Author
|
Topic: Teabaggers (Read 12700 times)
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
Is it an interesting comparison though? I mean, as far as I know, Obama hasn't instituted death camps, done away with the democratic system or actively invaded neighbouring countries in order to expand his power base. In which way is the comparison between two major dictators with the bloods of millions of innocents on their hand with the democratically elected president of a republic? Explain this to me, because to me it makes about as much sense as comparing the English Prime Minister to Pol Pot and Mao-Ze Dung based on that they are all men.
By "interesting", I meant that it was slightly amusing to me. I'm not really all that serious on the topic.
I'm confused again I'm afraid. You agree that it is relevant that Obama did not inherit a well functioning economy, but a tattered one coming out of a bubble that had possibly been caused by the previous administration. Or do you feel that the previous administrations economic policies had nothing to do with the crisis? I don't know if it's possible to verify which previous administrations contributed and how much, but there is no doubt that Obama inherited a bad economy.
Either way, even though you agree that Obama's starting point was very bad, you disagree with his solutions. That's fair enough, economic theory is no clear cut business and about as opaque as it can get. But your answer seems to be "he should have done nothing at all", unless I misunderstand. Are you arguing that if there had been no stimulus program of any sort, the economy would be in better shape now? Or should there have been some other action taken instead of the stimulus program? I don't think a federal government-run stimulus plan like the one Obama enacted holds water. Even if it does improve things, there is bound to be much waste between the red tape and the people who need the money. It's like having an oasis in a desert. Thanks to the water and sustenance, you aren't going to die, but you're going to suffer while traveling between oases. In the mean time, all that expenditure is added to the deficit in one fell swoop. Private entities in their respective communities can be much more efficient at providing jobs and helping out in times of great need.
I'm the kind of person who speaks bluntly and appreciates the same from others, so don't worry about coming across as too edgy.
I do not even see the point of healthcare. Ultimately, it's just wasteful. Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from it?
I was born with a congenital heart defect. Basically, my aorta valve does not close properly by itself, allowing blood to flow back into the heart and forcing the heart to work much harder than it would otherwise. Without surgery I would have been dead by age 12. I had two operations, one at 10 and one at 13 when a artificial valve was installed. My parents are teachers with 3 children and would have been completely crushed under a burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars owed for corrective surgery and expensive medicines. Instead, they are productive members of society. I've graduated Uni with a M.Sci and have been a productive part of the workforce for four years, netting the state large incomes through all sorts of taxes, most recently when I bought a car. So I'd say both my parents and I have significantly benefited from healthcare, since I'm alive and they haven't been driven into poverty but have been able to provide for all their children.
But I think ultimately your question is phrased in an strange fashion. Healthcare, or any support system isn't about someone benefiting financially. It's about making sure that random chance doesn't crush anyone Over the course of my life, I fully expect that what I have cost the state will be paid back through different taxes. Some people will pay more into the system than they ever get out. some people will break even, and some people will gain more than they pay in. In fact, the only difference I can see between this and a health insurance of the type you guys use is that no one makes a huge profit on human suffering and no human being is put on the scrap heap because of random chance.
At that point I was merely suggesting a theory and an alternate point of view to spark debate. In retrospect, I'd say I could not have planned it any better. Excellent points have been made, especially by you, and I enjoy the debate. I have to say, though, it is getting awfully chaotic.
I utterly despise those systems that provide for people what could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work.
At 12 I'd have had trouble finding work to pay for heart surgery. Also, one of my friends dads was a doctor, but not a surgeon. Do you really think that badly of me because I was dealt a bad card when I was a child? Do you really think that I don't deserve the chance to become a productive member of society, but that I should have either waned and died at 12 or forced my parents into abject poverty with no hope of putting food for 3 children on the table? Would it please you if my brother had been given up for adoption because of something completely outside our control? Healthcare is about people. I am nothing like that! Due to horrendous choice of words and/or phrases on my part, I must have struck a sensitive cord somewhere and unleashed an avalanche of responses upon myself.
Insurance companies only redistribute the wealth. If people worked hard enough to acquire the needed wealth for themselves, no such thing would be necessary, and the funds which would otherwise be used to pay the people working for insurance companies would be available for other things. Insurance and welfare over-complicate things. As you can most likely tell, I am a strong believer in capitalism. I love the sheer simplicity of it and how the money you make is directly proportional to the effort you put into it.
But that doesn't seem right though. I can understand the principle that people need to acquire wealth for themselves, that they need to prove their worth by earning it. It's a fair principle. But I don't think you're living by it. I mean, you still benefit from loads of socialist services in your country that by rights you should provide by yourself. Why should you be entitled to a police force to protect you when working hard could easily earn you the money to hire private security? Why do you need a fire brigade when an honest days labour and some common sense would let you afford to hire someone less competent to guard your property against fire? Why should you pay for public roads when you and other person of reasonable wealth could lay those roads yourselves, and only for your use?
I think that if the principle is that every man should stand on his own, by his own worth and his own hard labour, then that principle should not be diluted. Otherwise it becomes a muddy line where you can ask questions such as "Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from a police station" or make harsh statements such as " I utterly despise those systems that provide fire protection for people that could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work."
I think this is precisely what I was attempting to communicate but somehow failed to do, so please do not get offended.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
By "interesting", I meant that it was slightly amusing to me. I'm not really all that serious on the topic.
Oh, okay then. It's just the way you phrased it it came across (to me at least) as "I don't fully agree with this but there is a point to it" and I was struggling to see any point at all. But if you just think the wordplay is amusing or some such then I guess there isn't much to discuss.
I don't know if it's possible to verify which previous administrations contributed and how much, but there is no doubt that Obama inherited a bad economy.
So do you feel that, for instance, McCain would have been able to better handle the economic crisis? I don't know all that much about American politics, but didn't some of the bailouts for banks and such already start during the end of the last Administration? Or do you think there should be some third party in charge?
I don't think a federal government-run stimulus plan like the one Obama enacted holds water. Even if it does improve things, there is bound to be much waste between the red tape and the people who need the money. It's like having an oasis in a desert. Thanks to the water and sustenance, you aren't going to die, but you're going to suffer while traveling between oases. In the mean time, all that expenditure is added to the deficit in one fell swoop. Private entities in their respective communities can be much more efficient at providing jobs and helping out in times of great need.
Oh I agree that thee is always waste in government programs. Though from working on the private side of things I don't think private companies are that much more effective, a lot of them waste long term resources for incredibly short termed goals. But if I understand your analogy right, you're saying that there shouldn't be an oasis. Doesn't that just mean that most travellers die from thirst instead? I mean, it sounds like you're saying that you'd prefer to let the economy tank as hard as it naturally would and see how survived rather than to waste any financial resources. If that is your position then you're entitled to it of course, but it sounds pretty harsh towards your fellow man to say "Well, there could be water but some of it would be wasted, so crawl through the desert without instead".
At that point I was merely suggesting a theory and an alternate point of view to spark debate. In retrospect, I'd say I could not have planned it any better. Excellent points have been made, especially by you, and I enjoy the debate. I have to say, though, it is getting awfully chaotic.
It's in the nature of forum debates to spread out and become a bit messy.  But to be honest, it sounded like you were suggesting that socialized healthcare never works and never does anyone any good. I provided an anecdotal counterexample. It doesn't hold any statistical weight of course, but I don't think that was what you were asking for.
I am nothing like that! Due to horrendous choice of words and/or phrases on my part, I must have struck a sensitive cord somewhere and unleashed an avalanche of responses upon myself.
