• The Republican Debate
    144 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32499430]The part of this I really, REALLY don't like is the "the church should eclipse the state in importance" part. How can you account for this?[/QUOTE] You have to keep it into context, that the church is the moral authority and the subject being about people banning religious items during Christmas. If you quite anti religious it might seem like a bit much, but again, he's more saying that the government shouldn't be a moral authority and the church doesn't have any force to exercise. It is kind of like saying Denny's is the moral authority. I personally would have liked it more if he would have just said that the people are the moral authority. If you're very pro-state you may not also like it as you believe the state has a role in making people better. It's one of his more iffy quotes as you kind of have to accept the church as a legitimate moral authority to accept what he is saying, and it is very easy to misunderstand. The root of the argument, that the state shouldn't be the moral authority is something I quite agree with. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32500067]Every single thread that has Libertarianism mentioned has at least one little hardcore Ron Paul fanboy who tells everyone else who makes any comments on Libertarianism that they don't understand it. Then they proceed to give a different definition of it than the last person. Why the fuck does the definition of that ideal fluctuate SO much on this site? Pepin, you've given literally a different description of it then others I've seen. [/quote] I would have assumed you would have looked it up by now. There are two principals. 1. The non aggression axiom 2. Private property rights There has been a lot of thought in so many different areas you'd be surprised. A lot of it goes into the best system that would allow for these two principals to be upheld most effectively. There are a lot of books on it, and if you want some recommendations I can give you some. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32500067]Okay, you're saying I don't understand libertarianism, yet you're saying this stupid shit?[/quote] I was providing clarification as to what Ron Paul was saying in that statement as it seemed Megafanx13 misinterpreted it.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32497684] To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government. [/QUOTE] uh that's absolutely wrong. any kind of leftist is anti-government and that included libertarians which are by no stretch right-wing. the model communist country is 100% stateless and socialists that are more center include state socialists. the right-wing is the corporatist or collectivist faction as both status quo and common-collective in the form of nationalism are right-wing tenets. you've got it 100% completely fucked up even if we took the US as a model.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32500399]uh that's absolutely wrong. any kind of leftist is anti-government and that included libertarians which are by no stretch right-wing. the model communist country is 100% stateless and socialists that are more center include state socialists. the right-wing is the corporatist or collectivist faction as both status quo and common-collective in the form of nationalism are right-wing tenets. you've got it 100% completely fucked up even if we took the US as a model.[/QUOTE] I was simplifying what Ron Paul was saying in a quote where he was describing the left. But as far as what you're saying, I can't really make any sense of it. A person cannot be opposed to an entity and at the same time use it as a means. I don't really understand. Also, I don't believe left in this instance refers to socialist or communists. I believe it refers to democrats.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32500502] A person cannot be opposed to an entity and at the same time use it as a means. I don't really understand.[/QUOTE] the left does not use the government as a means, in that context neither the libertarians could be opposed to the government while using it as a means. [QUOTE=Pepin;32500502]Also, I don't believe left in this instance refers to socialist or communists. I believe it refers to democrats.[/QUOTE] democrats aren't left in any regard.
The amount of information in the OP has overloaded my brain. You're not helping the American stereotype much (Here's a hint: not everybody in the world follows US politics, we don't always know what you're talking about).
