Republican Thinking

[Desperado †]

Republican thinking perplexes me.

Governments cannot be trusted to moderate the market and tax + spend the public's money effectively, but can be trusted with mass destructive nuclear weapons.

[Thorn777]

Your not alone.
Although most of their dogmas make some sense somewhere(therefore attracting lots of folks), IMO they refuse to look at the bigger picture of things and how destructive their wishes really are. That counts for both sides of the coin(the left and right), so IMO these ideology's are OK to find some inspiration, but pragmatism is key.

[Ron Burgundy?]

IMO they refuse to look at the bigger picture of things and how destructive their wishes really are. That counts for both sides of the coin(the left and right), so IMO these ideology's are OK to find some inspiration, but pragmatism is key.

So very true but if everybody saw it this way, would the mudpit be any fun?

[Thorn777]

So very true but if everybody saw it this way, would the mudpit be any fun?

So very true, the "nature of the beast" wills it that way. I'm also a radical-lefty anarcho at heart....

[JP226]

A nuke is infinitely easier to operate and decide when and where to drop than a fricken economy.

[Desperado †]

A nuke is infinitely easier to operate and decide when and where to drop than a fricken economy.

Just because they're easier to operate doesn't mean a government is safer with them.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

A nuke is infinitely easier to operate and decide when and where to drop than a fricken economy.

Indeed. Thank God we haven't needed to use one. Might I also remind everyone here that it was a democratic president that used the first 2 nuclear bombs

[Gelgoog]

lets see because governments are wasteful, all of them all. So they less money they have the less then can waste. Anything the govt can do the private economy can do better. Bureaucracies only get bigger and bigger, and hense if you limit the size of government you will improve the standard of living all around. This is the style of thinking that Republicans favor. Yet just like anybody in power, you never want to cut programs or say "no thanks we don't need all these taxes, you can have them back" so whenever either party says this stuff, it really doesn't tend to happen at least not at the national level.

[IrishHitman]

lets see because governments are wasteful, all of them all. So they less money they have the less then can waste.

This economic crisis has proven that businesses are wasteful too.
At least governments are elected.

[Gelgoog]

This economic crisis has proven that businesses are wasteful too.
At least governments are elected.

governments are using tax dollars , businesses do not( at least they shouldn't be). Hence when a business is wasteful and runs itself into the ground, then its not that big of a deal. With a govt, you don't have the choice to give them your money or not. Governmental representatives are elected, but 99.9% of the govt is not elected nor are they subject to the whims of politics. its typical for agencies to waste their budget at the end of the year so that they can get the same amount next year( new fleets of cars for everybody weee!!!).

edit: one of the best written reviews on governmental waste came from Al Gore of all people. Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review is a must read, but its kind of hard to find.

As Vice President, Gore led the National Performance Review that recommended more businesslike methods in the bureaucracy and downsizing the federal work force. He played a major role in telecommunications policy, and in decisions involving budgets, international trade, and U.S.-Russian relations. Clinton relied on Gore as his chief liaison with Democratic party leaders in Congress.

Its not just republicans who realize how wasteful our government is.

[JP226]

Just because they're easier to operate doesn't mean a government is safer with them.

not only easier to operate, but easier to to decide when and where to use them. It's not exactly a coincidence the only nuke that was fired was meant to stop the bloodiest and devasting war in history. And of course to spare hundreds of thousands of American casualties/ lives. In the big scheme of things, that's an easy descision.

[Desperado †]

lets see because governments are wasteful, all of them all. So they less money they have the less then can waste. Anything the govt can do the private economy can do better. Bureaucracies only get bigger and bigger, and hense if you limit the size of government you will improve the standard of living all around. This is the style of thinking that Republicans favor. Yet just like anybody in power, you never want to cut programs or say "no thanks we don't need all these taxes, you can have them back" so whenever either party says this stuff, it really doesn't tend to happen at least not at the national level.

