Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tea party and American Politic's

vivalayeo
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 4:58:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well American politic's, on the outside, confuse me. I don't profess to have read into any detail on it, but I get the general jist of who's who and what's happening. Now I would describe myself as center-right in the UK, but is everyone on the Right in America, an idiot? I was on youtube and I found these video's, and not one person seem's to be able to give a coherent response, which lead's me to believe, that 90% of the people at that rally use Fox News as their main media outlet, am I right?
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 5:31:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes, they are painfully stupid. It's a great tragedy in every sense of the word. We insist on harming each other and justifying it based on the fact that that someone else is harming us. Republicans take this to the extreme, and Democrats try to employ a more compassionate version of this... competitiveness. We are slaves to our own greed and fear, and Tea Partiers exemplify this state of mind. They cling to their flags... What do you see while they cling to these icons of Americanism? They are firstly and foremostly clinging to them because they are frantically insisting that THEIR way is the true American way; the way it should be and has always been. It's like an 8 year old clinging to a toy he or she wants to play with, and crying when it's taken away. They are also, to a lesser extent in this setting, exercising pride in the face of non-Americans. They think, in their own minds, that they are proud of "America" but they are not proud of all of us Americans. They are apathetic especially to non-Americans but when their perspective changes, they will carry this attitude over to people of different "faiths" or anyone else they don't deem as important to them at the moment.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 7:53:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think if you use Youtube as a basis of judging the US then you will remain confused. However if you read some of the conservative voices like George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, etc. you might find more coherent thought. You might disagree with them, but they articulate current conservative American thought today. I'm fairly confident that if you were to take a video camera to any public park in the world and asked people to describe the political principles that they ascribe, you will have some similar responses to those you post.

The elitist position that the liberals of the US have adopted is working against them, and will continue to work against them.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 1:12:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.

Rob, read American history, you sound EXACTLY like a Tory during the time of the tea party.

You think that every person that is conservative or republican is immoral because you are comfortable characterizing them that way. They are racist (lazy argument), stupid, uninformed etc. Most have some very simple desired goals, like a reduction in the size and scope of government, a reduction in the out of control spending, career politicians and their coat holders need to go, states rights need to be respected, taxes shouldn't be oppressive.

"THESE PEOPLE" used to be what comprised the democratic party. "THESE PEOPLE" are typically working class individuals that don't have trust funds, and are just trying to make a living. There was a time when "THESE PEOPLE" would have been democrats, but now the democratic party has become elitist intellectuals, theorists, and those who are dependent on that party.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 3:34:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.

Just look at all these intelligent people trying to protect their environment! Your side isn't the brightest.
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.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 4:32:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 1:12:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.

Rob, read American history, you sound EXACTLY like a Tory during the time of the tea party.

Sure, I'll just... Read American history and get back to you.

You think that every person that is conservative or republican is immoral because you are comfortable characterizing them that way.

Conservatives have well-defined principles; it is not subjective. I can give you reasoning on every one of those principles as to EXACTLY why it is immoral.

They are racist (lazy argument), stupid, uninformed etc.

Racist? Not necessarily, however a racist is definitely going to find refuge amongst the Reps as opposed to the Dems. Stupid? Not really, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are very smart but still end up promoting BS. Yes, we could find uninformed liberals as well... In my eyes, conservatives aren't "stupid" per se, they are just conditioned to believe in immorality. Liberals are conditioned as well, which is why they try to answer conservative immorality with ineffectual patches. Conservatives are IMMORAL is what I would stand behind. I would luuuuuuuuuv to argue this point with you as I have made it practically my mainstay on DDO.

Most have some very simple desired goals, like a reduction in the size and scope of government,

Totally false. Why don't they flock to the pro-drug movement then? They CLAIM they want smaller government but this is absolutely not the case. They want government nice and fat just like the liberals.

a reduction in the out of control spending,

Again, only when they think it is in their best interests. They don't give a sh11 AT ALL about spending; none of those Tea Partiers. $50 B a year on the drug war? Fine. $X hundreds of B in Iraq? Now don't go telling me the Tea Partiers are a bunch of war-denouncers. You have a very narrowly-focussed perception of "spending" and you only see the spending as wrong when its being spent on something you don't like. Furthermore, they have no philisophical qualms with "spending," they just want it to be the private sector that does the spending. There is nothing honorable about this. "Private" is just a label for a group of institutions that aren't public. There is little philisophical difference between these two entities from the perspective of a working-class citizen.

career politicians and their coat holders need to go, states rights need to be respected, taxes shouldn't be oppressive.

This is all BS. Career politicians are on both sides of the aisle, and connecting conservatives or Tea Partiers with non-career politicians is senseless rhetoric.

States rights? Yeah I'm sure if states want to pass liberal policies they are gonna flip like pancakes on that one. Again, the drug war is a perfect example. I don't see Tea Partiers suggesting states ought to be able to decide their own drug laws. Furthermore, there is little philisophical difference between a "state" and a "country." The word nation is interchangeable with the word state. The Tea Partiers merely think their interests would currently best be served by the states simply because national laws are troubling them at the moment.

