by stillajwexelder 48 Replies latest social current
I did NOT have sex with that woman oh wait, did I cross party lines again?????
His mistake was, instead of saying "I did not have sex with that woman", he should have used another famous presidential line:
"A day that will live in infamy."
(See? I can cross party lines, too!)
"A day that will live in infamy."
That is a presidential quote that bears remembering isn't it? I recently saw a history channel two hour special on Pearl Harbor. I won't forget it. Of course my generation will never forget 9/11. But Pearl Harbor has many lessons for us all.
Bradley -
I was not attempting to paint liberals as anti-education. However, I was trying to paint the WT as anti-education AND pro-dependency. As for anti-productive and anti-responsible, those are words you read into my post, so I'll just leave it at that.
Bradley and Last Call -
Yes, the liberal platform tends to advocate more social programs than do conservative platforms. However, I never said that conservatives do not advocate any social programs, nor did I say that conservatives would be hypocrits if they ever did advocate any social programs. Obviously, as Last Call pointed out, our conservative President has demonstrated that conservatives do not, in fact, shun social programs. IMHO, it is the type of social programs supported that make the difference between conservatism and liberalism. Conservatives tend to support programs for those who can not help themselves, while liberals tend to support programs that either create government dependence, or benefit those who have made choices to not help themselves - and use the money from those who did choose to help themselves - to fund those programs.
As far as Social Security goes, this social program was instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, approximately 70 years ago. In my personal opinion, this program created a whole class of people who would be dependent upon the government to dole out checks to them for a certain period of their lives - even though these people could have contributed the same money to a non-government account, and NOT been dependent upon the government for their retirement. (In other words, I believe this liberal social program CREATED government dependence for many!) Until fairly recently, many believed that social security would provide enough money to live on in their retirement, and therefore, didn't put any money aside in case it wouldn't be enough. Some realized it wouldn't be enough, and began saving on their own. However, some who realized that social security would never be enough, were unable to put away extra money because they couldn't - the 7.5% that already came out of their paycheck that went into a Social Security account which gained about 2% each year, tapped them out for retirement planning! Instead of having the choice to put that same 7.5% of their income into accounts with higher yields, their only hope was that social security would be enough for them. Because of these people, I do NOT advocate scrapping the whole social security system in one sudden move. However, I honestly would be completely willing to leave what I have already accumulated in my account for use by those who are already on social security and were unable to save for their retirement. In exchange, I would want to be able to choose which retirement vehicle the compulsory 7.5% of my pay goes into. I believe I would have more money by the time I retire if I were given the option to "cut my losses" and choose higher interest bearing accounts, than if I am required to continue to participate in a social program that may never pay me a dime of what I have paid in. I also believe there are many conservatives and liberals who would do the same thing - given the choice.
Hope that 'splains it!
:-)
growedup
My response to Dakota Red was simply to point out that to call any JW congregation "liberal" is plain silly since they are apolitical and morally Puritanical.
Bradley, obviously you never attended the congregation I did. Just because they don't vote in elections or run for political office does not mean they don't have the same mindset as others in their region. So much for "pure language," huh?
As far as what I am on, it is a drug called 'life.' You see, I wasn't raised a dub, didn't become one until my early 40's. So, I could see things within the halls many raised in it couldn't, since I had experienced much of it before hand. I experienced more life by my mid-twenties than most experience in a life time.
As for who said have we forgotten Nixon, no, we haven't forgotten him. Kindly explain what he has to do with today, since he was forced into resignation some 30 years ago? Every politician has skeletons. Too bad the mainstream media didn't dog the last administration as deeply as they did Nixon, they might have seen him for what he really was.
Simon; yeah, I though expatbrit was making a very simplistic 'K-Mart' crack, and even his follow-up is transposable;
Having said that, have you considered the similarities between the Watchtower religion and totalitarianism? Just replace Jehovah with The Party, the Governing Body with the Glorious Leader etc. Not only that, but the JW attitude of waiting for all their needs and wants to be supplied by the big J instead of going out and doing it for themselves, is very similar to the attitude common in totalitarian countries of wanting the state to control and dish out jobs/benefits/housing/education/healthcare etc etc etc, instead of taking responsibility for themselves.
Of course, expat suffers from blindness on the right side of his body, as he makes links between JW's and socialism without realising it is totalitarianism where the greatest similarity with Dubdom is, and that totalitarianism can either be right or left wing. He also seems charmingly ignorant of the fact that politics isn't a 'line' with a right side and a left side, but a circle where far left and far right meet in a zone where the difference political agendas powering them have largely the same affect on those under their control.
Pulling the wings of dumb arguments aside, I think the Democrats are SCREWED. This is a great result for justice, and a great result for the Republican 2004 electoral hopes.
It would have been better if they'd bagged Hussain in say, July; the electorate are notoriously short-memoried. But Bush would really have to screw-up royaly (or have sex with an intern) to fudge this, unless some of the speculative chickens relating to the arguments for war ever come home to roost.
Why Abaddon, you make enormous deductions from a one line post!
If you happened to read some of my other posts you'd know that my views tend to the libertarian (not liberal). This means I don't fit the simplistic left/right viewpoint, and of course I realise that the political spectrum is not so easy.
For instance, how many right-wing conservatives do you know of who support the legalisation of all drugs? That's usually described as a "liberal" position, is it not?
Generally, on social issues I will be labelled a left/liberal. But on economics and politics, my views are usually labelled right/conservative.
As for socialism/totalitarianism, it would be interesting to tally up all of the totalitarian regimes over the past century and compute how many have come from the "left" and how many from the "right" sides of the political spectrum. I suspect (and this is just my opinion) that far more would come from the "left", since (again my opinion) left-wing ideologies are far more conducive to the formation of totalitarian states. This is simply because left/socialist ideologies are based upon more centralised government with more power and control over people's lives.
Expatbrit
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092520/ AND this is what the media thinks
"I did not have financial relations with that company" Dick Cheney
hey expat:
You got a simplistioc snap reply to an equally simplistic snap post on your part; I think we were both more having a laugh than being serious...
As regards what governments most likely generate totalitarianism, of course, we can ignore the biggest badest example of a right-wing totalitarian government, but I think that extrem,e policies, be they left or right, make totalitarianism.
I also think the ripest breeding ground for totalitarianism is not based just on the political wing in power within a country, but on a host of conditions effecting a country and allowing extremeism to be accepted by people as they perceive it as being to their benefit.