I having a bit of a hard time figuring out what you actually mean here though. So far it has certainly sounded like you were making the argument that people should only be entitled to healthcare or other such functions if they already have the means to pay for it, and that if someone can't pay for it then they are clearly not working hard enough or don't have enough friends. In addition to that, the way you've been phrasing things does make it sound like you take it as a personal emotional affront "Socialism needs to die" makes me think that you don't consider any regular European countries as "proper countries", but like some sort of backward part of the world infected with a horrible disease". "I utterly despise systems that provide for people" makes it sound like you have a vested emotional opposition to any system that helps people survive hardship that they weren't, or couldn't have been, prepared for. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but perhaps you could explain where I've gone wrong?
I think this is precisely what I was attempting to communicate but somehow failed to do, so please do not get offended.
Again, I apologize if I've misunderstood you. But reading through your posts, I tend to get the opposite of what you're saying now. All the way through, I think you've made the argument that socialized institutions such as universal healthcare, public schools or police officers are bad because these are things that you should provide for yourself through hard work and a social network. But now it sounds as if you are actually agreeing with me and saying that socialized institutions such as these perform a vital function in a country. Which, unless I've misunderstood, would actually make you pro-socialism with just a dash of capitalism on the side for things that aren't integral to a functioning society. So are you against socialism or for it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
I actually recently briefly discussed with a conservative friend on Facebook about free market capitalism vs. regulation. In it I mentioned how insignificant the national dept really is. Here is the conversation (the friend is referred to as "Bob"):
It was all in response to me favoriting this video.
historically speaking it has and always will Historically speaking it has caused the Great Depression. FDR didnt help anything Well, I can't argue with that, because I don't know much about him, but that doesn't make de-regulation any better of an alternative. If FDR didn't do well, George W. Bush did terribly. and obama is doing good? only if you're karl marx he is No, he isn't... I never said he was. Obama has been kissing the Republican Party's ass too much. For example, off-shore drilling (which led to the recent oil spill). It didn't help that the administration gave that specific drill a safety award just last year with out even fully analyzing it, why? How bout the millions of dollars BHO got from bp in 08 Exactly. Lack of good regulation more often than not results in big messes to clean up. no necessarily, the 19 trillion dollar debt by 2020, due to barack that we're going to have to clean up is due to regulation Regardless, Obama continuously goes around blaming bush for setting him up with all the debt yet he has spent more in 18 months than the bush administration in 8 years
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
The 'spending more in 18 months' is malarkey. Where are these numbers coming from? I'd bet it includes the bank bailout, which consisted of loans, not handouts. Most of these loans have already been repaid, and most of the rest are expected to be repaid.
And... Admiral. The stimulus wasn't welfare. People aren't sitting around feasting on government cheese from it. There are people going out and building things. Some of these things, to be sure, are not so very necessary (the train station I use every day has been rebuilt. It is a significant upgrade, but it wasn't a critical need); and no doubt there is some fraud somewhere. But to sayI doubt the thought ever came to his mind that the private sector is not going to prosper if it consists of lazy, government-fed people denotes that they aren't doing anything, which is totally false.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 05:10:09 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Note: The "too big to fail" Bank bailout was under the Bush administration. It's questionable wether this was a wise decision as this made it so that banks don't have to try to re negotiate with mortgage holders to try and recoop their losses. In other words they lose nothing by forclosing on deliquent mortgages.
The big auto company bailout was under Obama's administration. And so far it looks like it was a good decision as it saved thousands of jobs and GM in particular is turning a profit and about to start publicly trading it's stocks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
Even so, it is not the Federal government's responsibility to do those things. It was not its responsibility when Bush was president, and it certainly isn't now. Big government has no place in a free country. I would much rather preserve my own autonomy than have an unnecessarily huge government looming over my head making sure nothing goes wrong. Government bailouts is slippery business. Sure, they helped out in the short term, but no-one has ever learned anything by getting something for nothing. What in your oh-so-infallible liberal logic gives you the impression GM won't simply go down under anyway? Even if the company now has enough money to stay afloat for a little longer, it still has to tumble sooner or later without some new ideas and much-needed innovation. Would you rather have local entities address the problem who could focus their efforts more precisely and are more familiar with how their area functions or just have the government expand to cover all those failing businesses? Should businesses even want to remain in the US if government intervention grows beyond tolerable levels? If I were the head of my very own business, I know I wouldn't. And I would not even consider starting a business here, either, because I fear what the government could very possibly become, and I resent its current so-called leader.