Taxes being oppressive is subjective. Who's being oppressed by taxes? Not I! I am poor, so I get taxed very little. Tea Partiers want a simple shift of power from the public sector to the private sector, which is frankly even more imperialistic and dictatorial than the public sector is. You are just swallowing the status-quo assumptions that private sector=freedom, American flags, liberty, and justice. I get told what to do, when to do it, and what to wear while I'm doing it a LOT more by the private sector than I do by the public sector. Tea Partiers are NOT for freedom, NOT for justice, and NOT for America as a whole unless "America" is defined in pretty strict arbitrary terms.

"THESE PEOPLE" used to be what comprised the democratic party. "THESE PEOPLE" are typically working class individuals that don't have trust funds, and are just trying to make a living. There was a time when "THESE PEOPLE" would have been democrats, but now the democratic party has become elitist intellectuals, theorists, and those who are dependent on that party.

Intellectuals and theorists? As opposed to what, exactly? Is there something wrong with being educated? is there something wrong with a scientific framework that has stood the test of time and is reproducable consistently using the scientific method? And this "elitist" crap is just Rush Limbaugh BS. Your elites are Pelosi and Reid, and my elitists are Limbaugh and Hannity. Choose your poison, and choose your perspective because this is highly subjective.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 4:48:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 3:34:01 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com... tch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Just look at all these intelligent people trying to protect their environment! Your side isn't the brightest.

These people are at least smart enough to want a change for a cleaner environment, which is more than I can say for the conservatives. They are being tricked. So what? The scientific community has built-in failsafes for trickery, by way of peer-reviewed research. You are implying that scientists are tricking the people much as these conservatives are doing, because you'll say or do anything to try and relieve the scientific community of its authority. You'd rather have Christian Republicans making scientific decisions because they make the ones that you agree with. That's the real joke, not some person walking around trying to coerce others... And I'm sure she used much stronger language with them when they inevitably asked what the dangers were with this chemical. You see mongoose, on TV, ever since "the Real World" came out, producers are always striving to coerce the audience into thinking everything is REAL that they see on camera. The fact is that the vast majority of reality TV is staged and is just supposed to look like its real; they know full well that if they were to just sit around and wait for something actual to happen that it would not get any ratings. So how are we supposed to know what this woman was telling these people before she actually cut the film? In both the liberal and conservative films we have the possibility of editting and acting, so neither one should be usable as evidence.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 4:54:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 4:48:28 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/1/2010 3:34:01 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com... tch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Just look at all these intelligent people trying to protect their environment! Your side isn't the brightest.

These people are at least smart enough to want a change for a cleaner environment, which is more than I can say for the conservatives. They are being tricked. So what? The scientific community has built-in failsafes for trickery, by way of peer-reviewed research. You are implying that scientists are tricking the people much as these conservatives are doing, because you'll say or do anything to try and relieve the scientific community of its authority. You'd rather have Christian Republicans making scientific decisions because they make the ones that you agree with. That's the real joke, not some person walking around trying to coerce others... And I'm sure she used much stronger language with them when they inevitably asked what the dangers were with this chemical. You see mongoose, on TV, ever since "the Real World" came out, producers are always striving to coerce the audience into thinking everything is REAL that they see on camera. The fact is that the vast majority of reality TV is staged and is just supposed to look like its real; they know full well that if they were to just sit around and wait for something actual to happen that it would not get any ratings. So how are we supposed to know what this woman was telling these people before she actually cut the film? In both the liberal and conservative films we have the possibility of editting and acting, so neither one should be usable as evidence.

It seems to me you're saying that because both sides now have what only you had previously, it now doesn't mean anything. So you are saying that the video that you posted has no value? If you look at my video, you can tell that the people's reactions are pretty consistant with the statements said, especially the last part. At least conservatives are smart because we want FREEDOM. Hey look, words put together in a similar format! That's unrefutable! You're trying to stereotype conservatives, and you're doing a terrible job.
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.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 4:57:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 4:32:15 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Furthermore, they have no philisophical qualms with "spending," they just want it to be the private sector that does the spending. There is nothing honorable about this. "Private" is just a label for a group of institutions that aren't public. There is little philisophical difference between these two entities from the perspective of a working-class citizen.

Public means that it takes your money and spends it. Private means that other people are paying for it. Is that not a difference? The working-class citizen doesn't have to fund private spending.
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.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 8:17:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 4:54:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/1/2010 4:48:28 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/1/2010 3:34:01 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com... tch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Just look at all these intelligent people trying to protect their environment! Your side isn't the brightest.

These people are at least smart enough to want a change for a cleaner environment, which is more than I can say for the conservatives. They are being tricked. So what? The scientific community has built-in failsafes for trickery, by way of peer-reviewed research. You are implying that scientists are tricking the people much as these conservatives are doing, because you'll say or do anything to try and relieve the scientific community of its authority. You'd rather have Christian Republicans making scientific decisions because they make the ones that you agree with. That's the real joke, not some person walking around trying to coerce others... And I'm sure she used much stronger language with them when they inevitably asked what the dangers were with this chemical. You see mongoose, on TV, ever since "the Real World" came out, producers are always striving to coerce the audience into thinking everything is REAL that they see on camera. The fact is that the vast majority of reality TV is staged and is just supposed to look like its real; they know full well that if they were to just sit around and wait for something actual to happen that it would not get any ratings. So how are we supposed to know what this woman was telling these people before she actually cut the film? In both the liberal and conservative films we have the possibility of editting and acting, so neither one should be usable as evidence.

