What's up with all the right-wingers on this site? — Page 6

Wow, I agreed with every single word Rob said in his post located four posts up. I almost forgot Rob used to post some pretty good stuff in the politics thread.

Rob said:

 The appointment of Supreme Court Justices, which will become very relevant in the near future, is the only thing that Republicans are still getting right.  There is no doubt that liberal Supreme Court justices intend to strip us of our most basic Constitutonal rights.  The recent decision to uphold the Second Ammendment in the state of Washington was decided by a 5 to 4 margin.  We are now one Supreme Court justice away from losing this, and all of our other fundemental Constitutional rights.

It was D.C., not Washington State.  There's a 3000 mile difference.

The Republican party has been completely hijacked by liberals like McCain and Bush thanks in large part to the type of retards who frequent this thread.  Those who are not capable of turning off the "Conservative" talk radio and thinking for themselves have helped to destroy the Republican Party.  It now caters to religious retards and weak minded sheep.  It needs to be taught a lesson. 

You apparently have not been listening to the same Conservative talk radio the rest of us had.  Outside of Larry Elder, I can't think of a single Conservative that supported McCain in the beginning.  Hannity, Limbaugh, Prager, Levin.  Not a single one of those guys supported McCain in the beginning.  Even Levin still doesn't support him.  Joseph Farrah of WND.com wants every Conservative to vote "None of the above".  I don't listen to Limbaugh and Prager on a regular basis, but out of all the ones I've mentioned, only Sean Hannity supports McCain at this time and only because it's a better option than McCain.  Even Farrah has said he wouldn't mind seeing Obama win since it would probably mean a real Republican, akin to Ronald Reagan, winning four years from now.

Larry Elder is the only conservative talk radio show I've heard that has consistently supported McCain due to his "electability" vs the other Republican candidates that were running.

Rob said:

Stop being such a faggy cheerleader you dope.  Bush is the most prolific spender in our country's history.  He spent A LOT more than Clinton did.  Your dopey justifications dont change the facts.

I'm not saying he didn't.  What I am saying is exactly what Chaltab said.  Clinton wanted to spend a lot more money than he did, but the Republicans in Congress wouldn't let him.  But let's face it, Bush had a free ride with Republicans in control of everything.  We can't just blame Bush.  We have to blame all the "Republicans" in Congress as well.  They had control and didn't even bother reigning spending in.  Yeah, Bush could've vetoed something.  I agree it doesn't change the fact that he spent like crazy.  It also doesn't change the fact that it was Congressional Republicans that handed him those spending bills.

Rob said:

This is one of the many reasons why  John McCain sucks shit.  Many Republicans are letting him slide in an effort to "take one for the team" without realizing that John McCain is one of the other team's star players.  I have no doubt that he would appoint liberal Supreme Court justices in an attempt to reach out to his his liberal pals as he has done for his entire carrier. THAT'S WHY WE CONSERVATIVES HATE HIM, REMEMBER!

Actually, McCain, while has been a compromising dipshit, still seems to hold to many conservative principles on some kind of a personal basis. But, his acceptance speech at the convention pissed me off when he spoke about reaching out to the other isle . . . so, while I can’t say there’s a great chance that he’ll appoint good judges, there’s still a good chance, and that definitely makes him a better choice than Obama.

Rob said:

John McCain has decided that the government will choose what we hear and see prior to an election.  He is not only a liberal, he is the worst kind of liberal.  He has zero interest in our Constitutional rights, and intends to continue his historical expansion of our goverment's power over it's own people. Judge him by what he has done, not by the nosense that pours out of his royal mouth.

I agree that his campaign finance reform was absolutely atrocious. I could never forgive him for that. The fact that the Supreme Court didn’t strike down that entire law is very sad. McCain is definitely a danger on that issue. (Also, I blame the non-permanence of the Bush tax cuts on McCain as well [since he was apposed to tax cuts at the time].)

However, your assertion that he’ll continue the historical expansion of government power (over its people) is not necessarily true. McCain does have a record of apposing rampant government spending (in recent years anyways) and that is easily the most dangerous way that government power grows (if you ask me). I have a strong belief that he’ll fight on this end in a way that conservatives will be able to support.