Obama obviously has an innate skill for giving charismatic speeches. Obama's efforts would have been better spent on delivering speeches to inspire private organisations to excel, rather than his ridiculous, filled-with-nothing rhetoric. Would he do that, though? No, because he thinks himself better than his people. Arrogance in any leader is a bad thing, you know, especially when he goes out and does unpredictable things with his power. Much like Julius Caesar and his crossing the Rubicon, the country might never truly recover from this idiotic "change" Obama keeps on preaching about. The traditional values have served humanity well for centuries, so why not rely on them instead of falling back on some wannabe prophet who, by the way, gravely overestimates his own abilities and underestimates the people who, by popular vote, elected him in the first place?
You're asking for "numbers", but where are yours?! You have just as much need to backup your arguments as any other point of view. So, if you are so confident about your position, why not share with me that secret stash of irrefutable statistics you all seem to possess and are hiding from me.
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them? Gosh, now I know how Admiral Zex of the VUX must feel... Guess I'll have to rent my own planet to rid you of my nonsense... Not that that is happening any time soon. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Even if the company now has enough money to stay afloat for a little longer, it still has to tumble sooner or later without some new ideas and much-needed innovation.
Or perhaps, it would serve the company if it could shake the deathgrip the horrendously bloated auto unions have on it. Of course, odds are that this would result in outsourcing its manufacturing overseas, and we can't be having that from one of the last of the American car makers.
The traditional values have served humanity well for centuries, so why not rely on them instead of falling back on some wannabe prophet who, by the way, gravely overestimates his own abilities and underestimates the people who, by popular vote, elected him in the first place?
Oh. You're a red state bible thumper, I get it now. All of this nonsense you're spouting is to hide your irrational fear and loathing of anyone who doesn't want to rule the country according to "good wholesome Christian values" (AKA: Democrats).
You know, those traditional values we "relied on for centuries" held back scientific progress and education for centuries, endorsed torture, forced conversion, and murder of anyone who disagreed with them, and worst of all, has been and still remains one of the most corrupt institutions on this planet. Nobody really wants an American Theocracy, if that's what you're pushing for, so it's hardly a surprise that we'd push back.
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them? Gosh, now I know how Admiral Zex of the VUX must feel... Guess I'll have to rent my own planet to rid you of my nonsense... Not that that is happening any time soon.
The Obama-Stalin-Hitler comparison didn't bother you, but now you're trying to call us out for persecuting you? I think now is when I plan to call it quits on this topic, then, because that's more hypocrisy than I can handle; you obviously have no idea what being persecuted is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
I think this is precisely what I was attempting to communicate but somehow failed to do, so please do not get offended.
Again, I apologize if I've misunderstood you. But reading through your posts, I tend to get the opposite of what you're saying now. All the way through, I think you've made the argument that socialized institutions such as universal healthcare, public schools or police officers are bad because these are things that you should provide for yourself through hard work and a social network. But now it sounds as if you are actually agreeing with me and saying that socialized institutions such as these perform a vital function in a country. Which, unless I've misunderstood, would actually make you pro-socialism with just a dash of capitalism on the side for things that aren't integral to a functioning society. So are you against socialism or for it?
Very rarely do I become emotionally charged. Your reaction is understandable. I make a few statements that make me sound as if I were acting on intense emotions, but I have never necessarily been easy to communicate with.
The way I have phrased my arguments seems counter-effective, so I'll try from now on to make better-organised points.
By the way, I only agreed that some socialism is not a terrible thing. I still proudly support capitalism and free-enterprise despite the bashing it has gotten.
