Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

March On Washington

mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 9:01:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://912dc.org...

What do you think?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 1:05:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What do you think?
It's fùcking retarded.
Can't fix a broken system with the same broken system.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 2:05:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No, it's a less broken system.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:28:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think its going to be an utter fail.

I'm not necessarily anti-Tea Party, but I just don't think this will accomplish anything. Besides, the entire movement has been hijacked by the Republicans and the right - in order for this to be an effective movement with a real cause and not just some political mask for the Opposition, you'll need broad-based political support - and the Tea Parties simply aren't that.

So yeah; utter fail.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:19:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:28:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Besides, the entire movement has been hijacked by the Republicans and the right
The WHOLE POINT of the tea parties, I thought, was to say screw you to tax collectors. That presumably excludes everyone but Republicans and the tiny libertarian minority.

- in order for this to be an effective movement with a real cause and not just some political mask for the Opposition
The Opposition is a political opposition. It's not a "mask." It is a means of expressing protest, not a disguise of anything.

you'll need broad-based political support
Then it wouldn't have a "Real cause," as there would be nothing to protest about if the base is that broad-- anything a base that broad agrees on is already policy no?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:36:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:28:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The WHOLE POINT of the tea parties, I thought, was to say screw you to tax collectors. That presumably excludes everyone but Republicans and the tiny libertarian minority.

I'm not so sure it was the entire point; there was a lot of progressives and liberals that also showed up to these events, protesting the costs of these programs and any perceived tax hikes that could be imposed. But, this was at the beginning when it was a movement separate from any political party.

The Opposition is a political opposition. It's not a "mask." It is a means of expressing protest, not a disguise of anything.

I disagree. This is a protest, but it wasn't started by the Republicans and actually wasn't intended to support the Republicans specifically; instead, the GOP did come in and take over the movement, even though it still claims (as far as I know) not to be. The Tea Parties are a "mask" for a Republican push for political support now.

Then it wouldn't have a "Real cause," as there would be nothing to protest about if the base is that broad-- anything a base that broad agrees on is already policy no?

Not necessarily; a lot of people don't believe tax hikes and wasteful spending are good things, whether they're left or right. The idea is that while there is "policy" from the Obama administration that states they won't raise taxes for most and will make spending less wasteful, people don't believe it because they haven't seen concrete actions towards it - especially with the stimulus spending and the confusion surrounding how the health care plan will be paid for.

So, it was originally started as a broad-based movement intended to protest against the government's actions, or lack of it, on those policy issues; but as I said, it has now become a simple channel for the Republican Party.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 5:54:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:36:39 PM, Volkov wrote:
So, it was originally started as a broad-based movement intended to protest against the government's actions, or lack of it, on those policy issues; but as I said, it has now become a simple channel for the Republican Party.

Well, Republicans (and Liberitarians, plus some other random political minorities) are generally the only ones protesting a Democrat-run government. You don't see many Democrats protesting their own control, do you?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 5:57:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/14/2009 5:54:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, Republicans (and Liberitarians, plus some other random political minorities) are generally the only ones protesting a Democrat-run government. You don't see many Democrats protesting their own control, do you?

Again; the idea is to protest government policies that people disagree with, coming from either party in power - you've seen Republicans fight against Republican policies, so why can't Democrats fight against some Democratic policies?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 8:31:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:36:39 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:28:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The WHOLE POINT of the tea parties, I thought, was to say screw you to tax collectors. That presumably excludes everyone but Republicans and the tiny libertarian minority.

I'm not so sure it was the entire point; there was a lot of progressives and liberals that also showed up to these events, protesting the costs of these programs and any perceived tax hikes that could be imposed. But, this was at the beginning when it was a movement separate from any political party.
...
And then they realized the contradiction.


The Opposition is a political opposition. It's not a "mask." It is a means of expressing protest, not a disguise of anything.

I disagree. This is a protest, but it wasn't started by the Republicans and actually wasn't intended to support the Republicans specifically; instead, the GOP did come in and take over the movement, even though it still claims (as far as I know) not to be. The Tea Parties are a "mask" for a Republican push for political support now.
Where are these claims?


Then it wouldn't have a "Real cause," as there would be nothing to protest about if the base is that broad-- anything a base that broad agrees on is already policy no?