It seems to me you're saying that because both sides now have what only you had previously, it now doesn't mean anything. So you are saying that the video that you posted has no value? If you look at my video, you can tell that the people's reactions are pretty consistant with the statements said, especially the last part. At least conservatives are smart because we want FREEDOM. Hey look, words put together in a similar format! That's unrefutable! You're trying to stereotype conservatives, and you're doing a terrible job.

OK I made a mistake and I will admit it. Both of these videos obviously lack citational muster, and by going along with the first one I pretty much set myself up for the fall. Yes, your assertion that they don't "mean anything" now is correct.

With that said, I do believe there still is a valid distinction here, even if it is a minor one. My criticisms of conservative principles stand independent of the video, while your point of "environmentalists are stupid because they were duped into believing dihydrogen monoxide was a real pollutant and signed the form" is NOT independently relevent. You now need to introduce brand-new reasoning to back up the point that envronmentalists are wackos, while I can retain my previous argument that conservatives are immoral based simply on my criticisms of their well-established principles.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 8:41:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 4:57:21 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/1/2010 4:32:15 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Furthermore, they have no philisophical qualms with "spending," they just want it to be the private sector that does the spending. There is nothing honorable about this. "Private" is just a label for a group of institutions that aren't public. There is little philisophical difference between these two entities from the perspective of a working-class citizen.

Public means that it takes your money and spends it. Private means that other people are paying for it. Is that not a difference? The working-class citizen doesn't have to fund private spending.

I don't concur. I believe there is a disconnect between the true worth of labor and what it is "sold" for on the market. I'm not good with economics and I don't have well-established reason as to why, but I have a good idea that it has to do with wage disparity and profits. On the micro scale it is hard to get a hold of, but on the macro scale the effects are obvious. The top 1% of the population makes 20x the average worker's wages, and the top .1% of the population makes 70x the average wage. This is unworkable. If there was a private sector fix to gross income disparity I would be listening (like it matters if I am :P), but the private sector is profit-driven and rewards greed while punishing charity (the measly amount that is bragged about in commercials notwithstanding) The abliity to save wealth in the form of currency seems to be exacerbating the situation. My best idea is that we need a system that is cooperatively based, and I don't see how currency could be used in it. Again, the devil is in the details and I have none, but realize I am not talking about socialism or communism. I don't want "elitist liberals" planning our economy any more than you do, and I have grown to despise the idea of authority more and more as time passes.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2010 8:57:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 8:41:07 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I don't concur. I believe there is a disconnect between the true worth of labor and what it is "sold" for on the market.

Yes! It is this disparity that is the cause of the vast majority of socio-economic woes.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 4:29:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 8:17:13 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/1/2010 4:54:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/1/2010 4:48:28 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/1/2010 3:34:01 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 9/1/2010 12:58:55 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I'm sure there are more articulate conservatives out there, which I still won't agree with, but they derive their power from THESE PEOPLE in this democracy. These people and their vicious ideologies are what drives Republicans at the polls. I'm not as concerned about what some obscure, highly-articulate conservative has to say as much as I am concerned about what the every-day person bases their values on. Quite simply, Americans don't know right from wrong in some very basic ways. I'm sure in a couple of thousand years we will eventually take hold of morality as a people, but it is still painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com... tch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Just look at all these intelligent people trying to protect their environment! Your side isn't the brightest.

These people are at least smart enough to want a change for a cleaner environment, which is more than I can say for the conservatives. They are being tricked. So what? The scientific community has built-in failsafes for trickery, by way of peer-reviewed research. You are implying that scientists are tricking the people much as these conservatives are doing, because you'll say or do anything to try and relieve the scientific community of its authority. You'd rather have Christian Republicans making scientific decisions because they make the ones that you agree with. That's the real joke, not some person walking around trying to coerce others... And I'm sure she used much stronger language with them when they inevitably asked what the dangers were with this chemical. You see mongoose, on TV, ever since "the Real World" came out, producers are always striving to coerce the audience into thinking everything is REAL that they see on camera. The fact is that the vast majority of reality TV is staged and is just supposed to look like its real; they know full well that if they were to just sit around and wait for something actual to happen that it would not get any ratings. So how are we supposed to know what this woman was telling these people before she actually cut the film? In both the liberal and conservative films we have the possibility of editting and acting, so neither one should be usable as evidence.

It seems to me you're saying that because both sides now have what only you had previously, it now doesn't mean anything. So you are saying that the video that you posted has no value? If you look at my video, you can tell that the people's reactions are pretty consistant with the statements said, especially the last part. At least conservatives are smart because we want FREEDOM. Hey look, words put together in a similar format! That's unrefutable! You're trying to stereotype conservatives, and you're doing a terrible job.

OK I made a mistake and I will admit it. Both of these videos obviously lack citational muster, and by going along with the first one I pretty much set myself up for the fall. Yes, your assertion that they don't "mean anything" now is correct.

