|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 16 2013 15:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Meh, everything about the constitution is vague. I just think if you're going to go around talking about attitudes which put this country in the shitter, neocolonial adventurism should be at the top of your list.
I disagree. Some aspects are very clear, despite the number that are vague. I would support a rewriting of the constitution; it's archaic at this point. Look, I'm not disagreeing that the war was a bad decision. But at some point the expense for it will stop. It's not a continuing problem, going forward. This constant "OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT SUPPORT GIVING MONEY TO X" attitude is a continuing problem going forward. I don't think talking about the latter should be dismissed due to the former.
|
On January 16 2013 15:58 oneofthem wrote:
let's go back to leviticus for the heck of it
Pretty sure that would be irrelevant to this discussion.
|
^he was trying to make a joke about specificity. it wasn't very funny 
edit: you have to understand, BP, some of us are still really fucking pissed off about that war. so when now there's a "leftwing" (lol) president and some money is getting spent and you're all worried and complaining, we tend to remember that little old sore spot. The specific content of your point is, of course, correct as far as it goes - it's the rhetorical thrust which is being objected to.
|
On January 16 2013 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:^he was trying to make a joke about specificity. it wasn't very funny
Nope, that's not what he was joking about at all.
This is what happens when a textualist reading of tl.net posts triumphs over Original Intent, folks.
|
lol, so what was the joke then?
edit: and I've already disposed with the Intentional Fallacy, thanks very much
edit: oh, i see. it was a few posts above
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
@bluepanther
the leviticus thing was a bit too far, i should have said why not have some more civil war reenactments.
|
On January 16 2013 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:^he was trying to make a joke about specificity. it wasn't very funny edit: you have to understand, BP, some of us are still really fucking pissed off about that war. so when now there's a "leftwing" (lol) president and some money is getting spent and you're all worried and complaining, we tend to remember that little old sore spot. The specific content of your point is, of course, correct as far as it goes - it's the rhetorical thrust which is being objected to.
Well, I dislike when I'm being flogged for sins which aren't mine or words or statements made by others are attributed to me. Just because I don't agree with government centralization on all things doesn't make me a homophobe or Islamic racist. I get irritated when the worst is assumed of me. I'm actually somewhat of a liberal, I just feel that the structural delivery systems should more closely resemble decentralization. I also think that state governments and identities are important to keeping a balance of power in the US. There is a reason I'm an outsider amongst the GOP (for now).
And yeah, I realized he was being sarcastic 
|
|
|
On January 16 2013 15:47 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:31 furymonkey wrote:On January 16 2013 15:14 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 15:09 furymonkey wrote:On January 16 2013 14:36 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 12:07 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY? Saying we shouldnt fund disaster relief is like saying we shouldnt have a military or we shouldnt build roads. Its one of the basic things that you have governements to do. If they refuse to do something like that they have no reason to exist because they arent doing there basic core job. Again if you want to deal with debt there are actual causes to it and no disaster relief is not one of them. There is money to be cut that can be cut without giving up on basic governemnt nessecities. States have governments too. I don't exactly see the Federal Government rushing to save us from Asian Carp (or any other natural disaster we've suffered). So yeah, I have a problem when I'm paying for these other states' natural disasters. They don't help us when we need it, why should we help them? It doesn't take a math major to understand that we give them billions while we only receive millions. It irritates me that these people would build homes and businesses in locations where they KNOW they will be subject to hurricanes, and then DON'T GET INSURANCE for it. Then when they lose everything, they think someone ought to pay them for it. It drives me nuts. Wait? Are you saying Asian carp is dealing as much damage is hurricane Sandy? Leaving destruction in its wake? Holy moly!! Can you provide us some source detailed the economic damage caused by natural disaster in your State? It's not that they are equal. My point is that we're paying people billions while we're only getting millions in return. It's a bad deal for us, why should I support that? They can buy insurance if they want to live there. I don't think it's right for them to bypass on insurance, then demand financial support from other citizens who don't choose to live in higher risk areas. I'm not sure about the efficiency of relief spending so I won't comment on that. But i'm not quite sure why is insurance is bought into discussion, disaster relief normally only cover costs such as rebuilding infrastructure such as transportation, necessities such as water, power and health. Supply distribution such as food, medcines to area where those are hard to obtain. Most of these required complex logistics management which is suitable for government to undertake. There might also be emergency housing for those who lost their home, but those aren't permanent and aren't given to people, they are still government owned and can be relocated or sold at later stage. Insurance don't normally get paid right after disaster struck, they don't normally get paid till Insurance company get the full picture of the diaster, and this can take weeks. I think it is fair for government step in and provide diaster relief. Maybe they should bargain for better insurance? I'm sorry, if you live on the East coast and you are hit by a hurricane, that is completely forseeable. Just like if you live in the Midwest, you damn well better have coverage for a tornado. It's not that I don't feel bad for these people, I just don't understand why I should be paying to rebuild their stuff. Now, if a sea monster swallowed Long Island, and it wasn't covered by insurance policies, I would support helping fund some recovery efforts. Same with what happened with the Gulf Oil Spill... that was rather unexpected and wasn't the responsibility of the residents. I personally feel that natural disasters fall into two categories: forseeable and unforseeable. Federal funding shouldn't be used for the forseeable ones. Now if this is just temporary support that is getting paid back by the state or locals, I'm ok with it. But it's not simply just a support structure we're providing that they don't' have the ability to organize.
