United States Presidential Election, 2012

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

I'll say that the Republican I'm liking right now is Ron Paul

You realize he was against the killings of bin Laden and al-Awlaki, right?

Again, for good reasons: both involved intrusion of other countries' sovereignty (Pakistan and Yemen, respectively) and the latter involved the killing of a United States citizen without fair trial and due process. Both of these actions are unconstitutional.

I know nothing about al-Awlaki, but when it comes to bin Laden... again, your (and Ron Paul's) opinions seem to focus not on what's right, but what the law says. I oppose the death penalty, but bin Laden- even if killing him was morally ambiguous- should not have gotten away with the horrible things he did. And he didn't. And I don't see anyone crying over that.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

You're seriously saying that the states- like the state where Rick "Record Number of Executions" Perry got elected to governor- can be trusted with the welfare of poor people?

It's not about whether the states can be trusted or not, it's about whether the feds have the right to force healthcare on the states. And they don't.

So basically, you're saying the law is the ultimate morality, and that it doesn't matter what's morally correct as long as it adheres to the law.

In a way. Capitalism ceases to function if we simply hand out healthcare and other necessities to others. It sound great, but what happens when everyone has everything they want handed to them by the government? They say "What's the point of working when the government can give me all my money?". What happens then? They stop working. What happened in the USSR and other communist countries?

That's just the way capitalism works, some people have to lose out. That's the way it will always work.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

You're seriously saying that the states- like the state where Rick "Record Number of Executions" Perry got elected to governor- can be trusted with the welfare of poor people?

It's not about whether the states can be trusted or not, it's about whether the feds have the right to force healthcare on the states. And they don't.

So basically, you're saying the law is the ultimate morality, and that it doesn't matter what's morally correct as long as it adheres to the law.

In a way. Capitalism ceases to function if we simply hand out healthcare and other necessities to others. It sound great, but what happens when everyone has everything they want handed to them by the government? They say "What's the point of working when the government can give me all my money?". What happens then? They stop working. What happened in the USSR and other communist countries?

That's just the way capitalism works, some people have to lose out. That's the way it will always work.

Giving people the bare necessities to survive is not discouraging them from working, it's preventing them from dying. The government is not giving people "all their money," the government is giving people enough money that they can survive.

You'd change your tune if even once you were in the situation of the people you write off so easily.

 

[Bop1996]

You're seriously saying that the states- like the state where Rick "Record Number of Executions" Perry got elected to governor- can be trusted with the welfare of poor people?

It's not about whether the states can be trusted or not, it's about whether the feds have the right to force healthcare on the states. And they don't.

So basically, you're saying the law is the ultimate morality, and that it doesn't matter what's morally correct as long as it adheres to the law.

In a way. Capitalism ceases to function if we simply hand out healthcare and other necessities to others. It sound great, but what happens when everyone has everything they want handed to them by the government? They say "What's the point of working when the government can give me all my money?". What happens then? They stop working. What happened in the USSR and other communist countries?

That's just the way capitalism works, some people have to lose out. That's the way it will always work.

Giving people the bare necessities to survive is not discouraging them from working, it's preventing them from dying. The government is not giving people "all their money," the government is giving people enough money that they don't die.

You'd change your tune if even once you were in the situation of the people you write off so easily.

I wouldn't object nearly as much to this if the government hadn't taken money to spend on "the arts" as part of the stimulus bill, and other taxes like that. The government doesn't seem capable of giving the necessities; they seem bent on giving perks to their districts and stuff so they can get reelected. Aristotle said in his Rhetoric that the end of Democracy is freedom, but the end of Tyranny is maintenance of power.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

I know nothing about al-Awlaki, but when it comes to bin Laden... again, your (and Ron Paul's) opinions seem to focus not on what's right, but what the law says. I oppose the death penalty, but bin Laden- even if killing him was morally ambiguous- should not have gotten away with the horrible things he did. And he didn't. And I don't see anyone crying over that.

I suppose I should kind of state it differently: I do agree that he should not have gotten away with his heinous acts, but it's not the fact that bin Laden is dead that's bad as much as the fact that we invaded Pakistan's sovereignty in the process of retribution. If we had used the Letters of Marque and Reprisal right after September 11th to target al Qaeda and take out Osama bin Laden on the grounds of being the mastermind of the "air piracy" that was committed on that day, we would have avoided war in Afghanistan (and the time, money, and military service members that were lost all throughout the past decade) and wouldn't have had to choose between attempting to try and have Pakistan into cooperating with us to kill him (which could have been risky) or us invading their sovereignty and killing him on their soil without their permission.
[/quote]

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

The government doesn't seem capable of giving the necessities; they seem bent on giving perks to their districts and stuff so they can get reelected.

Yeah, that's a problem.

 

[Mario4Ever]

In a way. Capitalism ceases to function if we simply hand out healthcare and other necessities to others. It sound great, but what happens when everyone has everything they want handed to them by the government? They say "What's the point of working when the government can give me all my money?". What happens then? They stop working. What happened in the USSR and other communist countries?

They were not communist countries. There has never been a communist country. Communism, in principle, functions on a basis of shared wealth and responsibility...these are not things to be meted out by a single authority, creating a totalitarian state in the process. That's why those countries failed, not because communism is flawed (it is, but for an entirely different reason I'd probably get flack for mentioning), but because it was inaccurately applied. Also, communism is not concerned with people's wants, only with their needs.

 

[Bop1996]

In a way. Capitalism ceases to function if we simply hand out healthcare and other necessities to others. It sound great, but what happens when everyone has everything they want handed to them by the government? They say "What's the point of working when the government can give me all my money?". What happens then? They stop working. What happened in the USSR and other communist countries?

They were not communist countries. There has never been a communist country. Communism, in principle, functions on a basis of shared wealth and responsibility...these are not things to be meted out by a single authority, creating a totalitarian state in the process. That's why those countries failed, not because communism is flawed (it is, but for an entirely different reason I'd probably get flack for mentioning), but because it was inaccurately applied. Also, communism is not concerned with people's wants, only with their needs.

I've read Animal Farm as well, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point.

 

[Quickie-la]

How many of you are actually registered to vote?

Curious question, because I am.

 

[Mario4Ever]

I haven't done it yet...I might, though.