Another reason I will be voting for McCain is because I feel that McCain the president will and up being a very different person from McCain the senator. So long as he was apposed to conservative initiatives, the socialist press and Democrats were as friendly to him as could be. If he becomes president, though, they’ll attack him like crazy and McCain doesn’t seem to back down when attacked. In that event, it seems very likely to me that he’ll actually start getting angry and stop compromising as a result (since his emotions seem to decide his principles more than the other way around).

My point is that real conservatives, as a movement, have to do our best to shape policy whenever we can. I do not consider myself Republican, but I do vote Republican pretty much every time I can since the party as a whole better reflects my beliefs. In fact, I don’t consider myself a conservative and yet I try to support conservatives as much as I can. (Conservatism isn’t radical enough for me and, while I support many of the same issues, I work from different principles to support many of the same policies.)

Winning elections isn’t about do or die; it’s about doing what you can. Plus, Palin seems like a tough woman who would make a great president to rally behind when McCain steps down. The more the media chooses to focus on her the happier I’ll be (it can only help McCain’s chances).

I'm not sure I want to vote for McCain based on the chance that opposition from the left will make him more conservative. I'd rather vote for a sure thing, or at least someone whose principles are well reasoned, than someone who takes possitions based on his feelings-at-the-moment

ferris209 said:

dudius said:

i've been away a long time....started an account in 06 then forgot for a while.

i've spent so much time in The Pit on ultimate-guitar.com, i forgot what it was like to have republicans on the forums.

 

I'M HOME AT LAST!

 

Well, I wouldn't say republicans, conservatives would be more accurate. Anyone else notice that anyone who ACTUALLY deals with money is conservative? Students, who happen to get loans, scholarships, and Mom & Dad's money, are usually LIBS. The parents at home, hard-core conservatives, reasons for that you know.

true enough. im more of a governmental conservative than social. in reality, George Bush might be extremely conservative in social politics, but has been arguably the most liberal spender our government has seen.

Clinton, on the other hand, was one of few to bring the US in the black.

dudius said:

ferris209 said:

dudius said:

i've been away a long time....started an account in 06 then forgot for a while.

i've spent so much time in The Pit on ultimate-guitar.com, i forgot what it was like to have republicans on the forums.

 

I'M HOME AT LAST!

 

Well, I wouldn't say republicans, conservatives would be more accurate. Anyone else notice that anyone who ACTUALLY deals with money is conservative? Students, who happen to get loans, scholarships, and Mom & Dad's money, are usually LIBS. The parents at home, hard-core conservatives, reasons for that you know.

 

true enough. im more of a governmental conservative than social. in reality, George Bush might be extremely conservative in social politics, but has been arguably the most liberal spender our government has seen.

Clinton, on the other hand, was one of few to bring the US in the black.

 

The sad thing is, I can't see John McCain doing much to reverse Bush's trend of heavy spending. That's the price of giving a party that once stood for fiscal conservativism over to the 'moderates' in the name of electability.

Good job, Republican electorate. You make me proud.

Darth Chaltab said:

The sad thing is, I can't see John McCain doing much to reverse Bush's trend of heavy spending. That's the price of giving a party that once stood for fiscal conservativism over to the 'moderates' in the name of electability.

Good job, Republican electorate. You make me proud.

To be fair, one of McCain's strongest points (in recent years anyways) is the way he was apposed to wasteful spending. I am actually glad to vote for him because of that. (At the same time he was against tax cuts of course, but at least he now claims to believe he was wrong in doing that.)

To address your earlier point, I don't want that to be a reason to vote for a guy either, but nonetheless it is a reason of a sort (for me anyways). Plus, at least we can say we're voting for someone who we actually know this time. Bush claimed to be against wasteful spending, as did Republican legislators, and yet they both turned out to be nothing of the sort when they actually got in power. Perhaps McCain will surprise us and be more conservative than we know him (and if not, at least we know where to fight him from the start and won't get back stabbed like with Bush and other Republican leaders).

