Invisible_Insane
Member
How does it feel to "love it or leave it" a conservative?besada said:
Trivium: "off of" is never correct. Not ever. You will always be able to find a single preposition that does the job better.doomed1 said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
empty vessel
Member
Mardak said:
Nobody is "forced" to do anything, even pay taxes. Societies are voluntary compacts. You don't want the responsibility that comes with the benefits of being part of a society? Then get the fuck out.
Mardak said:
This is the very concept of civilization: we work together to get things done. We help each other and accomplish more together, collectively. If you don't want to be part of a collective group working together, you're welcome to leave.
That is ideal, but often it isn't possible. Perhaps those in "closer proximity" cannot or will not help, or don't have the expertise, and so forth.
I'll reverse this question on you: what do we gain by not helping each other, by not working together? When your tribe can't do [X], while my tribe can, but your tribe can do [Y] and my tribe can't, isn't it better for everyone if I help you with [X] and you help me with [Y]?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
geeze, Huntsman has barely spoken.
Byakuya769
Member
That last infographic is bullshit.
The federal government's role is to deal with other countries, defend the states and coin money that can be used among the states plus various other itemized powers from Article 1 Section 8. By having a federal government handling those, each individual state does not need to worry about those things like building up its own army and navy.Mike M said:
Why do you think it's wrong for each state to decide how it wants to run things instead of having a majority of states force an idea on other states?
I never said that people shouldn't help each other. And your example is very much the free market where one group is able to do something better than another and people can trade and barter.Opiate said:
Just because I don't want the federal government to force me to do something doesn't mean I won't help other people. And similarly, if the federal government doesn't enforce prohibition doesn't mean everyone will drink alcohol just because they're allowed to.
Byakuya769
Member
Plus the sizing of the words is deceptive. Also I think there's a little falsehood by omission.SolKane said:
Just don't care for petty stuff like this when the administration fails to call them out when it could actually affect change and not just win an election.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
That infographic is embarrassing for the White House
RustyNails
Member
Oh stop it. You've worked your way into taxes=theft category a bit too much. The government collects taxes not because it wants your money, but because it needs it to run the damn country. A country wouldn't run by itself. Roads, bridges, and railways won't fix themselves. Safety codes, building codes, factory standards, efficiency standards, and traffic regulations won't enforce themselves. Burning houses and criminals won't stop themselves and injured victims in car crashes won't hitch a taxi cab to the nearest hospital with an ICU. You need to stop living in your little world where there is just you, your farm, and a tax collector.Mardak said:
Mardak said:
The federal government's role also includes collecting federal taxes per the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment exists because it was passed by the representatives of the people. And by people I mean living people, whose will trumps that of a bunch of dead guys.
You can't ignore the parts of the Constitution that you don't like if you're making your argument based on the Constitution. The founding fathers weren't omniscient, nor were they dieties whose words and ideas we're required to worship without change, ad infinitum.
The federal government's role is whatever we say the federal government's role is. That's the actual beauty of the Constitution, not that it enshrines ideas promulgated by aristocratic, sexist, slave owners who are long mouldering in their graves.
Byakuya769 said:
The good news is we only have to endure one more year of petty mudslinging and buck passing, and then we can finally move on and solve the country's issues.
AlteredBeast said:
They don't actually have to do anything to highlight the inanity of the debates, I mean on CNN they were literally asked if they preferred Coke or Pepsi.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Why make words that were mentioned once huge? Then you include words, out of 50,000 spoken bolded when they mentioned once, oftentimes as an answer to a gotcha question.
Desperation has onset...
Desperation has onset...
PhoenixDark
Banned
Perry's live announcement
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2..._perry_announces_presidential_bid.php?ref=fpa
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2..._perry_announces_presidential_bid.php?ref=fpa
NihonTiger90
Member
Watching the Perry presidential announcement and he reminds me of Bush in his mannerisms. Must be something that comes with the Texas governorship, lol.
besada said:
Not only that, but it would mean any plane looking to fly over state lines and any piece of equipment destined for a plane that could fly over state lines would have to seek approval from every state agency. To call this impossible and unworkable would be the understatement of the millennium.
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
quite ready for the Perry administration
Yeah, bolding words that were only mentioned once is really pathetic. I think it's even worse that the WH is already in full campaign mode, with about 15 months to the election. It's going to get to the point where the President is going to spend half of his term blatantly campaigning, instead of getting policy accomplished. This should be like in most countries, and three months tops. The longer it goes, the more money is needed, and the more these politicians will rely on big money doners.AlteredBeast said:
NihonTiger90 said:
It's traditional Texas folksyness. Drop the g on any word ending with "ng", broaden your "a" vowels, speak slowly, truncate words with "er" into a simple "r", and you too can sound like a Texan.
