| Graeme S | 11-06-2012 07:41 PM |
Nates, I'm kind of disappointed you're leaving the thread, as it'd be nice to have someone of an opposition view to the generally liberal crowd (compared to most Americans, that is) that Revscene presents.
It seems from your original post that you believe America and Europe are both suffering from the same condition--this is a supposition that I really can't support in any way shape or form. Generally speaking, Europe has had a history of extreme socialistic leanings--high levels of social support for the unemployed, high pensions for government employees and private sector retirees, and some very very high personal and sales tax rates.
Contrary to this, America has a comparatively minimal social support network, no federal sales tax, and relatively low personal taxes as well. They do, however, have a very large land mass and the infrastructure required to service it all is pretty insane.
There are some facets of Romney's plan which I don't entirely oppose, and in principle I can support; the same to a greater extent can be said of Obama's plans. The biggest reason I oppose Romney however, is because of his insistence that government does its best work when out of everyone else's way. The Auto bailouts which were done with Federal money were opposed by Romney. He supported the Auto Bailouts, but he said it should have been done with private money. Well, at the time, private money was fucked up the ass and didn't want to make any investments of that scale. So had the Feds not intervened, the industry would have collapsed. He believes that many things that are done at the Federal level should be done at the State level--including disaster relief. Well, when you have a small flood, sure, that sounds good. But when multiple states have their infrastructures all fucked to hell by a superstorm, you don't need them all fighting over resources--you need a Grand Master to help you plan.
Above and beyond that, I find it mildly disturbing that in order to win the nomination he went EXTREMELY hardcore socially conservative, and sometimes even had to out-conserve the religious right if only to prove that he was one of them despite being a Mormon. But then he turns around and says he supports abortion in some cases. That he won't repeal the ability of women to get birth control. This Romnesia he suffers from--this Mytt-ology that he's a centrist's conservative.
It's one of the things that philosophically bothers me about many conservatives and a lot of Republicans. Remember the things they said or did that you agree with, and forget the rest.
Now, moving on to your education/testing/euthanasia/what-have-you, I will admit there are times I don't disagree. While in principle I support a meritocracy (a place in which you must prove yourself in order to be part of running it), I most definitely don't support a meritocracy based solely on education. Saying "You're wrong because you don't agree with me and that means you shouldn't get to decide" simply makes your own argument seem weaker--you attack the people who disagree rather than the argument, which only goes to prove that your argument is purely emotional and not intellectual.
I sincerely hope you haven't unsubscribed to this thread and will bring your fully-thought-out opinion to the forefront of this debate. | 