With that said, I do believe there still is a valid distinction here, even if it is a minor one. My criticisms of conservative principles stand independent of the video, while your point of "environmentalists are stupid because they were duped into believing dihydrogen monoxide was a real pollutant and signed the form" is NOT independently relevent. You now need to introduce brand-new reasoning to back up the point that envronmentalists are wackos, while I can retain my previous argument that conservatives are immoral based simply on my criticisms of their well-established principles.

The thing about environmentalists in this case is that fact that they don't even ask questions before being against anything. How much do they really know about whatever else they're protesting? Probably just about nothing. These are people who will follow anybody into banning whatever it is greedy, evil corporations use.
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 6:50:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/1/2010 4:32:15 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/1/2010 1:12:55 PM, innomen wrote:

Rob, read American history, you sound EXACTLY like a Tory during the time of the tea party.

Sure, I'll just... Read American history and get back to you.
Good

You think that every person that is conservative or republican is immoral because you are comfortable characterizing them that way.

Conservatives have well-defined principles; it is not subjective. I can give you reasoning on every one of those principles as to EXACTLY why it is immoral.
I don't think you need to; all is fairly evident.

They are racist (lazy argument), stupid, uninformed etc.

Racist? Not necessarily, however a racist is definitely going to find refuge amongst the Reps as opposed to the Dems. Stupid? Not really, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are very smart but still end up promoting BS. Yes, we could find uninformed liberals as well... In my eyes, conservatives aren't "stupid" per se, they are just conditioned to believe in immorality. Liberals are conditioned as well, which is why they try to answer conservative immorality with ineffectual patches. Conservatives are IMMORAL is what I would stand behind. I would luuuuuuuuuv to argue this point with you as I have made it practically my mainstay on DDO.

You never debated me on the restaurant issue, so i won't hold my breath. Liberals are conditioned to believe that they hold a moral high ground and are thus better than their opposition. It's total bull of course.

Most have some very simple desired goals, like a reduction in the size and scope of government,

Totally false. Why don't they flock to the pro-drug movement then? They CLAIM they want smaller government but this is absolutely not the case. They want government nice and fat just like the liberals.
More bull. Most libertarians who are against the criminalization of drug use opt for the republican party over the democrat party because they recognize the philosophical path toward that is less government involvement in one's personal life, more individual liberty. Although liberals say this, they don't actually practice this. The liberty that the liberals would provide would be at the grant of it's government rather than a lack of government.

a reduction in the out of control spending,

Again, only when they think it is in their best interests. They don't give a sh11 AT ALL about spending; none of those Tea Partiers. $50 B a year on the drug war? Fine. $X hundreds of B in Iraq? Now don't go telling me the Tea Partiers are a bunch of war-denouncers. You have a very narrowly-focussed perception of "spending" and you only see the spending as wrong when its being spent on something you don't like. Furthermore, they have no philisophical qualms with "spending," they just want it to be the private sector that does the spending. There is nothing honorable about this. "Private" is just a label for a group of institutions that aren't public. There is little philisophical difference between these two entities from the perspective of a working-class citizen.

More bull, at every turn when Bush was spending money there were conservatives complaining about this. I easily see conservatives being far more critical of their leaders than liberals of theirs. Of this i know - i live in Massachusetts.

This is because conservatives understand that government spending means larger government, larger tax burdens, and liberals are okay with both of those facts.

career politicians and their coat holders need to go, states rights need to be respected, taxes shouldn't be oppressive.

This is all BS. Career politicians are on both sides of the aisle, and connecting conservatives or Tea Partiers with non-career politicians is senseless rhetoric.
So you don' think that Tea Party people tend to work for non incumbents? - You're nuts.

States rights? Yeah I'm sure if states want to pass liberal policies they are gonna flip like pancakes on that one. Again, the drug war is a perfect example. I don't see Tea Partiers suggesting states ought to be able to decide their own drug laws. Furthermore, there is little philisophical difference between a "state" and a "country." The word nation is interchangeable with the word state.

Most people don't live in a "philosophical" world, more of your elitism coming out, but live in the practical realities of our political system where the dynamics of federalism exists. I would be so sure of your statement of laws on drugs that are both managed and legislated at the state level.

Taxes being oppressive is subjective. Who's being oppressed by taxes? Not I! I am poor, so I get taxed very little. Tea Partiers want a simple shift of power from the public sector to the private sector, which is frankly even more imperialistic and dictatorial than the public sector is. You are just swallowing the status-quo assumptions that private sector=freedom, American flags, liberty, and justice. I get told what to do, when to do it, and what to wear while I'm doing it a LOT more by the private sector than I do by the public sector. Tea Partiers are NOT for freedom, NOT for justice, and NOT for America as a whole unless "America" is defined in pretty strict arbitrary terms.
Rob, everything in this discussion is subjective, and what is considered oppressive to you is something that i cannot even imagine. Here is a major disconnect that Democrats/liberals don't get, or at least agree with. Oppressive taxation is not only a burden but, an infringement on the freedom of the people. Your good for the society comes at the expense of the good of the individual, and this is one of the major disagreements. Again, you opt for equality where your opponents opt for freedom (they are not often compatible - if ever). You wish to allocate resources to create a more equal society at the expense of a more free society.

