Obama's "bitter" remark

[Koggit]

[quote name='thrustbucket']generalization[/QUOTE]

Awesome link.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']Hey, lookit you, fancy pants!

thanks. Seriously. I'll give the pdf report a look over in the next coupla days.[/QUOTE]

Nice. Well just let me add one addendum.....

I believe that our economy is so complicated that anyone can skew statistics and census information, using things like sales tax, state to state taxes, property taxes, etc, etc. to show whatever their agenda is. Whether they think the middle class is going lower, or higher. I honestly don't know the truth.

Ultimately, my personal take is, regardless of what's going on with the class system in this country, most taxes are bullshit, and that's where I'd start to fix the problem... Eliminating countless bloated expenditures (yes even military) to bring things back to earth.

 

[Don Chubo]

[quote name='thrustbucket']Nice. Well just let me add one addendum.....

I believe that our economy is so complicated that anyone can skew statistics and census information, using things like sales tax, state to state taxes, property taxes, etc, etc. to show whatever their agenda is. Whether they think the middle class is going lower, or higher. I honestly don't know the truth.

Ultimately, my personal take is, regardless of what's going on with the class system in this country, most taxes are bullshit, and that's where I'd start to fix the problem... Eliminating countless bloated expenditures (yes even military) to bring things back to earth.[/QUOTE]

Yeah.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Obama'] “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”[/QUOTE]


What makes Obama an elitist is the fat that he doesn't seem to remember, or never learned, that this country was founded upon people who clung to their religion and their guns, had an inherent distrust of government, and that we wouldn't even exist as a nation without either.

His solution? Bigger and more friendly government, of course - the exact thing that's made these people bitter in the first place. He's an "elitist" in the same sense all politicians are when they assume government taking over every aspect of life and economic situation is going to create utopia. Hillary can't call that kettle black.

 

[Ikohn4ever]

[quote name='bmulligan']What makes Obama an elitist is the fat that he doesn't seem to remember, or never learned, that this country was founded upon people who clung to their religion and their guns, had an inherent distrust of government, and that we wouldn't even exist as a nation without either.

His solution? Bigger and more friendly government, of course - the exact thing that's made these people bitter in the first place. He's an "elitist" in the same sense all politicians are when they assume government taking over every aspect of life and economic situation is going to create utopia. Hillary can't call that kettle black.[/quote]


i am sorry but isn't elite a good thing. Would you want an elite surgeon operating on you or an average surgeon? Would you want an elite lawyer representing you or an average one? I love the right wing machine making elite into a bad thing. Somehow someone worth over a 100 mill with 8 houses to his name is more of a man of the people than someone who just finished paying off his student loans in the past 5 years.

 

[pittpizza]

Good point Ikohn, and bmull you're flat out wrong when you say this country was founded by people clinging to guns and religion. They actually took measures to keep religion out of the government, and they thought that is where it should stay.

Muskets were a necessary part of survival back then, and has no bearing on the state of arms and their use in today's America. If you wanna get into the 2nd A. I'll just remind you that it starts with a pre-condition that the right only exists if it's necessary for a police force to have guns. It is talking about police, not Texans who've locked themselves up in compounds.

And who said they want "bigger" government? You do realize that the actual number of Gov. employees would likely go down if Obama was elected right? At worst, it would stay the same, with perhaps instead of 140k soldiers killing Iraqis, maybe there would be 140k gov. employees working in education, or perhaps even environmental R&D.

There is this retarded partisan tendency to think that every dime democrats spend would go to buying a crack addict crack. It's really childish actually: dems are all about investing in health, education, science and technological advancement. Which of these do you have a problem with? Welfare is a relatively small portion of the pie, especially when considered in light of the billions currently wasted elsewhere (or going into Saudi coffers).

I don't even need to go into detail about the economy since the R's got owned in that respect in another thread.

Thrust, I'm going to ask you a series of yes or no questions, answer them with either "Yes" or "no"

1. Do you think the government ought to help people?

2. Do you think the government should educate its populace, and safeguard the environment?

3. Do you think severe economic inequality is bad?

4. Do you think it is better to have the rest of the world like you, or hate you. (answer this "like" or "hate").

5. Do you think it is better to be in debt, or run a balanced budget? (answer this "debt" or "balance")

6. Do you think it is good to instigate wars on nations that pose no threat to you?

7. Do you think extremely wealthy people will stop making money b/c they pay higher taxes?

8. Do you think in America we should let the poor and the sick die in the streets?

9. Do you think health insurance corporations should be for-profit?

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i am sorry but isn't elite a good thing. Would you want an elite surgeon operating on you or an average surgeon? Would you want an elite lawyer representing you or an average one? I love the right wing machine making elite into a bad thing. Somehow someone worth over a 100 mill with 8 houses to his name is more of a man of the people than someone who just finished paying off his student loans in the past 5 years.[/QUOTE]

Or the sheer richness of people who vote Republican claiming that Democrats are elitists.

Because we know who the "estate tax" affects, don't we?

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='pittpizza']

1. Do you think the government ought to help people?
2. Do you think the government should educate its populace, and safeguard the environment?
3. Do you think severe economic inequality is bad?
4. Do you think it is better to have the rest of the world like you, or hate you. (answer this "like" or "hate").
5. Do you think it is better to be in debt, or run a balanced budget? (answer this "debt" or "balance")
6. Do you think it is good to instigate wars on nations that pose no threat to you?
7. Do you think extremely wealthy people will stop making money b/c they pay higher taxes?
8. Do you think in America we should let the poor and the sick die in the streets?
9. Do you think health insurance corporations should be for-profit?[/quote]

1. No. They shouldn't interfere if possible.
2. No. Education is a parental responsibility.
3. No. A fool and his money are soon parted.
4. Irrelevant unless the county can wage war against you.
5. Profit until debt is gone.
6. Yes, if they have something we want that they won't sell at a fair price.
7. No, but they won't start paying taxes, either.
8. No, sanitariums or covered up ditches.
9. If government-based, no. If private business-based, yes.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']What makes Obama an elitist is the fat that he doesn't seem to remember, or never learned, that this country was founded upon people who clung to their religion and their guns, had an inherent distrust of government, and that we wouldn't even exist as a nation without either. [/quote]

Nope. The country was founded by people who loved guns and the separation of state and religion. They didn't cling to religion, in fact they advocated getting religion and religous principles out of government altogether.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
- Treaty of Tripoli, approved by George Washington and ratified by John Adams

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[quote name='bmulligan']His solution? Bigger and more friendly government, of course - the exact thing that's made these people bitter in the first place. He's an "elitist" in the same sense all politicians are when they assume government taking over every aspect of life and economic situation is going to create utopia. Hillary can't call that kettle black.[/quote]

I must have missed the speech where Obama professed to be a communist.

