|
On January 09 2012 01:34 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 01:17 xDaunt wrote:
Wonderful, another debate. Why do we need debates less than 24 hours apart?
The knives are definitely out for Romney in this one. These election processes are so stupid it drives me nuts. I feel like the entire election season is about who can go the longest and do the most debates and appearances before they have the "GOTCHA!" moment and say something stupid. I mean, I know a lot of brilliant people, but you put any of them in front of a crowd giving half-improvised responses, and eventually someone is gonna slip with a stupid statement. This process never gives us the best candidate, it gives us the candidate who has the best consultants and handlers and the fewest actual opinions and convictions. In other words a mindless politicians who only knows how to regurgitate his talking points for months at a time, who never actually answers the difficult questions that anyone ever poses, someone who succeeds in fooling the American people long enough with their acting to get elected in order to be a puppet for those already in power. I guess what really irritates me is that the people actually buy into this stupidity. They repeat the shit the media tells them, "Well candidate X said Y in appearance Z, so he can't be elected now." I honestly don't give a damn what a candidate said in one statement in a youtube clip, I only care about the ACTUAL POLICIES THEY WILL PUT IN PLACE once they get elected. Does anyone really believe that Ron Paul could put the US back on the gold standard? Give me a break, please...
Yeah, these debates are getting kinda old. The only difference between these most recent debates and the initial debates is that different candidates are getting more time to talk. What they're saying now is basically identical to what they were saying six months ago.
I will say this though: the debates have done a fairly good job at weeding out inadequate candidates (Perry, Cain, and Bachmann).
|
On January 09 2012 01:34 liberal wrote:
This process never gives us the best candidate, it gives us the candidate who has the best consultants and handlers and the fewest actual opinions and convictions. In other words a mindless politicians who only knows how to regurgitate his talking points for months at a time, who never actually answers the difficult questions that anyone ever poses, someone who succeeds in fooling the American people long enough with their acting to get elected in order to be a puppet for those already in power.
Romney it is! Now I feel like a fool for thinking Perry would win (back in July/Aug)
|
On January 08 2012 22:55 bOneSeven wrote:
I don't see how could Ron Paul loose nomination with those idiots taking besides him ... Extreme ideas ? Only in the last week every other candidate spewed some downright imbecile idea with Gingrich in the front saying the founding fathers would've cracked down HARDCORE on marijuana users / dealers .
Look at the polls. Ron Paul will need to step it up to beat Romney. Sane people don't even have a candidate for this election anyway.
On the so-called "left", Obama is a huge disappointment and has been largely unable to deliver anything good, so I can hardly trust him for a second term given that NDAA is basically a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. (And given how it was heavily supported in congress, this just tells me US politics are pretty terrible)
On the right, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann are literally dangerous and hold some ideas that are so vile they might as well be charged with high treason for being so stupid it's not human. Then you have Romney who's probably not mentally ill (unlike the others) but has stupid ideas which limit personal freedom (albeit less so than the other candidates). Then there's Paul who traded the support of soccer moms in favor of people who's sole interest is the personal freedom of smoking weed. Then there's all the religious garbage because people refuse to grow up -_-...
2008 was better when Obama spouted bullshit that sounded good at the time.
|
On January 09 2012 01:42 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 01:34 liberal wrote:
This process never gives us the best candidate, it gives us the candidate who has the best consultants and handlers and the fewest actual opinions and convictions. In other words a mindless politicians who only knows how to regurgitate his talking points for months at a time, who never actually answers the difficult questions that anyone ever poses, someone who succeeds in fooling the American people long enough with their acting to get elected in order to be a puppet for those already in power. Romney it is! Now I feel like a fool for thinking Perry would win (back in July/Aug)
Nah, you shouldn't feel foolish for it. I don't think anyone could have predicted that Perry, a very-seasoned politician, would self-destruct so spectacularly during the debates.
|
On January 09 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 01:42 Signet wrote:On January 09 2012 01:34 liberal wrote:
This process never gives us the best candidate, it gives us the candidate who has the best consultants and handlers and the fewest actual opinions and convictions. In other words a mindless politicians who only knows how to regurgitate his talking points for months at a time, who never actually answers the difficult questions that anyone ever poses, someone who succeeds in fooling the American people long enough with their acting to get elected in order to be a puppet for those already in power. Romney it is! Now I feel like a fool for thinking Perry would win (back in July/Aug) Nah, you shouldn't feel foolish for it. I don't think anyone could have predicted that Perry, a very-seasoned politician, would self-destruct so spectacularly during the debates.