While I'm short on time, I'd like to note that you haven't addressed my questions, at least directly. From you're writing, it seems that you believe that everything should be privatized, down to law enforcement and firefighting. Is that a correct position? Not necessarily, but privatized law enforcement and firefighting would be great in my book, as long as there is a sufficient number of private entities for these services to be brought to everyone.
Also, it's clear you don't like what Obama is doing. But you're not actually saying what should be done, other than "private interests should handle it". Could you be a bit more clear on that? Should government just lean back and do nothing, or is there some other way it should stimulate private industries? First of all, a precautionary background check for any and all future president candidates (and of course for all other political offices) like they have in corporations is one thing not present that, by common sense, really should be. As long as a candidate has the skill and knowhow to be a good president, congressman, or whatever, the requirement to have lived a certain number of years in America is unreasonable. The background check will root out most if not all of the troublesome types.
I think regulation from state governments could be feasible, not regulation from a singular Federal government. As it stands, state governments have little say when the Federal government comes in stomping around and hounds them with pretty much whatever absurdities they feel like. Much benefit could be had from a symbiotic relationship between the private sector and state administrations. This would let both cooperate in solving local problems and fighting for their freedom from the Federals whenever the need arises. The state governments, for example, could be given limited ability to ensure the things like law enforcement and fire departments given by private organisations that regular people need could not impose unfair tariffs or other such unfavorable tactics companies in such monopolistic (being the only fire department/police headquarter in a given district) situations would feel compelled to do. Private entities could fight crime, fight fires, and protect other citizens, while the state government could help ensure that corruption is kept in check. Of course, this would require qualified individuals and mutual trust that just does not exist as of now, but at least a system like this would not consist of a tax-happy Federal government throwing its weight around. It is clear to me that both Bush and Obama are guilty of exploiting that exact situation.
Also, I guess you consider Newsweek to be "liberal" or whatever term you wish to apply, but guess whose country they think is the best in the world? Not yours
Oh. You're a red state bible thumper, I get it now. All of this nonsense you're spouting is to hide your irrational fear and loathing of anyone who doesn't want to rule the country according to "good wholesome Christian values" Now you're only stereotyping me according to what you assume that Christians and people on my side of the political spectrum are like. I'll pay no further attention to your posts in this thread, in that case. I apologize for having my own beliefs and values that happen to differ from your own.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 11:46:45 pm by Admiral Zeratul »
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them?
I don't think that's fair to say. We are considering them. You presented your position then crack and backtrack under the slightest scrutiny. I get that the 'baggers and republicans are "Mad as hell and not going to take it" but when asked about specific plans to get our economy out of this mess they have nothing. It's easy to criticize others. The 'baggers and GOP are "experts" on what Obama and the Dems are doing wrong but when they don't offer a solution or "better way" it just makes them look like sore losers with a lot of sour grapes.
Here's a challenge for you. Next time you watch Glenn Beck, O'Riely or Limbaugh, (or FOX news in general) try counting the number of fear mongering statements from these guys. All you get is Obama's a racist, the Democrats are destroying our values etc. They use empty buzzwords like illegal immigrant, anchor baby, ground zero mosque, muslim, socialism, communisim, redistribute wealth, nanny state etc. These are scare tactics in an attempt to drum up fear and mistrust. They are trying to scare people into voting republican. I'm not saying that the Dems aren't above doing this as well but from my perspective it's not nearly as prevalent.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dabir
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 291
|
First of all, a precautionary background check for any and all future president candidates (and of course for all other political offices) like they have in corporations is one thing not present that, by common sense, really should be. As long as a candidate has the skill and knowhow to be a good president, congressman, or whatever, the requirement to have lived a certain number of years in America is unreasonable. The background check will root out most if not all of the troublesome types.
This would definitely be a step in the right direction, if it seems to be a problem. I'm not American, I have no idea exactly how many pies politicians tend to have their fingers in, but I imagine it's probably quite a few.
