-
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 Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Skiptastic
Member
JayDubya said:
I don't mind people choosing to smoke, until I realize that when they become sick and decrepit, that my tax money is more than likely going to go to pay for their sickness. That's when I start taking issue with people smoking.
Even though I know you will say that we shouldn't take care of them.
polyh3dron
Banned
No I actually don't smoke weed, but thanks for playing.VanMardigan said:
polyh3dron
Banned
Your "true free market" is just as much of a fairy tale as "true communism" is.JayDubya said:
It looks good on paper but could never pan out in practice.
Xisiqomelir
Member
scorcho said:
Wow, Iraq is so much worse than I thought :/
Skiptastic said:I don't mind people choosing to smoke, until I realize that when they become sick and decrepit, that my tax money is more than likely going to go to pay for their sickness. That's when I start taking issue with people smoking.
Even though I know you will say that we shouldn't take care of them.
As I said, they assumed the risk.
Also, that line of reasoning can be taken to some scary places where society lords over all our choices and overrides individual will with coercive force because of any potential health risks.
pxleyes said:
He made a very good point. You want anything addictive banned apparently, which means you would logically have to support banning cigarettes and returning to the era of alcohol prohibition.
Frank the Great
Banned
Branduil said:
What a ridiculous thing to say.
pxleyes said:
I made no assumptions. I reacted to what you stated and noted what you'd also have to believe in order to be logically consistent.
I did so in the hopes that maybe you'd realize the contradictions therein and either retract or revise your own position. Hey, lopaz did it.
pxleyes said:
I don't believe I've seen the argument as you stated. There's two ends of things, people and businesses.
As for individual people, if you tax them at the same percentage rate and they have more of whatever you're taxing, they'll be paying more by virtue of what a percentage rate is. That's equitable.
As for businesses, if you tax them more, you can guarantee that they'll pass the expense on to the consumer.
I suppose the very rich can often be business owners as well, but I wouldn't combine the arguments.
Eric P said:
Well, there's criminal laws and courts for a reason.
Branduil said:
Wow. This is one of those things so stupid it makes me wonder how much of it you actually believe, as if hoping you didn't mean it completely somehow restores some sanity.
Politicians are accountable and can be kicked out and replaced when needed, as will happen to your buddies this year. There's no charity and goodwill here.
I don't disagree with Branduil. I despise most politicians and the deceit they use to get where they are. I despise the political process such as it is in this country. I would rather the bastards be neutered as much as possible so they can't muck up our daily lives anymore than they already do.
Heads-up: Nate Silver, the guy who runs fivethirtyeight.com, is participating in a live chat in about 15 minutes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/19/live-chat-1-pm-nate-silver/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/19/live-chat-1-pm-nate-silver/
My point was basically an extension of Jay's argument. Jay referred to the banning of cigarettes in which you gave a good response to. I was extending that argument further by adding alcohol in the mix. I was hoping you could give a similar response in the way that you gave to cigarettes. I'm just trying to flesh out the argument on both sides, and to keep it going.pxleyes said:
If you want me to get to a point, I guess it would be that you stated the DEA should go after drugs that are not victimless. My question is do you think that alcohol is a victimless drug? If so, why? If not, why should it be exempt from being banned?
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Skiptastic
Member
JayDubya said:
I'd rather not have that, but at the same time, if I'm going to be paying for other people's health care, I'd rather not have that be regardless of whatever decisions they make in their lives. But, then again, I'd just rather not be paying for other people's health care.
You are wrong. Our government was founded on the Constitution of the United States which clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of our branches of government and guarantees certain rights to Americans. The United States is a democratic nation, but it is not a true democracy, thankfully.pxleyes said:
PrivateWHudson
Member
pxleyes said:
Do you think the rich just put all of their money under the mattress and take it out of circulation? You don't need to trust their charity and goodwill, you just need to trust that it will help people. They will either spend it or invest it. Where do you think the money comes from so you can get a mortgage when you haven't saved up $250K to buy a house outright? Where does the money in your paycheck come from?
StrikerObi
Member
NLB2 said:
We're a democratic republic, to be specific.