[QUOTE=thisispain;32500588]the left does not use the government as a means, in that context neither the libertarians could be opposed to the government while using it as a means.[/quote] That wouldn't make much sense as the left you're talking about would have to take more power, such as the means of production, which can not be considered anti-government since it is an expansion of government power. The only true way to be anti-government is to oppose the expansion of its power. I suppose you're argument would be acceptable on grounds of a revolution or some similar change in which the people people dump their current government and quickly move to the new one. But I'm having a difficult time accepting that people can be anti-government while at the same be time expanding its powers, which is as far as I'm aware, is necessary in most transitional plans where the government already exists. Where I think I'm getting hung up with the claim transitional phase. A libertarian wouldn't support expansion of government power and would like to shrink the role of government, which is in essence being anti-government. I can certainly say that Republicans aren't anti-government, of course some are, but in general... [QUOTE=thisispain;32500588]democrats aren't left in any regard.[/QUOTE] Left and right usually refers to Democrats and Republicans. It also refers liberals and conservatives, which is a bit different but kind of the same. That's how it is most used, at least in the news and in politics. It could have a different meaning in different circles or at a different time, but that's how it is most used.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32500067]You don't even fucking argue, you provide your opinion and get all offended when people try to argue against it. Why make points if you're not willing to defend them? [/QUOTE] I can't really argue with you, since you usually respond by comparing me to President Bush, or by telling me that I've apparently been living under a rock.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32482805]So do you have a replacement or do you want them to just die?[/QUOTE] He has a point though. There is a pretty large percentage of those on welfare that are just using it to their advantage. What I would do is require those who really need help to apply for a government program that helps with that, and they would be checked on every month or so. It'd save the people that really [B]do[/B] need help and create jobs.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32513198]He has a point though. There is a pretty large percentage of those on welfare that are just using it to their advantage.[/QUOTE] Actually its less then 2 percent. Your acting like those gym teachers that make everyone run a mile because one kid said something stupid.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32513215]Actually its less then 2 percent. Your acting like those gym teachers that make everyone run a mile because one kid said something stupid.[/QUOTE] My gym teacher actually does that :v: I wasn't aware of that however, but still, in this economy we should improve in any areas we can, even the smaller ones.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32513198]What I would do is require those who really need help to apply for a government program that helps with that, and they would be checked on every month or so.[/QUOTE]the money it would take to check every month wouldn't really have you save that much. Basically checking on everyone who has welfare would cost more then supporting the 2 percent that can get a job. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32513235]My gym teacher actually does that :v: I wasn't aware of that however, but still, in this economy we should improve in any areas we can, even the smaller ones.[/QUOTE] Your saying you should reform the whole system (which would cost time and money) to stop a small 2 percent. It would ruin it for the ones who really need it.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32513247]You understand that woudn't be possible because most of the people on welfare are on it because they can't have a job right? Not to mention the money it would take to check every month wouldn't really have you save that much. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] Your saying you should reform the whole system (which would cost time and money) to stop a small 2 percent. It would ruin it for the ones who really need it.[/QUOTE] You have a point, I was posting before thinking which happens pretty often. Still, assuming the economy wasn't in its current state, how would it be ruined for the ones who really need it? The ones who really do need it would just need to apply for that program, they would not be harmed in any way.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32481657]His point is an insane exaggeration. I haven't seen anyone call him an "evil racist bigot" for not wanting welfare, but he has quite a few posts so I guess I don't know every single one. If anyone's calling him a racist or a bigot, it's probably in a scenario like this: Not to be specific, but a situation [B]like[/B] that.[/QUOTE] Look at any thread where I say welfare in bad, I've had everyone call me racist. Especialy Starpluck, he doesn't like me.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32513295]You have a point, I was posting before thinking which happens pretty often. Still, assuming the economy wasn't in its current state, how would it be ruined for the ones who really need it? The ones who really do need it would just need to apply for that program, they would not be harmed in any way.[/QUOTE] Well I guess it wouldn't ruin it but it would be pretty annoying if it was a personal check and the like.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32513198]He has a point though. There is a pretty large percentage of those on welfare that are just using it to their advantage.[/QUOTE] Welfare, as in welfare specifically? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit right now, I've searched pretty extensively for unbiased statistics on social service fraud, and the closest one I got was one for Unemployment Insurance, and that was less than a 2% fraud rate. [url]http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy...2/6-11find.htm[/url] "1.9% of total UI payments for that year, was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program. By any standard, these figures add up to a lot of money. That is why the Department of Labor has been hard at work on the problem." [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];32513321']Look at any thread where I say welfare in bad, I've had everyone call me racist. Especialy Starpluck, he doesn't like me.[/QUOTE] The reason people call you names for what you say is because this is the usual chain of events: You: "welfare is bad, it creates dependency and why should we give people money for doing nothing?" Others: "Can you cite a source that states this?" You: Either you stop posting or post something that isn't logically sound, ala Fox News.
You're right Megafanx, I didn't bother to look up my facts which was incredibly stupid of me.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32513438]You're right Megafanx, I didn't bother to look up my facts which was incredibly stupid of me.[/QUOTE] I don't blame you, non-partisan fraud statistics are difficult to find.
[QUOTE=OvB;32466428]I don't think i've heard them say they want to completely remove evolution. Thought it was only have creationism taught side by side. Though I wouldn't doubt Bachmann saying something stupid like that.[/QUOTE] personally I would prefer the states to decide to what degree they each are taught (Even though it should stay out of schools and in churches) but I have a feeling some schools would end up treating one of the other in the same fashion Colored schools were treated and neglected in the Civil Rights era. Federal Regulation? People tend not to like that. Precedents to set a standard? in the past it hasn't worked. I for one want states to take care of education rather than the government though. Is that more of a republican or democrat view?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513516]I don't blame you, non-partisan fraud statistics are difficult to find.[/QUOTE] Still, me assuming that the percentage of those abusing welfare was a large amount with no knowledge on the subject whatsoever was incredibly stupid.
