HOME | DD
Conservatoons β No Prospects Sign
Published: 2011-09-23 03:18:14 +0000 UTC; Views: 1953; Favourites: 34; Downloads: 24
Redirect to original
Description
Will we start seeing this sign all over America?Elections matter.
Related content
Comments: 84
i don't care much for obama either way, but i like this sign. it's a neat little graphic.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, I'm pretty sure his new economic stimulus will work. It worked the first time, right?
What do they call doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time?
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, itβs insanity. But same difference.
π: 0 β©: 0
Why not? Times are changing. Two words: Bob Turner, bitches. Oh wait, that's three words...
π: 0 β©: 0
On the subject of highway signs, split it up in Burma-Shave fashion.
π: 0 β©: 3
Look up "Burma-Shave" online. It was a brand of shaving cream sold from the late 1920s to the early 1960s, and they were best known for their advertising method of posting sequential signs on roadways, often with humorous rhymes on them.
π: 0 β©: 1
now that is interesting!
π: 0 β©: 1
How so? Sorry, but this comment comes so long after the fact that I forget the original context of my comment.
π: 0 β©: 1
lol it happens, this was in reference to the Burma Shave signs, an interesting prospect for political advertisements.
π: 0 β©: 0
Not sure if you saw the verse I came up with in response to someone else's comment, but here it was:
With Social Security
And Obamacare
I've bankrupted the country
But why stop there?
BARACK OBAMA
π: 0 β©: 1
I never saw original ones. But I know a good deal about them and the history behind them.
In fact, here's something I just came up with off the top of my head:
With Social Security
And Obamacare
I've bankrupted the country
But why stop there?
BARACK OBAMA
π: 0 β©: 0
I want a sign like that, I would totally put it next to the highway near my house also
π: 0 β©: 0
Honestly, I've always been of the opinion that DA and politics don't mix. Apart from that, based on my outside judgement, I don't think that you would be much happier under a Republican president.
π: 0 β©: 2
Like most libs, as usual, you are wrong.
no hippies please.
π: 0 β©: 1
And this is an argument because...? Besides, wrong country and political position for a hippie.
π: 0 β©: 1
God you're so fucking stupid.
π: 0 β©: 1
Stay classy.
no hippies please.
π: 0 β©: 1
What's with you and "No hippies please"? Jesus Christ, do you know what a hippy is? You know, like the ones from the 60's?
π: 0 β©: 1
no hippies please.
π: 0 β©: 1
Let me ask again.
Do. You. Know. What. A. Hippy. Is?
π: 0 β©: 1
no hippies please.
π: 0 β©: 1
Would a hippy want to buy a pistol and whip you with it :I?
π: 0 β©: 1
Probably since that is not what a pistol is for.
no hippies please.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is true. You can, however, use it to pistol-whip someone and I don't dislike you to the point I want to shoot you. Almost >:c
(In related news, yes, I'm really that bored I'm keeping up a conversation with you)
π: 0 β©: 0
Won't speak for the author, but many of us are Constitutional Conservatives, not necessarily Republicans. The reason we stick to the Republican party is because like Reagan, we realize it's the only party we can possibly work with. The Democrats have been taken over by the far left lunatic wing and are NOT the same people they were back in the days of JFK.
π: 0 β©: 1
From here in Germany, it very much looks as if exactly the same is true in reverse for the Republican Party, which seems to have been taken over by a radical minority which forces it to basically say goodbye to a normal, democratic political process.
π: 0 β©: 1
The only party taken over by radicals is the left, here in America. Are you familiar with the Communist Party USA? How about Saul Alinsky? I'm not angry with you, but if you're interested and open minded enough, I urge you to read Liberty & Tyranny by Mark Levin. An excellent work for anyone who loves freedom.
π: 0 β©: 1
People who will not raise the taxes, no matter what, keep considering every major scientific theory a hoax, would rather have people die of caries than introduce a general health insurance and would rather let their own economy crash than have a democratically elected leader do his job? Sorry, but as I said, from over here in Germany, it seems the other way round is true. Heck, in my country, I am firmly in the conservative part of the political spectrum.
As for the question of Liberty, I will see if I can take a look at the book - understanding is what I am after, after all - , but it seems to me, that Liberty and Freedom are all too often abused by people who would rather serve the interest of high finance than the interest of normal people.
