The same liberals who bitch and moan about the coming of the patriot act, facist, right wing police state... (depicted in such recent liberal propaganda films such as V for Vendetta, Children Of Men etc, depicting a future right wing oppressive dystopia facist state)...are the VERY same liberals who preach for MORE government regulations, BIGGER government, MORE government control of the economy, the killing of the free market, social engineering, the removal of firearms in private ownership and basically just more government in our lives in general. I guess its only considered an oppresive police state to a liberal only if it is a right wing facist one and not an oppressive communist/socialist facist one (ie Cuba, North Korea, China). Am I the only one who sees the blatant hypocrisy in this method of thinking.

3/31/2007 9:30:06 AM

Well, liberals in the modern sense don't oppose big government nor do conservatives. They simply oppose big government which does not represent their values.

Which is probably why an increasing number of americans self identify as economically conservative and socially liberal.

3/31/2007 9:36:52 AM

you just kinda proved my point. they dont mind a big government when it reflects their ideas, no matter if its just as oppressive as a facist one. and for the record, true old school conservatives like myself still very much believe in a small small central government

[Edited on March 31, 2007 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

3/31/2007 9:39:43 AM

^

Excpet that you seemed to be suggesting there is hypocrisy - Liberals don't claim to be against big government they just claim to be against big conservative government. So where is the hypocrisy?

3/31/2007 9:55:12 AM

i'm a left leaning moderate but i tend to agree with repub on this one

the left is the side that argues for more regulation and government oversight. the problem though is that the reason they do so is because the free market tends to become corrupt without it. the control of the economy is a bi-partisan thing, it's not so much control though as it is monitoring and adjusting at times to keep it from diving. i'm not sure what you mean by the social engineering because the right is the side full of the religious nuts who want to convert everyone, that sounds like social engineering to me. you're right about the removal of firearms.

3/31/2007 9:57:03 AM

Quote :

"old school conservatives like myself still very much believe in a small small central government"

Funny how you guys always seem to vote for the kind of conservatives who SAY they don't want big government then create the largest increases in government spending in history. Hypocrisy by proxy is still hypocrisy.

3/31/2007 9:57:28 AM

Quote :

"Funny how you guys always seem to vote for the kind of conservatives who SAY they don't want big government then create the largest increases in government spending in history."

That's not hypocrisy on the part of conservatives. That's just politicians saying what people want to hear so that they can get elected.

3/31/2007 10:00:10 AM

well i can only speak for myself, but i never voted for bush and i hardly consider bush a true conservative.

3/31/2007 10:00:53 AM

Quote :

"That's not hypocrisy on the part of conservatives. That's just politicians saying what people want to hear so that they can get elected"

and considering that that is the trend with politics, it still amazes us that people vote for these clowns

3/31/2007 10:03:45 AM

Quote :

"Well, liberals in the modern sense don't oppose big government nor do conservatives. They simply oppose big government which does not represent their values."

Two sides - same coin.

3/31/2007 10:04:08 AM

i think that was the point.

3/31/2007 10:11:43 AM

Most of the "liberals" here aren't the big gov. type, they lean independent. And many of the Democrats are the same way (not your Hillary or Pelosi types, but I think Dean was this way).

3/31/2007 12:35:56 PM

Quote :

"liberal propaganda films such as V for Vendetta, Children Of Men etc"

Good fucking lord, theyre movies not campaign ads. Everything has to be a political move first and entertaining theater second with you people.

3/31/2007 1:39:07 PM

Hmm, V for Vendetta was anti-fascism, why would a conservative object to the destruction of a centrally planned country?

3/31/2007 1:52:32 PM

3/31/2007 3:10:02 PM

facist --> fascist

3/31/2007 11:16:35 PM

best soapbox post ever.

4/1/2007 12:18:25 AM

why casue its true

4/1/2007 12:32:07 AM

Republican18, do you not see the difference between social liberty and laissez-faire economics?

Nearly all your examples of so-called hypocrisy involve the freedoms of business. I think I speak for liberals as a whole when I say that we're willing to limit the freedoms of business if it means increasing the well-being of individuals.

As for "the killing of the free market" and "the removal of firearms in private ownership": omg strawman!

4/1/2007 12:34:18 AM

omg no its not

4/1/2007 12:35:49 AM

You heard it here first, folks

The liberals want to destroy capitalism and repeal the 2nd Amendment

(Actually, it's been said a million times by a million dipshits who have no clue what liberals want )

4/1/2007 12:39:26 AM

Quote :

"I guess its only considered an oppresive police state to a liberal only if it is a right wing facist one and not an oppressive communist/socialist facist one (ie Cuba, North Korea, China)."

lol

4/1/2007 12:41:29 AM

oh, and while we're at it, I was curious about this one:

A Fundamental Conservative Hypocrisy:

Conservatives claim that government is ineffective and messes up all it touches.

Yet these same people seek to involve government in religion and morality; the two issues which government has proven itself completely unable to control every time it's tried.

At the same time, they dismiss the notion that government involvement could possibly help the economy, despite the fact that the economy is the only area where government's been shown to work well.

