User Tag List

First 11192021222331 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 375

  1. #201
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    People are republicans because they'd rather see the sucess of big business', see forced labor, and like it when the small guy looses. People are republicans because they don't care about their child's education, and never worry about healthcare. They like money and power...and war!

    Well, I hoped you liked my short, biased, stereotypical, condensed, exagerated, rant on Republicans. I hope you don't take it personally, yet get some meaning out of it
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  2. #202
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Ivy, I am glad to hear you are a Democrat. I do not understand these Republicans at all.

    I just read in the paper: Young people of the right-wing party (the closest equivalent of your Republicans) want to stop all the social programs, because of the economic situation today.
    The American Republican party does not want to do that though. The Republicans EXPANDED social programs over the six years that they had power over both the presidency and the Congress.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  3. #203
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Ivy, I am glad to hear you are a Democrat. I do not understand these Republicans at all.

    I just read in the paper: Young people of the right-wing party (the closest equivalent of your Republicans) want to stop all the social programs, because of the economic situation today. They proclaim their worry about their yet unborn children and their future economic status. Lots of ordinary people have lost their jobs.

    In the same paper it says five percent of the people of Helsinki are actually starving now.
    In effect these young Republicans say: Let them starve to death so that our Republican children one day will have even more money than what we rich kids have now.

    Whatever these Republican kids are, nice is not the word one can ascribe to them.
    Republicans earn less than democrats, but donate more (mainly to religious institutions, religious institutions still spend most of their money helping to feed and clothe the needy, even if you believe that they sell dogma on the side) than democrats. (which is voluntarily giving up your money, vs. doing so at the end of a gun), obviously they care about the less fortunate.

    Also if you look at our welfare system, the more children you have the more money you get, people are smart enough to recognize a reward system when one is present. This creates an artificial reward system that encourages unwise practices.

    If you noticed people in rural areas generally have more children than those in urban areas, why because in rural areas, children can be put to work and made useful, in urban areas, you need to feed, watch, and educate them. Which is much more of a fiscal burden. Thus we see (or saw) a trend of smaller families within urban areas.

    Now, with such a rewards system, that encourages bigger families within cities, you get overcrowded schools, more fiscal strain within the family, and worst of all, a cycle.

    Mind you China went though extreme measures to keep population down, but they were aware of the consequences of overpopulation within a limited space (the limited space in this situation would be the city, with it being hard to move out into more expensive areas).

    All in all we need smart practices to help famlies, to teach them how to get out, I'd rather have money go to special classes, teaching useful and practical skills (resumes, job training, life skills, etc), not just and only give a free hand out.

    What we give should last longer than just to the next check.

  4. #204
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Whatever these Republican kids are, nice is not the word one can ascribe to them.
    Wait... these people are starving under the existing system, and the "Republican kids" who want to abandon that system are the ones who aren't nice?

    Seems to me that what they're seeing is that the existing system represents a profoundly inefficient use of resources. In the less-socialist US, nobody actually starves, not even in bad times, not even without a social safety net. Then again, we aren't as enlightened as the Finns. Go figure.

  5. #205
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Wait... these people are starving under the existing system, and the "Republican kids" who want to abandon that system are the ones who aren't nice?

    Seems to me that what they're seeing is that the existing system represents a profoundly inefficient use of resources. In the less-socialist US, nobody actually starves, not even in bad times, not even without a social safety net. Then again, we aren't as enlightened as the Finns. Go figure.
    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo !

    What I have done! Shakespeare!

    I am too old to enter the priesthood. I forgot to roll in the Theological Seminary.
    What if I become a monk?
    The Order of St. Benedict, eh? Have to start patching up the Latin!

  6. #206
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Including the last decade of the 19th century to the 1930's where the new deal came into effect, that gives us a span of 40 years, which isn't long at all. Thus we don't have an example of a long lasting pure libertarian government. Not saying it isn't impossible, but I can see clashes and separatists causing some strife within the country. (perhaps this is what were looking for, Alaska would be better off in they were out of the union, without a doubt) But my main point is that the country wouldn't stay together, then the arguement then goes on whether the US should break up in segments or not.

    The initial people determine the social contract, "we will give you money, you protect us" at least from what history has shown, it only expands after that.