Not necessarily; a lot of people don't believe tax hikes and wasteful spending are good things, whether they're left or right.
The ones on the left are called "people who want to have their cake and eat it too."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 6:49:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nothing to do with me but as a casual observer this seems to be an alliance of disaffected rich people who would rather see disadvantaged members of society suffer rather than pay tax.

http://www.ntu.org...
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 1:59:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/14/2009 8:31:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
...
And then they realized the contradiction.

Despite what you believe, ideology is not black and white; it is gray, and very gray at that. Even though there is a contradiction on paper, there is no contradiction in the minds of individuals; some support lower taxation but more public programs. Some support protectionism but wish to liberalize some aspects of trade. It goes on and on - contradiction is really just a human trait. We want our cake and we want to eat it as well. So I no problems with these contradictions.

Where are these claims?

The Tea Parties were/are against the stimulus bills and high taxation - whether it was from Obama's administration or Bush's. Obama is the one that put it into overdrive though - http://www.usatoday.com...

Many Republican members of Congress and Senate latched on to this movement, including Newt Gingrinch and etc. - Ron Paul might have been the one that originally thought up the general idea of this, mind you, but I don't believe he necessarily started anything.

But, again, the general idea is to be against this spending - something the Republicans endorsed before, but are now apparently deadly against. These movements never started with their blessing, or even their help - the resentment probably started breeding under the Bush administration in the first place.

The ones on the left are called "people who want to have their cake and eat it too."

Welcome to reality - humans are a contradictory species. We're not perfect and we're not really that smart; besides, homogeneous ideology without any inherent contradictions and f*ck-ups is boring.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 2:03:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 6:49:37 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Nothing to do with me but as a casual observer this seems to be an alliance of disaffected rich people who would rather see disadvantaged members of society suffer rather than pay tax.

http://www.ntu.org...

That's why you're a "casual" observer and not an educated observer. Anyone who protests taxes to you is rich. The socialist mentality is quite sad and at the same time quite laughable.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 2:11:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 6:49:37 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Nothing to do with me but as a casual observer this seems to be an alliance of disaffected rich people who would rather see disadvantaged members of society suffer rather than pay tax.

http://www.ntu.org...

Eh; I suppose that it depends on why they're disadvantaged. If they have the ability to work, and choose not to, let them suffer.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 5:09:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 1:59:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/14/2009 8:31:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
...
And then they realized the contradiction.

Despite what you believe, ideology is not black and white; it is gray, and very gray at that.
Speak for yourself brother ;).

Even though there is a contradiction on paper, there is no contradiction in the minds of individuals
"On paper," is an idiom referring to what a reasonable mind would work out. They only fail to spot the contradiction because they are not being reasonable.

some support lower taxation but more public programs.
And you DON'T see the contradiction?

contradiction is really just a human trait.
Again, speak for yourself brother.


Where are these claims?

The Tea Parties were/are against the stimulus bills and high taxation - whether it was from Obama's administration or Bush's. Obama is the one that put it into overdrive though - http://www.usatoday.com...
The fact that Bush enacted a program doesn't make it consistent with conservatism you know, nor make it's lack consistent with modern liberalism. It just makes him less consistent than the average conservative.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 5:17:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 5:09:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"On paper," is an idiom referring to what a reasonable mind would work out. They only fail to spot the contradiction because they are not being reasonable.

No human is completely reasonable. It would be extremely odd to find a human that is completely reasonable.

And you DON'T see the contradiction?

I do, which is why I stated it.

Again, speak for yourself brother.

I learned that during a lesson on Shakespeare actually; the reason why so many of Shakespeare's plays were believable was because he injected those vital human characteristics of imperfection, contradictory and completely unreasonable thought into his characters.

The fact that Bush enacted a program doesn't make it consistent with conservatism you know, nor make it's lack consistent with modern liberalism. It just makes him less consistent than the average conservative.

You're missing the point; I know it does not make it consistent with conservatism, liberalism or a lot of things. But the fact that he enacted those programs pissed off a lot of individuals from either party and generalized ideology.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 5:22:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 5:17:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/15/2009 5:09:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"On paper," is an idiom referring to what a reasonable mind would work out. They only fail to spot the contradiction because they are not being reasonable.

No human is completely reasonable. It would be extremely odd to find a human that is completely reasonable.
And.... *drumroll, please* Speak for yourself brother :).

You're missing the point; I know it does not make it consistent with conservatism, liberalism or a lot of things. But the fact that he enacted those programs pissed off a lot of individuals from either party and generalized ideology.
Perhaps. Yet doesn't only being consistent with one of the ideologies-- mean it's not really "hijacking" in the sense of ideas to make the people who are completely contradicting themselves uncomfortable?