Janskeet said:

I like this:

Although, Bush put us in a much deeper hole than $482 billion.

Reagan was fighting the cold war and the legislature (you know, the part of our government that controls the purse) was in the firm hand of democrats. The same is somewhat true with Bush the elder as well (he claims that he had to go along with democrat spending because he wanted to fight a war). Clinton, then, finally helped control spending by quite a bit, yes, but he campaigned and won as a middle-of-the-road-guy (unlike Kerry or Obama) and, unfortunately, too many of his spending cuts came from destroying our military capabilities.

With Bush the younger, yes, he was way out of control when it came to spending, but that's because he supported and tried to seriosuly fund Democrat programs. It also didn't help that the Republican legislature perfectly immitated the Democrat legislature that came before them by trying to ensure loyalty with wasteful spending. Republicans were out of control and deserved to lose control as they did. However, you can argue that John McCain was trying to fight against the trends of Bush and his fellow legislators at the time; there's no reason to assume he'll be irresponsible on the spending issue and we have plenty of reasons to assume the opposite.

Ah, I don't know about you guys, but I for one and very happy we now have three politics threads, all of which are near the top of the screen. I don't only feel that multiple amounts of politics threads are a good thing, but I also think they are a necessity. Nope, you can never have too many politics threads...

Tiptup said:

Reagan was fighting the cold war and the legislature (you know, the part of our government that controls the purse) was in the firm hand of democrats. The same is somewhat true with Bush the elder as well (he claims that he had to go along with democrat spending because he wanted to fight a war). Clinton, then, finally helped control spending by quite a bit, yes, but he campaigned and won as a middle-of-the-road-guy (unlike Kerry or Obama) and, unfortunately, too many of his spending cuts came from destroying our military capabilities.

Reagan once said "I'd rather get 80% of what I asked for than 0%".  That's why a lot of his tax cuts came with big spending bills.

As far as Clinton goes, he had a real Republican congress to contend with during 6 of his 8 years.  Remember the "Contract with America"?  Clinton didn't get to spend nearly the amount he wanted.  And his "surplus" was a projected surplus.  See this link http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

With Bush the younger, yes, he was way out of control when it came to spending, but that's because he supported and tried to seriosuly fund Democrat programs. It also didn't help that the Republican legislature perfectly immitated the Democrat legislature that came before them by trying to ensure loyalty with wasteful spending. Republicans were out of control and deserved to lose control as they did. However, you can argue that John McCain was trying to fight against the trends of Bush and his fellow legislators at the time; there's no reason to assume he'll be irresponsible on the spending issue and we have plenty of reasons to assume the opposite.

Yep.  The Republicans tried to win the hearts of Democrats by turning into Democrats.  Unfortunately, it didn't matter.  People hate Republicans because they're Republicans, not because of what they do (historically, they've done far more good than Democrats).

Why are most of the people here Republican/Conservative? Well, you're on a message board targetted to those who are against any new adaptations of the Star Wars and even Indiana Jones franchises. You're obviously gonna get a lot of people missing the "good ol' days!" Personally, I hate most of the Republican/Conservative stances. Not to say I myself am a Democrat. There are some things I'm Liberal about and there are somethings I'm Conservative about.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2c7ZZNcWsA

Asteroid-Man said:

Why are most of the people here Republican/Conservative? Well, you're on a message board targetted to those who are against any new adaptations of the Star Wars and even Indiana Jones franchises.

How on Earth did you manage to arrive at that conclusion from that question?

1. We're not all against any new adaptations of Star Wars and Indy.

2. We're not all Conservative (not even mostly as far as I can tell).

3. Citing Chris Rock for anything is probably not a good idea.

Regarding number 1, what we're against is new adaptations that completely disregard the events of the OT or even the PT in the name of "just another adventure".  Things that completely disregard common sense are also looked upon negatively (fridge in a nuclear blast anyone?).

