Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Conservatives...

CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 8:34:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When, if ever, do you believe the government should offer aid or charity to those who may need it?

No arguments over existing policy, please.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 8:35:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not a conservative by the standard definition, but I was for a long time.

When I was, I believed in basic welfare programs and such, but I believed that they should be scaled back and "individualized".

So, I did believe in state programs for those who could not help themselves.

My views have changed radically since then, but that was how I felt when I was a conservative.
President of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 10:15:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 8:35:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm not a conservative by the standard definition, but I was for a long time.

When I was, I believed in basic welfare programs and such, but I believed that they should be scaled back and "individualized".

So, I did believe in state programs for those who could not help themselves.

My views have changed radically since then, but that was how I felt when I was a conservative.

Never.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2011 10:58:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Aid should "never" go to an able bodied person. Only the mentally ill and crippled require aid. Children of irresponsible parents should suffer the consequences of the parents poor life decisions so as to learn from it. If one is going to have pity for the children and then give money to the irresponsible to take care of the children, you get what we have today. If children are in danger they should be removed from the worthless parents. A parent who does not take care of the child's needs should rot in jail. Once you have children, what "you" want no longer matters until you have provided everything that child needs to have a chance in life.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 1:37:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 8:34:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
When, if ever, do you believe the government should offer aid or charity to those who may need it?

No arguments over existing policy, please.

Aid should be given for the following cases:

Disease - Disease is a negative externality since it can be spread. People should at least be treated so that they would not spread their disease.

Automatic stabilizer - The use of automatic stabilizers in the form of safety nets are necessary in order to prevent a downhill recession/deflationary spiral. For example, If more people are unemployed, this creates fear in consumers which reduces spending, causing unemployment and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 2:11:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
please read this speech by Davy Crockett called 'not yours to give' http://www.fee.org...
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 8:03:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 8:34:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
When, if ever, do you believe the government should offer aid or charity to those who may need it?

No arguments over existing policy, please.
To people who are willing to work, but cannot. If it can be guaranteed that they can be cured, then brought to work, then they should be helped.

To people who are seriously disabled and for a certain cannot work or be independent whatsoever. If their families or other near ones cannot support them at all, the government should.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 8:58:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 10:58:16 PM, sadolite wrote:
Aid should "never" go to an able bodied person. Only the mentally ill and crippled require aid. Children of irresponsible parents should suffer the consequences of the parents poor life decisions so as to learn from it. If one is going to have pity for the children and then give money to the irresponsible to take care of the children, you get what we have today. If children are in danger they should be removed from the worthless parents. A parent who does not take care of the child's needs should rot in jail. Once you have children, what "you" want no longer matters until you have provided everything that child needs to have a chance in life.

Sadolite, what if the situation is a single mom--dad left or died, and the mom can't work because she can't afford day care. Would this scenario make you rethink your position?

I agree that irresponsible parents shouldn't be given government aid, but there are going to be certain situations where government aid is needed to ensure that children can have an increased quality of life; thereby increasing the odds that they can rise above the situation the find themselves by no fault of their own.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 10:29:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 8:34:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
When, if ever, do you believe the government should offer aid or charity to those who may need it?

No arguments over existing policy, please.

Government doesn't offer charity, it offers social welfare.

charity is the voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.

Social Welfare is, governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need.

Contrary to what liberal tax dodgers believe, taxes are not volentary.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 10:35:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 10:41:37 PM, Royaltee wrote:
Government charity is an oxymoron.

Hmm, this is a fair point. The government redistributes wealth; it gives away other people's money.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:34:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 10:38:49 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Hungry people, people sleeping on park benches is very negative utility. Coercion is inherent in democracies.

who ever said the US was a democracy?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:44:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:34:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 10:38:49 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Hungry people, people sleeping on park benches is very negative utility. Coercion is inherent in democracies.

who ever said the US was a democracy?

A constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 12:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:44:15 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:34:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 10:38:49 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Hungry people, people sleeping on park benches is very negative utility. Coercion is inherent in democracies.

who ever said the US was a democracy?

A constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy.

No a Liberal democracy is a constitutional democracy.

The US is very undemocratic. The President is chosen by electors, the supreme court is appointed, and serves for life, and originally senators was chosen by the state government.

