• The Republican Debate
    144 replies, posted
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32480496']Personaly, I am really tired of being called an evil racist bigot for not wanting welfair.[/QUOTE] You may want to learn how to spell [I]welfare[/I] before pulling a persecution complex.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32481469]You may want to learn how to spell [I]welfare[/I] before pulling a persecution complex.[/QUOTE] It doesn't invalidate his point.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32481598]It doesn't invalidate his point.[/QUOTE] 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: [quote]*news article about a minority committing a crime of any sort* [I]"Hey, isn't it odd that it's always the [minority group] doing these things!"[/I][/quote] Not to be specific, but a situation [B]like[/B] that.
Because the trickle down effect [I]totally[/I] works.
Republicans in the U.S. are too stereotyped to usually be discussed with any kind of civility on the Internet. Because on the Internet, different views=stupid and backwards. Gave up a long time trying to advocate conservative views anywhere on the Internet, but the lack of flaming and relative balance in this thread so far makes it feel a bit safer. Republicans just need to loosen up on some key things in order to gain popular support and the support of a more educated, younger population. I consider myself very far right, but i'm open minded and not ignorant to how the world works. So let me throw out my views, as a Republican, and what I think the GOP should change about how it treats them. I'll also throw in some important conservative views I think need no change at all. 1) [B]Gay Marriage/Homosexual Rights[/B]- The first thing that comes to mind for conservative bashers. As a Christian, I don't recognize marriage as being between two people of the same sex, and traditional Christians believe homosexuality is wrong. However, that should have absolutely nothing to do with what my political views are. Homosexuals should be denied no rights heterosexuals have, and the GOP pushing the view that they SHOULD be denied any rights is going to turn more and more into an intensely punishing negative with coming generations. 2)[B]Taxes/Government Spending[/B]- Government in my opinion should be run as a business. Irresponsible spending hurts the economy in the long run, which in turn hurts tax income which just makes the situation more painful. Social Security and Medicare are outdated programs that need serious revamps. I don't think they should be removed, but if they aren't fixed and saved from becoming bigger money sinks than they already are there won't be much alternative. I don't have much problem with the current tax rate on poor/middle class/wealthy, although there are many loopholes that need to be closed to prevent the wealthy from dodging their fair share. 3)[B]Defense Spending/Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan[/B]- The wars need to be ended. Not irresponsibly so, but they do need to end. With those wars over, defense spending should level out and be reduced to more reasonable levels. I don't pretend to know much about how much money we need to do what defense-spending wise so I won't say much here. Best way I can sum it up is the ounce of prevention (aka billions in spending) is worth a pound of cure (unthinkable consequences of being unprepared, militarily) quote. There are a couple other issues I could throw out, such as gun control and the teaching of creationism in schools but those are such opinion-oriented issues that there's not much point in spelling them out. Hopefully i've been useful in some way. And if anyone cares, I support Romney in the coming elections. He's not a career politician, he's a successful businessman (which we need to run the government right now), he seems very in touch, and has proven to be able to reach across party lines to do what needs to be done (Romneycare, etc). I think Bachmann and Palin are embarassments to the party and are not so much invested in the political aspect as the old fashioned fame and power of the whole thing. Glenn Beck is also an embarrassment to Republicans. I was also never a big fan of McCain, and I think Perry is way too extremist in some respects to be elected president. I'd still take him over Obama though.
[QUOTE=Takkun10;32481713]Because the trickle down effect [I]totally[/I] works.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything?
[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] I've been called racist for not liking Obama. People tend to throw out the race card because they often have no clue how to argue their side, or they use it in a desperate attempt to make their opponent look bad.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32481737]What does this have to do with anything?[/QUOTE] A general idea a lot of republicans hold are that tax breaks for the rich work because when they are out spending money it [I]trickles[/I] down to everyone else.