"THESE PEOPLE" used to be what comprised the democratic party. "THESE PEOPLE" are typically working class individuals that don't have trust funds, and are just trying to make a living. There was a time when "THESE PEOPLE" would have been democrats, but now the democratic party has become elitist intellectuals, theorists, and those who are dependent on that party.

Intellectuals and theorists? As opposed to what, exactly? Is there something wrong with being educated? is there something wrong with a scientific framework that has stood the test of time and is reproducable consistently using the scientific method? And this "elitist" crap is just Rush Limbaugh BS. Your elites are Pelosi and Reid, and my elitists are Limbaugh and Hannity. Choose your poison, and choose your perspective because this is highly subjective.

Intellectuals and theorists have no understanding of the practical application of their theories, hence the tragic failures of Marxism. What are you talking about that your theories have stood the test of time? Which society are you basing this on? You are very wrong in the elitist mentality that the liberals have adopted in their characterization of those who disagree with this. I have watched this since Reagan then on to Dan Quayle down the line to George Bush characterizing them as stupid. It's an old motif that the liberals have used to always characterized their opponents as stupid. Those who follow them are rednecks. They fall outside the noble minded poor, because they vote republican. To be honest i find the democratic party immoral. 1. It is in the best interest for the democrats to have a large base of poor to vote for them. 2. It is in the nature of every political party, leader or candidate to increase their power. Put those two things together and you will have a result that is immoral.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 8:58:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here, Have a Democratic congressman explain his position :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2010 10:43:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 4:29:21 AM, mongoose wrote:
The thing about environmentalists in this case is that fact that they don't even ask questions before being against anything. How much do they really know about whatever else they're protesting? Probably just about nothing. These are people who will follow anybody into banning whatever it is greedy, evil corporations use.

Pretty much. I'd like to consider myself an environmentalist, but the vast majority are so stupid about it I'm embarrassed to associate myself with the title.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 2:06:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 10:43:46 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:
At 9/2/2010 4:29:21 AM, mongoose wrote:
The thing about environmentalists in this case is that fact that they don't even ask questions before being against anything. How much do they really know about whatever else they're protesting? Probably just about nothing. These are people who will follow anybody into banning whatever it is greedy, evil corporations use.

Pretty much. I'd like to consider myself an environmentalist, but the vast majority are so stupid about it I'm embarrassed to associate myself with the title.

Conservationist is better - that's how i term myself.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 9:54:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The thing about environmentalists in this case is that fact that they don't even ask questions before being against anything. How much do they really know about whatever else they're protesting? Probably just about nothing. These are people who will follow anybody into banning whatever it is greedy, evil corporations use.

Again, we don't know what that dumb box told those people off camera before they signed; I think we have established that both videos are irrelevant. If environmentalists are so quick to believe these types of things, then it is only because a complete lack of faith in the government to protect them is the cause. Indeed, there is much to lose faith in.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 10:06:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 9:54:58 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
The thing about environmentalists in this case is that fact that they don't even ask questions before being against anything. How much do they really know about whatever else they're protesting? Probably just about nothing. These are people who will follow anybody into banning whatever it is greedy, evil corporations use.

Again, we don't know what that dumb box told those people off camera before they signed; I think we have established that both videos are irrelevant. If environmentalists are so quick to believe these types of things, then it is only because a complete lack of faith in the government to protect them is the cause. Indeed, there is much to lose faith in.

It is a flawed premise that you should have faith in government (to say the least).
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 10:06:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 9:54:58 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Again, we don't know what that dumb box told those people off camera before they signed; I think we have established that both videos are irrelevant. If environmentalists are so quick to believe these types of things, then it is only because a complete lack of faith in the government to protect them is the cause. Indeed, there is much to lose faith in.

From my experience people really are that bad, not just environmentalists. I use a similar ploy on prohibitionists (with my own personal touch), and most people are perfectly content to ban water. Even after going as far as saying you have a 100% chance of going into dehydration shock if you don't have a steady supply, people still don't catch on. Once they go into "ban evil" mode, there is no reasoning with them.

The sad part is when they say I'm being unfair by misleading them. They honestly do not see the parallel.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 10:12:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/2/2010 6:50:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/1/2010 4:32:15 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/1/2010 1:12:55 PM, innomen wrote:

Rob, read American history, you sound EXACTLY like a Tory during the time of the tea party.

Sure, I'll just... Read American history and get back to you.
Good

I'm kidding. You'll have to spoon-feed what you want me to know.

You think that every person that is conservative or republican is immoral because you are comfortable characterizing them that way.

Conservatives have well-defined principles; it is not subjective. I can give you reasoning on every one of those principles as to EXACTLY why it is immoral.
I don't think you need to; all is fairly evident.

Good, we are in agreement then.

They are racist (lazy argument), stupid, uninformed etc.

Racist? Not necessarily, however a racist is definitely going to find refuge amongst the Reps as opposed to the Dems. Stupid? Not really, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are very smart but still end up promoting BS. Yes, we could find uninformed liberals as well... In my eyes, conservatives aren't "stupid" per se, they are just conditioned to believe in immorality. Liberals are conditioned as well, which is why they try to answer conservative immorality with ineffectual patches. Conservatives are IMMORAL is what I would stand behind. I would luuuuuuuuuv to argue this point with you as I have made it practically my mainstay on DDO.