 

[pittpizza]

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. No. They shouldn't interfere if possible.
2. No. Education is a parental responsibility.
3. No. A fool and his money are soon parted.
4. Irrelevant unless the county can wage war against you.
5. Profit until debt is gone.
6. Yes, if they have something we want that they won't sell at a fair price.
7. No, but they won't start paying taxes, either.
8. No, sanitariums or covered up ditches.
9. If government-based, no. If private business-based, yes.[/quote]

1. No roads, police, hospitals, ambulances? No army or nat'l defense? Zero interference means zero governance. Zero governance is Anarchy. Anarchy in the UK!!!!

2. Uh huh, so you think all schools should be shut down, closed up, and parents (with all their extra time at home) should educate the kids. Riiiiiiiiiight.

3. So severe economic inequality is good eh? Suuuuure it is. Ever heard of the French Revolution? Go read A Tale of Two Cities, and then come talk to me about the benefits of severe inequality.

4. If your answer isn't "like" then it's "hate". Better to be hated than liked eh? Suuuure it is.

5. Agreed.

6. You think we should just use military force to take what we want from the rest of the world huh? Okay Hitler.

7. Agreed, I don't think they'll stop making money due to higher taxes, and any argument that they will is completely ridiculous. BTW, thrust says they already do pay taxes and lots of em!

8. Glad to see you're proud to be an American, and share a sense of national pride, unity, community and dignity for your fellow citizens! Boy am I glad I'm not your neighbor.

9. So massive corporations with yearly earnings in the billions should go on profiting from the sick and dieing, using teams of lawyers to scour every claim for any reason they can find to deny it?

I can say with absolute modesty that the county would be a lot better off with less people like you in it. All JMO of course!

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='camoor']
I must have missed the speech where Obama professed to be a communist.[/quote]

He is proposing universal health care (socialized medicine).

Also, I've inferred from his speeches that he is for tariffs. Then again, so is Pat Buchanan.

 

[pittpizza]

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']He is proposing universal health care (socialized medicine).

Also, I've inferred from his speeches that he is for tariffs. Then again, so is Pat Buchanan.[/quote]

What a ridiculous argument! Are England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Denmark communist?

 

[dyeknom]

[quote name='pittpizza']What a ridiculous argument! Are England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Denmark communist?[/quote]

Yes.








Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='pittpizza']1. No roads, police, hospitals, ambulances? No army or nat'l defense? Zero interference means zero governance. Zero governance is Anarchy. Anarchy in the UK!!!!
2. Uh huh, so you think all schools should be shut down, closed up, and parents (with all their extra time at home) should educate the kids. Riiiiiiiiiight.
3. So sever economic inequality is good eh? Suuuuure it is.
4. If your answer isn't "like" then it's "hate". Better to be hated than liked eh? Suuuure it is.
5. Agreed.
6. You think we should just use military force to take what we want from the rest of the world huh? Okay Hitler.
7. Agreed, I don't think they'll stop making money due to higher taxes, and any argument that they will is completely ridiculous. BTW, thrust says they already do pay taxes and lots of em!
8. Glad to see you're proud to be an American, and share a sense of national pride and dignity for your fellow citizens! Boy am I glad I'm not your neighbor.
9. So massive corporations with yearly earnings in the billions should go on profiting from the sick and dieing, using teams of lawyers to scour every claim for any reason they can find to deny it?[/quote]


1. Roads and hospitals do not have to be created and administered by the government. America lasted for a long time without a standing army. Police are only necessary when somebody has broken an agreed upon rule.
2. You can have an educational system without government. I could teach my kids pretty everything up to college. After that, I or they could hire people to train them on more advanced subjects.
3. Why should I be in the same economic boat as an idiot by design?
4. Feelings < Actions. If a person can't act upon a feeling, it isn't relevant. Of course, I'm not advocating stomping on toes as policy.
6. No, Okay, human history. If the alternative is death, there is no real choice. Stealing food to survive another day is OK. Stealing a car to joyride is not OK.
7. Rich people learn how to hide money.
8. Nobody is born 60 with several medical conditions and no savings. Anybody over 18 is their own responsibility first and and the government's last. It should be drilled into kids' heads the instance they start walking. (Let's try an anecdote. My mother-in-law is an idiot with money. She has bounced some checks and now owes the electric company $300. To keep her lights on, I'm willing to pay the bill, but I want somebody else to handle her checkbook to prevent this from happening again. In your society, you, camoor, thrust and myke have to help my mother-in-law with her mistake. Is that fair?)
9. There isn't just one insurance company. Premiums shouldn't be the only question a buyer asks a potential insurer.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='pittpizza']What a ridiculous argument! Are England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Denmark communist?[/quote]

Socialism isn't an on/off switch. It's a dimmer switch.

 

[pittpizza]

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. Roads and hospitals do not have to be created and administered by the government. America lasted for a long time without a standing army. Police are only necessary when somebody has broken an agreed upon rule.
2. You can have an educational system without government. I could teach my kids pretty everything up to college. After that, I or they could hire people to train them on more advanced subjects.
3. Why should I be in the same economic boat as an idiot by design?
4. Feelings < Actions. If a person can't act upon a feeling, it isn't relevant. Of course, I'm not advocating stomping on toes as policy.
6. No, Okay, human history. If the alternative is death, there is no real choice. Stealing food to survive another day is OK. Stealing a car to joyride is not OK.
7. Rich people learn how to hide money.
8. Nobody is born 60 with several medical conditions and no savings. Anybody over 18 is their own responsibility first and and the government's last. It should be drilled into kids' heads the instance they start walking. (Let's try an anecdote. My mother-in-law is an idiot with money. She has bounced some checks and now owes the electric company $300. To keep her lights on, I'm willing to pay the bill, but I want somebody else to handle her checkbook to prevent this from happening again. In your society, you, camoor, thrust and myke have to help my mother-in-law with her mistake. Is that fair?)
9. There isn't just one insurance company. Premiums shouldn't be the only question a buyer asks a potential insurer.[/quote]

1. So you think EVERY thing provided by the government should be taken over by an entity whose primary interest is not serving the people or doing its job, but making profits? Yeah, no thanks.

2. YOu think all americans are capable of teaching thier kids everything they need to know, and think that our country would be better of for it?? Ha, you're more naive than I thought.

3. Who said you should be in the same economic boat as an idiot? Are you implying that everyone who isn't wealthy is an idiot, or every poor person is an idiot?

4. Okay, so if feelings spur actions, would you like those actions to be motivated by hate affinity? Hint: It's not hate.

6. So it's okay to steal from other countries, so long as we really need it? Who gets to make this "need or want" decision, the people or one person?

7. The IRS learns how to find it (usually better than rich can hide it, though it is cat-and-mouse).

8. yeah it's fair! I guess this is where you and I differ: I'd love to live in a society where there is such a sense of community and unity that those with excess help those in need. You'd love to live in a society where everyone is so selfish and diffident that those with excess watch those in need suffer and die. Moreover I find it personally distasteful that you hate your mother!