Ah yes, because nukes are cheap.

not only easier to operate, but easier to to decide when and where to use them. It's not exactly a coincidence the only nuke that was fired was meant to stop the bloodiest and devasting war in history. And of course to spare hundreds of thousands of American casualties/ lives. In the big scheme of things, that's an easy descision.

I'd hardly say that a decision to kill 220,000 people is easier than a decision to try and stop poverty and redistribute unequality of wealth to give all humans equal opportunities in life no matter their background. Oh, and nukes did not end the most devestating war, they ended the American/Japan side of it.

Socialism has good intentions, and features of it often works perfectly within a capitalist society to make a country fairer for all. Nuclear weapons do not have good intentions, are extremely expensive and only kill.

[Gelgoog]

Ah yes, because nukes are cheap.

and what do nukes have to do with republicans?

[Ciabhán]

decision to try and stop poverty and redistribute unequality of wealth to give all humans equal opportunities in life no matter their background.

Socialism has good intentions, and features of it often works perfectly within a capitalist society to make a country fairer for all. Nuclear weapons do not have good intentions, are extremely expensive and only kill.

Who the decided that everyone is supposed to be equal? When was equality of income ever guaranteed to anyone? Should someone working the counter at the take out make the same salary as the owner of the take out? Who the would ever want to own a business, putting in 100+ hour work weeks if they made the same amount as the 20 hour a week kids working for them? You did notice at some point that our socialist/communist governments of the past had the worst product control and terrible corruption? Or did that pass you by? If I worked in a government owned factory(oddly I am in the fire service so I do in a way), I would not be working any harder than the fella next to me because I would have no chance of advancement.

I am neither right nor left wing. I believe in mans inherent ability to govern himself and see government as being something that should be serving the people and protecting the interest of the people. Something governments have really never done. Making the government stronger only leads to more corruption of purpose. I really don't want Prime Minister/President Whoeverthes idiot cousin and Down's Syndrome sister running my life thank you.

BTW: Since semantics are the soul of politics......nuclear weapons have NO intentions. They don't kill. The people who use them kill. It doesn't take a government to detonate a nuclear weapon nor does it take a government to make one.

[The spartan]

Who the decided that everyone is supposed to be equal?

Our founding fathers...

[Desperado †]

Who the decided that everyone is supposed to be equal? When was equality of income ever guaranteed to anyone? Should someone working the counter at the take out make the same salary as the owner of the take out? Who the would ever want to own a business, putting in 100+ hour work weeks if they made the same amount as the 20 hour a week kids working for them? You did notice at some point that our socialist/communist governments of the past had the worst product control and terrible corruption? Or did that pass you by? If I worked in a government owned factory(oddly I am in the fire service so I do in a way), I would not be working any harder than the fella next to me because I would have no chance of advancement.

I am neither right nor left wing. I believe in mans inherent ability to govern himself and see government as being something that should be serving the people and protecting the interest of the people. Something governments have really never done. Making the government stronger only leads to more corruption of purpose. I really don't want Prime Minister/President Whoeverthes idiot cousin and Down's Syndrome sister running my life thank you.

BTW: Since semantics are the soul of politics......nuclear weapons have NO intentions. They don't kill. The people who use them kill. It doesn't take a government to detonate a nuclear weapon nor does it take a government to make one.

Equal opportunities. I believe that all humans should be given the same initial chances to do well in life, no matter who their parents are or where they come from. If they do not take these chances then it's their fault if they end up with a lower quality of life. We should strive to make our education system equal for all. Some people are also born with severe genetic diseases of no fault of their own, and others are involved in freak accidents which are not their own cause. Society should also help these people.

Corruption exists no matter the strength of your government, just in different areas of society. It's usually other factors that lead to corruption. A socialist government does not have to be authoritarian.

