The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Strong Men More Likely to Vote Conservative
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

SexMachine wrote:
Well done Tirib. And here's your bonus prize:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/...6&Itemid=28
Well thank you sir. I have never read Cicero's Commonwealth, but have grabbed the pdf from that very cool looking site that I have never heard of. Two new things in one night, a bonus prize indeed.

Looks like I beat Chris by only a few minutes so I'll share my prize with my dear brother.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

JEATON wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I do think that women have to raise an eyebrow over the Republicans wanting to do away with birth control . That had to do some REAL harm to the Republican candidate



It is idiocy such as this that has caused me to spend less and less time on this forum.

I guess I should thank you, sorta.


your welcome

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

florelius
Level

Join date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3134

So is Edmund Burke a libertarian/anarchist now? New spin on political-history for me atleast!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7528

Brother Chris wrote:
tonypluto wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Problem I have is the Republicans think because they are mean equates to Conservatism . The are just mean liberals :)Libertarians are true conservatives another bullshit point is Social conservatism equates to draconian regulations on normal behavior


If the article had said Strong men are more likely to vote Libertarian, I would have believed it. Although Libertarianism is Conservatism to its extreme, Conservatism means something entirely different today than when it was founded. I would say that Ron Paul was probably the only conservative Republican candidate.

If I were allowed to vote, I'd vote Libertarian.
If I were asked what I really wanted, Well that would be Pure Anarchy.


The conservative mind. Read it.


Great book.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24862

tonypluto wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Problem I have is the Republicans think because they are mean equates to Conservatism . The are just mean liberals :)Libertarians are true conservatives another bullshit point is Social conservatism equates to draconian regulations on normal behavior


If the article had said Strong men are more likely to vote Libertarian, I would have believed it. Although Libertarianism is Conservatism to its extreme


Not really, libertarians had more in common with the early socialists than with the conservatives of their day.

The split occurred of course when those socialists began to see liberty as a means to an end and discarded it when it was inconvenient.

In a way, to call social democrats "liberals" is not entirely unjustified, they once were part of the libertarian movement.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
tonypluto wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Problem I have is the Republicans think because they are mean equates to Conservatism . The are just mean liberals :)Libertarians are true conservatives another bullshit point is Social conservatism equates to draconian regulations on normal behavior


If the article had said Strong men are more likely to vote Libertarian, I would have believed it. Although Libertarianism is Conservatism to its extreme, Conservatism means something entirely different today than when it was founded. I would say that Ron Paul was probably the only conservative Republican candidate.

If I were allowed to vote, I'd vote Libertarian.
If I were asked what I really wanted, Well that would be Pure Anarchy.


You're 22 why can't you vote? Criminal justice problems?


And by the way most libertarians are young males. NOT ALL OF THEM, but most. And we both know why.


Just curious , what does his age have to do with it ?



I thought that was rather obvious. But just for you I'll explain. If someone cannot vote it's usually one of two things.

1. They are under the voting age

2. They have been found guilty of a felony

There are other reasons but those are the two major ones.

Therefore, I commented on his age, being 22 he is of legal age to vote. So there must me another reason.

Now don't say that I don't like you Pit after that detailed explanation.

Zeb

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

Tiribulus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Every democrat that captured the White House since JFK would have gone down to defeat had it not been for women. >>>
There was a yahoo article a few days ago asserting the women would give Obama his second term.



This is only April Trib. Six months is a lifetime in politics. It will swing back and forth a multitude of times before it's over. Anyone claiming that either man is a sure winner is either stupid, or a 20 year old politic science student on T Nation.
Indeed has I have said myself as well you know. Six months is an eternity. I was simply remarking along the lines of your comment about an article that agreed in principle. The female exit polling after the 92 election was pretty tough to take I have to say.



The female population was in love with Bill Clinton in 1992. Poor old George Bush (41) didn't have a chance against the dashing southern Governor.

But, no looks, speaking ability and shear charisma do not matter at all. It's issues that people focus on -- Ha ha...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

florelius wrote:
So is Edmund Burke a libertarian/anarchist now? New spin on political-history for me atleast!



Florelius my friend what happened to your avatar?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

squating_bear
Level 5

Join date: May 2011
Posts: 656

ZEB wrote:
florelius wrote:
So is Edmund Burke a libertarian/anarchist now? New spin on political-history for me atleast!



Florelius my friend what happened to your avatar?

It got bit by a zombie

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

florelius wrote:
So is Edmund Burke a libertarian/anarchist now? New spin on political-history for me atleast!


I don't think so.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
tonypluto wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Problem I have is the Republicans think because they are mean equates to Conservatism . The are just mean liberals :)Libertarians are true conservatives another bullshit point is Social conservatism equates to draconian regulations on normal behavior


If the article had said Strong men are more likely to vote Libertarian, I would have believed it. Although Libertarianism is Conservatism to its extreme, Conservatism means something entirely different today than when it was founded. I would say that Ron Paul was probably the only conservative Republican candidate.

If I were allowed to vote, I'd vote Libertarian.
If I were asked what I really wanted, Well that would be Pure Anarchy.