Edit: For extra credit you can insert "r" sounds after that long "a", so you get words like "warsh" instead of "wash."
cartoon_soldier said:
Most mainstream Muslims don't even consider the Ismaili community to be a part of Islam. They usually don't even follow the basic tenants of the religion.
I think this is something he could get past regardless, it'd be a small distraction at best.
Edit: Watching his announcement. Pretty funny stuff. I hope its Perry vs Obama.
elrechazado
Banned
obama a texan confirmedbesada said:
NihonTiger90
Member
I like the parts where he said we should get everyone a job. So how can we force companies to do that without the government intervening?
EDIT: Well, he's certainly hitting every GOP talking point. Israel, border security, tax and spend, socialism.
EDIT: Well, he's certainly hitting every GOP talking point. Israel, border security, tax and spend, socialism.
And why can't this be handled by the states? Why should I have my income taken away from me by the federal government to bail out large corporations and give preference to the military corporations that want more wars so they can keep making bombs?RustyNails said:
And how is having them controlled by the federal government better? The big corporations only need to convince the members of congress to get preferential treatment. And similarly corporations only need to infiltrate the one federal FDA to make sure regulations benefit them more than other companies.RustyNails said:
Tyson Foods produces a lot of meat for the whole world and their employees have made it in to the FDA. And Tyson Foods prevents retailers like Costco from doing its own safety tests because they say the FDA has done enough testing.
Why does there need to be just one federal agency instead of multiple where consumers can decide if they trust one or the other. Or similarly if they trust retailers like Costco to do their own testing.
Black Republican
Member
cant knock perry for being able to create jobs, i think some of the dems response to that was bitter imo
JohnTinker
Limbaugh Parrot
I'm probably voting for the guy but man this speech blows
PhoenixDark
Banned
I can't help but think Romney's front runner status pretty much ends today.
NihonTiger90
Member
PhoenixDark said:
Pretty much, unless Perry does something incredibly, incredibly stupid.
Mardak said:
Absolutely! In many ways, government work and private work are similar. However, some activities are better suited for one over the other. The production and sale of shoes is best left to private enterprise, for example. That market functions well. However, Police forces offer a counter example where the free market breaks down and doesn't work the way we'd like it to. Another example might be poor people without family in need of health care; the free market does not take care of them, because they have no money, and they have no family to offer assistance. Again, in this situation, the free market is not working the way we'd want, as we consider it unacceptable that such a person simply die in the streets.
The government is not a handout machine -- it's there to remedy situations where the free market doesn't work right. Most people feel private roads are a bad idea, private fire departments, and so forth; it's not because you literally cannot have private departments/roads/etc, but because historically those institutions have not functioned optimally by civilized standards when they are privatized. Again, this is not true of all markets -- or even most markets -- but of some, and particularly ones we consider essential to fundamental values like life and health.
That's fine, and I'm really glad you feel that way. However, there are people who may not be as charitable as you, and do indeed need to be forced to help others. If they want to be part of civilization, they need to work together with us; if they won't help voluntarily, they can either be forced to (i.e. taxes) or they can leave our civilization.
What is unacceptable is people who enjoy the fruits our civilization has wrought -- nice homes, heating in the winter, easy transportation -- but who do not give back in return. If someone tries to do that, they will be forced to contribute or they can leave.
empty vessel
Member
Mardak said:
On what basis would consumers have to judge the trustworthiness of various state agencies? And how is that not just a gigantic waste of resources? I thought libertarians were supposed to care about efficiency. The most efficient way to make sure food is safe is to have one national agency regulate it. Yes, having one agency makes it vulnerable to capture. But one large agency is less vulnerable than 50 much smaller state agencies that nobody pays attention to. I have seen state government at work, and it does corporate bidding like no other. The federal government is actually less susceptible to corporate influence than are state governments, which tend to be terrible guardians of workers and consumers, although I'm sure it varies by state. (Some states, like Texas, outright attack workers and consumers on behalf of business.)
Workers and consumers are more empowered nationally than when divided up into 50 enclaves. And together they can watch one government more easily than 50. The empowerment of workers and consumers that is derived from national scope is, in fact, what makes the federal government less susceptible to corporate control.
All that said, it is still incredibly sad how influenced the federal government is. That is mostly a product of our national election rules that allow so much money to be poured into them. We should change those, stat.
- Status