You never debated me on the restaurant issue, so i won't hold my breath. Liberals are conditioned to believe that they hold a moral high ground and are thus better than their opposition. It's total bull of course.

Restaurant... Ah yes, I typed up an 8,000 character debate and then lost it because DDO had me re-login and I got pissed off and never re-did it. My apologies... Do I not put myself out there enough in these forums for you to get ahold of what you need from me anyhow?

As far as moral high-ground, they probably see the immorality in conservative politics and seek to reverse it.

Most have some very simple desired goals, like a reduction in the size and scope of government,

Totally false. Why don't they flock to the pro-drug movement then? They CLAIM they want smaller government but this is absolutely not the case. They want government nice and fat just like the liberals.
More bull. Most libertarians who are against the criminalization of drug use opt for the republican party over the democrat party because they recognize the philosophical path toward that is less government involvement in one's personal life, more individual liberty. Although liberals say this, they don't actually practice this. The liberty that the liberals would provide would be at the grant of it's government rather than a lack of government.

You're not making the point here for "less government involvement in one's personal life" at all. Why are conservatives for government intervention in the womb, in scientific research... Why are they alright with pigs busting in my door and stripping me down of my human rights because I want to smoke a joint when I'm done with work? Why are they for telling me who exactly I can have sex with or marry? Quit regurgitating the talking points and start addressing the issues Innoman.

a reduction in the out of control spending,

Again, only when they think it is in their best interests. They don't give a sh11 AT ALL about spending; none of those Tea Partiers. $50 B a year on the drug war? Fine. $X hundreds of B in Iraq? Now don't go telling me the Tea Partiers are a bunch of war-denouncers. You have a very narrowly-focussed perception of "spending" and you only see the spending as wrong when its being spent on something you don't like. Furthermore, they have no philisophical qualms with "spending," they just want it to be the private sector that does the spending. There is nothing honorable about this. "Private" is just a label for a group of institutions that aren't public. There is little philisophical difference between these two entities from the perspective of a working-class citizen.

More bull, at every turn when Bush was spending money there were conservatives complaining about this. I easily see conservatives being far more critical of their leaders than liberals of theirs. Of this i know - i live in Massachusetts.

This sounds like Mitt Romney talking, not an intellectual debater who wants to break down the issues. Have you ever considered a career in politics Innoman?

This is because conservatives understand that government spending means larger government, larger tax burdens, and liberals are okay with both of those facts.

Liberals are OK with it only to achieve a balance of power; you think that we can let the private sector grow into this huge monster with 18 heads and the public sector is just going to shrink into a meek warrior armed with a nerf-gun? Liberals are seeking to check the power of the private sector which is self-interested completely and is destroying our environment, our civil liberties, and our economy. What's the difference between the government spending money on a project and a business spending money on a project? What is the fundamental goal here? To give power back to the people? Or to simply concentrate it in the hands of private interests instead of public?

career politicians and their coat holders need to go, states rights need to be respected, taxes shouldn't be oppressive.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 10:34:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
career politicians and their coat holders need to go, states rights need to be respected, taxes shouldn't be oppressive.

This is all BS. Career politicians are on both sides of the aisle, and connecting conservatives or Tea Partiers with non-career politicians is senseless rhetoric.
So you don' think that Tea Party people tend to work for non incumbents? - You're nuts.

Oh yes they are the "pure" race of unadulterated politicians. So what happens when a Tea-Party candidate serves his term? The Tea Party votes him out of office? LOL... I don't see what the meat of your argument is here, they are just going to elect new Republicans into office that's all. The net effects of these changes will be very minimal.

States rights? Yeah I'm sure if states want to pass liberal policies they are gonna flip like pancakes on that one. Again, the drug war is a perfect example. I don't see Tea Partiers suggesting states ought to be able to decide their own drug laws. Furthermore, there is little philisophical difference between a "state" and a "country." The word nation is interchangeable with the word state.

Most people don't live in a "philosophical" world, more of your elitism coming out, but live in the practical realities of our political system where the dynamics of federalism exists. I would be so sure of your statement of laws on drugs that are both managed and legislated at the state level.

Callin me elitist is interesting to say the least... worthy of a sig. As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure how I am being criticized.

Taxes being oppressive is subjective. Who's being oppressed by taxes? Not I! I am poor, so I get taxed very little. Tea Partiers want a simple shift of power from the public sector to the private sector, which is frankly even more imperialistic and dictatorial than the public sector is. You are just swallowing the status-quo assumptions that private sector=freedom, American flags, liberty, and justice. I get told what to do, when to do it, and what to wear while I'm doing it a LOT more by the private sector than I do by the public sector. Tea Partiers are NOT for freedom, NOT for justice, and NOT for America as a whole unless "America" is defined in pretty strict arbitrary terms.
Rob, everything in this discussion is subjective, and what is considered oppressive to you is something that i cannot even imagine. Here is a major disconnect that Democrats/liberals don't get, or at least agree with. Oppressive taxation is not only a burden but, an infringement on the freedom of the people. Your good for the society comes at the expense of the good of the individual, and this is one of the major disagreements. Again, you opt for equality where your opponents opt for freedom (they are not often compatible - if ever). You wish to allocate resources to create a more equal society at the expense of a more free society.