The key difference between a Democracy and a Republic, is that Democracies serves the majority, while Republics serve the entire community.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 12:25:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 12:14:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:44:15 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:34:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 10:38:49 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Hungry people, people sleeping on park benches is very negative utility. Coercion is inherent in democracies.

who ever said the US was a democracy?

A constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy.

No a Liberal democracy is a constitutional democracy.

The US is very undemocratic. The President is chosen by electors, the supreme court is appointed, and serves for life, and originally senators was chosen by the state government.

The key difference between a Democracy and a Republic, is that Democracies serves the majority, while Republics serve the entire community.

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy. What you seem to be arguing against is direct democracy which is never what I argued. Anyway:

Wikipedia: "A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as the France, Germany, India, Italy, or United States"

A blog post written by a professor explains it perfectly: "The United States was founded to be a small l liberal small d democracy. All small d democracy means is voting (i.e., consent of the governed). And small l liberal means certain rights are antecedent to majority rule. The Declaration of Independence is the quintessential "liberal democratic" document. The US Constitution established the United States as a constitutional republic. And a constitutional republic is simply a form of "liberal democracy."

http://americancreation.blogspot.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 1:08:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 12:25:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 12:14:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:44:15 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 11:34:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 10:38:49 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Hungry people, people sleeping on park benches is very negative utility. Coercion is inherent in democracies.

who ever said the US was a democracy?

A constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy.

No a Liberal democracy is a constitutional democracy.

The US is very undemocratic. The President is chosen by electors, the supreme court is appointed, and serves for life, and originally senators was chosen by the state government.

The key difference between a Democracy and a Republic, is that Democracies serves the majority, while Republics serve the entire community.

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy. What you seem to be arguing against is direct democracy which is never what I argued. Anyway:


No, a Direct Democracy is a direct vote. I never said anything about a direct Democracy.

Wikipedia: "A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as the France, Germany, India, Italy, or United States"

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you wan to quote wiki, cite the source listed on wiki. If wiki doesn't provide a source, than it's not reliable.

liberal democracy
A democracy in which majoritarian decisions (from direct or representative processes) prevail in many policy areas, subject to the restriction that those decisions may not breach individuals' liberties and rights, as spelled out in a constitution. Liberal democracy is based on the philosophy of classical liberalism, melded with the idea of popular sovereignty.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu...

representative democracy
Voters choose representatives to form the government and make decisions for them. This form of democracy is sometimes referred to as indirect democracy. A republic is a polity based on representative democracy.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu...

According to Aristotle there are 6 forms of Government, with 3 constitutions;

[One Ruler]
1.) Monarchy
2.) Tyranny
[A Few Rulers]
3.) Aristocracy
4.) Oligarchy
[Many Rulers]
5.) Polity
6.) Democracy

A Tyranny serves 1
A Oligarchy serves the minority
A Democracy serves the majority

A Monarchy serves the whole community
A Aristocracy serves the whole community
A Polity serves the whole community

http://plato.stanford.edu...

A blog post written by a professor explains it perfectly: "The United States was founded to be a small l liberal small d democracy. All small d democracy means is voting (i.e., consent of the governed). And small l liberal means certain rights are antecedent to majority rule. The Declaration of Independence is the quintessential "liberal democratic" document.
That professor needs a new professor, because obviously he didn't read the documents he is quoting.

US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In other words, we are a Federation of Constitutional Republics.

NH Constitution
Section 1 - Bill of Rights
Article 1 - Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.
All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

NH Constitution
Section 1 - Bill of Rights
Article 10 - Right to Revolution
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The US Constitution established the United States as a constitutional republic. And a constitutional republic is simply a form of "liberal democracy."

http://americancreation.blogspot.com...

A.) Blogs are not a reliable source
B.) The opening line shows belief bias.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 1:09:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 1:08:12 PM, DanT wrote:
That professor needs a new professor, because obviously he didn't read the documents he is quoting.

meant to say profession
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 1:21:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 1:09:52 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:08:12 PM, DanT wrote:
That professor needs a new professor, because obviously he didn't read the documents he is quoting.

meant to say profession

I'll debate this.