 

[dyeknom]

Simple solution to everything? Legalize all drugs.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='pittpizza']Good point Ikohn, and bmull you're flat out wrong when you say this country was founded by people clinging to guns and religion. They actually took measures to keep religion out of the government, and they thought that is where it should stay. [/quote]

[quote name='camoor'] They didn't cling to religion, in fact they advocated getting religion and religious principles out of government altogether. [/quote]
You do realize that the main reason for the pilgrims coming here in the first place was so that they could HAVE the religion they wanted to have without persecution? The freedom to BE religious without a government telling you how is what they created this country for.

It seems that the modern day (your) interpretation of “The separation of church from state” differs from the founding fathers, who regularly held prayer in congress.

They simply didn’t want a religion controlling government. That’s the extent of their worry. Now it’s grown into a much bigger and nastier secular hammer.

You'll never completely remove religion from government unless you remove religious people from running government. And that's fine. As long as a single religion doesn't control a government.

Muskets were a necessary part of survival back then, and has no bearing on the state of arms and their use in today's America. If you wanna get into the 2nd A. I'll just remind you that it starts with a pre-condition that the right only exists if it's necessary for a police force to have guns. It is talking about police, not Texans who've locked themselves up in compounds.

Interesting interpretation. I guess you live in a false security that the government can and will never turn on its citizens? Do I need to list how many governments in the past were only able to do what they did BECAUSE their citizens were unarmed?

I’ve never heard die-hard republican or conservative say such nonsense. That’s a gross generalization.

dems are all about investing in health, education, science and technological advancement. Which of these do you have a problem with?

I have a problem with government doing the investing in so many things when they should be standing out of the way (taxes/policies) and encouraging private enterprise to do the investing in those things.

Welfare is a relatively small portion of the pie, especially when considered in light of the billions currently wasted elsewhere (or going into Saudi coffers).

Okay then. Let’s drastically reduce one and get rid of the other. I'll even let it be your choice.

I don't even need to go into detail about the economy since the R's got owned in that respect in another thread.

Keep in mind, I am not a republican. I group them with democrats on most of the blame for everything. I merely think you seem to easily fall into the "democrat good, republican bad" (or vice versa) talking point that so many Americans get caught up in.

Thrust, I'm going to ask you a series of yes or no questions, answer them with either "Yes" or "no"

Oh goody , I love quizzes. Hope my boss doesn't notice how long I've spent on this....

1. Do you think the government ought to help people?

If by help, you mean stay out of the way and out of their wallets, yes. If you mean handouts, then no.

2. Do you think the government should educate its populace, and safeguard the environment?

That’s two questions. No, it’s not government’s job to force education, but they should encourage, through policies, the desire to be educated (for example, why would anyone want to waste time on education if higher paying jobs just end up taxed into oblivion?)
Yes the government should prevent the wonton destruction/pollution of the environment as part of their “protection” role. But do it where it makes sense, and keep the extremist lobbyists out of the decision making process. For example, Drilling in northern Alaska can be done “green” and it would solve a myriad of problems. So it should be allowed, as long as it’s done carefully.

3. Do you think severe economic inequality is bad?

That’s a loaded question. People should get no, or very little, government help for laziness. If there is clear and present proof of persecution causing suffering, then obviously more help.
And anyone “dependant” on the government financially given those requirements should be monitored and heavily regulated, and forced into programs where they are clearly given opportunity, with a built in time limit.

4. Do you think it is better to have the rest of the world like you, or hate you. (answer this "like" or "hate").

Another loaded question. And I refuse to answer it as you suggest. I think it’s best for any nation to take care of its interests/needs first, and then address other countries concerns where it makes political sense.

5. Do you think it is better to be in debt, or run a balanced budget? (answer this "debt" or "balance")

Balanced

6. Do you think it is good to instigate wars on nations that pose no threat to you?

If enough proof is put forth that they eventually can pose a threat to you and/or your interests, and they constantly verbally threaten your nation and it's interests, while funding, facilitating, and encouraging much more proven dangerous rogue extremist groups, and after many years of warning..... then sometimes yes that makes sense.

7. Do you think extremely wealthy people will stop making money b/c they pay higher taxes?

Depends on how high the taxes go. It isn’t so relevant for existing rich people. It’s relevant how much motivation we remove from striving to be rich, which is the engine that makes our economy work (or should be).

8. Do you think in America we should let the poor and the sick die in the streets?

It depends on why you are poor and sick. If you decide to go become a crack addict and run yourself into the ground, why should the rest of us pay to “attempt” to make you better? Especially if you don’t want to be better.

It should be noted that this should be the job of charities. And it should be very beneficial to donate to them, versus pay taxes to the government.

9. Do you think health insurance corporations should be for-profit?

Absolutely. Any corporation that isn’t for profit will naturally do a shitty job. And that’s one industry I’d really prefer not to do a shitty job.

I must have missed the speech where Obama professed to be a communist.

He hasn't. But every time he talks about how much more "help" through spending and regulation, the government should be giving it's people he gets closer and closer.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='pittpizza']1. So you think EVERY thing provided by the government should be taken over by an entity whose primary interest is not serving the people or doing its job, but making profits? Yeah, no thanks. [/quote]

The role of government is arbiter (neutral party) when two parties are in a disagreement. Other than that, people can pool or trade their resources or services to get the resources or services they need. Want a hospital, roads or doctors? I'm sure those things can be had after a negotiated price.

[quote name='pittpizza'] 2. YOu think all americans are capable of teaching thier kids everything they need to know, and think that our country would be better of for it?? Ha, you're more naive than I thought. [/quote]

Education is a parental responsibility. If parents can't teach a child a subject, they should use their resources or services to get the child the proper educational resource. It doesn't require government.

[quote name='pittpizza'] 3. Who said you should be in the same economic boat as an idiot? Are you implying that everyone who isn't wealthy is an idiot, or every poor person is an idiot?[/quote]

There are more idiots than geniuses. Government doesn't know the difference.

[quote name='pittpizza'] 4. Okay, so if feelings spur actions, would you like those actions to be motivated by hate affinity? Hint: It's not hate. [/quote]

Much better. If those actions CAN affect you, you don't want them coming from a place of hate. If those actions CAN'T affect you, it doesn't matter the motivation.

[quote name='pittpizza'] 6. So it's okay to steal from other countries, so long as we really need it? Who gets to make this "need or want" decision, the people or one person?[/quote]

The victor. Somebody has something you need to survive. The Somebody won't trade it to you for anything you can offer? You take it or die trying. That's human history.

[quote name='pittpizza'] 7. The IRS learns how to find it (usually better than rich can hide it, though it is cat-and-mouse). [/quote]

Agreed. It also depends on if the IRS chooses to pursue the person.

[quote name='pittpizza'] 8. yeah it's fair! I guess this is where you and I differ: I'd love to live in a society where there is such a sense of community and unity that those with excess help those in need. You'd love to live in a society where everyone is so selfish and diffident that those with excess watch those in need suffer and die. Moreover I find it personally distasteful that you hate your mother!

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='camoor']Nope. The country was founded by people who loved guns and the separation of state and religion. They didn't cling to religion, in fact they advocated getting religion and religous principles out of government altogether. [/quote]

You and PitPizza are confusing religion with christianity. You are also forgetting why people came to settle in America. Besides fortune, they came to practice religious freedom. Anyone who wants to cling to their religion is free to do so and it's not an effect of government not being effective enough.