    Well we will be seeing each other eye to eye for the most part as both of us want to limit government from the current state that it is in now, our disputes are grounded in how limited government should be.

    As I said businesses like people, shouldn't be captives or heavily regulated, yet at the same time they should be held responsible for illegal or immoral (boy those terms are sure as hell up for interpretation) action by some sort of standardized law.

    I probably should have made that "last quarter-century." I would that the United States (outside of the Reconstruction Era South) was pretty libertarian from about 1870 to WWI. Not coincidentally, it was one of the greatest periods of growth and accomplishment in our nation's history (and we actually welcomed immigrants then, too).
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #207
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I probably should have made that "last quarter-century." I would that the United States (outside of the Reconstruction Era South) was pretty libertarian from about 1870 to WWI. Not coincidentally, it was one of the greatest periods of growth and accomplishment in our nation's history (and we actually welcomed immigrants then, too).
    That expands it to about 60 years then. The US did experience growth, no arguments here, though I can't help but feel that the age of the country helped here as well, as the US was clearly a developing country and not quite the superpower as it is now, bringing this back to one of my earlier argument, questioning pure libertarianism's ability to exist within a powerful country.

    Also, not that this part is required for a country to be considered libertarian but it wasn't as socially free or tolerant, if I recall, I believe heavy social regulations still existed during this period. Prohibition is probably the most well known and historic legislation representing what Iím talking about.

    In regard to welcomed immigrants, most immigrants still came through Ellis Island, documented, sometimes renamed, and then on occasion told where to live. Again I think the age of the country effects behavior a bit as well, even in this category.

    I must say itís a bit odd attacking libertarianism, in other boards/forums I'm usually the one defending it.

    Apparently I am the devil's advocate.

  8. #208
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    That expands it to about 60 years then. The US did experience growth, no arguments here, though I can't help but feel that the age of the country helped here as well, as the US was clearly a developing country and not quite the superpower as it is now, bringing this back to one of my earlier argument, questioning pure libertarianism's ability to exist within a powerful country.
    I am sure that is part of it, but immigrants wouldn't have flooded our shores if there had not been excellent opportunities to better their standings.


    Also, not that this part is required for a country to be considered libertarian but it wasn't as socially free or tolerant, if I recall, I believe heavy social regulations still existed during this period. Prohibition is probably the most well known and historic legislation representing what Iím talking about.
    No, certainly it was not as socially free and tolerant, but neither was any other country in the world. Many countries still had state religions and very poor systems of justice at that point, though. The constitutional republican form of government made things a lot better for people (unless black) here than in most places. Prohibition came about after WWI, in the Progressive Era. We got a Federal Reserve, a permanent income tax, war production boards, and several other major expansions of the federal government before Prohibition.


    In regard to welcomed immigrants, most immigrants still came through Ellis Island, documented, sometimes renamed, and then on occasion told where to live. Again I think the age of the country effects behavior a bit as well, even in this category.

    I must say itís a bit odd attacking libertarianism, in other boards/forums I'm usually the one defending it.

    Apparently I am the devil's advocate.
    Again, you are not wrong, but they pretty much let everyone in (although we had disgusting Exclusion Acts against Asians). It helped fuel the industrial engine that became the greatest in the world in this period.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #209
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    You know the topic is old when even the trolls with opposite viewpoints wont touch it anymore...

  10. #210
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Unless you add something else two things still nag at me.

    1) its undeniable that immigrants benefit developing countries, this isn't quite the case with developed countries. (At least heavy immigration).

    2) I can't ague against this point as there is a lack of examples, so this is more of a question. With people and the world in general being less bound to each other, (as established in past posts that the world was more socially strict back then), do you think nation states can survive with libertarianism? For it to function, does it require everyone else to convert to libertarianism? (I keep on imagining the Gauls and Germanic tribes falling to the Romans)

    I don't expect hard answers, there isn't any, but these are questions that go through my mind when considering libertarianism.

    (Holy smokes I'm going to tie this back to the initial thread), hence why I'm a republican, strong social values (in a modern society) and limited government involvement recreating a similar time period. Part Libertarian (in the modern world) but not 100%.

Similar Threads

  1. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  2. Religion... why?
    By wyrdsister in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 04:31 PM
  3. Why I am here
    By HilbertSpace in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 01:18 AM
  4. Why?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO