U.S. Conservatives: Do you really want what you really want?

Post Reply New Topic

Currently I work as a Park Ranger; Entrance booth, collecting fees, checking park passes. Occasionally I'll get someone hotly arguing that they don't want to show ID with their park pass and why are we so strict with that, or hotly arguing that "I'm an American taxpayer, why do I have to pay to go into the park?!?"

To the first, I reply that it's the rule. It's how the pass works. America asked for more security. Additionally my park is a government facility and a juicy target for bad guys (dam), so we're even more concerned with security/looking out for suspicious behavior. To the second I reply that when a government entity gets too little taxpayer money the other logical way to make money is to charge users of that service; 'capitalism.'

With one exception I can think of, either of these explanations results in an explosive rant defending Republican issues that have little or nothing to do with the question they asked and usually ending with how much they hate Obama.

My question is this:

- Tighter security such as checking ID for everyone and their brother to screen for bad guys and illegals is indeed what you guys claim to want even more so than Democrats/Liberals, right?

- We-hate-paying-taxes/anti-wasteful-spending is also what you guys claim even more so than Democrats/Liberals, right? Isn't that what the Teabagging last month was all about?

- Why then are the people who complain about our tighter security and lack of taxpayer funding almost exclusively the very people who are most likely to want such things?

- Is it a matter of "I want the law applied to everyone except for me," or a lack of understanding of why checking ID with a pass that says we will be checking ID, especially when you don't want to show ID (Why? What are you hiding?), makes common sense?

- Is it a matter of "I hate taxpayer-funded-things-ooooh-socialism-socialism ... unless it's a thing I personally use in which case bring on the socialism," or is it a lack of understanding of how capitalism works? That it means you too will be paying for the service, just like you wished for?

- In other words, do these Republicans/Conservatives really think about what they're asking for and connect the dots regarding how it will affect them and their lives? Or are they just ranting and angry because I called them on their own ideals?

I don't think most people, Democrat or Republican, know what capitalism is.

There are a whole lot of republicans (maybe even most of them) don't like the post 9/11 security measures. As for the fees at the park, that's an issue of government waste. When people pay as much as 40% of their wages in taxes, they expect to get something tangible out of it, like free park admission.

It goes back with what i noticed, American society is on average behaving like some teenager who doesn't know what he wants, be a good guy? A tough guy? Or (who knows <.< ) an intellectual? The faster you guys can make up your minds the better ^^; .

I would agree that a lot of people, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, do not research the thing they're protesting for/against.

I just find it really curious that in this case it is almost exclusively Conservatives upset about a system which they in word so strongly advocate.

*Sorry - bad 'net connection. Double-post.*

Last edited by JoJerome on 24 May 2009, 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This I do find curious! On the one hand, the GOP tends to run on the platform of tougher-on-crime/we'll-find-the-bad-guys. I get chain mails from Conservative friends/family that say "If you have nothing to hide then why whine about a few lost civil liberties like wiretapping and airport security?"

But then those security measures are applied to said Conservative and suddenly they're all about civil liberties.

Bottom line: If someone is going to ask the government to get into everyone's business to make sure they aren't a terrorist or illegal, then that someone doesn't get to complain when the government gets into their business as well to make sure they aren't a terrorist or illegal. I know this sounds like overkill when we're talking about something as simple as entrance to a national park, but the same principle applies.



Which is it? If taxes paying for the park is government waste then I'd think one would be happy to learn we have way too little taxpayer funding. If on the other hand one expects that their taxes entitle you to free admission then that particular use of their tax money isn't wasteful.

Incidentally, it's a combination of the two with the Park Service. Paid fees provide maintenance - roads, toilets, docks, camping amenities, environmental upkeep. Tax funding provides things like administration, law enforcement and park guides. If we were to go socialism-sucks-we-want-all-capitalism, I imagine the fees would at least double if not triple.

I agree, because Obama is NOT A SOCIALIST YOU ret*d! God, you know how annoying it is to constantly hear about socialism?! IT IS NOT SOCIALISM! Socialism is europe, not america, America will most likely NEVER be socialist. And the things he wants, like affodable health care, are good ideas and just because your buisness would suffer because it is offer doesn't mean you can says its bad because it is "socialist!"

You're right, he's not a socialist...

...He's a fascist.

Okay, now that we've defined our terms - how exactly do you propose to count President Barack Obama as a "fascist"? (No, citing some radio blowhard doesn't count.)

(Honestly, definition 1 kind of puts me more in mind of Cheney's recent pronouncements, while taking it upon himself to tell us what a "real Republican" is...)