For Obama to imply that government is the remedy for those who cling to guns and religion is a fundamental misunderstanding of our form of government and the purpose under which it was founded.

Belieive it or not, there are millions of Americans who are in really bad situations, due to no fault of thier own: thier job became automated or was shipped to china, they couldn't afford school so are in tens of thousands of dollars in debt to uncle sam, a necessary surgery was deemed "cosmetic" or "experimental", was excluded, or some other reason, so it bankrupted them, etc. I'm sure you know some, I do.

This is called life. The fact that you believe government's job is to be the safety net for everyone regardless of the life choices they make means yes, you are a closet communist. You just like to flirt with the illusion of freedom. You say you want it but you don't really understand the concept. You think freedom means everybody gets do do whatever they want, or, everybody gets their fair share.

You don't think it's right for us to steal what we want from other countries, yet your relative moralism allows you to steal from me in in the form of taxes in order to "help" others whom you deem to be needy r disenfranchised. How much of your own income do you donate to the local homeless shelter, church, mentor, or adopt-a-family program? My guess is not enough so that it curtails all your luxuries - like vvideogame, internet service, cable, or a new silk tie for your lawyering duties. Trust me, the altruistic savior role has beeen played by much better actors.

Blind to your own contradictory philosophy, you can never reconcile freedom, choice, and individualism with your communal value system that says everything must be shared equally in order to be fair. But until you give up every penny of your entire net worth for your own cause and live only for survival, you have no right to force me to sacrifice anything for your personal crusade.

 

[Don Chubo]

bmulligan, thrust, and FoC FTW on this one.

 

[Ikohn4ever]

[quote name='bmulligan']You and PitPizza are confusing religion with christianity. You are also forgetting why people came to settle in America. Besides fortune, they came to practice religious freedom. Anyone who wants to cling to their religion is free to do so and it's not an effect of government not being effective enough.[/quote]

i think you are confusing why people came here to settle, actually people originally came here following animal migration



they might have believed in religion but they felt that it didnt have a place in government thats why there is no official religion of this country since they were Deists and thought each religion had its merits. Fundamentalists have been pushing their agendas for 7 years now, especially in places like the military where they have been taking over. There is a difference between using your religion as a moral compass to help you steer you decision making and letting it navigate for you.

 

[dmaul1114]

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
they might have believed in religion but they felt that it didnt have a place in government thats why there is no official religion of this country since they were Deists and thought each religion had its merits. Fundamentalists have been pushing their agendas for 7 years now, especially in places like the military where they have been taking over. There is a difference between using your religion as a moral compass to help you steer you decision making and letting it navigate for you.[/QUOTE]

No a lot of the original settlers (i.e. the pilgrams--puritans) came for religious freedom after being persecuted in Europe.

And a big reason we have separation of church and state is to prevent such persecution that inevitably comes with having an official state religion.

Of course seeing the merits of various religions played some role, but past experience with persecutions was the driving force, at least in most historians estimations as far as I've read.

 

[pittpizza]

[quote name='Heavy Hitter']bmulligan, thrust, and FoC FTO on this one.[/quote]

Fixed. And the TO stands for " their own."


BMull and thrust, trust me when I tell you that I know a thing or two more about Con. law than you. I know exactly what the first Amendment and USSC precedent espoused thereunder says and does not say because I spent an entire semester studying just that one Amendment. I'm not confusing anything my friends, you are. Though thrust has the gist: it may be more appropriate to say "Freedom FROM religion" than "Freedom OF religion"; "From" meaning no state-sponsored religion (which is what they were fleeing and why they were being persecuted).

There really is no reconciliation for such drastic differences in views. I feel that when we spend so many billions on war, destruction, and death, yet so many here at home are sick, poor, uneducated, or saddled with an almost insurmountable debt, something is ed up. Our government cares more about helping (killing) foreigners than helping its citizens at home, and you three are happy with it? Laughable.

I guess Bmull, thrust, and FoC feel confident that they and everybody else will do just fine taking care of themselves without any help from anybody else, including the government. This is the perfect society: an anarchical system where only the strongest survive and everyone just keeps what they make and fends for themselves. I suggest you read Leviathan by Hobbes if you think this is the way to go. Read that book and your views will change and you'll be better citizens for it.

Why should one of the richest nations in the world give a shit about its citizens, or spend a single dime on them? Heck, for that matter who needs a government at all right? We can just count on the free market and captialism to make sure all is well. Car companies just put seatbelts in cars and give em good gas mileage out of benevolence right? (wrong.) After all, most everybody that isn't rich is an incompetent drug using idiot and deserves what they get. For those that really are legitimately disable, ahhhh em!

you believe government's job is to be the safety net for everyone regardless of the life choices they make means yes, you are a closet communist. You just like to flirt with the illusion of freedom. You say you want it but you don't really understand the concept. You think freedom means everybody gets do do whatever they want, or, everybody gets their fair share.

Where did I say any of this? Show me, I'd like to see it. And thank you for telling me exactly what I beleive, think, and understand. You must know me better than I know myself huh? Your condescention and presumptiveness is insulting.

You don't think it's right for us to steal what we want from other countries, yet your relative moralism allows you to steal from me in in the form of taxes in order to "help" others whom you deem to be needy r disenfranchised. How much of your own income do you donate to the local homeless shelter, church, mentor, or adopt-a-family program? My guess is not enough so that it curtails all your luxuries - like vvideogame, internet service, cable, or a new silk tie for your lawyering duties. Trust me, the altruistic savior role has beeen played by much better actors.

So you think the taxes you pay is the government "stealing" from you? Remember this the next time you drive on a road, put a kid in school, call the cops, or live in safety. When did I deem anybody needy or disenfranchised? It surely isn't my job, it's the peoples'. Who is playing the altruistic savior role? Not me. I live fly as hell; but this doesn't mean I don't have the right to bitch about how things could be better and mis-spent tax dollars.

Blind to your own contradictory philosophy, you can never reconcile freedom, choice, and individualism with your communal value system that says everything must be shared equally in order to be fair. But until you give up every penny of your entire net worth for your own cause and live only for survival, you have no right to force me to sacrifice anything for your personal crusade.

Now we're getting somewhere, though far be it for me to point out that about every other CAG could say what you did without being such a dick about it ('cept myke maybe, lol). The next time you want to tell me what I can and can't do, do me a favor and STFU, okay? What you lack in subtlety and charm, you certainly make up for in self-interestedness!

Again, you're putting words in my mouth that were not there. You're taking moderation and torturing it into extremity. Where did I say everything must be shared and shared alike?

Moreover, until I'm a congressman, I have no ability to force you to give up anything, unless I sue you but thats OT. Guess what though, some people DO have a right to force you to give them money, and they are called "the big bad government!" By eating, sleeping, and working in such a wonderful place, you purposefully avail yourself of all the benefits that the government offers, yet you don't want to pay for them. Hmmm? Sounds fishy. If you don't wanna pay taxes, in go live in the woods. Go Into the Wild style where you can take care of yourself without having people "steal" from you so you can drive your car on nice roads, get water and electricity piped into your house, be free from foreign invasion, have the populace educated (the list goes on and on). Stealing!? Ha!

My entire position is only that we should take every single dime that is mis-spent on death and destruction abroad, and use it for the betterment of society at home. My point is that the billions that fatten the wallets of HMO's/M.E. oil companies/defense contractors riddled with cronyism (the list goes on and on) would be better spent buying healthcare for those that can't afford it (due to no fault of their own), educating those that need it, and helping those legitimately unable to help themselves.

You guys are the ones who live in a dreamworld, where everyone born is able to take care of themselves, and when they can't it is because of their own laziness. People are born retarded, people get disabled, people get sick, "life" as you put it happens.

Where you three and I differ is that I'd prefer to live in a society where we actually gave a shit about each other. Where less assholes (not you, just other people like you) ask "Why should I have to help him?" and more people ask "Why shouldn't we help him?"

How can you so callously assume that every single person in need is there because of laziness, drugs, or some other ignoble cause?

Since you took the liberty of putting lots of words in my mouth, I'll return the favor b/c it's fun isn't it?

I care about people other than myself, you don't. I think America is rich enough to fund post highschool education, to feed the hungry, treat the ill, protect the environment, keep us safe from foreign invasion, you don't and feel that this money is better off in CEO's pockets and big business' corporate coffers. I think it is incumbent for the government to safeguard natural resources and the environment for posterity, you think that businesses can and will just do this on thier own, which is laughable to me. I want to live in a place that has national pride, where people care about each other, share a sense of community (not communism, COMMUNITY), have self respect and a sense of self worth, actually like the government because it helps them, and where the government fears the people and not vice-versa.

FOC, I really get a kick out of the fact that you think the American public can and should just educate their own children. You have quite a lot of faith in people my friend.

I only was more ammused by the fact that you think the only thing keeping the government from enslaving the people is the fact that the people have guns. Okay I admit, the fact that you think the people and their guns could stand up to the US military is even more humorous. Ahhhh, that's cute.

There are more idiots than geniuses. Government doesn't know the difference.

Ha, try: There are more idiots (bush) than geniuses (gore, see nobel peace prize). The populace doesn't know the difference.

YOu still didn't answer my question: who gets to make the need/want distinction, the people or one person?

If your mother in law was unable to work, you three suggest she should just be left to starve and die, right? The government shouldn't interfere: if some charity wants to help her fine, but if not, let her die. We all know how charitable Americans are.

So I can get an accurate view of your positions. Answer me these questions thrust, FOC, heavy hitter, and BMull:

What is the best form of government?

What (if anything) should the government do? Surely you don't advocate privatization of EVERYTHING, right?

If charity falls short on caring for those in legitimate (just assume it) need, should the government aid them?

 

[Don Chubo]

You may have (and i emphasize may have) had something up until you called Al Gore a genius. That pretty much nosedived your post into the toilet.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']You and PitPizza are confusing religion with christianity. You are also forgetting why people came to settle in America. Besides fortune, they came to practice religious freedom. Anyone who wants to cling to their religion is free to do so and it's not an effect of government not being effective enough.

For Obama to imply that government is the remedy for those who cling to guns and religion is a fundamental misunderstanding of our form of government and the purpose under which it was founded.[/quote]

Couldn't find the entire speech but I don't think he was proposing a New Deal for rural towns.

Just change in Washington. You know - so multimillionaire investment bankers in NYC don't pay less in taxes then their doorman does. Or the govt don't subsidise SUVs for the super-rich. Or we don't give tax breaks to companies that outsource or do all of their business in USA but incorporate in a tax shelter like the Cayman islands. Or the President doesn't elect a teamful of cronies like former housing secretary Alfonso who gives special breaks to mortgage banks in return for payoffs.

I don't like Universal Healthcare (and IMO that's a gross oversimplification of Obama's position), but I'd rather pay for the healthcare of America's poorest then a war waged on Iraq's poorest.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='pittpizza']So I can get an accurate view of your positions. Answer me these questions thrust, FOC, heavy hitter, and BMull:

What is the best form of government?

What (if anything) should the government do? Surely you don't advocate privatization of EVERYTHING, right?

If charity falls short on caring for those in legitimate (just assume it) need, should the government aid them?[/quote]

One strong enough to enforce a limited set of rules agreed upon by the majority of the people.

The only thing that can't be privatized is the interpretation of the law (Beat Cop to Supreme Court Justice).

If charity falls short, the person in need of the charity should suffer.

Charity is a human virtue. Government is a human institution, not a human.

Forcing people to give money to other people through taxes is not charity.

 

[JolietJake]

Spoken like someone who has never needed charity or suffered without it.k

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='JolietJake']Spoken like someone who has never needed charity or suffered without it.k[/quote]

I missed many meals growing up and suffered after I received charity.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='bmulligan']This is called life. The fact that you believe government's job is to be the safety net for everyone regardless of the life choices they make means yes, you are a closet communist. You just like to flirt with the illusion of freedom. You say you want it but you don't really understand the concept. You think freedom means everybody gets do do whatever they want, or, everybody gets their fair share.

You don't think it's right for us to steal what we want from other countries, yet your relative moralism allows you to steal from me in in the form of taxes in order to "help" others whom you deem to be needy r disenfranchised. How much of your own income do you donate to the local homeless shelter, church, mentor, or adopt-a-family program? My guess is not enough so that it curtails all your luxuries - like vvideogame, internet service, cable, or a new silk tie for your lawyering duties. Trust me, the altruistic savior role has beeen played by much better actors.

Blind to your own contradictory philosophy, you can never reconcile freedom, choice, and individualism with your communal value system that says everything must be shared equally in order to be fair. But until you give up every penny of your entire net worth for your own cause and live only for survival, you have no right to force me to sacrifice anything for your personal crusade.[/QUOTE]

Two points:

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to airline noncompliance with regular maintenance checks of their planes? Southwest, United, Delta, and others - all caused severe problems because they weren't maintaining their vehicles, or even giving them checkups. Some of the planes were in quite shoddy condition. So, in your view that all government is bad, all free market is good, the question stands: what is the number of deaths that is acceptable in order to maintain the freedom of the airline industry to check their own places when they see fit?

2) You're a fraud, simply because you believe in this hackneyed notion of "freedom" and individual wealth and enterprise (as well as the power structure inherent in a meritocracy, or the more modern inheritocracy) - yet you're anti-Union. You believe in the power of big business to determine what portion of profit is theirs, and what portion their employees deserve. But you do not believe in the power of employees to form as a collective to increase their bargaining power. And don't give me that "unions today are corrupt" nonsense, because while that is certainly part and parcel of what killed Detroit (but by no means all), you're against the idea of unions. You deny the freedom to gather and use individual freedom in the name of power to those who desire to use it, yet you stand behind your flag of Adam Smith like some sort of untouchable American naturalist.

What a joke. Not as much of a joke as your claim that any government action = immediate communism (you'd think someone with your vocabulary might have a knowledge of the words "complexity" or "multifaceted," but it appears you only know "dichotomy"), which is a claim that, of course, implies by your definition that the United States is currently a communist nation - but a joke nonetheless.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='pittpizza']

BMull and thrust, trust me when I tell you that I know a thing or two more about Con. law than you. I know exactly what the first Amendment and USSC precedent espoused thereunder says and does not say because I spent an entire semester studying just that one Amendment. I'm not confusing anything my friends, you are. Though thrust has the gist: it may be more appropriate to say "Freedom FROM religion" than "Freedom OF religion"; "From" meaning no state-sponsored religion (which is what they were fleeing and why they were being persecuted).

There really is no reconciliation for such drastic differences in views. I feel that when we spend so many billions on war, destruction, and death, yet so many here at home are sick, poor, uneducated, or saddled with an almost insurmountable debt, something is ed up. Our government cares more about helping (killing) foreigners than helping its citizens at home, and you three are happy with it? Laughable.

I guess Bmull, thrust, and FoC feel confident that they and everybody else will do just fine taking care of themselves without any help from anybody else, including the government. This is the perfect society: an anarchical system where only the strongest survive and everyone just keeps what they make and fends for themselves. I suggest you read Leviathan by Hobbes if you think this is the way to go. Read that book and your views will change and you'll be better citizens for it.
[/quote]

You know what always amazes me with people like you (your views, specifically) is that you love to go back to the founding fathers and the reasons for the constitution to push certain things (like your views on religion and guns). But you run from it when it comes to others.

In the 1800's everything you are proposing would have been laughable. Nobody considered it governments role to "take care of people". People were excited to live in a country that was founded to STAY THE OUT OF THEIR WAY. That is ultimately what this country was set up for, like it or not. Everything about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution bleeds that attitude.

Even up into the 1950's, much of the nanny-state high taxes issues you espouse would have been laughed at. People had no concept just 50 years ago of a government holding out it's "helping guiding hand" in every aspect of life.

Why should one of the richest nations in the world give a shit about its citizens, or spend a single dime on them? Heck, for that matter who needs a government at all right? We can just count on the free market and captialism to make sure all is well. Car companies just put seatbelts in cars and give em good gas mileage out of benevolence right? (wrong.) After all, most everybody that isn't rich is an incompetent drug using idiot and deserves what they get. For those that really are legitimately disable, ahhhh em!

You are being extreme. Nobody is suggesting that we completely annihilate all policy and law. But we are suggesting that we have far more policy and law than necessary, and that too much policy and law stifle everything that has made this country great until now.

So you think the taxes you pay is the government "stealing" from you? Remember this the next time you drive on a road, put a kid in school, call the cops, or live in safety. When did I deem anybody needy or disenfranchised? It surely isn't my job, it's the peoples'. Who is playing the altruistic savior role? Not me. I live fly as hell; but this doesn't mean I don't have the right to bitch about how things could be better and mis-spent tax dollars.

Obviously taxes are necessary. We are saying that beyond basic infrastructure and military protection from invasion, many programs are very unnecessary.

Yes, taking as much tax as they do out of my paycheck for many many programs, departments, so-called "services" and welfare programs, massive black budgets, pork spending, and $40,000 "hammers" - that I disagree with and it is stealing, to me.

If you don't wanna pay taxes, in go live in the woods. Go Into the Wild style where you can take care of yourself without having people "steal" from you so you can drive your car on nice roads, get water and electricity piped into your house, be free from foreign invasion, have the populace educated (the list goes on and on).

Interesting that you basically listed nearly all the ONLY real good reasons to give a government money. Good job.

My entire position is only that we should take every single dime that is mis-spent on death and destruction abroad, and use it for the betterment of society at home. My point is that the billions that fatten the wallets of HMO's/M.E. oil companies/defense contractors riddled with cronyism (the list goes on and on) would be better spent buying healthcare for those that can't afford it (due to no fault of their own), educating those that need it, and helping those legitimately unable to help themselves.

And my entire position is that they shouldn't have most of those dimes to begin with. They aren't mis-spent, they are unnecessary altogether.

You guys are the ones who live in a dreamworld, where everyone born is able to take care of themselves, and when they can't it is because of their own laziness. People are born retarded, people get disabled, people get sick, "life" as you put it happens.

That's not a dreamworld. You obviously don't have any faith in people's natural tendencies and abilities to take care of each other. Not your fault though, politicians have been beating into our heads the last 75 years that we can't. The answer isn't to give all the money and power to one organization to "take care of everything".

The government can make sure that almost everything you listed is taken care of by providing INCENTIVES for the free market to do so, rather than taking everyone's money and doing it themselves.

Where you three and I differ is that I'd prefer to live in a society where we actually gave a shit about each other. Where less assholes (not you, just other people like you) ask "Why should I have to help him?" and more people ask "Why shouldn't we help him?"

No actually we don't differ. We want to live in that same society. We want people to care about each other and take care of each other, and especially have the means to do so.

I view the government as a parent. If your kids are fighting or one of them is hurt, is it good parenting to FORCE the others to help because you said so? Is it good parenting to sit them all down and FORCE them to get along by punishing them if they don't? No, it would be good parenting to give them advice and incentives to take care of each other and get along. It would be good parenting, usually, to stay out of their conflicts unless one of them was really in danger.

If you have a teenager that refuses to move out or get a job, do you give him tough love and force him to for his own good or do you let him stay indefinitely, hoping he decides to grow up, because that's the "compassionate" thing to do? That's the difference between you and I.

Kids, people, and society don't/can't progress much, or become self sufficient, or live up to their full potential with permanent training wheels that don't come off even if you try.

How can you so callously assume that every single person in need is there because of laziness, drugs, or some other ignoble cause?

I don't know of anyone that assumed such a thing. I told you that there should be some, very limited, very regulated social programs. That's fine with me. But they should be privatized as much as possible, like almost everything should, through tax incentives.

I care about people other than myself, you don't.

What a pretentious crock of self-indulgent shit. I give at least 10% of all my income to charities.
It could be more, but uncle sam takes too much. Which is good, because they can obviously help people far better than I ever could, right?

I think America is rich enough to fund post highschool education, to feed the hungry, treat the ill, protect the environment, keep us safe from foreign invasion, you don't and feel that this money is better off in CEO's pockets and big business' corporate coffers. I think it is incumbent for the government to safeguard natural resources and the environment for posterity, you think that businesses can and will just do this on thier own, which is laughable to me.

What is laughable is that you fail to realize the entire reason this nation is as powerful and rich as it is, is because up until the last few decades people were allowed to prosper. The nanny-state you are proposing would threaten ruining that further than it already has been. And your lack of realization on that is astounding.

I want to live in a place that has national pride, where people care about each other, share a sense of community (not communism, COMMUNITY), have self respect and a sense of self worth, actually like the government because it helps them, and where the government fears the people and not vice-versa.