Summary of potential Republican VP nods -
MITT ROMNEY:
Pros: history of rapid flip-flops will neatly counterbalance McCain's record of stunning policy reversals to achieve perfect pandering equilibrium; ability to suck opponents into the inky void of his soul should prove useful in veep debate; sweats liquid money
Cons: eccentric space-god religion could appear unacceptably bizarre to pious nation of devout two-thousand-year-old Jewish zombie worshipers
JOE LIEBERMAN:
Pros: sure to spice up campaign with torpid, hectoring schoolmarm charm; could unite America with moderate, bipartisan blow-up-the-world ticket
Cons: combined stench of death might might overwhelm unsuspecting Club For Growth members
BOBBY JINDAL:
Pros: least likely to die over the next four to eight years; zeal for castration and exorcism meshes nicely with party's innovative 12th century social policy
Cons: will inevitably be kidnapped and rendered to a secret CIA torture camp upon his first attempt to board Air Force One, missing tie-breaking vote on critical appropriations bill
TIM PAWLENTY
Pros: voters may be unaware that he is actually Republican
Cons: voters may be unaware that he actually exists
THE CRYPTKEEPER:
Pros: balances out McCain ticket with touch of youth and vigor; winning sense of humor sure to charm media and independents alike; foreign policy expertise ensured by unquenchable thirst for death
Cons: may be just a pre-makeup Joe Biden
DICK CHENEY:
Pros: would make an excellent "Cheney figure;" provides for a smooth transition between Cheney administrations; only way to stop him from activating America's secret self-destruct sequence from within his hidden lair in the tip of the Washington Monument
Cons: None. None whatsoever.
MITT ROMNEY:
Pros: history of rapid flip-flops will neatly counterbalance McCain's record of stunning policy reversals to achieve perfect pandering equilibrium; ability to suck opponents into the inky void of his soul should prove useful in veep debate; sweats liquid money
Cons: eccentric space-god religion could appear unacceptably bizarre to pious nation of devout two-thousand-year-old Jewish zombie worshipers
JOE LIEBERMAN:
Pros: sure to spice up campaign with torpid, hectoring schoolmarm charm; could unite America with moderate, bipartisan blow-up-the-world ticket
Cons: combined stench of death might might overwhelm unsuspecting Club For Growth members
BOBBY JINDAL:
Pros: least likely to die over the next four to eight years; zeal for castration and exorcism meshes nicely with party's innovative 12th century social policy
Cons: will inevitably be kidnapped and rendered to a secret CIA torture camp upon his first attempt to board Air Force One, missing tie-breaking vote on critical appropriations bill
TIM PAWLENTY
Pros: voters may be unaware that he is actually Republican
Cons: voters may be unaware that he actually exists
THE CRYPTKEEPER:
Pros: balances out McCain ticket with touch of youth and vigor; winning sense of humor sure to charm media and independents alike; foreign policy expertise ensured by unquenchable thirst for death
Cons: may be just a pre-makeup Joe Biden
DICK CHENEY:
Pros: would make an excellent "Cheney figure;" provides for a smooth transition between Cheney administrations; only way to stop him from activating America's secret self-destruct sequence from within his hidden lair in the tip of the Washington Monument
Cons: None. None whatsoever.
polyh3dron
Banned
I LOL'dscorcho said:
The Librarian
Banned
lawl That's awesome.scorcho said:
PrivateWHudson
Member
scorcho said:
They should have put Mitt toward the bottom, the rest just couldn't live up to the bar set here.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Whoooooa. The electoral count is getting close at electoral-vote.com.
PrivateWHudson
Member
So does Obama try to shore up MI, PA and NY, or Flip NC, OH and FL?
SouthernDragon
Member
siamesedreamer said:
Unfortunate, but it's not much a violation. From what I can tell, the state system doesn't rely on volunteers, so much as paid workers. That money has to come from somewhere. It's not like there are people standing on street corners saying "Vote Obama! 50 free dollars for your vote!"
Servbot #42
Unconfirmed Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Obama is doomed confirmed.
Hey, guess what--in southern New Mexico the McCain campaign is offering the local bosses $1000 each to turn up 300 votes through their extended families, locals who depend on them for water access, etc. These are for folks that usually vote Democratic. If you want to talk about buying votes...siamesedreamer said:
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
His own son said he wasn't vettedFatalah said:
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
So Obama already has made his choice and hasn't told Bid...........errr.........the candidate yet? Is he worried the candidate will leak the information?
- Status