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.

 

[Quickie-la]

Mmm, I registered when voting for Medical Marijuana.

 

[Pokemon DP]

I have to register next year. Australia has mandatory voting, so I don't really have a choice...

 

[Mario4Ever]

I have to register next year. Australia has mandatory voting, so I don't really have a choice...

Why is it mandatory (sorry if it's a stupid question)?

 

[Pokemon DP]

Because our government is filled with fuckwits? I've never known why it's compulsory, it just is.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

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 have to agree with Thomas Hobbes in that any system that people can take advantage of will be taken advantage of, which why communism failed. It would be great if not taken advantage of, I'm not arguing with that.

EDIT: Also - CLOSE ENOUGH

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

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 have to agree with Thomas Hobbes in that any system that people can take advantage of will be taken advantage of, which why communism failed. It would be great if not taken advantage of, I'm not arguing with that.

EDIT: Also - CLOSE ENOUGH

ahem

i am trying to debate here

I do not believe healthcare is within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.

Thank you.

The Tenth Amendment states that all rights not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution, nor kept from the states, are reserved for the states only. Therefore the states get to choose their healthcare systems.

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.

 

[ralphfan]

Nice job, Ron Paul.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

Nice job, Ron Paul.

And he seemed so normal...

I'm disappointed. Aside from Romney, he was the only one who didn't seem to be on the brink of cackling madly, taking off his shirt, and racing down the nearest highway screaming that the liberals were trying to control his brain.

I guess he hid his crazy better than Bachmann did.

 

[Mario4Ever]

Romney's the only who even has a shot, IMO, not that I'm going to vote for him.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Romney's the only who even has a shot, IMO, not that I'm going to vote for him.

Gingrich was doing pretty well until he failed to register in Virginia, which is why he's declined in the past weeks.

Still a better candidate than Romney, though, in my opinion.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

[quote author=redacted]
if the employer creates a bad environment and you refuse to leave from that environment, then you easily help perpetuate the problem. This view also stems from his belief in the role of government: is the government supposed to guarantee everybody a right to a secure workplace, and if so, how much can the government micromanage in each workplace? Ron Paul simply believes that it is not the role of the federal government to secure the workplace, but it is the right of The People to expose these companies with employers that harass their employees and to boycott and to protest these practices (and it is also under the jurisdiction of the states and local governments to make laws in regards to these sorts of situations, not the federal government).

Taking these views into perspective, his positions are not bad.
[/quote]

The People? People SUCK. People won't do anything. The problem with the views of people like Ron Paul is that he maintains both a ridiculously harsh and cynical view of people- ("AIDS victims shouldn't be helped by the government. Let's just leave them to rot and die, I don't give a fuck") but at the same time an extremely naive view- ("Oh, people will sort it out! It doesn't matter what horrible, horrible things someone does! Everyone is so sparkly happy perfect they'll work it out!")

Not to mention that in this economy, quitting a job is financial suicide- so the employee's only options would be to keep taking the harassment, or be jobless!

This philosophy runs on apathy and sheer selfishness.

I'm just glad that there's no chance of this dipshit getting elected.




EDIT: I was kind of harsh there, I apologize, but I can't think of a more effective way to phrase what I was trying to say ATM and I'm tired so I'm not going to edit it

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

Ron Paul is not Jesus.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

[quote author=redacted]
So, you're right, we probably would not have had a Civil Rights Act, since the principles of freedom, liberty, and small government would have been upheld through the Constitution as opposed to in legislation.
[/quote]

Or segregation would have been allowed to flourish since 'it's not the government's place to make sure people are treated equally.'

 

[Mario4Ever]

Bachmann's bit the dust, folks.

Think Newt'll go next?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Bachmann's bit the dust, folks.

Think Newt'll go next?

Nah, Newt's doing alright considering how bogged down he is in attack ads.

He's easily got the potential to rise up again. If he participates in any other debates (which he's been doing great in recently) that would help his numbers. Not sure whether or not he should keep going with his "positive campaign" idea, it's a bit of a gamble but it might pay off.

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

Bachmann's bit the dust, folks.

Think Newt'll go next?

Bachmann already had no chance, she went out like Perry- slowly and pathetically. Newt will go out like Cain- in a flaming explosion of crazy.