Your definitions are fine, send a challenge.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 3:31:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 8:58:49 AM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/27/2011 10:58:16 PM, sadolite wrote:
Aid should "never" go to an able bodied person. Only the mentally ill and crippled require aid. Children of irresponsible parents should suffer the consequences of the parents poor life decisions so as to learn from it. If one is going to have pity for the children and then give money to the irresponsible to take care of the children, you get what we have today. If children are in danger they should be removed from the worthless parents. A parent who does not take care of the child's needs should rot in jail. Once you have children, what "you" want no longer matters until you have provided everything that child needs to have a chance in life.

Sadolite, what if the situation is a single mom--dad left or died, and the mom can't work because she can't afford day care. Would this scenario make you rethink your position?

I agree that irresponsible parents shouldn't be given government aid, but there are going to be certain situations where government aid is needed to ensure that children can have an increased quality of life; thereby increasing the odds that they can rise above the situation the find themselves by no fault of their own.

If the parent can't take care of the child and do what ever is necessary to achieve that goal the child should be relocated with other relatives or an orphanage. I always ask the question, what would you do if the govt didn't give you any money? You would do what ever it takes. You would make decisions and choices you would not otherwise make. You would turn to your community you would turn to your neighbors you would turn to churches and synagogue any of these choices will have a better outcome than taking your neighbors money by force to prop you up.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 6:48:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 8:34:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
When, if ever, do you believe the government should offer aid or charity to those who may need it?:

Perhaps in rare instances, but I can't think of any off hand. There's no shortage of private charity, secondly government cannot offer "charity" it can only offer social programs (not the same thing).

As for foreign aid... Never... Ever... under no circumstances whatsoever.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 9:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 1:21:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:09:52 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:08:12 PM, DanT wrote:
That professor needs a new professor, because obviously he didn't read the documents he is quoting.

meant to say profession

I'll debate this.

Your definitions are fine, send a challenge.

I would but I know voters wold be bias. Also I hate it when people make me repeat myself, and during our last debate you made me repeat myself, by ignoring my argument. You also successfully made the established definitions, as well as the resolution, meaningless; I prefer the resolution and the definitions stay relevant.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 10:55:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 9:43:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:21:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:09:52 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:08:12 PM, DanT wrote:
That professor needs a new professor, because obviously he didn't read the documents he is quoting.

meant to say profession

I'll debate this.

Your definitions are fine, send a challenge.

I would but I know voters wold be bias.
That has become a default phenomena on debate.org.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:31:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 9:43:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:21:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:09:52 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:08:12 PM, DanT wrote:
That professor needs a new professor, because obviously he didn't read the documents he is quoting.

meant to say profession

I'll debate this.

Your definitions are fine, send a challenge.

I would but I know voters wold be bias. Also I hate it when people make me repeat myself, and during our last debate you made me repeat myself, by ignoring my argument. You also successfully made the established definitions, as well as the resolution, meaningless; I prefer the resolution and the definitions stay relevant.

Does this mean no more debates between us?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 11:55:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 11:31:18 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 9:43:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:21:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:09:52 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/28/2011 1:08:12 PM, DanT wrote:
That professor needs a new professor, because obviously he didn't read the documents he is quoting.

meant to say profession

I'll debate this.

Your definitions are fine, send a challenge.

I would but I know voters wold be bias. Also I hate it when people make me repeat myself, and during our last debate you made me repeat myself, by ignoring my argument. You also successfully made the established definitions, as well as the resolution, meaningless; I prefer the resolution and the definitions stay relevant.

Does this mean no more debates between us?

Depends on the debate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:32:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/27/2011 8:35:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm not a conservative by the standard definition, but I was for a long time.

When I was, I believed in basic welfare programs and such, but I believed that they should be scaled back and "individualized".

So, I did believe in state programs for those who could not help themselves.

My views have changed radically since then, but that was how I felt when I was a conservative.

I am conservative and am against welfare and social programs.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:57:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 12:32:27 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/27/2011 8:35:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm not a conservative by the standard definition, but I was for a long time.

When I was, I believed in basic welfare programs and such, but I believed that they should be scaled back and "individualized".

So, I did believe in state programs for those who could not help themselves.

My views have changed radically since then, but that was how I felt when I was a conservative.

I am conservative and am against welfare and social programs.

Are you against all welfare programs?

Being a "far-right radical" in the words of OmgJustinBieber, I oppose most social programs and I support very high reform. What I would do is:
1. Eliminate all social programs for the unemployed
2. Eliminate all job training and housing social programs.
3. Strengthen social programs to the disabled by 300-400%.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."