Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the answer. We should all become Libertarian's, like Joe Lieberman.
I don't like assigning names to anyone but Lieberman is really a LINO -- Libertarian in Name Only.
Sorry... I just think it's funny.
Is Lieberman an Independent Democrat or is he a Republican. Or, is he a Libertarian?
He's registed as an Independent Democrat but didn't McCain consider him for VP?
I really can't really figure out what he stands for except that he's a big supporter of insurers..
one thing's for sure, somehow he got elected but he certainly hasn't been helpful in office....
But, let's all vote for Libertarians and Independents instead of working together to fix things.
That's the answer.
Lieberman the thief too, look at all those $$$$ he took in campaign contributions from insurance companies, yes, he's a true libertarian conservative republican.
I'm glad you brought him up. Libertarians usually always lean right.
Perhaps not in specifics, but people are people everywhere. We all have the same needs..
On a level I understand what you are trying to say but be careful when saying we all have the same needs, because that isn't true. At least, people shouldn't have the power to determine what someone else "needs", and often central control ala government does exactly that, it determines what you "need" or not.
That, a person wanting freedom to determine their own life and needs or even wants is why many fall into the "conservative small government" or Libertarian" line. Why they see government taxes as "force by government". Although some so called "Rebublican conservatives" say that but are hypocrites sometimes, sometimes they are all for using government and law to regulate someone else when it suits them. Unchecked war, unchecked military spending, using government to define marriage are some examples.
On a level I understand what you are trying to say but be careful when saying we all have the same needs, because that isn't true. At least, people shouldn't have the power to determine what someone else "needs", and often central control ala government does exactly that, it determines what you "need" or not.
That, a person wanting freedom to determine their own life and needs or even wants is why many fall into the "conservative small government" or Libertarian" line. Why they see government taxes as "force by government". Although some so called "Rebublican conservatives" say that but are hypocrites sometimes, sometimes they are all for using government and law to regulate someone else when it suits them. Unchecked war, unchecked military spending, using government to define marriage are some examples.
Everyone needs food, clothing, and shelter. I would rank education and health care pretty high up, too. "Wants" are different, and determined somewhat by culture.
It's like when you're on an airplane and the oxygen mask drops down. You help yourself, so you are not a burden to the other passengers or the crew, and then when you are stable you go on to help the person next to you. Not selfish, just sensible.
I certainly don't think some East coast elite granola cruncher knows what's best for me and my community.
They used to teach us the same principle in the Army .... you get your protective mask on first, because what good are you to anybody if the chemicals being thrown at you kill you?
Everyone needs food, clothing, and shelter. I would rank education and health care pretty high up, too. "Wants" are different, and determined somewhat by culture.
I would say everyone needs equal ACCESS to those items.
The assistance should be on obtaining the access, not the item itself.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Give a man a fishing rod and he can now feed himself.
I would say everyone needs equal ACCESS to those items.
The assistance should be on obtaining the access, not the item itself.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Give a man a fishing rod and he can now feed himself.
No, it is a principle of human development that everyone NEEDS those things. You can't exist w/o food, and you'd be hard put to do without clothing and shelter in most climates. I'm not saying it's the role of government to provide it, mind you, though there are times when a man (sic) needs a fish more than a fishing lesson. I believe the rest of the quote is "teach a man to fish . . . ".
No, it is a principle of human development that everyone NEEDS those things. You can't exist w/o food, and you'd be hard put to do without clothing and shelter in most climates. I'm not saying it's the role of government to provide it, mind you, though there are times when a man (sic) needs a fish more than a fishing lesson. I believe the rest of the quote is "teach a man to fish . . . ".
Well with society today..at what point do you teach him to fish ?
Welfare, food stamps, HUD home...the basics are covered but now they are stuck. And it's become a lifestyle for some who now demand better benefits to equal those of the middle class.
We've had these social programs for decades and the numbers of people participating are growing.
Everyone needs food, clothing, and shelter. I would rank education and health care pretty high up, too. "Wants" are different, and determined somewhat by culture.
Like I said with the above, on a level I understand what you are trying to say. Lets take shelter for example though. Yes everybody needs shelter, however is it the right for someone to dtermine for someone else the dimensions of the shelter? I can tell you there are some who would take it upon themself to determine someone only needs a certain square foot house.
Food, like I said above is it the right for someone to decide for me I shouldn't have a fat burger with a coca-cola?
Education, is it the right for someone to force another not to home school their child?
I support helping others when they are down and out, even with taxes on a ceratin level. However where the difference becomes often between "liberal" or conservative" is how best to. People who believe in small government would rather have individuals take responsibilty for that, or at least more local governments where the people have more voice and control.
Liberals, at least liberals defined as pro-government tend to believe that a more centralized federal government is the solution. The intent may be goodness.
Personally I tend to agree more with the small government ideal, because less government and regulation equals more freedom, however sometimes I can see government is needed depending.
so it more selfish to earn your own way thru life and orvide the money to give governament revenues than to be a pwrosn whose concern it is to take from others and give to yourself. Looking at the health care deabte it was obvoius that liberals made sure that the funding for healthcare did not come form unions untaxed benefits or from any other of their special interest source. that seems like guarding a selfish interest to me.
No, it is a principle of human development that everyone NEEDS those things. You can't exist w/o food, and you'd be hard put to do without clothing and shelter in most climates. I'm not saying it's the role of government to provide it, mind you, though there are times when a man (sic) needs a fish more than a fishing lesson. I believe the rest of the quote is "teach a man to fish . . . ".
Agreed, sometimes things happen that overwhelm us, it doesn't mean the person was lazy or looking for a freebie. Sometimes something happens so bad that a person can't make it right by themself. Cases like that I believe people should come to the aid to another, whether by charity or even tax money depending.
When the idea that (all) conservatives are greedy because they see it as "my money" and don't want to be forced by government to relinquish taxes for another well....
Yes there are some greedy conservatives, there are greedy some kind of everybody. However for some conservatives they view it as they think it is more generous to have someone not dependant on them. For someone to be able to stand on their own two feet and forge their own life is freedom, dependancy on another is not freedom.
Now, where government minded liberals who may have good intentions sometimes fail is when they create a base that is perpetually dependant on them. They might have thought it was goodness to help provide for others but it created some who can't or feel no need to stand for themself anymore and where greed and corruptness comes into the liberal political agenda is when they purposely use that dependancy for a voting base.
Let me give a round about example of this. In the relationship section a while ago someone posted about her brother who is 51 years old. The mother has sabotaged his relationships with girlfriends his whole life because she wants to be the main woman in his life, she doesn't want to "loose" her baby. He still lives at home, she cooks and cleans for him. The guy is a lawyer, he is fully capable of living on his own and even was going to marry a doctor yet the mother has gained control over this guys life not to benefit him, but for her own twisted greed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
