LIBERALS - I don't understand why they think STEALING is okay?

[quote name='electrictroy']Same argument applies to Subways. Why should people who have NEVER set foot on a subway, be forced to fund the tickets for those who do? *Let subways be funded by ticket sales* not taxes.

And before you try the "non-cardrivers are forced to fund roads" argument, that does not hold any water with me either. That too is wrong. Any example where a person is forced to fund someone else's entertainment/luxury item, is wrong.[/QUOTE]
So to follow your argument to its ludicrous end - You'd be happy with toll booths at every intersection. After all, if I drive on Main St. but never on Elm St., why should I be forced to pay for improvements to Elm? Also each child would pay for that day's schooling every morning. If my kid is out sick today, why should I pay for school? If my house has never caught fire, should the government be "stealing" my money to pay for a fire department? Same for the police.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']B) Stadiums produce major revenue for the city (you have to spend money to make money)[/quote]
No economic study has shown that cities make more money than prior to the new stadium. In fact, the cost of the stadium often means that the city is losing money compared to keeping the old stadium. The only contingent, of course, is the loss of revenue if a team threatens to leave if a new stadium isn't built, and the potential revenue lost by not having said athletic team. That's tantamount to bribery, IMO, while others could say it's simply business being business. There's an excellent book about the city of Columbus resisting pressure (and multiple, multiple votes) on tax increases to pay for two stadiums: Nationwide Arena (NHL's Columbus Bluejackets) and a stadium that was to go to an MLS team exclusively, but I believe is shared with the team - if it exists - and OSU's soccer team, as a result of the city voting against subsidizing the costs; the book is "High Stakes" by Kent Schwirian, Ted R Curry and Rachel Waldorff.

Citiies do build the stadiums
Click to expand...
yes.
and let the teams use it (for a fee)
Click to expand...
no.
I'm pretty sure the stadiums are still owned by the cities themselves
Click to expand...
no.
which is why teams are able to move so easily. When the Browns moved to Baltimore, who do you think was going to buy their stadium?
Click to expand...
the city.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']no.[/QUOTE]
I was looking through wikipedia. After reading through about 10-15 baseball teams, the only team I saw whose stadium was not owned by the city/state agency/county was the Philadelphia team...whose stadium was funded by a bank.

If you can find some examples where the city funded and just "gave" the stadium (title and all) to someone, I'm all ears. But, near as I can tell, if a city funds it, they retain ownership. If they do, they most certainly charge rent.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I was looking through wikipedia. After reading through about 10-15 baseball teams, the only team I saw whose stadium was not owned by the city/state agency/county was the Philadelphia team...whose stadium was funded by a bank.

If you can find some examples where the city funded and just "gave" the stadium (title and all) to someone, I'm all ears. But, near as I can tell, if a city funds it, they retain ownership. If they do, they most certainly charge rent.[/QUOTE]

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/CincinnatiBengals/newindex.htm

I *thought* Paul Brown was owned by the Bengals. I'm wrong, it's owned by the County. Now keep in mind that all bookings at PBS have to be approved by the Bengals administration. So it appears that the city owns the stadium (which means they cover the costs of running it), while the team has control over who appears there. In its 5 years of use, Billy Graham came for a festival, and there was the 2005 Jazz festival there. It's been unused otherwise. So, I'm wrong on that account (at least locally, and from what it sounds, elsewhere); I don't think that ownership coincides with carte blanche control, however, and probably implies more cost.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']So to follow your argument to its ludicrous end - You'd be happy with toll booths at every intersection.[/QUOTE]

The toll booths are located at the Gas Station. Didn't you know that?


The Ideal is that everyone pays for their own services:
- Things that benefit ALL will get funded by all (military defense, civil police, emergency firemen)

- Things that only benefit a few, get funded by those few:
----- Subways are funded by Ticket Holders, not taxes
----- Roads are funded by Car Owners. Don't own a car? You pay nothing.
----- Stadiums are funded by the Corporate Owners of the Team (billionaires can afford to pay their own bills)
----- Ditto to all other Corporate Welfare
----- Schools are funded by those who have or had children. People w/o children, don't pay.
----- Museums are funded, not by taxes, but by the Ticket Sales. Got an empty museum that nobody visits & sales are too slow to pay the bills? Too bad. Close it down. Why keep open a museum if virtually nobody wants to see it?



And so on & so forth.

Nobody has a right to take Somebody Else's money, for their own selfish benefit. That's almost a direct quote from the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. A wise man. Example: If you want to ride the subway, you have no right to use your neighbors' money. Pay for it yourself.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']
----- Roads are funded by Car Owners. Don't own a car? You pay nothing.[/QUOTE]
What about non-car owners who have a fire or police emergency? Do we have to use helicopters for them since they don't pay to maintain the roads to their houses?

You have a very shallow understanding of what benefits the common good. Roads and schools benefit everyone. The kids in school today will be running the government, police and hospitals tomorrow. It's in everyone's best interest to have a well-educated population.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='electrictroy']
----- Roads are funded by Car Owners. Don't own a car? You pay nothing.[/QUOTE]
What about non-car owners who have a fire or police emergency? Do we have to use helicopters for them since they don't pay to maintain the roads to their houses?

You have a very shallow understanding of what benefits the common good. Roads and schools benefit everyone. The kids in school today will be running the government, police and hospitals tomorrow. It's in everyone's best interest to have a well-educated population.[/QUOTE]
QFT. :applause:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']What about non-car owners who have a fire or police emergency? [/QUOTE] You already know the answer. "Every rule has an exception." Obviously I'm not going to let a non-car owner burn to death, just because they didn't pay the toll.

Just as I'm not going to let some guy lay in the street & starve. (shaking head)

Come on. I'm not a cold-hearted person. Stop treating me as such. I care about people just as much as you do. Perhaps more. I merely differ in how I think society should be run. Basically my views on the world can be summed up by reading Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party. I am a Jeffersonian. If you hate my views, you're basically hating the Founder of your own party (if you're a D).


[quote name='MrBadExample']Roads and schools benefit everyone. The kids in school today will be running the government, police and hospitals[/QUOTE]
Okay. I can accept that. I understand your viewpoint.

But I can not accept your argument for subways, stadiums, museums, or corporate welfare. Spending taxdollars on these items does not benefit everyone. These items only benefit a small few.
 
ignore.jpg
 
[quote name='electrictroy']The toll booths are located at the Gas Station. Didn't you know that?


The Ideal is that everyone pays for their own services:
- Things that benefit ALL will get funded by all (military defense, civil police, emergency firemen)

- Things that only benefit a few, get funded by those few:
----- Subways are funded by Ticket Holders, not taxes[/quote]

Tickets will shoot up to fund the difference, and the poor won't be able to afford it or a car.

----- Roads are funded by Car Owners. Don't own a car? You pay nothing.
Click to expand...

Less people will be able to afford a car, meaning less people will be able to work or go about their daily life.

----- Schools are funded by those who have or had children. People w/o children, don't pay.
Click to expand...

Quality of schools drop, and only those who can't afford a private school are stuck with the results. Or the taxes go up, hitting the poor hardest (they have less money to cover the extra).



And so on & so forth.

Nobody has a right to take Somebody Else's money, for their own selfish benefit. That's almost a direct quote from the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson. A wise man. Example: If you want to ride the subway, you have no right to use your neighbors' money. Pay for it yourself.
Click to expand...

You want the goal of government to extend no further than help ensure people aren't killed. Your own greed of keeping more money is more important than ensuring those who are poor have access to basic services. You can't have it both ways, you can't whine about people stealing your money then call everyone else selfish for saying the poor (which most of us are not) should have certain things funded or subsidized.

But seriously, people don't care what jefferson says about religion, government intrusion into live (ie. patriot act) etc. But they pretend they care when he has a quote that vaguely agree with them.
 
[quote name='camoor']If by "far left" you mean "dyed-in-the-wool Communist" then I have to agree.

I have yet to see a case where you didn't think a person who was receiving handouts from the state deserved more, even when there was evidence presented that the person was enjoying several luxuries that are priced out of the budget of the middle class.

Although I also find it humorous how thoroughly the government and government-friendly corporations have brainwashed the rest of us into not realizing how little of our money goes into the largely fictional "welfare state". The government now views our tax dollars as a big cake, and gets us to argue about the size of the crumbs that drop down to the poor. Meanwhile huge slices of this cake are being given away in the form of favorable corporate tax legislation, corporate welfare, and pork barrel projects for the localities of powerful politicians.[/QUOTE]

I've never joined a communist group or been around a bunch of communists.

You also seem to have trouble understanding that I'm not going to look at an individual and say "I don't want them cheating the system so I'm gonna make it so no one gets those benefits". I'm not going to make my opinion based on what the few do (unless their is overriding reason to, and personal disgust is not that), when there are many who use it properly. People often bring up ridiculous examples like: "OMG, they have a cell phone!" (and troy is arguing that poor shouldn't have them since he doesn't use his much). Or they had a nice shirt on (which you have no idea how much they paid for it), or spend a few bucks on something that wasn't a necessity (with the tickets it probably was genuinely a few bucks).

Think of a cop. I saw a video once of a cop stealing donuts through the drive through window. Now that's funny, and it plays on the stereotypes of cops. I get a laugh everytime I go buy a dunkin donuts and see 1 normal car and 6 police cars too. But the difference is I don't sit there and say they're all just lazy bastards who care more about stuffing their face than enforcing the law, and therefore we should stop them all (or only allow a select few) from purchasing donuts. People seem to base their decision on their reactions to individuals more than the whole.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']You already know the answer. "Every rule has an exception." Obviously I'm not going to let a non-car owner burn to death, just because they didn't pay the toll.

Just as I'm not going to let some guy lay in the street & starve. (shaking head)

Come on. I'm not a cold-hearted person. Stop treating me as such. I care about people just as much as you do. Perhaps more. I merely differ in how I think society should be run. Basically my views on the world can be summed up by reading Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party. I am a Jeffersonian. If you hate my views, you're basically hating the Founder of your own party (if you're a D).



Okay. I can accept that. I understand your viewpoint.

But I can not accept your argument for subways, stadiums, museums, or corporate welfare. Spending taxdollars on these items does not benefit everyone. These items only benefit a small few.[/QUOTE]

Mass transit (subway) does benefit you. Even if you are not using the subway, it reduces the traffic on the roads you are driving on, reducing the number of accidents, delays, and even wear and tear on the roads. It also helps to reduce pollution from cars, so you get to breath fresher air.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Tickets will shoot up to fund the difference, and the poor won't be able to afford the subway, or a car.[/quote] Okay. Then what? Can't they walk to the store to cash their food stamps?

And if they have a job, can't they use that money to buy a cheap $1000 car (like I drive)? I've worked a $6.00 an hour job, but I still had enough money to support myself, so I don't buy that "they can't afford it" crap. If *I* can survive, why can't they?



You want the goal of government to extend no further than help ensure people aren't killed. Your own greed of keeping more money is more important than ensuring those who are poor have access to basic services.
Click to expand...
STRAWMAN Argument.

Have you not read my Jefferson? He never said that. Neither did I. I've said, not just once but several times, I support Foodstamps to ensure people don't starve.



But seriously, people don't care what jefferson says about religion, government intrusion into live (ie. patriot act) etc.
Click to expand...
YOU MISSED THE MARK. I'm not religious. And I don't like the Patriot Act or Bush's wire-tapping.

You need to throw away that "Republicans are cold callous bible-thumpers" because that's not me. Judge ME, not a stereotype.
 
[quote name='greendj27']Mass transit (subway) does benefit you. Even if you are not using the subway, it reduces the traffic on the roads you are driving on....[/QUOTE] (1) I don't buy that. Subways subtract less than 1% of the population off of roads. The impact is trivial & not measureable. (2) My roads don't have congestion. The problem does not exist. So I (and others living in Baltimore suburbia) gain NO benefit whatsoever. (3) Pollution - You think subways don't pollute??? Where I live, subways run off electrical coal-plants belching black smoke. So yes, they DO pollute. Again, there's no benefit.

(4) Let the subway riders PAY THEIR OWN TICKETS and stop stealing the money from their neighbors' wallets. Esepcially those wearing suits & earning ~$50,000 a year. They are rich enough to pay the full price.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Tickets will shoot up to fund the difference, and the poor won't be able to afford the subway, or a car.[/quote] Okay. Then what? Can't they WALK to the store to cash their food stamps?