Here's an interesting study. [url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr169.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32481766]I've been called racist for not liking Obama. People tend to throw out the race card because they often have no clue how to argue their side, or they use it in a desperate attempt to make their opponent look bad.[/QUOTE] It depends on what he says his reason is. For example, a lot of Fox News comments are disparaging of Obama in a racist way. The constant "ape" remarks, the various racist nicknames (Obongo and the like), I mean it's in pretty plain sight elsewhere. [editline]25th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;32482252]Here's an interesting study. [url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr169.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] From their about us page: "Broad Bases and Low Rates: As a corollary to the principle of neutrality, lawmakers should avoid enacting targeted deductions, credits and exclusions. If such tax preferences are few, substantial revenue can be raised with low tax rates. Broad-based taxes can also produce relatively stable tax revenues from year to year." So they're "fair tax" supporters. Lovely.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32480496']Personaly, I am really tired of being called an evil racist bigot for not wanting welfair.[/QUOTE] So do you have a replacement or do you want them to just die?
It's sort of sad to see the weak impeding the strong. By having seven kids on the taxpayers' dollar you're not helping anyone.
I'm writing up a thread on welfare that will cover a lot of it. It can't cover most of the issues in detail as that would take a while. I've heard hour long lectures on single topics, and there is no way I'm going to go to that extent, but I should cover the basics of the argument against it, and the opposing side can make their argument as well.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32479160]I presume you mean "Republican" in the sense that you want a republic to be the type of country you live in, not "American Republican".[/QUOTE]Exactly, those terms mean different things in different countries.
[QUOTE=sonny99;32464692]I assure you not all of them are evil, misguided, fag-hating, anti-science bigots. Just look at me, my best friend is homosexual [i]and[/i] liberal. But seriously, we're not all that bad.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately the party IS evil, misguided, fag-hating, anti-science bigots with economic polices that have never worked. [editline]26th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;32482947]I'm writing up a thread on welfare that will cover a lot of it. [/QUOTE] Is this going to go like your 'removing minimum wage increases wages' bullshit? Because I want to see you try and say removing welfare helps people. [editline]26th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;32466729]Really the only candidates I can support at all are Johnson and Paul, and they are libertarians running on the Republican platform, which is the closest to third party you can get.[/QUOTE] Aren't libertarians supposed to not be socially conservative? Because both of them are. [editline]26th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32481766]I've been called racist for not liking Obama. People tend to throw out the race card because they often have no clue how to argue their side, or they use it in a desperate attempt to make their opponent look bad.[/QUOTE] Beats eight straight years of calling anyone who doesn't blindly support Bush being a traitor and anti-american. Oh wait, that's still going on. [editline]26th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Canesfan;32481728] Gave up a long time trying to advocate conservative views anywhere on the Internet, but the lack of flaming and relative balance in this thread so far makes it feel a bit safer. [/QUOTE] Perhaps that's because conservative views are pretty terrible.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488109]Unfortunately the party IS evil, misguided, fag-hating, anti-science bigots with economic polices that have never worked.[/quote] This... is a debate forum? [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488109] Is this going to go like your 'removing minimum wage increases wages' bullshit? Because I want to see you try and say removing welfare helps people. [/quote] Yeah that thread you ran away from, that was funny. Do it Pepin! [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488109]Aren't libertarians supposed to not be socially conservative? Because both of them are.[/quote] It's not mandatory anybody think a specific way, but they all legislate in similar ways. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488109] Beats eight straight years of calling anyone who doesn't blindly support Bush being a traitor and anti-american. Oh wait, that's still going on. [/QUOTE] Yeah so let's call people who don't support our guy names because they called us names, because that makes logical sense. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488109]Perhaps that's because conservative views are pretty terrible.[/QUOTE] Oh hey, it's still a debate forum, and you're still being stupid!