I'm just giving a possible answer to the question fool. Don't hate on me. Most of the people here hate any changes to the OOT. And I didn't say everyone. Did I? I said "most of". As in majority. Who care's if I cite Chris Rock. I mean, I believe in what he said, I agree with being open to both sides but not all of his ideals or anyone elses ideals. We all have our own beliefs. Why give them a limit? I personally like to explore all aspects of a situations. Like I mentioned on these boards earlier, the first Star Wars film I saw all the way through was TPM, which is what really triggered my love of the saga. Do I like the PT? Yes. Do I like the OT? Yes. I'm not exclussive to just one side of an argument. By the way, you said " we're against is new adaptations..." "we" implies everyone here. "Most of" means the majority. You seriously stuck your own foot in your mouth there big guy.

I see no foots in any mouths, have no idea what you are talking about on that one.

But lj is right, there is no evidence to say "most" of the members here are right-wingers, there is only a small handful of us that participate in political discussion, and it appears that many of that handful lean to the right in someway or another.

As for the sight being aimed at people who don't like any new adaptations of Star Wars??? It has never been about that, it has been about wanting the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD. Since then it has become a place for preservation, including thins such as the theatrical versions of the PT.

I guess the idea of preservation is a seemingly "right-wing" idea, I do not believe it is, but either way, it really cannot be pigeon holed like that.

I think Asteroid Man is correct when he says that people who like to hold onto the good things that came before will tend to be "conservative" because I think that's the definition of conservatism. Conservatives, in the most basic sense of the word, fight for everything good that they have now and had in the past. Believing in low taxes and small government is an ethical standpoint, however, and has nothign to do with the term "conservative" all by itself.

That's why a lot of terms that people use bug me. Everyone's a conservative on one thing or another. For instance, even those who value being "free" or "open" must value that in a way where they want to conserve it or else "valuing" those principles means nothing. Liberal is a much more ethically meaningful term for people to assume by comparison (linguistically and historically); it means they value liberty.

Thus, that's why it's stupid to say that most people here are in line with what would be pop-culture's definition of political conservatism. Everyone's a conservative about something and in this case, most people who first came to this site care about preserving good movies. That doesn't mean we all match or identify ourselves as conservatives in the popular sense of modern American politics. In fact, as I said earlier in this thread, this site seems to attract 50/50 and that any prominence of "conservative" viewpoints in political discussions is due to "conservatives" wanting to discuss the details of issues more.

If there's one thing about the internet I don't like, it's the extreme niche nature of it all. On the one hand, I like this site because it gives me a place to vent my frustrations about the original trilogy's fate (while still affording great aesthetic debates about the subject). However, at the same time, I realize that in the real world that's not an interest that people would really tolerate. They'd look at me and be like, "Uhh, you need to take a seat and calm down. It's just a movie." Likewise, in the real world, when socialists are faced with facts and ethical logic, they tend to run away and be silent. However, the internet allows them to have weird little worlds where they can hang out and be safe with their crazy socialist ideas and never face challenges. On an even-handed site like this, the general fact that "conservatives" take issues more seriously and are willing to argue them more will influence socialists to hide their beliefs by comparison. That's why it seems overrepresented to Janskeet or Asteroid Man.

Anyways, another area I'd agree with Asteroid man is on the topic of being open to ideas. Let truth go where it can. (Just be skeptical and and make tough arguments all along the way.)

*applauds TipTup*

lordjedi said:

As far as Clinton goes, he had a real Republican congress to contend with during 6 of his 8 years.  Remember the "Contract with America"?  Clinton didn't get to spend nearly the amount he wanted.  And his "surplus" was a projected surplus.  See this link http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

Wow, I didn't really ever believe all of the "surplus" nonsense we were fed back then, but that definitely just explained to me why it was bullshit. How the news media can be so complicit with such a lie by our politicians makes me angry. Treating social security income—which has its own obligations—as a fully legitimate income is criminal as far as I'm concerned.