And if they have a job, can't they use that money to buy a cheap $1000 car (like I drive)? I've worked a $6.00 an hour job, but I still had enough money to buy food/rent apartment, so I don't buy that "they can't afford it" crap. If *I* can survive, why can't they?

And finally, by your own admission the middile & upper incomes DON'T NEED ASSISTANCE. Why should already well-off people, professionals earning ~$50,000 a year, get subsidized tickets??? Answer: They Should Not.

You want the goal of government to extend no further than help ensure people aren't killed. Your own greed of keeping more money is more important than ensuring those who are poor have access to basic services.
Click to expand...
STRAWMAN Argument. Have you not read my Jefferson? He never said that. Neither did I. I've said, not just once but several times, I support Foodstamps to ensure people don't starve.

But seriously, people don't care what jefferson says about religion, government intrusion into live (ie. patriot act) etc.
Click to expand...
YOU MISSED THE MARK. I'm not religious. And I don't like the Patriot Act or Bush's wire-tapping.

You need to throw away that "Republicans are cold callous bible-thumpers" because that's not me. Judge ME, not a stereotype.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm aware of what the constitution says, meanwhile, it also says we the people. Not we the electrictroy. It appears that the people have sided against your point of view.[/QUOTE]
Bzzz.

The United States is not a Democracy (aka tyranny of the majority to trample on the minority).

The United States is a representative Republic (rule of the law), and those laws protect the Individual's basic rights. One of those rights is to own property & not have other people steal it from you.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Okay. Then what? Can't they walk to the store to cash their food stamps?[/quote]

First off, how many people are in walking distance of work? And how many people can walk to a store, let alone a grocery store, in a non city area? Here, north of boston, I either need a car, or to call a taxi, to get to a store, any store. Walking there would take an hour. In vermont, where our house is, driving to a grocery store takes 25 minutes, 10-15 minutes to simply a store.

And if they have a job, can't they use that money to buy a cheap $1000 car (like I drive)? I've worked a $6.00 an hour job, but I still had enough money to support myself, so I don't buy that "they can't afford it" crap. If *I* can survive, why can't they?
Click to expand...

You paid for your kid (s), a car, car insurance, rent, utilities etc. on minimum wage? I don't think so. And the cost of living also varies greatly, what works in montana won't work anywhere in new england.



STRAWMAN Argument.

Have you not read my Jefferson? He never said that. Neither did I. I've said, not just once but several times, I support Foodstamps to ensure people don't starve.
Click to expand...

You realize that you just said you support food stamps so people don't starve, which is the same thing I said. You support government to ensure people don't die. Basic services are geared toward improving life and the quality of it, as well as basics such as ensuring life.

YOU MISSED THE MARK. I'm not religious. And I don't like the Patriot Act or Bush's wire-tapping.

You need to throw away that "Republicans are cold callous bible-thumpers" because that's not me. Judge ME, not a stereotype.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think the cold and callous part fits. Though I was even thinking of this until you mentioned it.
 
Actually you said " You want the goal of government to extend no further than help ensure people aren't killed" which I interpreted as protecting them from active killing (murderers). But you meant "not starve".


But anyway, I suppose that's true. I don't see a good argument for why ONE person should have a right to take & spend OTHER people's money. If a guy works at the local steel shop, sweats his ass off earning the dollars, why should he be forced to give it to someone else who vegitates in a sofa all day? (OR worse: Give it to a rich corporation?)


- A man (or woman) OWNS his body.
- He/she also owns the product that body produces (labor, goods, money)
- Why should anyone else take what properly belongs to that man or woman?

You have yet to give a good reason.



Also, you call me "cold/callous" but I call taking money from the laborers & giving it to Ted Turner so he can build a new stadium IMMORAL. It's theft.

I don't see how you can justify that.




I also don't see how you can call yourself a "Democrat" and yet so casually ignore the Founder of your party (jefferson). Mr. Jefferson would have never, never said it was okay to take another man's money & use it for the benefit of yourself. He only supported taxation for the benefit of ALL persons.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Bzzz.

