I wasn't ranting, Goob, and if it was as simple as choosing a team you might be on the other one, but I think you're too conservative to be a total liberal. I know what you were replying to, and I think Spidey was off-base. But you took offense (or something), and sorta dismissed my whole reply.
I think you're too lenient on socialism, and who the hell's using "buzzwords"? When I talk about socialism I'm thinking of all it's subtle effects in our society, and the particulars of why it doesn't work. I'm not indulging in "buzzwords." I think denying reality is pretty serious, and amounts to a lot more than a "drawback" when its aim is governing policy, especially policy that seeks greater government administration. It's a recipe for disaster is what it is.
Gooberman wrote:You can hate it, but if you don’t concede that we live and have been living in a society that is more hybrid then pure capitalism then you are not paying attention.
??! Of course it's a hybrid, and it's a hybrid moving
toward socialism
from our constitutional ideals!
Gooberman wrote:What I have come to learn over the years, which I know will light you up
...
That looks more like an
assumption that you've come to, to me. I would propose that, rather, the degree to which a philosophy or theory is good or bad, for the greater part, is the degree to which it is based on reality. If the goal of any theory is perfection, it will fail, plain and simple. This is an imperfect world, and you can see that all around us, but I'm speaking from a Biblical as well as a historical perspective. Capitalism won't make everything ideal, because
we are not ideal, but it does provide incentive for people to work hard, to be inventive, and subsequently to reap the benefits--
all of the benefits (of course we ought to pay what taxes are reasonable for the
benefit/necessity of government).
Gooberman wrote:Let’s look at Rush, he flunked out, was a disc jokey, he “got out” of the Vietnam war because of a football knee injury. Please tell me on what platform the man should be given credibility? I’ll answer it for you, simply because he makes good points from time to time.
People don't just happen upon "good points". It's not so simply abstract as you would make it. I don't think Rush Limbaugh is right all of the time, but he tends to be closer to reality in his philosophy than a lot of people. That's the platform on which
anyone of opinion should be given credibility.
Gooberman wrote:All I am saying, and all you should take away from this, Is that nothing should be rejected based on being associated with a buzzword.
Are you done ranting on me yet?
One should always be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath-water. Take my word for it, you don't need to tell
me that. It's a matter of accurately perceiving what is bath-water.
Gooberman wrote:As I said in another post, I tend to believe in the pendulum a lot more then liberalism. Being able to oscillate back and forth is what gives us stability.
I think that may be overly simplistic. I think if liberalism disappeared tomorrow the world would be better for it, but this country was not founded by people who thought everyone else should be like them (not a commentary on morality at all). We are a people of a diversity of interests, and if our government is anything but a contest between those diversities, in an attempt to find common-ground (only on the issues where it is governmentally necessary), then it is not working as it should. Morality, on the other hand, must obviously find the
high ground, not common ground.
Spidey wrote:And Thorne, I’m a conservative, and being “fair” is one of my principles. So if you are going to bailout the paper pushers, then you should bailout the rest. (I was against the entire thing, but hell….)
You sure you wanna ride that train? It won't truly be "fair" until every receives government "help". I'm not interested in destroying our nation's economic system just to be "fair".