Otherwise, yes, the Republicans did help appose a lot of bad spending under Clinton, but not too much. They began many of their own bad spending habits during those years (we just had the dot com bubble hiding it). Also, you have to admit that Clinton was concerned with cutting spending more than most of his fellow Democrats (and the first-term version of Bush).

lordjedi said:

Yep.  The Republicans tried to win the hearts of Democrats by turning into Democrats.  Unfortunately, it didn't matter.  People hate Republicans because they're Republicans, not because of what they do (historically, they've done far more good than Democrats).

They didn't try to just win the hearts of Democrats with incredibly wasteful spending, they spent even more trying to maintain internal Republican loyalty. The Democrats were completely in control of the United States legislature for almost half a century before them and yet, at the same time, they were a very fragmented and diverse coalition of interests. Each member's loyalty to the Democrat party (and the votes the party wanted) was not maintained via ideaology, but wasteful, you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours spending. A lot of spending was also given to Republicans over those forty years, but not nearly as much (Republicans were treated like dogs deserving only the occasional bone). Republicans finally upset the Democrat majority in 1994 by running on a very idealogically driven campaign. However, once they got into power they immediately stopped being strong on idealogy and instead opted to ensure internal loyalty through spending in an exact mimic of the Democrat party that came before. Not only that, but they didn't even do it very well. They allowed Republicans to have all sorts of goodies in comparison to the loyalty they got back and they even let Democrats go fairly wild. They even sucked when it came to bullying Democrats around in the same fashion that they had been previously bullied. In terms of imitating Democrat leadership, Republicans were still acting like they were in the minority. All in all, they were weak, pathetic, and had no guiding vision or principles they cared about; everything was all about growing a "big tent party" where it didn't matter what Republicans believed or stood for so long as they wanted the R in front of their name.

The main reason I highly dislike McCain is because he's from both the part of the Republican party that resists "conservative" ideology and principles while also being from the part of the party that wants to wimp out and be nice all of the time. It's a bad combination.

Either you should stand on fucking principle or be a corrupt hard ass! Choose one! At least then we know how to regard you. This Mister-Rogers, I'm-such-an-experienced-nice-guy nonsense is obnoxious and ultimately accomplishes practically nothing . . . ah well. :)

Tiptup said:

in the real world, when socialists are faced with facts and ethical logic, they tend to run away and be silent. However, the internet allows them to have weird little worlds where they can hang out and be safe with their crazy socialist ideas and never face challenges. On an even-handed site like this, the general fact that "conservatives" take issues more seriously and are willing to argue them more will influence socialists to hide their beliefs by comparison. That's why it seems overrepresented to Janskeet or Asteroid Man.

Too true my friend, too true.

Asteroid-Man said:

I'm just giving a possible answer to the question fool. Don't hate on me. Most of the people here hate any changes to the OOT. And I didn't say everyone. Did I? I said "most of". As in majority. Who care's if I cite Chris Rock. I mean, I believe in what he said, I agree with being open to both sides but not all of his ideals or anyone elses ideals. We all have our own beliefs. Why give them a limit? I personally like to explore all aspects of a situations. Like I mentioned on these boards earlier, the first Star Wars film I saw all the way through was TPM, which is what really triggered my love of the saga. Do I like the PT? Yes. Do I like the OT? Yes. I'm not exclussive to just one side of an argument. By the way, you said " we're against is new adaptations..." "we" implies everyone here. "Most of" means the majority. You seriously stuck your own foot in your mouth there big guy.

Actually, what "we're against" means is the people that I may be speaking for, which is not everyone.  For example, not everyone here is ok with Greedo shooting first.  However, I was ok with it.  I was also ok with Han meeting with Jabba even though most of the people here are not.  For me, the line was crossed when Lucas put Hayden at the end of Jedi.  Ever since then, I've actually hated just about every change since the 97 SE.  I've even come to hate Greedo shooting first.  He must have been a really bad shot to miss from 3ft away!

I would never claim to speak for everyone, so don't put words in my mouth.  The point is, as I believe C3PX posted later, this site was started to get the Original Trilogy put on DVD.  George gave us the GOUT, which is just a piece of shit.

Tiptup said:

I think Asteroid Man is correct when he says that people who like to hold onto the good things that came before will tend to be "conservative" because I think that's the definition of conservatism. Conservatives, in the most basic sense of the word, fight for everything good that they have now and had in the past. Believing in low taxes and small government is an ethical standpoint, however, and has nothign to do with the term "conservative" all by itself.

Change for the sake of change is stupid.  That's why I think "Progressives" are just lame.  Unless there's a good reason to change something, why do it?  When people say "Everyone hates change" I always say "That's not true.  People hate change for the sake of change because that's a lame reason to change things".

Most of the changes to the OT have been change for the sake of change, not change because they were broken.  Greedo, Jabba meeting Han, Hayden at the end of Jedi, etc, etc.

lordjedi said:

Change for the sake of change is stupid.  That's why I think "Progressives" are just lame.  Unless there's a good reason to change something, why do it?  When people say "Everyone hates change" I always say "That's not true.  People hate change for the sake of change because that's a lame reason to change things".

Most of the changes to the OT have been change for the sake of change, not change because they were broken.  Greedo, Jabba meeting Han, Hayden at the end of Jedi, etc, etc.

Conservation for the sake of conservation is also stupid though. By nature the universe is filled with good things, so always erring on the side of conservation is wise to make sure we're not destroying anything by acting too hastily, but there's nothing inherent in conservation which makes that so. In fact, too often people will fight to conserve evil things in my mind. If it weren't for the fact that evil generally doesn't work (according to trial by error and paths of least resistance), humanity would be a lot more fucked up than it is now. When all is said and done, it's my philosophy that people are designed to constantly and always seek new and better things, but that it's just a very difficult thing to do correctly.

C3PX said:

Tiptup said:

in the real world, when socialists are faced with facts and ethical logic, they tend to run away and be silent. However, the internet allows them to have weird little worlds where they can hang out and be safe with their crazy socialist ideas and never face challenges. On an even-handed site like this, the general fact that "conservatives" take issues more seriously and are willing to argue them more will influence socialists to hide their beliefs by comparison. That's why it seems overrepresented to Janskeet or Asteroid Man.

 

Too true my friend, too true.

Another aspect is the way people will be offended and insulted by merely having their personal beliefs challenged. They'll throw around real insults in response and accuse whole groups of people of horrible actions and motivations on the basis of simple disagreement. Now again I'm really generalizing here, but I find that socialists tend to do this more often as well. As such, I think it's another sad reason why they tend to avoid discussing reality.

Janskeet said:

A little bit of socialism goes a long way in this counrty. You people frown on socialism like we shouldn't have any, but I think it helps the econemy because it keeps the poor and middle class afloat. Without the help of wellfare, social security, these people would be either living on the streets or even more conservative and not play a role in our econemy. By giving them a piece of the pie so to speak we make our econemy stronger. It's not like people get a comfrable life on wellfare. Doesn't it pay people like $400 a month for an individual?

Keeping anything "afloat" does not help the economy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

Basic economics and basic common sense should tell you that not all investments are equal and that not all investments lead to a positive gain. It's not that difficult to understand.

In terms of comfort, yes, people are not meant to get comfortable on welfare and yet a lot of people are too self destructive to actually care about their discomfort enough to change (it's a bad investment to bail people out when they're destroying themselves). Even then, people have ways to get lots of money on Welfare; depending upon the State you live in, what programs a person is eligible for, and whether or not fraud is going on, a person can get a lot of money from welfare (and in the case of people with shitty life goals, that's a big problem).

As far as efficiency is concerned, most of the time people will take better care of themselves if they do what they need to do on their own (and take the tough consequences of life on directly). In the few rare cases when people do need help, the government does a terrible job of truly helping people's needs (it more often creates more problems than it helps). Before the modern welfare state, poverty was handled much better by private altruism. And, let's not forget that needless government employees suck up the vast majority of every dollar spent on the poor (unlike a private charities which are insanely efficient by comparison). Lastly, wherever the government has supposedly taken on the job of helping the poor, people tend to be much less involved with directly helping others and donating resources to the poor because they either believe that taxes are all they need be concerned with (studies clearly show that Democrat-run states are less giving) or are on welfare themselves (and don't give a shit about other people). Rich people and poor people should be concerned with helping everyone in need regardless of arbitrary designations of status and socialists generally don't seem to understand that.