The United States is not a Democracy (aka tyranny of the majority to trample on the minority).

The United States is a representative Republic (rule of the law), and those laws protect the Individual's basic rights. One of those rights is to own property & not have other people steal it from you.[/QUOTE]
How is what I've said wrong? People have democratically elected representatives who maintain what system we have currently. Therefore, the people have sided against you. As far as I can tell, there is no seat in the house or senate that represents your interests solely (since no one with such batshit stupid ideas would get elected).

[quote name='electrictroy'](1) I don't buy that. Subways subtract less than 1% of the population off of roads. The impact is trivial & not measureable. (2) My roads don't have congestion. The problem does not exist. So I (and others living in Baltimore suburbia) gain NO benefit whatsoever. (3) Pollution - You think subways don't pollute??? Where I live, subways run off electrical coal-plants belching black smoke. So yes, they DO pollute. Again, there's no benefit.

(4) Let the subway riders PAY THEIR OWN TICKETS and stop stealing the money from their neighbors' wallets. Esepcially those wearing suits & earning ~$50,000 a year. They are rich enough to pay the full price.[/QUOTE]
Let's get some stats here. I'm tired of your fucking hearsay and conjecture.

Here's some empirical food for thought. The trains in Chicagoland take you from close suburbs (about 10 miles) to Chicago in about 20 minutes. If you were to drive from the suburbs to Chicago, it would take you about 1.5 hours. Traffic is THAT congested. Were we to nullify or downsize the mass transit system the city would essentially grind to a halt. Remember what happened in NYC a few weeks ago when there was NO public transportation?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']How is what I've said wrong? People have democratically elected representatives who maintain what we have currently. Therefore, the people have sided against you. [/quote] It does not matter. We're not a Democracy. We're a Republic, so the Law overrules the wishes of the People. For example, let's suppose the majority decided, by popular vote, to take all money from Arabs & lock them up.

The Supreme Law of the Land would not allow that to happen, because we are a Republic (rule of law), not a democracy. The Laws protect individuals from losing their property without due process of law (courts). A simple majority/democratic vote would not work.

Maybe you think I'm just playing semantics, but the difference between the U.S. Republic and a Democracy is vast & very important. It's the difference between protecting basic human rights & not.

Chicago ..... Remember what happened in NYC a few weeks ago when there was NO public transportation?
Click to expand...
Then, since trains benefit Chicago or NYC, only those residents living inside those cities should pay the bill. Charge them a subway tax if you want.

But why charge the subway bill to Illinois farmers/suburbanites or New York residents in upstate or western New York? They gain no benefit. They should not have to pay.
 
I think you mislabel yourself as Jeffersonian, true Jefferson in his first inaugural said, "A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Which is the foundation of much of your position. But those three points of ownership and owning whatever results from one's labor lean closer to Locke's Right of Property. A direct modern equivalent would be Ayn Rand (not just in Atlas Shrugged/Fountainhead, but the entire thrust of objectivism).

Rand is a tough sell, but an easy buy. The problem in your thinking is that yes, you own your body, but how much of your labor do you really own? We are in a social contract with the government, not a state of nature. And if anarchy ruled, would your labor still have value? Would it still have just as much value? The services any government provides cannot be laundry-listed into what benefits me, what does not benefit me, how much does it benefit me, and so on. To do so would be an impractical waste of resources, but it would also be a shortsighted task. You may not use a service provided by the government now, but that does not mean you never will in the future. Nor can you easily right off an ripple effect services of the government in this day and age when so things are interconnected so tightly.
Now there are misuses of power and resources regardless of the powerholders intent. Flaws exist, otherwise anarchy would really be the perfect system and men would not need political bodies. But you cannot fence your property in and say this land is mine, everything I put labor into is mine. Because if you take away government, then you lose that right to ownership. The laws of nature grant to whomever whatever they want so long as they have the strength to take and defend what they claim is theirs.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']It does not matter. We're not a Democracy. We're a Republic, so the Law overrules the wishes of the People. For example, let's suppose the majority decided, by popular vote, to take all money from Arabs & lock them up.

The Supreme Law of the Land would not allow that to happen, because we are a Republic (rule of law), not a democracy. The Laws protect individuals from losing their property without due process of law (courts). A simple majority/democratic vote would not work.

