuff to sell for a few US cents.

Of course you don't think social redistribution is good. Your parents have money and you never need to worry about from where you get your next meal.

[Sava]

UR ...

What do you think of my proposals on education and health care?

[Urban Ranger]

Sorry, I missed them. Are they in this thread? Maybe you could kindly quote them?

[Sava]

Sure...

All I want is free, or extremely low cost health-care and education. I also think that profiteering shouldn't run rampant in the energy industry. Don't think that I want extremely high progressive taxes, or the state taking property. I don't. I just look at the current situation in the US, and I think that corporate America is profiting off of some industries where profits should take a backseat to safety, health, and the general welfare of people.

The number thing that I would be for, is the creation of non-profit drug companies that would provide medical supplies and low cost drugs to people and hospitals. Drug companies are taking money left and right from the sick and needy.

The second thing that I would like to see done is more government intervention in the energy industry. If Reagan hadn't de-regulated things, Enron would have never even existed, let alone committed such a heinous act of greed. Enron's only function was buying energy from power plants, raising the price, and then selling it to consumers. They didn't produce one watt, one BTU of energy. They didn't improve its efficiency, or make it cleaner and less polluting. They simply raised the price to make money.

I think that certain industries could be almost laissez faire. Luxury goods, etc. Basically, things that people don't need to survive.

Education is another area where corporations should not be allowed to profit.

EDIT: Government as we know it is just a swollen bureaucracy. I sure as hell don't want some bureaucrat in charge of things. The problem in this country is that we elect politicians, bureaucrats, and greedy CEO's when we need leaders.