Last edited by DeaconBlues on 25 May 2009, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2213916.html#2213916

A conservative is a liberal that's just been mugged
a liberal is a conservative that's just been arrested..

I suppose there are a lot of people across the political spectrum who like having security when it's not applied to them. Personally I don't know any conservatives who stay informed and are old enough to know what they are talking about who support increased security.

I rescind.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt99698.html

You do know what the word means better than the ones using "Fascist" to mean "Anyone who I didn't vote for but won the election anyway and I'm mad about that."

I respectfully disagree and think it's way too strong a word to describe Obama, but at least you seem to have looked the word up in the dictionary and aren't afraid to support your claim with credible evidence. That I can respect.

Dang, you certainly ask a loaded question.

Okay, as you address points:

1. The ID requirement when showing a pass is the sad result of an increasingly dishonest society where someone will "borrow" the pass of someone who paid so they can visit the park independently. It's the same reason why many stores insist on ID in order to take a personal check. The dishonest people ruin it for the honest ones.

2. The requirement to "pay" to enter a public park does offend me on some level...after all, if the land belongs to the public, how can you charge someone to use that which is owned by the public, but I understand that running a park costs money, and the more "facilities" in a park...the more money that is needed to care for it. Admission fees help defray those costs.

3. As far as having to show ID to get into a place run by the government, (note that I didn't say "owned by the government") I think it is bogus unless the location is in immanent danger of a terrorist attack. You say your location is a dam, and you are correct that it is considered a lucrative target. If they wanted to do likewise for any federal location, I would have an issue over the "papers please" mentality that's catching on in the USA. A free man does not need papers to travel where he wishes.

4. Checking IDs to screen for bad guys/illegals is justifiable when someone wishes to enter the country. Once you are here, there is no lawful justification. I understand requiring an employer to document an employee's right to work in the US by either proving they were born here, are naturalized or have a work visa allowing them to work. IF THESE EXISTING STANDARDS WERE ENFORCED, little more would be necessary. We had no real problem with illegal immigration for many years, the problem increased by a deliberate loosening of the borders to let them flow in and to do little to root them out and send them home. Every nation in the world has immigration policy in place so that the provision of government services to their people remains manageable. Uncontrolled immigration only benefits a nation that is desperate for people to move there.

5. Yes...excessive taxation and wasteful spending not only robs money out of a man's pocket, it breaks down a nation.

6. Why does there seem to be a contradiction? It is because many people don't know jack s**t about how things work. I want low taxes...I accept that in order to have low taxes, I cannot expect the government to wipe my ass at every turn. I can live without local police, fire, EMS because I live out in the country where for all practical purposes, those services really don't exist. Hence, you learn to be more self-reliant. If you like getting all the extra services, the people who provide them must get paid somehow.

HOWEVER, you also need to know that Americans are taxed excessively in hundreds of way to pay for everything you get on a daily basis from government at the local, state and federal levels. The Income Tax does not pay a penny to anything you get. Most do not know that the annual federal budget is BORROWED from the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank) and the Income Tax is utilized in an effort to repay past years' borrowing. This is why it seems government knows no limit when it comes to spending....they have a blank check every year to work with. The problem is, the deeper in debt government gets, the larger a load future generations will have to repay (with interest). This is a recipe for economic disaster (as we are learning now). Much of the protesting over taxation is that government (both under Democrat and Republican leadership) have gone hog wild on spending, and they do so with a total lack of concern about how the people (who are the sovereign) feel about the matter. The bailout of Wall Street was done in spite of the fact that the people did not want to bail out banks. The bailout of Detroit's auto industry likewise was done with little regard for what the people in America wanted. This disregard by the government for what people want had reached a boiling point.

7. I agree that many people want something but don't truly contemplate what the "cost" is. I don't like having to show an ID to anyone. I am a sovereign man who owes no duty to produce government papers unless an agent of the state can articulate with sufficient probable cause that (s)he believes I may be up to no good. That bad guys could exploit that to do harm to other Americans is a fact I'm willing to accept as the "price" for not being treated as a slave who must bow the knee to the state on a moment's notice. Other people think that it's possible to have free and uninhibited travel while also screening out bad guys. That's not possible.

Likewise, I know taxes are needed to pay for many things I enjoy as an American, but I also know the government is wasteful in ways you'd lose sleep over if you knew how far it goes. I also know the government illegally pledges my future earnings and assets as collateral for a loan I never authorized the government to borrow on my behalf. I think that gives me the right to demand the government stop wasting and stealing MY money (it's never the government's money....it didn't work to earn it but I did). I have the right to demand government operate efficiently and to stop wasting the resources they steal out of every man's paycheck.

I hope that answers the issues you brought up.