The living in America thing, though, is one thing that's probably not going to ever budge and for a sound reason, at least as I see it. If this law didn't exist, if instead of Obama the Democrats had fielded a man born and largely educated in, say, Iran, there would definitely be a risk of that president feeling more loyal to Iran than to the country he was supposed to be in charge of.
Of course here in the UK we have no such crazies, as Mr Nigel 'Foaming' Farage will happily tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Even so, it is not the Federal government's responsibility to do those things. It was not its responsibility when Bush was president, and it certainly isn't now. Big government has no place in a free country.
You'll have to help me out here, keep in mind that I'm not American. Why does government organization not allow freedom. I mean, I'm pretty free and we have a government. What exactly is it that you lose?
I would much rather preserve my own autonomy than have an unnecessarily huge government looming over my head making sure nothing goes wrong.
Again, help me understand this. Are you saying you'd rather the government didn't maintain infrastructure of any kind (roads, power plants) or organizations of any kind (military, teachers etc.)? Or just that they should only maintain some of them? And if so, which ones?
Government bailouts is slippery business. Sure, they helped out in the short term, but no-one has ever learned anything by getting something for nothing. What in your oh-so-infallible liberal logic gives you the impression GM won't simply go down under anyway? Even if the company now has enough money to stay afloat for a little longer, it still has to tumble sooner or later without some new ideas and much-needed innovation.
My logic isn't actually liberal, it's right wing. There's not actually any "liberal logic" in the US, at least if you take the political spectrum in the rest of the world into account. As for GM, at least from an outsider point of view it would appear that they now have a better chance of getting new ideas and innovation than if it was bust.
Would you rather have local entities address the problem who could focus their efforts more precisely and are more familiar with how their area functions or just have the government expand to cover all those failing businesses? Should businesses even want to remain in the US if government intervention grows beyond tolerable levels? If I were the head of my very own business, I know I wouldn't. And I would not even consider starting a business here, either, because I fear what the government could very possibly become, and I resent its current so-called leader.
So what is it that these local entities would actually do? In your opinion, what would have been the right way to proceed? Local entities would have founded new car companies, local entities would have raised enough money to save the old companies, local entities would have...? I understand that you want to see things done on a local level, but I'm unclear on what you think ought to be done on that level.
Obama obviously has an innate skill for giving charismatic speeches. Obama's efforts would have been better spent on delivering speeches to inspire private organisations to excel, rather than his ridiculous, filled-with-nothing rhetoric.
Excel in doing what? What is it that he should have inspired private organisations (I assume you mean companies?) to do? When a global recession hits, should he have told the people at the local supermarkets (or whatever) "Just work harder and you'll earn your worth"? Again I'm confused as to what a private company can actually do, other than fire people to stay profitable.
Would he do that, though? No, because he thinks himself better than his people. Arrogance in any leader is a bad thing, you know, especially when he goes out and does unpredictable things with his power. Much like Julius Caesar and his crossing the Rubicon, the country might never truly recover from this idiotic "change" Obama keeps on preaching about.
Julius Ceasar? I understand that you're speaking in metaphors here but you'll have to help me out. As I understand it, Caesar crossed the Rubicon and overthrew the old Roman system, doing away with the way they had ben handling things before. As far as I can understand, Obamam rose to power within your normal system, not by overthrowing it. Since then, he also hasn't done away with the senate or any other part of what is normally considered your political system. So you're going to have to explain a bit more in detail why these two are alike. Because to be honest, it sounds a lot more like Obama = Stalin = Caesar and so forth.
The traditional values have served humanity well for centuries, so why not rely on them instead of falling back on some wannabe prophet who, by the way, gravely overestimates his own abilities and underestimates the people who, by popular vote, elected him in the first place?
To be honest, I definitely agree here. American traditional values are pretty impressive and something well worth admiring. I mean, you came up with separation of church and state ages ago, while we're still stuck with it here. Devout Christian as I am, I'm sure we can both agree that religion running things usually ends in a bad fashion. And you figured that out over 200 years ago. And your immigration principle used to be amazing, allowing anyone who could work to move into the countries, bringing skills and mixing cultures. It's a pity it's been so watered down in the last 60 years or so, don't you think? Oh, and of course the fact that you haven't made English your official language. I mean, it takes serious balls to guarantee your citizens to freely speak and demand service in any language they damn well please.