4/1/2007 12:51:31 AM

i will agree on the first part but not the second

4/1/2007 12:59:20 AM

ill agree youre a dipshit

4/1/2007 1:04:35 AM

clever

4/1/2007 1:12:47 AM

I don't really agree that V for Vendetta and Children of Men are propaganda films. I mean, I'm as conservative as they come, but if you really believe those movies are liberal, then you entirely missed the point. If anything, V for Vendetta specifically, they stand for exactly what conservatives stand for, which is a government that fears its people.

4/1/2007 3:27:58 AM

lol

4/1/2007 9:56:00 AM

Quote :

"despite the fact that the economy is the only area where government's been shown to work well."

Perhaps you could regale us with a few examples of gov't working well with the economy?

Great Depression? Federal Reserve? Inflation? Wage & Price controls?

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

4/1/2007 10:42:10 AM

I think we should let Walmart make and regulate our currency.

4/1/2007 11:50:09 AM

Quote :

"Great Depression? Federal Reserve? Inflation? Wage & Price controls?"

The great depression was caused by a lack of governmental control. The Federal Reserve has prevented future depressions. Inflation is going to happen no matter what, it is about controling the inflation so people don't get screwed.

4/1/2007 11:51:27 AM

I can't think of a single industry....from automakers to healthcare, defense and agriculture that hasn't profited or just survived without government subsidy. This irrational belief that the free market solves all our problems negates the fact that the free market causes most of the problems as well. I'm not saying communism is good by any means, but if allowed to devolve into a truly market driven system.... there would be violent revolution in a matter of weeks, if not days.

4/1/2007 12:11:09 PM

holy shit you have an interesting definition of "profited"

hmm... lets see, american auto companies doing fabulous - check
health care doing fabulous - check

4/1/2007 12:19:05 PM

so wait, its hypocricy when Republican18 doesnt understand actual liberal positions?

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 12:27 PM. Reason : and history. wow. that last line of the opening post is amazing.]

4/1/2007 12:26:37 PM

Quote :

"The great depression was caused by a lack of governmental control."

Compared to The Great Depression, no other recession in American history had ever been so bad. Even complete collapses, where the American currency became worthless, were over within a few years. Never before had a recession drug on for so long. Therefore, something was different about 1930, something that supplanted a natural recovery with a string of further crises.

We know what caused the great depression. The Great Depression was caused by four things: WW1 discredited the gold standard, the Federal Reserve created a currency bubble which it could not counter, the elimination of international trade through tariff wars, and Government interference in goods markets through price controls and the NRA.

This graphic alone added a year to the Depression.

I'm sorry nutsmackr and Scuba Steve, you are right that free markets suffer recessions. But a recession has never blossomed into a depression without Government help.

4/1/2007 12:28:42 PM

ahahahahhahahahahahha

4/1/2007 12:29:52 PM

^^did you forget about the depression of 1873?

and I like how you blamed a war that had been over for 10 years for the depression.

Nevermind the high speculation and lack of institutional controls over the economy. It's all about the evil gubment causing the depression, when it was that same evil gubment through spending brought us out of the depression

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ..]

4/1/2007 12:46:06 PM

Yes, the depression of 1873 was considered the worst in history... until the 1930s.

For in the U.S., the panic of 1873 heralded a five year recession, which culminated in an economic boom until finally recessing again in 1893.

As for WW1, yes, it bears blame. During the war the hard gold standard was abandoned by most western nations, only to be restored in a far less rigid system, more akin to a soft gold standard. From then on it was only a matter of events until the system collapsed, events which finally occurred in 1932.

4/1/2007 1:02:56 PM

blame the gubment

4/1/2007 1:06:52 PM

Quote :

"depicted in such recent liberal propaganda films such as V for Vendetta, Children Of Men etc, depicting a future right wing oppressive dystopia facist state"

The fact that you even say retarded shit like this makes it hard to take you seriously. You sound like one of those people who see everything through some political filter that separates the population into liberals and conservatives. Like if I were to mention taking a trip to Boston, the first thing out of your mouth would be something about liberals in Massachusetts instead of something a normal person might think of, like say, interesting landmarks in Boston.

4/1/2007 2:18:18 PM

Quote :

"Great Depression? Federal Reserve? Inflation? Wage & Price controls?"

Are you seriously arguing that the Federal Reserve is a failure of government?

Quote :

"Compared to The Great Depression, no other recession in American history had ever been so bad. Even complete collapses, where the American currency became worthless, were over within a few years. Never before had a recession drug on for so long. Therefore, something was different about 1930, something that supplanted a natural recovery with a string of further crises. "

I think we are pretty settled that a continual collapse of the money supply created the Great Depression. The maintinance of the gold standard didn't help matters either. In the absence of intervention by the FED there is no particular reason to think this can't wouldn't happen again.

4/1/2007 2:38:30 PM

Quote :

"The liberals want to destroy capitalism and repeal the 2nd Amendment"

seems about right to me

4/1/2007 3:04:17 PM

Quote :

"blame the gubment"

Only when the gubment is responsible.

