Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Lame (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pudge (1) on 2003.08.01 11:46 (#22667) Homepage Journal
    That web site is really lame. It is full of straw men. "Hey, let's make up a definition that we say fits an entire movement, but doesn't really, and then show you how easy it is to defeat it!"

    I am a right-wing Republican. I am NOT in favor of handouts to corporations -- in fact, I am far less in favor of corporate favoritism than the Democrats in Washington are! -- and my interest in top-down economics is quite simply to provide for higher employment and wages in the long run.

    He says the reason we are against social spending is to make people more desperate; in fact, I am against *federal* social spending because it is *unconstitutional* (and more to the point, because I think the states and counties and cities are far better equipped at such things). I also think public retirement accounts like Social Security are wrongheaded, in large part because they *decrease* standards of living for people who depend on it, instead of saving on their own.

    More of the same from that retarded site. He states various views, some of which are widespread among Republicans and conservatives, some of which are not, and then goes on to say why they "really" have those views, which are a fabrication of his tiny little mind. I am for free trade, but not for exploitation, and not for NAFTA. I am against the minimum wage and unions, because I am for the freedom of management, not because I am against the prosperity of workers (I am also for the rights of workers to do as *they* please). And so and so on.

    The few facts he provides, like those about the unemployment rate, are so sopomorically evaluated as to be laughable. He compeltely ignores other reasons for unemployment figures being as they have been (for example, the fact that Reagan inherited the economy of the late 70s, or that Clinton inherited the tech economy). And he unreasonably links views of the 1940s to the present, saying "cheap-labor conservatives" were against improvements in "working conditions." Yeah, and Democrats were against integration. Times change, try to keep up.
    • He says the reason we are against social spending is to make people more desperate; in fact, I am against *federal* social spending because it is *unconstitutional*...

      I think that the federal gov't stuffs a lot of what it does into the commerce clause... and most of it would (or should, IMHO) be found to be unconstitutional *if*tested*.

      I do wonder tho, how this is *different* from other kinds of spending that are shoved down our throats via the commerce clause?

      I think the bigger issue (at least for

      • Yes, both parties abuse their power to spend and regulate, and both give favors to friends, etc. A lot of conservatives hate the Republicans in DC as a whole, because they are not willing to cut spending.
  • Warning: I've been called a right wing nut and a flaming liberal... by the same person!

    What's so wrong about being rich and privileged?

    I'm not sure he is (directly) attacking the wealthy... there are, after all, wealthy liberals. (And... I could be wrong ;-))

    I got the impression he was trying to imply that the "cheap-labor conservatives" (his term... not mine) prefer that people not be able to "better themselves." Standard classism...

    But then, I thought of education when he said "social program