The world is unfair, we are not given equal opportunities and people are inherently greedy. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to make the world fairer, and people more equal and eradicate the greed within society. Including certain socialist features in a capitalist society is a way to do this.

Oh, and face it. Many of the very richest of society do not work extremely hard, and a large amount of the very poorest of the world work extremely hard.

[Admiral Piett]

Equal opportunities. I believe that all humans should be given the same initial chances to do well in life, no matter who their parents are or where they come from. If they do not take these chances then it's their fault if they end up with a lower quality of life. We should strive to make our education system equal for all. Some people are also born with severe genetic diseases of no fault of their own, and others are involved in freak accidents which are not their own cause. Society should also help these people.

Corruption exists no matter the strength of your government, just in different areas of society. It's usually other factors that lead to corruption. A socialist government does not have to be authoritarian.

The world is unfair, we are not given equal opportunities and people are inherently greedy. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to make the world fairer, and people more equal and eradicate the greed within society. Including certain socialist features in a capitalist society is a way to do this.

Oh, and face it. Many of the very richest of society do not work extremely hard, and a large amount of the very poorest of the world work extremely hard.

I used to believe that too. But then I witnessed how politics, systems, and governments work. Government is not up to that task and may just make things much worse, especially in the US. The more education is left to the states, the better. Bush's No Child Left Behind and the state tests increase pressure on the teachers and simply teach students how to pass a test rather than learn a subject. There's far too much obligation and standardization and no passion, no innovation, no creativity left in education. The liberal arts are being phased out in favor of mandatory high levels of math and science - which are totally unnecessary subjects in a majority of careers.

I personally prefer Britain's education system to ours. They give students the choice to graduate early and go to a lower skill low wage job - if that's what they want to do. All our students should be encouraged to pick and choose which subjects they are interested in and will actually learn, politicians should not make these choices for them - because we all know we just trash all that useless information after school is over. They should be able to study the subjects they will need for the careers they are pursuing.

Obama complains that we don't have enough engineers and whatnot. Well stop discouraging kids from pursuing higher education by making standard education a nightmare. Our nation has for a while been better known for our artistic pursuits than rocket scientists and engineers anyway. So what. Cultures tend to favor and focus more on a certain thing.

[MaximiIian]

Socialism has good intentions, and features of it often works perfectly within a capitalist society to make a country fairer for all. Nuclear weapons do not have good intentions, are extremely expensive and only kill.

While I agree that socialism is ultimately beneficial, good intentions however aren't necessarily.
"Some of the worst things in the history of mankind have been done with the best of intentions."
-Dr. Alan Grant, Jurassic Park III.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Socialism has good intentions, and features of it often works perfectly within a capitalist society to make a country fairer for all.

An old quote for you here, but you might not have heard it.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."


I will also take you up on the definition of the word "fair" anytime you want. The left uses that word in a most unfair way.

Nuclear weapons do not have good intentions, are extremely expensive and only kill.

The intent of a nuclear weapon is to prevent war, through the threat of killing on a wide scale. This is why the term MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was coined. If not for nukes, the US and Russia would probably have had a huge conventional war that would have dragged Europe into yet a 3rd World War. The nukes helped prevent that and instead we had the Cold War which was mostly fought via proxy in 3rd world countries. Bad, but not near as bad as a full blown world war.

As for cost, nukes are FAR cheaper than any social program you can name, and a lot of other technology came out of the nuclear weapons program.

[bushbush]

The intent of a nuclear weapon is to prevent war, through the threat of killing on a wide scale. This is why the term MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was coined. If not for nukes, the US and Russia would probably have had a huge conventional war that would have dragged Europe into yet a 3rd World War. The nukes helped prevent that and instead we had the Cold War which was mostly fought via proxy in 3rd world countries. Bad, but not near as bad as a full blown world war.
.

though it also extended the Cold War probably for 30 years because the Soviets were able to compensate its glaring failure in ideology, economy and social justice with military force to match Western power until late 80s.