For example, since the early 1980s, the Federal Reserve has done a reasonable job. It has managed to contain itself from causing currency bubbles and has actually fulfilled its stated goal of maintaining liquidity in times of stress. 1987, 1991, 2001, in all these cases the Federal Reserved restored liquidity and rescued the system from a minor panic.

That the Federal Reserve has been beneficial since the 1980s does not change the fact that it was a huge detriment in the decades following its initial inception. It balooned the money supply in the 1920s, guaranteeing that whenever a recession hit the quantity of money (still tied to gold) would not match the quantity expected (evident by wages and prices which had grown far in excess of the gold supply). In other words, much of the inflation from the 1920s would need to be undone through deflation once borrowing from the Fed. Res. was halted by economic conditions. And deflation on such a scale could be counted upon to shut most banks, as it did.

So, using hindsight we had two options:
A) not create the federal reserve in 1913 and after WW1 restore the rules for a hard gold standard. A recession would have still taken place around 1930, but as in 1907 a banking crisis would have been averted by putting a halt to deposits and using checks instead of cash for most transactions. The recession would only last a year or two as the money supply, fixed to gold, would not have fallen.
B) Create the Federal Reserve, float the U.S. Dollar, and halt convertibility into gold. Also, the Federal Reserve would need to be instituted more in line with its post depression self than its 1913 self. In 1913 it was unable to make loans to non-member banks, a major drawback as in times of stress it is often non-member banks that need the help most. A recession would still take place around 1930, but as in 2001 the falling money supply would be replaced with fresh liquidity from Federal Reserve loans to needy institutions.

And in both cases we should not raise tariffs, we should not attempt to institute wage and price controls, and we damn sure should not attempt to squash competition from agricultural and goods markets. I personally prefer option B, I like our modern Federal Reserve, but I recognize that what was created in 1913 was not what we have today: it was ignorant, poorly planned, inept, incapable, destabilizing, and prone to excess, as was evidenced by the Great Depression, a time of rampant illiquidity. Yet people somehow find it odd that I would place blame for a systemic lack of liquidity on the institution whose job is to maintain liquidity?

4/1/2007 4:28:00 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously arguing that the Federal Reserve is a failure of government? "

That is exactly what I'm arguing.

If you saved one dollar in 1800, it would pretty much still purchase the same amount of goods in 1900. But after 1913, the year of the Fed's creation, the dollar has lost over 90% of its spending power. Today, to achieve the same purchasing power of $100 in 1913, you would need over $2000.

The gov't switched in 1913 to a banking system that allowed unlimited creation of money. This expansion of money will probably continue unabated. Inflation can be slowed, but our fiat system will eventually fail.

4/1/2007 11:01:02 PM

And if we had the gold standard still in place, something that cost $100 back in 1995 would cost $200 today.

http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/monthly_graphs.plx

and if we compare 1913 today, the price of something costing $100 would be 2151


at least the current system is truely market driven. the value of the dollar is based purely on individuals being reserve notes which is based on the strength of the economy. The gold standard could easily be fucked up by a new gold fine, or someone hording all the gold.

and please, provide information about you price comparisons between 1913 and today.

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 11:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/1/2007 11:10:49 PM

hoarding is market driving. monopolies are the creations of "free" markets.

4/1/2007 11:12:57 PM

Quote :

"And if we had the gold standard still in place, "

I didn't say anything about the gold standard. I'm talking about the gov't power to continuously create money out of nothing and inflate the monetary supply.

If it would just stop doing that, the value of the dollar would stop sliding.

Quote :

"monopolies are the creations of "free" markets."

Show me any true monopoly that wasn't sanctioned, or created by gov't intervention.

4/1/2007 11:45:39 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say anything about the gold standard. I'm talking about the gov't power to continuously create money out of nothing and inflate the monetary supply. If it would just stop doing that, the value of the dollar would stop sliding. "

the value of the dollar is based upon reserve notes bought by individuals and countries. The increase in money supply is meant to keep up with the rate of inflation (which is natural). Too much inflation or deflation is economically dangerous. It only makes sense taht the government should be given the ability to create money since the value of the money is based upon the economic stability of the government and nation. If we had your system then the value of the dollar would be able to go from being worth shit one day to worth a lot the next and back to worth shit the day after that.

4/2/2007 12:58:06 AM

Quote :

"hoarding is market driving. monopolies are the creations of "free" markets."

Hoarding is a feature, not a bug. It allows for the efficient allocation of scarce resources over time. Specifically, if oil is really becoming scarce then hoarding will make sure oil is available for our children to use, if they want it that is.

A free market "monopoly" has never actually occured if you accept product substitution as a form of competition. For example, the only historical example of a long lived free market monopoly was Alcoa, the sole American manufacturer of aluminum. At the time, however, it was ruled not a monopoly because it faced stiff competition from steel, wood, and concrete manufacturers.

4/2/2007 1:17:11 AM

Quote :

"The increase in money supply is meant to keep up with the rate of inflation "

Beg to differ... but the increase in money supply is THE CAUSE of inflation.

4/2/2007 10:23:13 AM