I always thought Perry was unelectable. First he considers secession as the governor of Texas and then he wants to be the leader of the entire thing? He did well in the polls for a bit, but that's only because people don't know anything.
|
On January 08 2012 20:08 Voros wrote:
3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
And this is just further reasoning of why I can't take libertarians seriously. It seems you're more concerned with the rights of someone to discriminate, rather than the rights of another to not be discriminated against.
You're seriously suggesting that people/businesses/employers be allowed to implement blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic policies? And that it's their right to be able to discriminate as they wish? Is the right of some racist business-owner to not want to hire minorities really more important that the right of members of that minority to fair employment? Or the right of a business-owner to sexually harass his employees, rather than the rights of that employee to not be sexually harassed at work?
|
On January 09 2012 01:36 Kiarip wrote:
The gold standard is just a way to ensure that we have a sound monetary policy. He will at least close down the FED.
Again, don't distort what he's doing. Ron Paul is NOT closing down the FED but, making them more transparent to what they are doing and actually try to make a difference in our economy.
|
On January 09 2012 01:36 Kiarip wrote:
The gold standard is just a way to ensure that we have a sound monetary policy. He will at least close down the FED.
Do you actually think there's enough gold in the word to back up an economy as massive as the US's? Regardless, gold's value is hardly more real than the value of US currency. It's for jewelry and electronics - and even for that it's overpriced artificially.
|
On January 09 2012 01:22 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act http://www.consumerfinance.gov/the-bureau/It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them). Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush
Ah, here comes Kiarip with his brilliant rebuttals again. Do explain yourself, I'm sure you have pearls of wisdom to share regarding why Dodd-Frank is not a step in the right direction. By the way, I take your failure to reply to my previous post as an acknowledgment that you were, indeed, wrong regarding the individual rights of the healthcare providers being violated by a right to healthcare.
|
On January 09 2012 02:02 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 20:08 Voros wrote:
3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
And this is just further reasoning of why I can't take libertarians seriously. It seems you're more concerned with the rights of someone to discriminate, rather than the rights of another to not be discriminated against. You're seriously suggesting that people/businesses/employers be allowed to implement blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic policies? And that it's their right to be able to discriminate as they wish? Is the right of some racist business-owner to not want to hire minorities really more important that the right of members of that minority to fair employment? Or the right of a business-owner to sexually harass his employees, rather than the rights of that employee to not be sexually harassed at work?
Whaaaat?
how do you go from beign discriminant against people to sexually harassing them being ok?
You're not allowed to sexually harass people, it violates their rights.
The thing about racism whether during hiring, providing services to customers, is that business-wise it's not a sound decision. All the racists will eventually go out of business, or will be forced to not practice racism. Racism, and other discrimination have a price in the free market. If you want to want to be irrationally discriminant about certain things, you're literally paying out of your own pocket.
On the other hand, how is what the government does any better? First the make laws that prevent people from being FIRED for racial reasons... so then the business owners that are afraid of lawsuits only hire people of their own race, so the minorities are left without a job. So then government institutes quotas, which results in more qualified people not getting hired over people that help the business fit the quota, so then the effectiveness of the business goes down, the prices for its goods/services goes up, and who benefits from that? No one.
|
On January 09 2012 02:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 01:22 Kiarip wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act http://www.consumerfinance.gov/the-bureau/It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them). Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush Ah, here comes Kiarip with his brilliant rebuttals again. Do explain yourself, I'm sure you have pearls of wisdom to share regarding why Dodd-Frank is not a step in the right direction. By the way, I take your failure to reply to my previous post as an acknowledgment that you were, indeed, wrong regarding the individual rights of the healthcare providers being violated by a right to healthcare.
Um no I replied to it.
You are arguing a strawman the whole way through. My original post clearly said:
The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is different than the government having an obligation to provide health-care.
If someone has a right to health-care, it means they can receive it at any time regardless of whether they or anyone else is paying the health-care giver.
When the government is saying they're going to ensure that the health-care giver provides you with health-care even when you can not pay, this is an example of the government taking on the obligation of providing you with health-care. It may or may not involve actual slavery.
My entire stance against public health-care is based on HOW it's being paid for, and you try to ignore this. If we could somehow have magically free health-care just because the government passed a bill I wouldn't be complaining.
The reason I bring up that everyone having a RIGHT to health-care would be actual slavery, is because when I start talking about the inefficiencies of government sponsored or provided public health-care, people like Biff the Understudy try to dismiss this by saying something along the lines of
"Oh no, you're so egotistical health-care is very important, personally I mercifully believe that people have a right to health-care."
|
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
The reason I bring up that everyone having a RIGHT to health-care would be actual slavery
Words no longer mean what they mean. As such, I can say whatever the hell I want.
|
On January 09 2012 03:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
The reason I bring up that everyone having a RIGHT to health-care would be actual slavery Words no longer mean what they mean. As such, I can say whatever the hell I want.
Well you can, but this isn't just semantics, because saying "people have a right to health-care," ignores the fact that it's actually not a right but more of a privilege, and this privilege needs to be ensured by the government, and it is in the way the government ensures it where the problems with socialized medicine lie. Asking a person if he believes in free health-care for everyone is a complex question in the first place, and a logical fallacy in it of itself, because the health-care isn't actually free unless you enslave those that provide it.
|
On January 09 2012 03:17 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 03:11 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
The reason I bring up that everyone having a RIGHT to health-care would be actual slavery Words no longer mean what they mean. As such, I can say whatever the hell I want. Well you can, but this isn't just semantics, because saying "people have a right to health-care," ignores the fact that it's actually not a right but more of a privilege, and this privilege needs to be ensured by the government, and it is in the way the government ensures it where the problems with socialized medicine lie. Asking a person if he believes in free health-care for everyone is a complex question in the first place, and a logical fallacy in it of itself, because the health-care isn't actually free unless you enslave those that provide it.
Sure it is an semantics argument. You have two sides.
1- Free medicine: Doctors work for free. This is slavery. Futile argument because this isn't happening.
2- "Free" medicine in that it's paid for by taxpayers so that when an individual shows up, they don't have to pay. This is what is happening here. You have to heavily twist the meaning of the word "slavery" to use it here.
Edit: Crazy syntax
|
On January 09 2012 03:20 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 03:17 Kiarip wrote:On January 09 2012 03:11 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
The reason I bring up that everyone having a RIGHT to health-care would be actual slavery Words no longer mean what they mean. As such, I can say whatever the hell I want. Well you can, but this isn't just semantics, because saying "people have a right to health-care," ignores the fact that it's actually not a right but more of a privilege, and this privilege needs to be ensured by the government, and it is in the way the government ensures it where the problems with socialized medicine lie. Asking a person if he believes in free health-care for everyone is a complex question in the first place, and a logical fallacy in it of itself, because the health-care isn't actually free unless you enslave those that provide it. Sure it is am argument semantics. You have two sides. 1- Free medicine: Doctors work for free. This is slavery. Futile argument because this isn't happening. 2- "Free" medicine in that it's paid for by taxpayers so that when an individual shows up, they don't have to pay. This is what is happening here. You have to heavily twist the meaning of the word "slavery" to use it here.