π: 0 β©: 1
Do you truly believe that the 'interest of normal people' is what socialists have in mind? That's an unrealistic thought, they're only interested in their own power. That's it. Power and control.
Rather than making this an extremely long and repetitive back and forth, I'll just reassert the suggestion to read the book please.
π: 0 β©: 1
'Socialist'? I think I am starting to see part of the problem: different meanings to words. Could I ask you for your definition of that word? It seems there is a wide difference between how you and I understand it. I assume that you consider your current government socialist?
And what about the previous one?
Please understand that I find this very interesting - I never had the chance to ask these questions firsthand.
π: 0 β©: 1
No sir, I do not consider the current government a socialist one, but I DO believe the current admin has socialist preferences they are trying to install here.
I lived in Canada for twenty five years prior to moving to the US in 01 and promise you that I am very familiar with the concept of less freedom. No, there are no gulags in Canada (*grin) and it is certainly not Cuba or the former Soviet Union, BUT they do control your healthcare along with a greater grip on your earnings with higher taxes.
Also, they control your right to protect yourself that every creature on earth possesses. If you want to do that in Canada (I'm talking gun control here), tough luck. Nothing like that is allowed. Again, you need to depend on the government, which is against anyone who loves individual freedoms.
π: 0 β©: 1
So, "socialist" for you is basically a high amount of legislation including rules for things like mandatory healthcare, a comparatively high amount (how much are we talking here? 30%? 40%?) and gun control?
π: 0 β©: 1
Socialism - A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
It comes down to this, friend: Who has the right to the wages you earn? The answer should be self evident and what we once called common sense, but that doesn't appear to be the answer anymore, as people rely more and more on government for their living.
π: 0 β©: 1
But people, even in the US, do not rely on the government for their living - they rely on the community (and it seems that this fine distinction is often forgotten, if you will excuse me for saying that). Because that is the reason for having a society, in this case organised as a state - as a means and reason to support each other. And this is why there are taxes - because some things have to be built by a society (or nation) as a whole, so that all may benefit. One cannot built a highway by oneself. Of course, a highway built from your money half the continent away will not be of direct benefit to you, but some other guy from said half continent away is going to pay for your highway, in turn (and that is leaving out things like the trucks using that selfsame highway to transport goods to you). No man is an island, after all. And this is true for so many other things - firebrigade, military, police, schools...do you really want to live in a society where nobody contributes to a common cause? "One Nation under God, undivided...", how would this be true, any longer?
As for the defintion - your federal government is far from perfect (ours is not much better, by the way, but if you've ever been in a really big company, they're not too impressive effectivity-wise, themselves, just a bit better), but I don't see it actively taking over companies, banks, or every single farm - which is what the Soviets did in the Soviet Occupation Zone my country after WWII, for instance. GM being an exception, but no president likes to see tens of thousands of people out of work, if it can be helped.
π: 0 β©: 1
Right, but the government has grown substantially, thus taking more and more control over. That is why I bring up issues such as gun control and health care. These are surface issues that stem from deep problems in philosophy. Either you believe that you, as an individual have the right to decide what is best for you and your family healthwise , financialwise and protectionwise, or you believe that the government should be the 'big brother' so to speak.
Anyone who believes in being free obviously wants a smaller government, with personal responsibility and individual liberty to be the rule, not the exception.
Again, let me urge you to read Liberty & Tyranny (if I hadn't already? Sorry, I've lost track a bit here). It will answer a lot of your thoughts (pay close attention to 'soft' vs 'hard' tyranny) especially regarding what the Soviets did vs what the U.S government is doing. No, machine guns aren't waved in our faces, and no gulags are erected. But they have absolutely moved in on banks and businesses. Scary, it truly is.
Hey give me your address and I'll gladly mail you a copy of the book, if you're short on cash.
And yes, the federal government is absolutely far from perfect!
No disagreement there.
But to your highway example: why must the government be responsible for this? Why not private contractors? Let the best man win, right? The government DOES have a duty to protect its citizens, and that is why things like a police/military is under government control, rather than privatized.
I've enjoyed the exchange, but I'm away for a week on vacation.