The main reason for apposing socialism, however, is because it's NOT the governments job to take money from one person and give it to another without any common benefit. That is an act of theft by definition. It's just legalized theft committed by tyrannical majority rule. Populists who think they're doing some great act of compassion by advocating the stealing of people's money should be ashamed of themselves. They have no right to legislate morality like that. The ethical powers of government are very clear and related to the fact that it has the monopoly on force in society. That power should never be abused because we're envious of someone else's wealth or success. If you believe you know how someone else's money can be spent better for the sake of mankind, then you should first gain some self respect and honor by creating some wealth of your own to give away (and thus not waste other people's money on your worthless ideas).

I'm not a person of wealth by any means. In fact, in the situation I've been in for the last few years, I'm virtually certain I would have qualified and still would qualify for welfare. I have no health or dental insurrance and haven't used any such services in years and could probably use the ample amounts of government assistance available here in Minnesota. Welfare is a disgusting notion, however. All of the people in this country who work hard and do the right thing should not have government punish their productivity for the sake of our nation's control freaks; just because they desire to feel better about themselves by looking down on the "greedy" people they're supposedly punishing is no valid justification. I have too much respect for myself to take such an illegitimate form of "help" and believe that other people should too.

Tiptup said:

Conservation for the sake of conservation is also stupid though.

Very true.

Janskeet said:

A little bit of socialism goes a long way in this counrty. You people frown on socialism like we shouldn't have any, but I think it helps the econemy because it keeps the poor and middle class afloat. Without the help of wellfare, social security, these people would be either living on the streets or even more conservative and not play a role in our econemy. By giving them a piece of the pie so to speak we make our econemy stronger. It's not like people get a comfrable life on wellfare. Doesn't it pay people like $400 a month for an individual?

You apparently don't know very many senior citizens or how conservative they can be.  Most anyone on a fixed income (Social Security, pension, 401k) is pretty conservative on how they spend their money.  They don't spend it on frivolous things, but that doesn't mean they aren't playing a role in the economy either.

Welfare, Social Security, and even a pension isn't suppose to make life "comfortable".  It's suppose to make life liveable.  The entire reason for putting money into a "retirement account" is so you can continue to live some kind of reduced lifestyle once you retire.  By reduced, I mean having enough money to eat and pay regular bills, but not necessarily go out and have fun all the time.  You'll possibly also have enough money to do a lot of travelling once you retire as well, as long as you save that money in your younger years and don't spend it frivolously.

Back in the mid 90's (I think), the Republicans wanted to cut the amount that Social Security would be increased.  As an example, let's say it goes up 4% every year.  They wanted to make it 2% per year.  The Democrats pushed the idea that the Republicans wanted to "cut" social security.  This had a lot of senior citizens fuming.  The Republicans didn't seem to respond and it took the conservative talk radio shows to tell people what was really going on.  I don't remember the outcome, but that's not really the point.  The point is that senior citizens don't like it when you try to cut social security.  They also happen to be the most consistent voting block of people in the country.  In a nutshell, you don't screw with the programs those people depend on and expect to hold your office.

Some conservatives do view social security as welfare though (it essentially is).  It also happens to be a pyramid scheme that would be illegal if it wasn't done by the government.  When it was first created, very few people were expected to make it to the retirement age.  Now that people are living so long, almost everyone lives to retirement age.  The reason the system is breaking down is because there simply aren't enough people paying into it anymore to support the number of people retiring.  It was flawed from the get go and needs a serious overhaul.

The poor and middle class aren't really kept afloat by socialism.  They're kept in place.  The more they earn, the more they're taxed, the more they have to struggle to get ahead.  By lowering taxes, you allow more people to move from lower to middle and middle to upper classes.  When they can do that, they have a much easier time getting by without government assistance and they're able to get ahead quicker.