You're 22 why can't you vote? Criminal justice problems?


And by the way most libertarians are young males. NOT ALL OF THEM, but most. And we both know why.


Just curious , what does his age have to do with it ?



I thought that was rather obvious. But just for you I'll explain. If someone cannot vote it's usually one of two things.

1. They are under the voting age

2. They have been found guilty of a felony

There are other reasons but those are the two major ones.

Therefore, I commented on his age, being 22 he is of legal age to vote. So there must me another reason.

Now don't say that I don't like you Pit after that detailed explanation.

Zeb


You act as though he being 22 is an issue , There may me another issue maybe he is not American ?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
tonypluto wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Problem I have is the Republicans think because they are mean equates to Conservatism . The are just mean liberals :)Libertarians are true conservatives another bullshit point is Social conservatism equates to draconian regulations on normal behavior


If the article had said Strong men are more likely to vote Libertarian, I would have believed it. Although Libertarianism is Conservatism to its extreme, Conservatism means something entirely different today than when it was founded. I would say that Ron Paul was probably the only conservative Republican candidate.

If I were allowed to vote, I'd vote Libertarian.
If I were asked what I really wanted, Well that would be Pure Anarchy.


You're 22 why can't you vote? Criminal justice problems?


And by the way most libertarians are young males. NOT ALL OF THEM, but most. And we both know why.


Just curious , what does his age have to do with it ?



I thought that was rather obvious. But just for you I'll explain. If someone cannot vote it's usually one of two things.

1. They are under the voting age

2. They have been found guilty of a felony

There are other reasons but those are the two major ones.

Therefore, I commented on his age, being 22 he is of legal age to vote. So there must me another reason.

Now don't say that I don't like you Pit after that detailed explanation.

Zeb


You act as though he being 22 is an issue , There may me another issue maybe he is not American ?


I think he was saying being 22 is not the issue. That's why he said, "there must be another reason."

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pittbulll
Level 3

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 11049

Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
tonypluto wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Problem I have is the Republicans think because they are mean equates to Conservatism . The are just mean liberals :)Libertarians are true conservatives another bullshit point is Social conservatism equates to draconian regulations on normal behavior


If the article had said Strong men are more likely to vote Libertarian, I would have believed it. Although Libertarianism is Conservatism to its extreme, Conservatism means something entirely different today than when it was founded. I would say that Ron Paul was probably the only conservative Republican candidate.

If I were allowed to vote, I'd vote Libertarian.
If I were asked what I really wanted, Well that would be Pure Anarchy.


You're 22 why can't you vote? Criminal justice problems?


And by the way most libertarians are young males. NOT ALL OF THEM, but most. And we both know why.


Just curious , what does his age have to do with it ?



I thought that was rather obvious. But just for you I'll explain. If someone cannot vote it's usually one of two things.

1. They are under the voting age

2. They have been found guilty of a felony

There are other reasons but those are the two major ones.

Therefore, I commented on his age, being 22 he is of legal age to vote. So there must me another reason.

Now don't say that I don't like you Pit after that detailed explanation.

Zeb


You act as though he being 22 is an issue , There may me another issue maybe he is not American ?


I think he was saying being 22 is not the issue. That's why he said, "there must be another reason."


You may be right but I don't think so . I feel Zeb likes to discount an apposing opinion first on age then on the grounds of intellect .

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

pittbulll wrote:
You may be right but I don't think so . I feel Zeb likes to discount an apposing opinion first on age then on the grounds of intellect .


I think he was asking why the guy couldn't vote.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

florelius
Level

Join date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3134

ZEB wrote:
florelius wrote:
So is Edmund Burke a libertarian/anarchist now? New spin on political-history for me atleast!



Florelius my friend what happened to your avatar?


I was dumb enough to take a pic at a indian graveyard ;)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

florelius wrote:
ZEB wrote:
florelius wrote:
So is Edmund Burke a libertarian/anarchist now? New spin on political-history for me atleast!



Florelius my friend what happened to your avatar?


I was dumb enough to take a pic at a indian graveyard ;)



AHHHHHH...lol

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

I've always believed that libertarianism was the answer. Someone made a comment about the female "take care of me" attitude which is frighteningly accurate. I don't know many female libertarians but 90% of the men I know feel this way, especially my co-workers.

I believe my taxes should pay for:

1. Government employee salaries and their benefits (to include military)
2. Federal roads and buildings, things that everyone uses
3. Technological R&D, like awarding contracts for manufacturers to develop new shit
4. Wars, when necessary
5. Grants for education on a merit basis only

AND NOTHING ELSE. OK, maybe I left out a few small categories, but you see my point. None of this health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. All of it is nonsense. A social safety net only discourages greatness.

/rant

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BobParr
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1479

njrusmc wrote:
I've always believed that libertarianism was the answer. Someone made a comment about the female "take care of me" attitude which is frighteningly accurate. I don't know many female libertarians but 90% of the men I know feel this way, especially my co-workers.