I mean, you don't expect a football stadium to cater to those who came to see basketball just because they don't realize that basketball's rules cannot be followed at the same time football's are. You expect them to play football, and those who came to see basketball not buy any more tickets there, and to go to the nearest basketball arena (e.g., the nearest place where you AREN'T protesting the taxes that are necessitated by the very programs you advocate.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 5:29:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 5:22:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And.... *drumroll, please* Speak for yourself brother :).

And I've ignored every time you've done that for the simple reason that I don't have to speak for myself, especially given that I wouldn't want individuals to be completely reasonable, almost blank, either.

I mean, you don't expect a football stadium to cater to those who came to see basketball just because they don't realize that basketball's rules cannot be followed at the same time football's are. You expect them to play football, and those who came to see basketball not buy any more tickets there, and to go to the nearest basketball arena (e.g., the nearest place where you AREN'T protesting the taxes that are necessitated by the very programs you advocate.)

This assumes that people don't like a game of football either; there are some people that only like basketball and won't come back to the stadium, but there are many more that enjoy football and will come back to the stadium when they want to see a game of football.

The same idea goes for these protests; you're assuming that people are either pro-program or anti-tax. Some are like that, but most aren't, and they believe that you can strike enough of a balance between lowered taxes and efficient spending on programs to make most happy.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 5:29:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
The same idea goes for these protests; you're assuming that people are either pro-program or anti-tax. Some are like that, but most aren't

THAT'S RIGHT, R_R, I'M AGAINST BOTH >(
How could you forget about me? );
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 9:06:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 5:29:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/15/2009 5:22:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And.... *drumroll, please* Speak for yourself brother :).

And I've ignored every time you've done that for the simple reason that I don't have to speak for myself, especially given that I wouldn't want individuals to be completely reasonable, almost blank, either.
So on what grounds do you speak for the whole of humanity?


I mean, you don't expect a football stadium to cater to those who came to see basketball just because they don't realize that basketball's rules cannot be followed at the same time football's are. You expect them to play football, and those who came to see basketball not buy any more tickets there, and to go to the nearest basketball arena (e.g., the nearest place where you AREN'T protesting the taxes that are necessitated by the very programs you advocate.)

This assumes that people don't like a game of football either
These are people who paid specifically for basketball, not football. :)

there are some people that only like basketball and won't come back to the stadium, but there are many more that enjoy football and will come back to the stadium when they want to see a game of football.
My analogy is imperfect, but it doesn't apply to the original. It does not make even prima facie sense to like tax-funded programs and dislike taxes without proposing an alternative funding mechanism.


The same idea goes for these protests; you're assuming that people are either pro-program or anti-tax.
No, I'm declaring that anyone who is both pro-program and anti-tax is flapping their arms to get into space and shouldn't be surprised when the anti-tax movement doesn't pay much attention to their kookiness.

and they believe that you can strike enough of a balance between lowered taxes and efficient spending on programs to make most happy.
Tea parties are not about "balance." A tea party evokes an image from a violent revolution.It indicates one claims affinity with a group that shot people for collecting taxes that by today's standards would be a complete pittance. You couldn't fund a single major welfare program if you spent the proceeds from any taxes lower than that mark exclusively on it.

THAT'S RIGHT, R_R, I'M AGAINST BOTH >(
You're against being anti-tax?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2009 9:13:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/15/2009 9:06:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
THAT'S RIGHT, R_R, I'M AGAINST BOTH >(
You're against being anti-tax?

Oh f*ck I misread.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2009 12:25:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/17/2009 10:39:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like the March on Rome.

Now who are the Fascists :)?

I agree. Martin Luther King was a blatant fascist. Good point panda.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 5:57:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/17/2009 12:25:00 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/17/2009 10:39:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like the March on Rome.

Now who are the Fascists :)?

I agree. Martin Luther King was a blatant fascist. Good point panda.

If MLK was a fascist, he was the most pathetic fascist I've ever heard of.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2009 9:36:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/18/2009 5:57:21 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/17/2009 12:25:00 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/17/2009 10:39:46 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like the March on Rome.

Now who are the Fascists :)?

I agree. Martin Luther King was a blatant fascist. Good point panda.

If MLK was a fascist, he was the most pathetic fascist I've ever heard of.

Martin Luther King was not part of any real political party as such. And he was fighting for a change in the law, not change of government. So analogy fail.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.