Refreshing for someone who disagrees to stay civil, rather than a curse-filled stampy fit that happens so often online. I appreciate it
π: 0 β©: 1
I am thankful for your patience, as well. Coming from another country, these whole issues are not easily understandable from the outside view, and I am grateful that you take the time to show me your point of view - even though I do not completely agree with them.
As for the book, thank you, but I will rather get it myself - I don't even want to think about what the postage over here to Germany would be.
As for the matter of government control, my problem with the idea of total personal freedom is that not everybody is able / willing to inform him- or herself properly and to act in an adult way. Plus, there is one of the most basic rules in the universe: "Sh** happens." So my problem is that, if you do not have certain mandatory duties, like getting healthcare, you will always have some who won't, for shortsighted reasons. Which in turn will make things even more expensive in the case of need. (E.g.: Why should I get healthcare insurance? I don't need it, I want to get a new playstation.) The indirect cost of having no basic healthcare for everybody tends to be huge, going from the fact that somebody has to pay the emergency bills (that somebody being everybody instead of the insurance), which is especially annoying if the emergency bills could have been prevented if the condition was easily treatable (I am thinking of Diabetes, for instance) at the start. I guess my point is that, ideally, people would act responsibly and the government should be small, but neither is the case. As for gun-control - that is truly a completely different culture and way of thinking each of our peoples have.
As for my example: the problem with government is ineffectivity and, sometimes, incompetence. The problem with private contractors is graft, incompetence and untrustworthiness. Usually, the job does not go to the best man, but to the cheapest. And I don't want the bridge I drive my car over to be built by a company that cuts corners to squeeze that bit more money out of a project that gets the whole thing crashing down. I have to admit that this position is heavily fueled by the financial crisis - I am deeply suspicious towards the "private sector". They have shown not to deserve it - see Tepco in Japan. However, I think in this case, one could discuss where to draw the line between what the state should be responsible for and what should be privatized.
Well, have a nice vacation. Hope you got better weather than we do right now.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, part of the reason I feel so strongly about these issues is the same reason you list yourself, and that is that I too, am from a different country. Born and raised in Canada for 25 years I can't tell you how refreshing it was when I moved here to experience lower taxes, lower gas, better and faster healthcare. It was great! At first I was taken aback by the gun laws, but after conversations with others from the 'pro' group, I understand much better why it exists and now fully support it myself.
To your second paragraph: If people cannot act as adults, that is on them, don't you agree? If you and I work hard, it's only right that we get to enjoy the results of hard work. If someone wants to lay around and cry about others having more, then that is on them also. Reap what you sow, as they say. Personal responsibility should be king. It's not up to you to take care of someone who has no desire or will to provide for themselves, and the government has no business dictating what you or I do with our personal posessions in a free country. This same thinking applies to all areas of life, I believe; be it healthcare or personal protection. But I think you and I are close as far as the personal responsibility issue goes, from what you write.
In your last paragraph, you mention ineffectiveness (very true...lol) and incompetence. And yes, this can be true for any agency, whether it's governmental or privatized. Roads have been rotten and structures have fallen apart even when under the watchful eye of government. So I'm not sure where you're going with that? If you consider the same scenario with a free market system, think about me owning a company that builds a bridge that collapses. Do you not think that my company would be belly up quickly? Both from lawsuits and the market itself. NOBODY would hire me to ever build a bridge again whereas the government cannot be controlled anywhere near the same way as a private firm. Once the government takes control of a sector, I rarely ever hear of it giving control back(if ever?).
π: 0 β©: 1
How was your holiday? Hope you had a nice time.
The problem is that the bridge would have collapsed, already. Plus, as you can see both from Fukushima and from Wallstreet, if the company is big enough, there is a chance that it can evade conviction. No matter, my point was that you cannot trust free markets to take care of themselves completely - you always need a certain amount of regulation. And some things should stay in the hands of the government because the potential for harm would be too great. (I realized that roads are an unfortunate example - most of them are privately built, anyway, just under supervision of the state or communities concerned).