I totally agree on all points. I don't know anyone that doesn't.

The difference is, you believe you can achieve that by giving government more power, more money, and more trust to do the right thing with it all, which history has proven can never happen. The more power you give any single person or entity, it exponentially increases the risk of corruption. In fact, it virtually guarantees it.

You, like many of my leftist friends, live in a naive utopia where a government can have all the power necessary, as long as they do the right things. It will never happen. It can't happen. That's fantasy.

It truly amazes me that you have no faith in the common man, the local small governments, or in you and me, to take care of each other when left to our own devices. But somehow you have total and complete faith in the possibility of creating government that can.

I only was more ammused by the fact that you think the only thing keeping the government from enslaving the people is the fact that the people have guns. Okay I admit, the fact that you think the people and their guns could stand up to the US military is even more humorous. Ahhhh, that's cute.

Where did anyone say that was the "only" thing? For someone that keeps crying about words being put in your mouth, you sure do a bang up job.

Lucky for us, most of the people in the U.S Military would side with us on views on gun rights, and most in the U.S. Military wouldn't have the stomach to have gun battles with their fellow citizens.
But that doesn't discount the fact that the prospect of tyranny over an armed populace is very daunting. Which is why Hitler made sure that private gun ownership was banned a year before he came to power. Call it wacky, right wing conspiracy, but I'm sure most Germans didn't think it was a big deal to give up their guns at the time.

If your mother in law was unable to work, you three suggest she should just be left to starve and die, right? The government shouldn't interfere: if some charity wants to help her fine, but if not, let her die. We all know how charitable Americans are.

Americans are the most charitable people on earth, even without the government. Are you suggesting that if the government had more of our money they'd do an even better job?

Last I checked, the government was more interested in peoples right to kill unwanted life, defining who's life was worth living, and throwing money at hardened murderous criminals.

So I can get an accurate view of your positions. Answer me these questions thrust, FOC, heavy hitter, and BMull:

What is the best form of government?

I'm not sure if there would be a name for it. But I'd start by going back in our nations history when it was most prosperous, and our people had the most freedom, least government interference, and start there.

All I know is Government should always be pushed down to the most local sectors possible. Down to states, to counties, to cities, to neighborhoods and even to the individual. All according to what makes logical sense, of course. But that should be the constant goal.

Unifying power and control over a large populous is always a bad idea.

What (if anything) should the government do? Surely you don't advocate privatization of EVERYTHING, right?

You listed it pretty well above.
Government should very first and foremost provide protection at the borders.

Secondly, it should provide infrastructure (roads, clean water, electricity, etc).

Third, if it's decided government should have money for education, I'd prefer to see that money given to private schools so people have a buffet selection of different flavors that emphasize a variety of things (even a religion).

If charity falls short on caring for those in legitimate (just assume it) need, should the government aid them?

Yes. But not without condition and not forever. Any aid the government gives should not to be taking people out of the slums, but instead take the slums out of people.

In other words, the governments job as far as that goes is primarily to provide fair "opportunity". If it is clear someone, for whatever reason, doesn't have it by no fault of their own, then the government could help them to get the point where they do.


In summary, giving all your trust, power, money to a government you blieve can/will "fix" everything better than anyone else, is somewhat noble and understandble.
The main difference between you and us, is you believe we should try to make that happen, and we don't believe it possibly can happen.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']Two points:

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to airline noncompliance with regular maintenance checks of their planes? Southwest, United, Delta, and others - all caused severe problems because they weren't maintaining their vehicles, or even giving them checkups. Some of the planes were in quite shoddy condition. So, in your view that all government is bad, all free market is good, the question stands: what is the number of deaths that is acceptable in order to maintain the freedom of the airline industry to check their own places when they see fit?[/quote]

In that example I'd suggest stiff and painful fines for any corporation in which it was proven caused death or harm through neglect. I'm okay with that. The danger of that happening should be the driving motivator.

How much $ does the FAA get from the tax pool? It isn't like they are doing a real bang-up job in enforcing inspections and saftey lately....

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='thrustbucket']In that example I'd suggest stiff and painful fines for any corporation in which it was proven caused death or harm through neglect. I'm okay with that. The danger of that happening should be the driving motivator.[/quote]

That's communism, according to bmulligan. So if you die in a plane crash, or your child develops a lifelong illness as a result of the lead paint and chemicals on their "Playskool" toys, that's fine. The free market will adjust by no longer flying on Southwest (or Delta, or United, or...), and by no longer buying toys from companies that use cheap labor and cheaper components.

As for the individuals who suffer, oh well. There's a functional purpose to their death and suffering, and one that's much better than this "government oversight" crap.

How much $ does the FAA get from the tax pool? It isn't like they are doing a real bang-up job in enforcing inspections and saftey lately....

Dunno.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='mykevermin']Two points:

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to airline noncompliance with regular maintenance checks of their planes? Southwest, United, Delta, and others - all caused severe problems because they weren't maintaining their vehicles, or even giving them checkups. Some of the planes were in quite shoddy condition. So, in your view that all government is bad, all free market is good, the question stands: what is the number of deaths that is acceptable in order to maintain the freedom of the airline industry to check their own places when they see fit?
[/quote]

As many as possible.

After planes started falling out of the sky, the government could subpoena the airline's records and compare them to their inspections of the wrecks. If there was negligence, anybody touching that plane when it was out of spec would be (edit) charged with second degree murder (mechanics, pilots, stewards, baggage handlers, etc.).

 

[mykevermin]

Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why that's communism. A free market can't work if corporations are allowed to hurt people, obviously. There must be SOME oversight, especially when things go wrong, to hold people accountable.

If it were communism, the airline would be owned by the government in the first place, not fining itself.

I would argue that if you pack an inflated set of departments to give massive oversight to an industry, that's closer to communism.

 

[mykevermin]

I'm merely playing devil's advocate on bmulligan's side.

He would argue that any government intervention is unnecessary. If the corporation harms someone, they harm themselves - after all, people will stop buying toys from an unreliable manufacturer, and people will stop flying on airlines whose planes crash.

Like people won't buy consoles that perpetually "red ring."

I don't actually believe a thing I'm saying, mind you - just arguing poorly in the place of a hardcore laissez-faire type.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='thrustbucket']In that example I'd suggest stiff and painful fines for any corporation in which it was proven caused death or harm through neglect. I'm okay with that. The danger of that happening should be the driving motivator.[/quote]

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

You wouldn't believe.

Which car company do you work for?

A major one.

.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='mykevermin']Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.[/quote]

If your incompetence causes harm to another, you're on the hook regardless of the market type.

 

[CocheseUGA]

[quote name='mykevermin']Not in a true free market. Maybe in your country, comrade.[/QUOTE]


I missed when we started to be a true free market.