Maybe you think I'm just playing semantics, but the difference between the U.S. Republic and a Democracy is vast & very important. It's the difference between protecting basic human rights & not.[/QUOTE]
First of all, the US is a democratic republic. We use democracy for making all decisions. Whether the decision is enforced by plurality, majority, 2/3, 3/4, etc is irrelevent. It's still rule by the people, for the people. Also, within the constitution, we have the mechanisms to overturn any law we wish, remove or ammend any part of the constitution and enact any law that follows from that. If people were so inclined and so fervent on the matter, the first ammendment could be nullified (for instance, by adding another ammendment). With current laws, your idea wouldn't be feasible. However, if people were so adamant about it, it could, very well, be.


[quote name='electrictroy']Then, since trains benefit Chicago or NYC, only those residents living inside those cities should pay the bill. Charge them a subway tax if you want.

But why charge the subway bill to Illinois farmers/suburbanites or New York residents in upstate or western New York? They gain no benefit. They should not have to pay.[/QUOTE]
Uh, the trains go to the suburbs. Do you think all the people that work in Chicago LIVE in Chicago? Hell no. People need the trains because they will have 20 miles of chicago traffic to get from their suburban home to 311 s wacker, or wherever. Driving would be a disaster.

Anyways, mass and public transit systems are usually funded by county or city. So, only people that are in the vicninity are going to be paying for it, and all will have access to it no matter the situation.
 
It seems that electrictroy's problem is simply a lack of understanding, intelligence, and reason. He's has been shot down completely multiple times, but keeps bringing up the same arguments over and over again. He also never seems to understand others' objections nor does he adapt his reasoning to them. There is a lack of evidence to back up anything he says, too.
 
[quote name='evanft']It seems that electrictroy's problem is simply a lack of understanding, intelligence, and reason. He's has been shot down completely multiple times, but keeps bringing up the same arguments over and over again. He also never seems to understand others' objections nor does he adapt his reasoning to them. There is a lack of evidence to back up anything he says, too.[/QUOTE]

I'll save some trouble:

[quote name='electrictroy']Yes but them Liberals are stealing my money cause I'm not getting anything for what I'm paying them. Its all the poor people that get all my money and I get nothing :cry: I hate them Liberals [/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='evanft']It seems that electrictroy's problem is simply a lack of understanding, intelligence, and reason. He's has been shot down completely multiple times, but keeps bringing up the same arguments over and over again. He also never seems to understand others' objections nor does he adapt his reasoning to them. There is a lack of evidence to back up anything he says, too.[/QUOTE]

Whats my problem? :bomb:
 
I just remembered something. I used to live in Upstate NY. A while back i remember that New York City wanted to build a new stadiium or something. It was 300 million dollars and they were asking the whole states taxpayers to pay for it. How would a Stadium even if it did make the city money benifit the people in Upstate NY? Another thing is they keep spending more and more on children something like 9000 bucks a year and yet they keep getting dumber and dumber, now thats stealing.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']I used to live in Upstate NY. A while back i remember that New York City wanted to build a new stadiium or something. It was 300 million dollars and they were asking the whole states taxpayers to pay for it. How would a Stadium benefit the people in Upstate NY?[/QUOTE]

How DARE you introduce a real-world example into this mix. (Just kidding.) I agree with you, but the liberals will shoot you down. They don't view us an individuals. They view us as one big Golden Pot full of money.

Liberals think they should be able to take that money away from us, and give it to whomever they choose, for whatever they choose. (Yeah I know... that's not true. You don't think that way at all Mr. Liberal. But you ACT like it. I watch people's actions, not their words and you like to spend, spend, spend.)



Oh, and whoever labeled me a Lockian is close, but no cigar. I more closely identify my views with Jefferson. When I read Jefferson, I find myself agreeing with him 99% of the time. I'm also a great admirer of Andrew Jackson, who balanced the government's budget. (We should do that NOW.)
 