Yeah, but I'm saying this under the circumstances where I'm trying to discuss the actual costs of the government running the health-care, and as a result I get responses that say, "I'm not talking about the costs, tell me how is it slavery?" Well if the costs are there I think it's important to talk about them, because this can be subject to cost-benefit analysis, but if there ARE no costs, then it would be slavery, but since we both agree that that's not the context of the discussion, ignoring the discussion about the costs makes it sound like it's both completely free, and yet not slavery.
|
On January 09 2012 03:23 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 03:20 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2012 03:17 Kiarip wrote:On January 09 2012 03:11 Djzapz wrote:On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
The reason I bring up that everyone having a RIGHT to health-care would be actual slavery Words no longer mean what they mean. As such, I can say whatever the hell I want. Well you can, but this isn't just semantics, because saying "people have a right to health-care," ignores the fact that it's actually not a right but more of a privilege, and this privilege needs to be ensured by the government, and it is in the way the government ensures it where the problems with socialized medicine lie. Asking a person if he believes in free health-care for everyone is a complex question in the first place, and a logical fallacy in it of itself, because the health-care isn't actually free unless you enslave those that provide it. Sure it is am argument semantics. You have two sides. 1- Free medicine: Doctors work for free. This is slavery. Futile argument because this isn't happening. 2- "Free" medicine in that it's paid for by taxpayers so that when an individual shows up, they don't have to pay. This is what is happening here. You have to heavily twist the meaning of the word "slavery" to use it here. Yeah, but I'm saying this under the circumstances where I'm trying to discuss the actual costs of the government running the health-care, and as a result I get responses that say, "I'm not talking about the costs, tell me how is it slavery?" Well if the costs are there I think it's important to talk about them, because this can be subject to cost-benefit analysis, but if there ARE no costs, then it would be slavery, but since we both agree that that's not the context of the discussion, ignoring the discussion about the costs makes it sound like it's both completely free, and yet not slavery.
Feels like a weird way to reason it. Still - alright. The question of cost is obviously a big deal.
|
On January 09 2012 02:02 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 20:08 Voros wrote:
3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
And this is just further reasoning of why I can't take libertarians seriously. It seems you're more concerned with the rights of someone to discriminate, rather than the rights of another to not be discriminated against. You're seriously suggesting that people/businesses/employers be allowed to implement blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic policies? And that it's their right to be able to discriminate as they wish? Is the right of some racist business-owner to not want to hire minorities really more important that the right of members of that minority to fair employment? Or the right of a business-owner to sexually harass his employees, rather than the rights of that employee to not be sexually harassed at work?
I'm sorry, but he's absolutely right, that private property DOES entail the right to discrimination.
I own my vehicle. Because I own it, I can decide who to give rides to and who not to give rides to. If I am racist against blue people, then I can damn well choose to give rides to every red and green person I see, and never pick up a blue person anywhere. That's my right, because it's my property.
The government would have absolutely no right and no justification to FORCE me to give rides to blue people if I didn't want to. They could not tell me "sorry, you are offering rides to red people so you HAVE to give a ride to that blue guy as well." That would imply that the government is the true owner of my vehicle, not me.
Businesses and factories etc. are private property just as much as anything else. If I own a store, I should have the say of who works in my store, for any reason or no reason at all. Ron Paul is absolutely right about Civil Rights Act not only eroding basic liberty, but also slowing the progression of minorities in the US.
Your point about sexual harassment has nothing to do with discrimination by the way, they are two separate and unrelated things, so that point doesn't hold weight.
|
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 02:45 kwizach wrote:On January 09 2012 01:22 Kiarip wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act http://www.consumerfinance.gov/the-bureau/It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them). Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush Ah, here comes Kiarip with his brilliant rebuttals again. Do explain yourself, I'm sure you have pearls of wisdom to share regarding why Dodd-Frank is not a step in the right direction. By the way, I take your failure to reply to my previous post as an acknowledgment that you were, indeed, wrong regarding the individual rights of the healthcare providers being violated by a right to healthcare. Um no I replied to it.
Um no you didn't. The last post in our exchange is this one, which I wrote and to which you did not reply.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
You are arguing a strawman the whole way through.
No, I'm not. You, on the other hand, are about to straw man the shit out of the idea of a right to healthcare. Let's see...
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:My original post clearly said: Show nested quote +The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare. This is different than the government having an obligation to provide health-care. If someone has a right to health-care, it means they can receive it at any time regardless of whether they or anyone else is paying the health-care giver.
And BAM, there you go - straw man. The idea of a right to healthcare (which, in this discussion, was put forward by Bernie Sanders in the video I linked to) is NOT what you just described. See? This is by definition a straw man - you are misrepresenting the idea in question to create the illusion that you easily addressed and refuted it, when in reality your argument did not address the said idea at all. The idea of a right to healthcare, as notably defended by Bernie Sanders, is about individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it. At no point does the healthcare provider get his rights violated - he will get paid either by the individual or the government -, just like the right to counsel does not violate the rights of lawyers.
To sum up, you used a straw man and you were wrong.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote:
My entire stance against public health-care is based on HOW it's being paid for, and you try to ignore this.
I'm ignoring this because that is a different argument to the one I was responding to (the rights of healthcare providers being violated). You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the two, but that's no reason for me to allow you to hijack the discussion by meshing the two.
|
On January 09 2012 04:37 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 02:02 Haemonculus wrote:On January 08 2012 20:08 Voros wrote:
3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
And this is just further reasoning of why I can't take libertarians seriously. It seems you're more concerned with the rights of someone to discriminate, rather than the rights of another to not be discriminated against. You're seriously suggesting that people/businesses/employers be allowed to implement blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic policies? And that it's their right to be able to discriminate as they wish? Is the right of some racist business-owner to not want to hire minorities really more important that the right of members of that minority to fair employment? Or the right of a business-owner to sexually harass his employees, rather than the rights of that employee to not be sexually harassed at work? I'm sorry, but he's absolutely right, that private property DOES entail the right to discrimination. I own my vehicle. Because I own it, I can decide who to give rides to and who not to give rides to. If I am racist against blue people, then I can damn well choose to give rides to every red and green person I see, and never pick up a blue person anywhere. That's my right, because it's my property. The government would have absolutely no right and no justification to FORCE me to give rides to blue people if I didn't want to. They could not tell me "sorry, you are offering rides to red people so you HAVE to give a ride to that blue guy as well." That would imply that the government is the true owner of my vehicle, not me. Businesses and factories etc. are private property just as much as anything else. If I own a store, I should have the say of who works in my store, for any reason or no reason at all. Ron Paul is absolutely right about Civil Rights Act not only eroding basic liberty, but also slowing the progression of minorities in the US. Your point about sexual harassment has nothing to do with discrimination by the way, they are two separate and unrelated things, so that point doesn't hold weight.
What gives you the right to live in society at all? How did you earn it? I propose you immediately leave your computer, leave your city, wander off into the wilderness, and never make contact with another human being again for the remainder of your life, if you REALLY want to respect rights.
|
On January 09 2012 04:37 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2012 02:02 Haemonculus wrote:On January 08 2012 20:08 Voros wrote:
3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
And this is just further reasoning of why I can't take libertarians seriously. It seems you're more concerned with the rights of someone to discriminate, rather than the rights of another to not be discriminated against. You're seriously suggesting that people/businesses/employers be allowed to implement blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic policies? And that it's their right to be able to discriminate as they wish? Is the right of some racist business-owner to not want to hire minorities really more important that the right of members of that minority to fair employment? Or the right of a business-owner to sexually harass his employees, rather than the rights of that employee to not be sexually harassed at work? I own my vehicle. Because I own it, I can decide who to give rides to and who not to give rides to. If I am racist against blue people, then I can damn well choose to give rides to every red and green person I see, and never pick up a blue person anywhere. That's my right, because it's my property.
Last I checked, your vehicle, unlike your business, doesn't imply that you have to work/interact with or for people.
As for your belief that private property, by default, gives you the right to discriminate - then think again (or think for once). There's no default here. But I don't know, the idea just might work and racist institutions would die off - that's as long as we trust people to do the right thing and to stop being racist fuckbags - and we all know how great and respectful people were in the US before the 1960s-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