Also of course, I'd say that people are falling back on the person who they elected, meaning that Obama is probably doing what his constituents want done. So pretty much respecting them.
You're asking for "numbers", but where are yours?! You have just as much need to backup your arguments as any other point of view. So, if you are so confident about your position, why not share with me that secret stash of irrefutable statistics you all seem to possess and are hiding from me.
No one has been asking you fro numbers, but there has been some discussion on the ones Nuclear presented. That wasn't aimed at you, but it seems clear that you want some numbers. What kind of numbers is it you would like?
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them? Gosh, now I know how Admiral Zex of the VUX must feel... Guess I'll have to rent my own planet to rid you of my nonsense... Not that that is happening any time soon.
You know, I'm not a very emotional person. The fact that in your perfect world I'd already be dead, or possible my brother would be dead, doesn't phase me much. I don't consider it a very humane outlook, but we're all entitled to our own beliefs. So this doesn't annoy me either. If you think that people discussing issues with you means that they refuse to consider them, so be it. Thus, if anyone else after this accuses you of refusing to consider their beliefs, I won't step in and correct them since such statments can swing both ways. I would like to point out that I am a moderator here and that by stating that you feel as persecuted and hounded as ZEX very indelicately implies that I am not doing my job. So here's a task for you. I want you to pick out specific sentences that makes you feel as harassed as ZEX was and PM them to me so that I can make sure everyone is behaving. Because I've tried to look for this persecution, but I can't find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Very rarely do I become emotionally charged. Your reaction is understandable. I make a few statements that make me sound as if I were acting on intense emotions, but I have never necessarily been easy to communicate with.
If you do not feel strongly about things on an emotional level, I do not see the purpose of attempting to convey that. It seems counter productive to any good debate, as anyone discussing with you has to assume that you mean what you say and stand by what you write. I'd advise you to tone down the strong emotional language you're using if it is only for show.
The way I have phrased my arguments seems counter-effective, so I'll try from now on to make better-organised points.
By the way, I only agreed that some socialism is not a terrible thing. I still proudly support capitalism and free-enterprise despite the bashing it has gotten.
I'm glad to hear you are becoming more organised, it makes things easier to follow. Also, I'm glad you have something to proudly stand by, although I'd note that pride isn't always a very useful emotion and can be very dangerous at times. But perhaps this is another instance of not meaning what you write? I could also note that no one here has actually bashed free enterprise or capitalism, we have merely pointed out that it is not the solution to every problem and does occasionally need regulation and supporting systems.. Rather, it is you who have, as it were, "bashed" socialism right from the get-go. I understand that it is more appealing to appear the martyr for a wounded cause than the instigator and aggressor, but in your case the sheep's clothing does not quite fit. Anyhow, I'm glad we can agree on that some social services are useful. That means our disagreement is more along the lines of how many different services are needed, rather than the existence of those services. A good note to make would be that even in socialist Europe, we have plenty of capitalism and free enterprise. It's not a binary situation really. No one is "bashing" the concepts as such. We're merely pointing out that running everything that way is not necessarily ideal.
Not necessarily, but privatized law enforcement and fire-fighting would be great in my book, as long as there is a sufficient number of private entities for these services to be brought to everyone.
Really? You think it is a good idea to tell a room full of men "Well, unless we put out X fires per year we will have to downsize some of you"? In an ideal society this might work, but people are flawed. Private armies haven't really done well either, which is what a police force becomes if it obeys money rather than law. Lets discuss this a bit more, but turn the question around. What services do you feel would not benefit from a purely capitalist approach? The judiciary? Or are there any at all?