I believe my taxes should pay for:

1. Government employee salaries and their benefits (to include military)
2. Federal roads and buildings, things that everyone uses
3. Technological R&D, like awarding contracts for manufacturers to develop new shit
4. Wars, when necessary
5. Grants for education on a merit basis only

AND NOTHING ELSE. OK, maybe I left out a few small categories, but you see my point. None of this health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. All of it is nonsense. A social safety net only discourages greatness.

/rant


Agreed, but with a caveat that manufacturers have plenty of financial incentive to develop new shit without the government throwing a bunch of money at them. If I could design, build, and market a car with the performance of a Ferrari and the economy of a Prius, I doubt I'd need a government grant to sell a few of them unless the price were too high. If that was the problem, then it's hardly the government's business to subsidize the cost so I can sell it at a reasonable price point. It's my problem to figure out how to balance the variables to keep the price to something the market will bear.

While the government funding new technology works in theory, in practice it often just turns into a way in which to reward political cronies with taxpayer money. (Or with money borrowed from China, nowadays.)

I would add that state/local governments (but not Federal) would have a few additional minor responsibilities. For example, if the parents taking care of a severely handicapped adult child passed away, and that person then needed some help with managing his life. If possible, however, he should still have some kind of job. I've seen some fairly severely mentally handicapped people working jobs like grocery store bagger and seeming to ENJOY their work. Unless you are a bedridden vegetable, chances are there is some kind of work you could be doing, at least for a few hours a week. To give you no opportunity to work at all is just wrong in my opinion.

One thing that is very often forgotten in today's society is that there is dignity in working for a living. No one is being helped when the government pays them to just stay home and rot in front in front of a TV for the rest of their lives. It robs people of their dignity. That's akin to psychological torture in my opinion -- the government telling you have absolutely nothing of any value to contribute to society, not now or in the future. I'd just as soon get waterboarded as be condemned to living out my life as a helpless dependent of the government.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

"One thing that is very often forgotten in today's society is that there is dignity in working for a living. No one is being helped when the government pays them to just stay home and rot in front in front of a TV for the rest of their lives. It robs people of their dignity."

Does it? Do people who waste away on unemployment actually have a sense of pride to begin with? The ones I know are perfectly content to suck on the societal tit until they die. Most people I know refuse to go on unemployment for the few months they are unemployed because they think it's bullshit. Like me.

I agree wholeheartedly with this point because I feel the same. But those who never broke a sweat at work might not see it that way.

PS - My comment about R&D was geared exactly towards subsidizing costs of a Ferrari with the efficiency of a Prius. Your example was excellent. Also, I agree with the tax credits for high efficiency washers, dryers, cars, etc. That was a smart idea.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

njrusmc wrote:

Does it? Do people who waste away on unemployment actually have a sense of pride to begin with? The ones I know are perfectly content to suck on the societal tit until they die. Most people I know refuse to go on unemployment for the few months they are unemployed because they think it's bullshit. Like me.


Well said, basic psychology 101 sums it up nicely. A behavior rewarded is often repeated. Therefore, paying someone to not work is a really bad idea. Granted I am not against temporary help to anyone who finds themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. However, that help would only be given (for say a 6 month period) if they showed up at a "work station" supplied by the state and did some sort of manual labor.

It would be amazing how quickly the unemployment rate would go down. This certainly would not be a total fix but a step in the proper direction.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

When I was 14-16 and couldn't find a job at the local burger joint or grocery store, I delivered pizza fliers at 4 cents a house, mowed lawns, shoveled driveways, etc. All the stuff high school boys are supposed to do. Who says a 30 year old man can't do that shit too while he's looking for a full-time employment?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

njrusmc wrote:
When I was 14-16 and couldn't find a job at the local burger joint or grocery store, I delivered pizza fliers at 4 cents a house, mowed lawns, shoveled driveways, etc. All the stuff high school boys are supposed to do. Who says a 30 year old man can't do that shit too while he's looking for a full-time employment?



Exactly! There is more dignity in working hard at low level jobs than collecting money that you didn't earn while sitting on your butt.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

Yes, but dignity is insignificant when you are getting paid to do nothing (for many). If dignity was significant, there wouldn't be people collecting unemployment and bragging about how much they get. $400 a week! That's MORE than minimum wage (10 bucks an hour assuming 40 hours a week) for doing no work. It should be $100 a week, enough to live in your friend's basement and eat Ramen noodles to survive.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

njrusmc wrote:
Yes, but dignity is insignificant when you are getting paid to do nothing (for many). If dignity was significant, there wouldn't be people collecting unemployment and bragging about how much they get. $400 a week! That's MORE than minimum wage (10 bucks an hour assuming 40 hours a week) for doing no work. It should be $100 a week, enough to live in your friend's basement and eat Ramen noodles to survive.



I am not for demeaning those who have been laid off. And the employer does pay into the system. So at least a surviving wage for 6 months or so providing that those 6 months are spent doing menial tasks for the state at least half the time. And the other half looking for work.

But the liberals would call this brutal and repressive.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

Yea. Go pick up cigarette butts and trash along the highways. Help prison inmates make license plates. That's what unemployment should be about (half the time)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report