The "freedoms" you discuss are only actually held by a small, EXTREMELY small % of the community - controllers of corporations. Yet the equality would be spread out over the vast majority of the people.

"THESE PEOPLE" used to be what comprised the democratic party. "THESE PEOPLE" are typically working class individuals that don't have trust funds, and are just trying to make a living. There was a time when "THESE PEOPLE" would have been democrats, but now the democratic party has become elitist intellectuals, theorists, and those who are dependent on that party.

Intellectuals and theorists? As opposed to what, exactly? Is there something wrong with being educated? is there something wrong with a scientific framework that has stood the test of time and is reproducable consistently using the scientific method? And this "elitist" crap is just Rush Limbaugh BS. Your elites are Pelosi and Reid, and my elitists are Limbaugh and Hannity. Choose your poison, and choose your perspective because this is highly subjective.

Intellectuals and theorists have no understanding of the practical application of their theories, hence the tragic failures of Marxism. What are you talking about that your theories have stood the test of time? Which society are you basing this on? You are very wrong in the elitist mentality that the liberals have adopted in their characterization of those who disagree with this. I have watched this since Reagan then on to Dan Quayle down the line to George Bush characterizing them as stupid. It's an old motif that the liberals have used to always characterized their opponents as stupid. Those who follow them are rednecks. They fall outside the noble minded poor, because they vote republican. To be honest i find the democratic party immoral. 1. It is in the best interest for the democrats to have a large base of poor to vote for them. 2. It is in the nature of every political party, leader or candidate to increase their power. Put those two things together and you will have a result that is immoral.

The stupid title is earned justly. Republicans do not respect intellectual pursuits. They insist on religion when it contradicts science, despite millenia of conquest of scientific principles over religious ones. They seek control over the scientific process, bastardizing it at every turn. They insist that science is wrong and continually use rhetoric to convince the people that our scientists are full of baloney and that things like environmental damage and global climate change are false. They propose short-sighted policies that oppress and control the people without the after-thought that, perhaps, if we just leave people alone and helpe them out that they will do better than if we force them and prod them like sheep. Republicans continue to cut government in favor of the private sector, and liberals do the opposite. I believe both philosophies are wrong and we should cut the heads off of both monsters (although I am admittedly much more afraid of conservative policies than liberal ones). You see, Innoman, I am the true conservative; not you, not the Tea Party, and not the Liberals. While youy conservatives and liberals argue about which monster is worse, using the people to your advantage at every turn, I actually do represent the people. I want power to the people at the expense of the public and the private sectors. This can only be achieved by relaxing authority and destroying currency.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 10:40:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 10:12:14 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:

Sure, I'll just... Read American history and get back to you.
Good

I'm kidding. You'll have to spoon-feed what you want me to know.
Just put away your Howard Zinn history books

They are racist (lazy argument), stupid, uninformed etc.


You never debated me on the restaurant issue, so i won't hold my breath. Liberals are conditioned to believe that they hold a moral high ground and are thus better than their opposition. It's total bull of course.

Restaurant... Ah yes, I typed up an 8,000 character debate and then lost it because DDO had me re-login and I got pissed off and never re-did it. My apologies... Do I not put myself out there enough in these forums for you to get ahold of what you need from me anyhow?

A coherent challenge, with a succinct argument.


As far as moral high-ground, they probably see the immorality in conservative politics and seek to reverse it.

Most have some very simple desired goals, like a reduction in the size and scope of government,

Totally false. Why don't they flock to the pro-drug movement then? They CLAIM they want smaller government but this is absolutely not the case. They want government nice and fat just like the liberals.
More bull. Most libertarians who are against the criminalization of drug use opt for the republican party over the democrat party because they recognize the philosophical path toward that is less government involvement in one's personal life, more individual liberty. Although liberals say this, they don't actually practice this. The liberty that the liberals would provide would be at the grant of it's government rather than a lack of government.

You're not making the point here for "less government involvement in one's personal life" at all. Why are conservatives for government intervention in the womb, in scientific research... Why are they alright with pigs busting in my door and stripping me down of my human rights because I want to smoke a joint when I'm done with work? Why are they for telling me who exactly I can have sex with or marry? Quit regurgitating the talking points and start addressing the issues Innoman.
I don't agree with many of the Christian conservatives, but i understand their position. Are you even capable of that without jumping to the characteristic of them being "evil"? Ask any libertarian who they would opt for, a republican or a democrat, i am confident that almost all would opt for the republican. Both sides have the temptation to gravitate toward authoritarianism, but with liberals it's almost a guaranty. The overriding issue is economics and freedom, and in this you are on the side of burdening the average working guy over and over.

a reduction in the out of control spending,

Again, only when they think it is in their best interests. They don't give a sh11 AT ALL about spending; none of those Tea Partiers. $50 B a year on the drug war? Fine. $X hundreds of B in Iraq? Now don't go telling me the Tea Partiers are a bunch of war-denouncers. You have a very narrowly-focussed perception of "spending" and you only see the spending as wrong when its being spent on something you don't like. Furthermore, they have no philisophical qualms with "spending," they just want it to be the private sector that does the spending. There is nothing honorable about this. "Private" is just a label for a group of institutions that aren't public. There is little philisophical difference between these two entities from the perspective of a working-class citizen.