First of all, a precautionary background check for any and all future president candidates (and of course for all other political offices) like they have in corporations is one thing not present that, by common sense, really should be. As long as a candidate has the skill and knowhow to be a good president, congressman, or whatever, the requirement to have lived a certain number of years in America is unreasonable. The background check will root out most if not all of the troublesome types.
I don't think I asked about this, but interesting nonetheless. I thought the media and other political players performed these background checks for you for free? Isn't that more of a capitalist way of doing it rather than regulating it into federal government structures?
I think regulation from state governments could be feasible, not regulation from a singular Federal government. As it stands, state governments have little say when the Federal government comes in stomping around and hounds them with pretty much whatever absurdities they feel like. Much benefit could be had from a symbiotic relationship between the private sector and state administrations. This would let both cooperate in solving local problems and fighting for their freedom from the Federals whenever the need arises. The state governments, for example, could be given limited ability to ensure the things like law enforcement and fire departments given by private organisations that regular people need could not impose unfair tariffs or other such unfavorable tactics companies in such monopolistic (being the only fire department/police headquarter in a given district) situations would feel compelled to do. Private entities could fight crime, fight fires, and protect other citizens, while the state government could help ensure that corruption is kept in check. Of course, this would require qualified individuals and mutual trust that just does not exist as of now, but at least a system like this would not consist of a tax-happy Federal government throwing its weight around. It is clear to me that both Bush and Obama are guilty of exploiting that exact situation.
Interesting. You'll have to forgive me, not being an American, but I don't quite understand your distinction between state and federal government. As I understand it, each state governs itself to a degree, with the Federal government acting on issues that touch upon all states. But can't the same thing be said about State government versus mayors, municipalities and so forth? Your states are pretty big after all. I guess I don't understand why the distinction should be drawn at that level, and not slightly lower if you really want a synergy between local private entities and government. Local firms are unlikely to make themselves heard in state government as well, I assume?
Other than that, I'm not quite sure you answered my question. I asked specifically what should have been done in this recession rather than what was done now, but these seem to be general principles. Or are you saying that the correct reaction to the recession would be to privatize police and fire fighting forces? As has been mentioned, your government has spent a lot of money building roads and bridges, and I assume they have given this task to private corporations. They've also bailed out big banks, and I'm given to understand that a large amount of the bailouts have been paid back. But you're saying that these are only temporary relief, and that true relief for workers laid off in these industries would be to find new work at newly formed law enforcement and fire fighting companies? Wall Street as police officers, it's a novel idea. Or is there something else that should have been done, specifically, right now, instead of what was done?
Oh. You're a red state bible thumper, I get it now. All of this nonsense you're spouting is to hide your irrational fear and loathing of anyone who doesn't want to rule the country according to "good wholesome Christian values" Now you're only stereotyping me according to what you assume that Christians and people on my side of the political spectrum are like. I'll pay no further attention to your posts in this thread, in that case. I apologize for having my own beliefs and values that happen to differ from your own.
I do agree that Draxas was toeing a line here, but keep in mind that you first told all of us that we are persecuting you with our "liberal" views. The thing about respect is that it should be mutual. Accusing people of close-mindedness and persecution rarely does much to make them more polite.
As a moderator I'd like to remind everyone that if this grows too hot, there will be a time-out and some serious words. So far it looks civilized enough though. Just don't get too hot-headed.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 02:25:11 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Since the topic is the Tea Party movement (Teabaggers) I thought I'd mention the Daily Show with Jon Stuart who put on a phenominal show last night. (Aug 17, 2010) His guest was Dick Armey, former Republican house majority leader who wrote a book called "Give Us Liberty. A Tea Party Manifesto". The debate that followed was very interesting. The video is entitled "Exclusive - Dick Armey Extended Interview"
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Not only was the interview great but much of the show seemed to be themed around the Tea Party movement. We learn that Tea Party advocate, Congressman Louie Gohmert , warns us about "Terror Babies" I recommend this Daily Show episode in it's entirety.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-august-17-2010-dick-armey
Carry on...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