Wow! A whole lotta nothing, as per usual, sobiet or whatever. [editline]26th September 2011[/editline] I'm rather surprised you're not valiantly defending the Republican party.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488109]Aren't libertarians supposed to not be socially conservative? Because both of them are.[/QUOTE] They have both stated that they would leave it up to localities and states, and if they were in charge of such a small scale they would probably take on liberal stances. Ron Paul PERSONALLY holds older moral values, but he doesn't wish to implement them into law. God, I hate it when people try to imply what you said, because it just shows how ignorant they are of libertarian philosophy. [editline]26th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488682]I'm rather surprised you're not valiantly defending the Republican party.[/QUOTE] Implying Sobeit is a republican. Us libertarians tend to despise the bible-thumping idiots in charge of the GOP. We are just more likely to find agreement with republican candidates than with democratic ones.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32492950]They have both stated that they would leave it up to localities and states, and if they were in charge of such a small scale they would probably take on liberal stances. Ron Paul PERSONALLY holds older moral values, but he doesn't wish to implement them into law. God, I hate it when people try to imply what you said, because it just shows how ignorant they are of libertarian philosophy.[/quote] First off, that's mostly fluff, the fact he's pounding it out so much means he'll do SOMETHING, He's supported more federal regulation on social matters than he has said he'd support it on a local and state level. Even then, letting states do your social conservative needs doesn't strike me as libertarian. Strikes me as a conservative who liked the articles of confederation a bit too much. In reference to Libertarianism, I only said it wasn't social conservative. Unless you're implying it is... [quote]Implying Sobeit is a republican. Us libertarians tend to despise the bible-thumping idiots in charge of the GOP. We are just more likely to find agreement with republican candidates than with democratic ones.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul is a bible-thumping idiot, but you seem to support him.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32493970]First off, that's mostly fluff, the fact he's pounding it out so much means he'll do SOMETHING, He's supported more federal regulation on social matters than he has said he'd support it on a local and state level.[/QUOTE] Quite incorrect. I've been over this so many times with people, they give me quotes and what he supported and I strike them down very quickly. Really if you want to try it go ahead, but it's pretty pointless. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32493970]Even then, letting states do your social conservative needs doesn't strike me as libertarian. Strikes me as a conservative who liked the articles of confederation a bit too much. In reference to Libertarianism, I only said it wasn't social conservative. Unless you're implying it is...[/quote] I don't even think you're aware of what libertarianism is, so I don't know how you could make that judgement. Libertarians are in favor of states rights and small government, and many are in favor on the the constitution. It is actually difficult to say to generalize because many are in favor of no government, but given the choice between a larger federal government and smaller one, and more state rights or less, it's obvious what they'd pick. I can imagine some predictable examples of human right violations done by the states, yet I can give just as many if not more human right violations done by the federal government. Also, slavery as an example doesn't make sense as an example of states rights as it was allowed by the federal government. [QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32493970]Ron Paul is a bible-thumping idiot, but you seem to support him.[/QUOTE] Which shows that you don't understand libertarianism. His religious views are meaningless because he does not wish to force them upon anybody. Even the issue of abortion which is considered to be a religious issue, he'd leave it up to the states.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32494842]Which shows that you don't understand libertarianism. His religious views are meaningless because he does not wish to force them upon anybody. Even the issue of abortion which is considered to be a religious issue, he'd leave it up to the states.[/QUOTE] I thought Ron Paul didn't believe in Separation of Church and State? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion[/url]
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32493970]First off, that's mostly fluff, the fact he's pounding it out so much means he'll do SOMETHING, He's supported more federal regulation on social matters than he has said he'd support it on a local and state level. Even then, letting states do your social conservative needs doesn't strike me as libertarian. Strikes me as a conservative who liked the articles of confederation a bit too much.[/QUOTE] That just shows me you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever as to what libertarianism is.
[QUOTE=Danny Lol;32497092]I thought Ron Paul didn't believe in Separation of Church and State? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion[/url][/QUOTE] Direct quote: "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state." So he claims that the left wants a separation of church and state because they hate that churches "teach morality and civility, and do what government never could"?