The thing with personal responsibility is: a) this assumes that life is always fair - if you work hard and are responsible, you will be okay. The problem is that real life does not work like that. Most of us, no matter how carefully insured or trying to do their best, are only one desaster away from a really bad life. And this is where society has to step in - not to provide for those too lazy to work, bit to catch you if you fall. I think it is grossly unfair that somebody who lost his job and home through no fault of his own should be sentenced to life on the street. It also works the other way, of course: think of managers who run their company into the ground, get fired and receive millions in payments nevertheless.
b) it also assumes that the idiots only cause consequences for themselves. This does not work out, either, and it is the reason why there must be laws limiting certain freedoms. Think of drunk drivers being a danger for others on the road. Of course he will be held responsible for the damage he causes, but said damage will have been done. And some things cannot be repaired or made whole again, no matter how much he pays.
Out of curiosity: in how far is the health care system in Canada different to that of the US? Do you have something like the NHS in Great Britain? Or mandatory insurance?
π: 0 β©: 1
Holiday was....well, I wasn't at work, which was just fine lol..I'd actually gotten sick two days prior to leaving and the weather wasn't the best. But again, it was a long needed break from work. I hadn't been away in over two years, so you can probably feel my pain there
The example was hypothetical of course, but anyone who would be contracted to build a road or bridge would of course have to meet standards. I can't walk in to an office and put a bid up on nothing more than a claim, that would be ridiculous and dangerous.
I guess the bottom line to all of this is this: Do you believe that you both have a right to what you earn and are responsible enough to spend said earnings, or, do you truly believe that a government body has the right and better decision skills on what to do with YOUR earnings? If you stand for liberty and personal freedom, the answer is sorta glaring, don't you think?
Yes, the healthcare is similar to Britains in Canada. I've not ever experienced the UK, but from what I've read, the healthcare situation is getting worse and worse. Same with Canada. When I lived in Canada, I couldn't understand why anyone would want anything else, but then I experienced the US system and wouldn't return to the old ways for anything.
It's not a coincidence that people worldwide travel to the US for care. There's got to be more reason for it.
That aside, again it goes back to who SHOULD have the say over such a thing? You, or a governing body?
π: 0 β©: 1
Sorry for my absence, it was my turn to be sick this week...
Thank you for the information on health care in Canada.
I think that personal freedom is of course a very important thing, but I also consider taxes a necessity. Making it a question about who the right to my earnings has makes taxation sound like thievery, and that is just not what it is - at least in most democratic countries.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh absolutely; taxes are one of those things we call a 'necessary evil' lol....
But, you can't say 'ok they exist, so let's take everything someone earns'. The things that need funding should be the basics of a society, such as a military force for defense. The problem is, liberals with their visions of a utopia, constantly add more to the pile, such as healthcare or funding schools. It's now considered a given that it's the governments job to educate. Why? Why should that be? Isn't that a bit dangerous to have a single organization dictate what and how we learn? You can easily imagine how that could become a monopoly, I'm certain. I can't speak for Germany but this is exactly what happens in the United States.
If you get a chance and again, are interested, read the ProFessors by David Horowitz; a former leftist himself. It's amazing, really.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ha, well, being a teacher myself, I feel strongly about the subject of education.
First off, however, I absolutely agree that (direct) taxes absolutely should be a fraction of a person's earning, as little as possible. However, most important is a fair taxation (i.e. everybody pays a fair share - that does not necessarily mean the same percentage - 10% is far more for a person that only earns, say 1200$ than for somebody who earns 120,000$) that covers the things a nation has to take care off - military, police, social security.
As for that, I think it is hugely important that the government funds schools, for the simple reason that if it was taken care of locally, it would mean a perpetuation of poverty. Badly funded districts mean badly funded schools mean bad students mean no chance of getting out of poverty.
As for the curriculum - the bigger the organisation, the higher the numbers of people participating, the smaller the chance of, let's say, "scientific fringe groups" teaching bad stuff. Of course, this again is a cultural thing - the idea alone of teaching e.g. creationsm as a scientific theory on the same level as evolution would not be accepted, giving the children a perspective which is as scientifically objective as possible.
I, and this is not because I am a teacher, but rather the reason for it, consider a good education the most important bullwark against enemies of democracy - stupid people, no matter if they have guns or not, are always easier to control and steer than well-educated ones. Plus, the higher the education, the better the competitiveness of a country, etc. And a good education needs money. The point is that this will pay off hugely - unfortunately, that is not always clearly visible.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>