[quote name='electrictroy']you like to spend, spend, spend.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that the current administration is considered the MOST fiscally irresponsible presidency of any since Washington? How do you quantify your stereotypes with what's going on currently?
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Liberals think they should be able to take that money away from us, and give it to whomever they choose, for whatever they choose. (Yeah I know... that's not true. You don't think that way at all Mr. Liberal. But you ACT like it. I watch people's actions, not their words and you like to spend, spend, spend.)[/QUOTE]
No, you rely on outdated stereotypes of liberals and conservatives. Clinton balanced the budget; Bush cut taxes and increased spending giving back to us the ever ballooning deficit.

Your attack on government waste in spending would be a lot more credible if you didn't knee-jerkingly blame it all on liberals.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']

Also, you call me "cold/callous" but I call taking money from the laborers & giving it to Ted Turner so he can build a new stadium IMMORAL. It's theft.


I don't see how you can justify that.[/quote]

We are talking about the poor. How can you justify using taxes to fund the military? Government and officials?




I also don't see how you can call yourself a "Democrat" and yet so casually ignore the Founder of your party (jefferson). Mr. Jefferson would have never, never said it was okay to take another man's money & use it for the benefit of yourself. He only supported taxation for the benefit of ALL persons.
Click to expand...

While I disagree with your view of jefferson and how you interperet his words, why should I care? Why should I care about what something was more than what something is? I don't feed a need to fit my views to a certain perspective. I align myself with whichever group is most beneficial to the goals I want, thats all.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Oh, and whoever labeled me a Lockian is close, but no cigar. I more closely identify my views with Jefferson. When I read Jefferson, I find myself agreeing with him 99% of the time. I'm also a great admirer of Andrew Jackson, who balanced the government's budget. (We should do that NOW.)[/QUOTE]
:imwithst:
 
Jefferson owned slaves, lots of them.

Not to beat a dead horse but to say he would not take money (labor applies here) from others is laughable.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Jefferson owned slaves, lots of them.

Not to beat a dead horse but to say he would not take money (labor applies here) from others is laughable.[/QUOTE]

I bet those slaves got really pissed when they had to pay for the subway they couldn't ride ;)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But its funny, the governments job is to fund the military, ensure roads are safe etc. but when it comes to actually helping to make peoples lives better then its called theft.[/QUOTE]

Quite frankly, the government doesn't make anyone's life better. The best thing the government can do is get the fuck out of the way while I go about making my own life better.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Then, since trains benefit Chicago or NYC, only those residents living inside those cities should pay the bill. Charge them a subway tax if you want.

But why charge the subway bill to Illinois farmers/suburbanites or New York residents in upstate or western New York? They gain no benefit. They should not have to pay.[/QUOTE]

Okay, then stop the subsidies to farmers and federal money for rural electrification and broadband expansion. And trash collection? Let them burn it! Why should any of us worry about water pollution in another area when it doesn't affect us? Let the people who are living near the polluted area foot the bill! I sympathize with your general feeling but you are getting too much into the details.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Quite frankly, the government doesn't make anyone's life better. The best thing the government can do is get the fuck out of the way while I go about making my own life better.[/QUOTE]

So the poor were so much better off (relative to what could be expected given the time) before welfare, social security etc.?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So the poor were so much better off (relative to what could be expected given the time) before welfare, social security etc.?[/QUOTE]

In some ways, yes. In the sense that they didn't become dependent on government handouts for generations, absolutely. But I do see your point to some extent.

And Social Security is a raw deal for everyone, poor and rich. I thought we already discussed that thoroughly in another thread.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I'd go Darwinian. Feed the homeless to the poor. Two birds- one stone.[/QUOTE]No no no, you just put them to work "disposing" of the elderly and disabled. That right there is four birds with one stone.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']No no no, you just put them to work "disposing" of the elderly and disabled. That right there is four birds with one stone.[/QUOTE]

Or you create soylent green and take care of them all.:D
 
[quote name='Msut77']Prince is onmy ignore list but im just going to assume he has no good answer.[/QUOTE]

If you're really ignoring me, IGNORE ME! Shut the fuck up and don't respond to what I say if you don't want to hear it, dumbass.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Or you create soylent green and take care of them all.:D[/QUOTE]
no one wants to eat diseased human.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']no one wants to eat diseased human.[/QUOTE]
But I heard they taste good with some fava beans and a nice chianti
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top