[QUOTE=Danny Lol;32497092]I thought Ron Paul didn't believe in Separation of Church and State? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion[/url][/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you're trying to claim given what you replied to, your statement, and the link. Make an argument. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32497161]So he claims that the left wants a separation of church and state because they hate that churches "teach morality and civility, and do what government never could"?[/QUOTE] To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government. There are many means here, such as education, discrimination laws, profanity laws, sin taxes, prohibition of certain products, and so on. This is pretty true of the right as well. Paul would prefer the government not to be the moral authority of anything and would rather for the moral authority to default to the churches, who cannot use force on anyone. I will admit it's a bit of a weird phrasing. He's probably trying to appeal to people who go to church, or maybe he believes this, eh doesn't really matter, the point is that the government shouldn't try to instill morals into the people, but rather the people should be left act on their own moral judgement. Oh, also, I think argument regarding the government never being able to create a moral society hinges on that in order to do so there must be force, and force is immoral, and therefore it is impossible to create a moral society that requires immorality to make it. That might not be what he had in mind, I don't know.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32488109]Perhaps that's because conservative views are pretty terrible.[/QUOTE] What a high quality argument. You have contributed exactly nothing to this thread at all. You obviously read maybe one sentence of my post. No one calls people who don't "blindly support" Bush a traitor or anti-american. Do you get your political views from 4chan posts? Congrats on being the inevitable bandwagoner to come in with no real arguments whatsoever.
I was pretty liberal in high school, but once I graduated and saw the world for what it was (a bad joke in my opinion), I figured that blindly following one politcal mindset is a foolish endeavor. The elections of 2008 and this batch of GOP candidates (sans Paul and from what I have heard Huntsman) only prove that politics is a nasty business. Gay soldier getting booed, people saying they want others to die if they cant pay is bad.....but that doesn't mean the whole of America is like that. This is the end result of almost exclusive control of politics by the Idealouges of the left and right. There can be no middle ground, because politics is fundamentally the allocation of powers and power can sway any human being.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;32498063]What a high quality argument. You have contributed exactly nothing to this thread at all. You obviously read maybe one sentence of my post. No one calls people who don't "blindly support" Bush a traitor or anti-american. Do you get your political views from 4chan posts? Congrats on being the inevitable bandwagoner to come in with no real arguments whatsoever.[/QUOTE] I have a hard time arguing with him, because he tries to make his opinions sound like facts, and he seems to think generalizations are the truth. Normally I try to avoid personal insults, but god damn, he's just dense.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32497684]To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government. There are many means here, such as education, discrimination laws, profanity laws, sin taxes, prohibition of certain products, and so on. This is pretty true of the right as well. Paul would prefer the government not to be the moral authority of anything and would rather for the moral authority to default to the churches, who cannot use force on anyone. I will admit it's a bit of a weird phrasing. He's probably trying to appeal to people who go to church, or maybe he believes this, eh doesn't really matter, the point is that the government shouldn't try to instill morals into the people, but rather the people should be left act on their own moral judgement. Oh, also, I think argument regarding the government never being able to create a moral society hinges on that in order to do so there must be force, and force is immoral, and therefore it is impossible to create a moral society that requires immorality to make it. That might not be what he had in mind, I don't know.[/QUOTE] 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=Smug Bastard;32481187]They may as well be. Bachmann for being batshit insane and Obama for sucking her and other republicans' metaphorical dicks.[/QUOTE] of course if he didn't suck their metaphorical dicks to a certain extent, the country would be fucked. Stop the republicans from gumming up the works in key parts of the government and stop them from shutting down the debate before you blame obama.
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=Pepin;32497684] To simplify, a leftist would prefer a moral society brought by force of government. [/QUOTE] Okay, you're saying I don't understand libertarianism, yet you're saying this stupid shit? Do you not understand the leanings of a social leftist? And they favour ethics, not morals. Morals is a right wing thing. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32499387]I have a hard time arguing with him, because he tries to make his opinions sound like facts, and he seems to think generalizations are the truth. Normally I try to avoid personal insults, but god damn, he's just dense.[/QUOTE] 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? [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Canesfan;32498063]No one calls people who don't "blindly support" Bush a traitor or anti-american.[/quote] You must have been living under a rock for the 8 years under bush. not even those in particular. The whole 'you're with us or against us' attitude. When you had shit like this daily: [img]http://agitprop.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/oreilly_shutup.jpg[/img] (And his whole rant against Hollywood) Plus if you recall entire protests with poorly spelled signs declaring liberals to be traitors. It was very, very prevalent. [quote]Do you get your political views from 4chan posts?[/quote] I don't see how you get that conclusion but no, I hate 4chan and everything it represents.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.