More bull, at every turn when Bush was spending money there were conservatives complaining about this. I easily see conservatives being far more critical of their leaders than liberals of theirs. Of this i know - i live in Massachusetts.

This sounds like Mitt Romney talking, not an intellectual debater who wants to break down the issues. Have you ever considered a career in politics Innoman?
Yeah, but i have to look myself in the mirror everyday. Your dismissal of a point is a weak escape. At every turn there were conservatives complaining about Bush's spending, and saying that his problem was he wasn't conservative enough.

This is because conservatives understand that government spending means larger government, larger tax burdens, and liberals are okay with both of those facts.

Liberals are OK with it only to achieve a balance of power; you think that we can let the private sector grow into this huge monster with 18 heads and the public sector is just going to shrink into a meek warrior armed with a nerf-gun? Liberals are seeking to check the power of the private sector which is self-interested completely and is destroying our environment, our civil liberties, and our economy. What's the difference between the government spending money on a project and a business spending money on a project? What is the fundamental goal here? To give power back to the people? Or to simply concentrate it in the hands of private interests instead of public?

"Liberals are OK with it only to achieve a balance of power" That is the biggest lie of all! Only happy to achieve a balance of power!?! Rob, please, that's completely idiotic. Both sides want total domination and to make the other side as impotent as possible. If you don't know this, or believe this, you are insanely naive. Private sector management is superior to public in every way. Innovation and a prosperous society will come from a free society with a free market, not some Soviet style mandated country. Private interests should be free to fail, and risk shouldn't be managed by the government.

You are content to have a party and a philosophy that is completely dependent on a large class of impoverished people, the more the better, the more poor the better. You are content to provide a system and structure of government that will insure masses of people to be sucking from the trough of government forcibly sustained by the few. You place virtue in government at the expense of virtue from the individual. Then you turn it upside down and call your opponents immoral.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 10:59:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Innomen and Rob1Billion....

I see both of you misrepresenting the intentions of the opposing side. Is it not more likely that both sides are doing what they genuinely believe to be best for the republic? Just because someone has an opposing perspective does not mean that their motivation is evil or self interested.

Rob:
The right wing honestly believes that it is better for the private to have fewer (or no) restrictions. Their goal is not to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and low classes.

Innomen:
The left wing honestly believe that government can be a useful tool for bettering society. They also believe it is important to support the lowest classes for a number of reasons. Their goal is not to dominate society and create a dependent lower class.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 11:03:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 10:59:16 AM, JBlake wrote:
Innomen and Rob1Billion....

I see both of you misrepresenting the intentions of the opposing side. Is it not more likely that both sides are doing what they genuinely believe to be best for the republic? Just because someone has an opposing perspective does not mean that their motivation is evil or self interested.

Rob:
The right wing honestly believes that it is better for the private to have fewer (or no) restrictions. Their goal is not to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and low classes.

Innomen:
The left wing honestly believe that government can be a useful tool for bettering society. They also believe it is important to support the lowest classes for a number of reasons. Their goal is not to dominate society and create a dependent lower class.

Thanks J- to be clear, i should have stated that the ramifications of the good intentions of the liberal philosophy combined with the nature of politics results in immorality (imho).
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 11:05:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 11:03:08 AM, innomen wrote:
Thanks J- to be clear, i should have stated that the ramifications of the good intentions of the liberal philosophy combined with the nature of politics results in immorality (imho).

And we feel much the same about the consequences of libertarian and paleo-conservative philosophies. :)
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 1:26:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 10:12:14 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Liberals are OK with it only to achieve a balance of power; you think that we can let the private sector grow into this huge monster with 18 heads and the public sector is just going to shrink into a meek warrior armed with a nerf-gun? Liberals are seeking to check the power of the private sector which is self-interested completely and is destroying our environment, our civil liberties, and our economy. What's the difference between the government spending our money on a project and a business spending their money on a project? What is the fundamental goal here? To give power back to the people? Or to simply concentrate it in the hands of private interests instead of public?

See bolded part.
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.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 1:32:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 11:05:42 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 9/3/2010 11:03:08 AM, innomen wrote:
Thanks J- to be clear, i should have stated that the ramifications of the good intentions of the liberal philosophy combined with the nature of politics results in immorality (imho).

And we feel much the same about the consequences of libertarian and paleo-conservative philosophies. :)

Organize your social programs voluntarily. Don't attack innocent people. Can you do that?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2010 1:38:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/3/2010 1:32:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/3/2010 11:05:42 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 9/3/2010 11:03:08 AM, innomen wrote:
Thanks J- to be clear, i should have stated that the ramifications of the good intentions of the liberal philosophy combined with the nature of politics results in immorality (imho).

And we feel much the same about the consequences of libertarian and paleo-conservative philosophies. :)

Organize your social programs voluntarily. Don't attack innocent people. Can you do that?

I don't understand what you mean by not attacking innocent people, because we do not.

As for the rest -- no. If social programs were to be paid for on a voluntary basis then there would not be anywhere near enough funding.