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;32513519]personally I would prefer the states to decide to what degree they are taught[/QUOTE] But doesn't that go against the state not supporting a religion? Personally I think schools shouldn't be able to teach anything that isn't supported by evidence. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32513558]Still, me assuming that the percentage of those abusing welfare was a large amount with no knowledge on the subject whatsoever was incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] Is this a fluke or is facepunch actually maturing?
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;32513519]personally I would prefer the states to decide to what degree they each are taught (Even though it should stay out of schools and in churches) but I have a feeling some schools would end up treating one of the other in the same fashion Colored schools were treated and neglected in the Civil Rights era. Federal Regulation? People tend not to like that. Precedents to set a standard? in the past it hasn't worked. I for one want states to take care of education rather than the government though. Is that more of a republican or democrat view?[/QUOTE] States already do for the most part. The Dept. of Education isn't crafting curriculum or anything like that.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32513379]Welfare, as in welfare specifically? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit right now, I've searched pretty extensively for unbiased statistics on social service fraud, and the closest one I got was one for Unemployment Insurance, and that was less than a 2% fraud rate. [url]http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy...2/6-11find.htm[/url] "1.9% of total UI payments for that year, was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program. By any standard, these figures add up to a lot of money. That is why the Department of Labor has been hard at work on the problem." [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] The reason people call you names for what you say is because this is the usual chain of events: You: "welfare is bad, it creates dependency and why should we give people money for doing nothing?" Others: "Can you cite a source that states this?" You: Either you stop posting or post something that isn't logically sound, ala Fox News.[/QUOTE] Citing a source for welfare dependancy, and that you get money for nothing, is like citing a source that the WW2 happened.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514204']Citing a source for welfare dependancy, and that you get money for nothing, is like citing a source that the WW2 happened.[/QUOTE] well then it should be very easy to cite a source but yet you have issues with it
[QUOTE=thisispain;32514222]well then it should be very easy to cite a source but yet you have issues with it[/QUOTE] Well, what do people do to earn welfare money? Absolutely nothing.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514286']Well, what do people do to earn welfare money? Absolutely nothing.[/QUOTE] well i personally prefer the more logical "view each person on their own" but if you wanna be that collectivist about it. i mean people don't do anything to earn streetlights, police departments, or water either yet for some reason we have that.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514286']Well, what do people do to earn welfare money? Absolutely nothing.[/QUOTE] Except have physical/mental issues or is taking care of someone with physical/mental issues. Yea I didn't realize being on welfare is something so amazing it needs to be earned. Your really suggesting people who can't get a job should starve? You should put that quote as your title.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32514434]Except have physical/mental issues or is taking care of someone with physical/mental issues. Yea I didn't realize being on welfare is something so amazing it needs to be earned. Your really suggesting people who can't get a job should starve? You should put that quote as your title.[/QUOTE] No, I think that money I earn is mine. Not other peoples. Especialy when they did nothing to earn in. Private charities, and even state run programs will feed, and house the very poor. They don't need a cent of my money, unless I wish to give it to them. Imagine if you were next to some homeless guy, and suddenly someone pulled a gun on you, forcing you to give whatever percent of you money to the homeless person for no reason. It is the same when the goverment does it, just they will send you to jail, not shoot you.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514919']It is the same when the goverment does it, just they will send you to jail, not shoot you.[/QUOTE] except you wouldn't earn any money if there wasn't a social contract for a variety of reasons. if you drive to work other people paying the taxes for the road maintenance allowed you to go to work. if you use public transportation you used other people's money to use it. a job you worked at is likely there due to incentives or contracts given from other people's money that you benefited from.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514919']Private charities, and even state run programs will feed, and house the very poor. They don't need a cent of my money, unless I wish to give it to them.[/quote] Even though they didn't in the past when regulation and taxes were far lower? You have no basis for this argument.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32514919']No, I think that money I earn is mine. Not other peoples. Especialy when they did nothing to earn in. Private charities, and even state run programs will feed, and house the very poor. [/QUOTE] You really think charities will be able to get enough money to feed and house all those who can't get a job? You're dreaming, they can barely feed the homeless let alone the millions they are going to have to house and clothe. You really don't think you owe society a few dollars to keep people from having to hunt for survival. I'm sorry but a government without taxes is impossible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.