All the other stuff? Finals.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
There is a difference between using your religion as a moral compass to help you steer you decision making and letting it navigate for you.[/QUOTE]

Of course there's a difference. I don't think anyone would attempt an counter to that. But implying that religion is a crutch to deal with ineffective government has got to be the epitome of political elitism. As if any president is more important to the well being of a country and it's people than a belief system of the people themselves. It's absolute proof that the governing elite, who make lifetime careers of public service are completely out of touch with human nature and the American spirit.

And Hillary calling Obama an elitist for this fundamental error is just icing on the cake for demonstrating my point.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Clintons - $100 million salt of the earth people.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']

1) As a firm believer in non-government intervention and the promise of the free market, how many deaths are acceptable due to blah dee blah blah [/quote]

The government has every right to regulate interstate commerce. Let me ask you, Myke, how many deaths are acceptable due to the FDA approving drugs that should never have seen the light of day? You really think that just because a government regulation exists it's the right one? I'm sure that only applies only to the ones you agree with. How many people are being kept in poverty because of the sham of a war on poverty we've been fighting for 100 years. How many depressions has the federal reserve been responsible for since the fed act of 1913? How many drug dealers and bystanders have to be killed before we realize the war on drugs is a bad regulatory program?

2) You're a fraud, simply because you believe in this hackneyed notion of "freedom" and individual wealth and enterprise (as well as the power structure inherent in a meritocracy, or the more modern inheritocracy) - yet you're anti-Union. You believe in the power of big business to determine what portion of profit is theirs, and what portion their employees deserve. But you do not believe in the power of employees to form as a collective to increase their bargaining power. And don't give me that "unions today are corrupt" nonsense, because while that is certainly part and parcel of what killed Detroit (but by no means all), you're against the idea of unions. You deny the freedom to gather and use individual freedom in the name of power to those who desire to use it, yet you stand behind your flag of Adam Smith like some sort of untouchable American naturalist.

You amuse me, Myke. Yes, I'm a fraud because I believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. I thik we've already determined, unquestionably, your misanthropic hatred of the individual who depends on no one but himself. Someone who is not in need of help cannot be corrupted by your destructive moral philosophy, or be indebted to you and forced into virtual slavery for repayment of debt.

You see, my primary belief is founded on the sanctity of the right of the individual to exist for his own sake. Governments are instituted among such men to protect those rights from transgressors. Governments that transgress must be forcibly removed and begun anew. You believe, however, that human beings exist for the sake of the whole, and their primary obligation is not to one's self, but to one's neighbor. The fact that you are alive, to you, means you owe a life debt to a stranger that can never be fully repaid. Mykes job, as he sees it, is to extract payment by any means necessary. The only fraud here is the one Myke touts every time he whips out his keyboard - convincing everyone that we are all slaves to each other. Go sell that shit to the other self-loathing, miserable souls who need salvation. You call them 'friends' or 'mentors'.

Contrary to your assumption, I believe unions have every right to exist. We all have the right to peaceably assemble and act as a group of special interest. Collectively deciding to strike, or quit, or make demands is human nature. There is power in numbers. Hence the formation of the political factions. Groups of like minded individuals acting in unison is how things get done, or undone as the case may be.

I think we both know, however, that most enterprises known as unions today represent only the propagation of their own bureaucracy and not their constituents interests as most may believe. Ever try to un-join a union in a union shop or disband an existing one, or form a competing one? Good luck. I'll send flowers to the funeral.


And Pizza-man - sorry, I'm just too lazy to respond to your wordiness right now. I appreciate the argument, just like I appreciate Myke's tenacity in the old-back-and-forth, but you just come off as a wee bit too young and naive to pick on. Myke's a little older and doesn't take my vitriol as personally as I think you might.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, I'm a fraud because I believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. I thik we've already determined, unquestionably, your misanthropic hatred of the individual who depends on no one but himself. Someone who is not in need of help cannot be corrupted by your destructive moral philosophy, or be indebted to you and forced into virtual slavery for repayment of debt.

You see, my primary belief is founded on the sanctity of the right of the individual to exist for his own sake. Governments are instituted among such men to protect those rights from transgressors. Governments that transgress must be forcibly removed and begun anew. You believe, however, that human beings exist for the sake of the whole, and their primary obligation is not to one's self, but to one's neighbor. The fact that you are alive, to you, means you owe a life debt to a stranger that can never be fully repaid. Mykes job, as he sees it, is to extract payment by any means necessary. The only fraud here is the one Myke touts every time he whips out his keyboard - convincing everyone that we are all slaves to each other. Go sell that shit to the other self-loathing, miserable souls who need salvation. You call them 'friends' or 'mentors'.

Contrary to your assumption, I believe unions have every right to exist. We all have the right to peaceably assemble and act as a group of special interest. Collectively deciding to strike, or quit, or make demands is human nature. There is power in numbers. Hence the formation of the political factions. Groups of like minded individuals acting in unison is how things get done, or undone as the case may be.

I think we both know, however, that most enterprises known as unions today represent only the propagation of their own bureaucracy and not their constituents interests as most may believe. Ever try to un-join a union in a union shop or disband an existing one, or form a competing one? Good luck. I'll send flowers to the funeral.


And Pizza-man - sorry, I'm just too lazy to respond to your wordiness right now. I appreciate the argument, just like I appreciate Myke's tenacity in the old-back-and-forth, but you just come off as a wee bit too young and naive to pick on. Myke's a little older and doesn't take my vitriol as personally as I think you might.[/quote]

You read like the evil twin brother of Henry David Thoreau.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Clintons - $100 million salt of the earth people.[/quote]

Poor Dubya. He can't help it - he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

 

[Koggit]

"Elitist"? Who gives a shit. Anyone who's achieved half of what Obama has should feel like they're a better person than your average American. The man in charge of 300,000,000 Americans damn well better be superior to the average American.

What should be getting negative press here is the fact that Hillary is selling herself off as middle class. Blah blah mill worker, blah blah middle class, blah blah whiskey, blah blah. Bitch needs to STFU and acknowledge that a middle class alcoholic shouldn't be in the White House.

 

[CocheseUGA]

Congratulations. You just defined all politicians everywhere.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='camoor']You read like the evil twin brother of Henry David Thoreau.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Thoreau is credited with one of my favorite aphorisms with which I wholeheartedly agree, and leads me to believe you've never really read Thoreau thoroughly. Here is the entire first paragraph from Civil Disobedience :

[quote name='Henry David Thoreau']I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.[/quote]

 

[pittpizza]

[quote name='bmulligan']
And Pizza-man - sorry, I'm just too lazy to respond to your wordiness right now. I appreciate the argument, just like I appreciate Myke's tenacity in the old-back-and-forth, but you just come off as a wee bit too young and naive to pick on. Myke's a little older and doesn't take my vitriol as personally as I think you might.[/QUOTE]

Riiiiiiiiight. Whatever you say "sir."

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']Actually, Thoreau is credited with one of my favorite aphorisms with which I wholeheartedly agree, and leads me to believe you've never really read Thoreau thoroughly. Here is the entire first paragraph from Civil Disobedience :[/quote]

Thoreau also said "I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject." You're only interested in one of these roles.