By helping them get back on their feet faster, will be better for the whole country. This is what others were talked about earlier, it is basically an investment to get things back to what used to be.
By providing minimal help, or no help at all, means they will recover in much slower pace. It will be bad for economy, you might lose your job competing with people who came from east coast looking for work. Companies might reduce staff because east coast is in shamble and loss of client, business opportunities.
This all to yourself attitude can also be used against you, why would a state, local corporation, your neighbours give a damn about you. It might feel like you've already paid everything through tax, but truth is you're being offered with more services, subsidised goods than what you could've afford than you're in a socity without taxes.
There are reason why human work together, because we can achieve far greater this way.
|
On January 16 2013 16:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Meh, everything about the constitution is vague. I just think if you're going to go around talking about attitudes which put this country in the shitter, neocolonial adventurism should be at the top of your list. I disagree. Some aspects are very clear, despite the number that are vague. I would support a rewriting of the constitution; it's archaic at this point. Look, I'm not disagreeing that the war was a bad decision. But at some point the expense for it will stop. It's not a continuing problem, going forward. This constant "OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT SUPPORT GIVING MONEY TO X" attitude is a continuing problem going forward. I don't think talking about the latter should be dismissed due to the former.
Maybe numbers and facts are irrelevant compared to attitudes and literalism (kind of a weird pair, don't you think? Caring about like, how do you FEEL about spending on the one hand, and Sola Scriptura on the other), but the "OMG" causes are a small portion of the budget and less relevant to cutting the deficit, if cutting the actual deficit is your concern, and not just having a Great Attitude about the deficit because numbers are just emotional.
|
On January 16 2013 16:17 sam!zdat wrote:
lol, so what was the joke then?
edit: and I've already disposed with the Intentional Fallacy, thanks very much
edit: oh, i see. it was a few posts above
You have to realise that oneofthem's "humour", if that is what it is, is going more for acidity than wit. It's a kind of misanthropic malevolence minus gaity that we've come to expect from this specimen of practical joker. No wonder he thinks that I'm getting mad all the time.
Although I could never match the original, I'll take my shot at a facsimile of the oneofthem school of humour:
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
nah we should all emigrate to bielefeld where there are still endless oppressive 19th century governments still waiting for proper historians
|
On January 16 2013 16:20 oneofthem wrote:
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
@bluepanther
the leviticus thing was a bit too far, i should have said why not have some more civil war reenactments.
I don't think "the role of government" is something that is settled.
PSA: I'm not religious, you can stop with bible references.
|
On January 16 2013 16:55 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 16:20 oneofthem wrote:
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
@bluepanther
the leviticus thing was a bit too far, i should have said why not have some more civil war reenactments. I don't think "the role of government" is something that is settled.
oh god I hope not. We can agree on this, even if you are on my shitlist 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 16 2013 16:55 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 16:20 oneofthem wrote:
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
@bluepanther
the leviticus thing was a bit too far, i should have said why not have some more civil war reenactments. I don't think "the role of government" is something that is settled. no need to get so meta
if your particular position is that this union is not properly carrying out disaster relief under its power, then that position is absurd.
|
On January 16 2013 16:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 16:55 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 16:20 oneofthem wrote:
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
@bluepanther
the leviticus thing was a bit too far, i should have said why not have some more civil war reenactments. I don't think "the role of government" is something that is settled. oh god I hope not. We can agree on this, even if you are on my shitlist
It's funny, because I think you'd agree with me on far more than you think.
|
On January 16 2013 17:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 16:55 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 16:20 oneofthem wrote:
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
@bluepanther
the leviticus thing was a bit too far, i should have said why not have some more civil war reenactments. I don't think "the role of government" is something that is settled. no need to get so meta if your particular position is that this union is not properly carrying out disaster relief under its power, then that position is absurd.
I think it's abused, to be clearer. And I'm almost always meta. It's part of what makes me unique
|
Haha oh I already know that. But you decided to be plain wrong and obstinate about one of my pet obsessions, and sometimes these things have consequences
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 16 2013 16:53 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 16:17 sam!zdat wrote:
lol, so what was the joke then?
edit: and I've already disposed with the Intentional Fallacy, thanks very much
edit: oh, i see. it was a few posts above No wonder he thinks that I'm getting mad all the time.
i kind of think that because your posts would be funnier that way
|
On January 16 2013 17:07 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha oh I already know that. But you decided to be plain wrong and obstinate about one of my pet obsessions, and sometimes these things have consequences
Maybe that ended another way than I presumed, but I thought we just agreed to disagree on what constituted a "marxist"? I limit it to an ideological devotion to his understanding of labor theory, while you use the term to adopt a wider umbrella. No need for hard feelings over that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 16 2013 17:07 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 17:02 oneofthem wrote:On January 16 2013 16:55 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 16:20 oneofthem wrote:
great, a moltke post i agree with somewhat. let's have more dunning school apologetics so we can get mad.
@bluepanther
the leviticus thing was a bit too far, i should have said why not have some more civil war reenactments. I don't think "the role of government" is something that is settled. no need to get so meta if your particular position is that this union is not properly carrying out disaster relief under its power, then that position is absurd. I think it's abused, to be clearer. And I'm almost always meta. It's part of what makes me unique
well, it's kind of one of the more fundamental reasons why you'd want a political union, to organize a group that's larger than the area that's suffering from a disaster. whatever theoretic framework being used doesn't dispose of the fact that when you put some legal doctrine above real politics, it's a cart before the horse kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
