User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 149

  1. #101
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The winning side does NOT get to make all the rules, damn the consequences. There are things the government is simply not supposed to do.
    OMG f***ing thank you! I've been trying not to say this, but I don't care. There are a vast majority of people who need to shut up and pick up a god damn history book before they even think to utter a word of their ignorant bile and soil everything within the reach of their words. People who keep calling this a democracy need to read a history book and they need to read the constitution.

    Generally, this country began a trend of democratization in the early 1800's, especially when the electoral college procedure for presidential candidacy was radically changed, and the two party system was adopted. irrefutably, however, this country began a republic and was meant to remain that way. Arguably, you could call today's system a very slight democracy-republic hybrid heavily favoring republicanism, but the principles behind the constitution and the system framed around it are completely republican in nature. But don't mind me, I'm just a small voice among the drowning noise of the mob and popular rule (democracy).

  2. #102
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    k, let's make a deal: replace the word "democracy" with "republic" in my post, and then reread the whole thing and respond where relevant.

    That's correct, the winning side has to pass its new rules through Congress, and if they're truly poor rules such that the country stops supporting them, in four years the people can elect a new leader who will change them. They can also elect new representatives at every level of government, every so often, if the will of the people is not being represented.

    Some things government should not do such as what, Merc? Tax you more than you're comfortable with? If you think American taxes are bad even at the highest brackets, take a peek at European tax codes some time.

    When it comes to social policy, I'm with you all the way that government has no reason to be involved--there's no practical reason that different people can't choose their own social practices. But unfortunately it's not really practical to allow each individual to choose the amount of tax he pays, and so we have to vote on representatives to determine these laws for us. If you don't like the way you're being taxed, either vote out the representatives who are passing these budgets, or get together a class action lawsuit, take it to court and prove that it's unconstitutional. That's how policy change is made in a republic (though I'm sure you'll forgive me for using the word interchangeably with "democracy" to denote the general idea of a government where the decisions ultimately come from the majority's rule.)

    The governmental system itself is the very thing allowing us to make money in the first place--and yet many Libertarians complain that they don't owe that system anything. You can't have any realistic views on economics if you assume everyone lives in a perfect vacuum.

    Libertarianism, ironically, is reminiscent of total socialism because both seem to look good on paper, in theory, and then fail miserably when implemented in any scenario involving real people--the recent financial market debacle should be evidence enough that total deregulation of industry is entirely impractical.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #103
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    OMG f***ing thank you! I've been trying not to say this, but I don't care.
    Why were you trying not to say that? I remind people of the laws of this country at every turn. If you really have knowledge of something, you shouldn't withhold it.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The governmental system itself is the very thing allowing us to make money in the first place--and yet many Libertarians complain that they don't owe that system anything. You can't have any realistic views on economics if you assume everyone lives in a perfect vacuum.

    Libertarianism, ironically, is reminiscent of total socialism because both seem to look good on paper, in theory, and then fail miserably when implemented in any scenario involving real people--the recent financial market debacle should be evidence enough that total deregulation of industry is entirely impractical.
    Ok you had me until here. Don't see why you have to Libertarian bash. No Lib is claiming that we live in a bubble. And all systems look better on paper. Finally, if you want to speak about gov't regulation and our economy, please read my post #30, which everyone conveniently seemed to have skipped. The gov't alone is solely responsible for this "debacle".

  4. #104
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ I don't hate Libertarians. I think they've got it closer to the ideal economic system than the far left does...I just think their system is impractical in real life, that's all. No offense intended to them personally.

    Also: I agree that the government could largely have prevented this by regulating the financial investment and real estate industries more heavily. Libertarians would tend not to agree with that.

    However, it's not solely the fault of government because private financial entities were the ones offering these bullshit loans to hopelessly underqualified people, etc. etc...it's a combination of irresponsible business practices and poor government oversight.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #105
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    k, let's make a deal: replace the word "democracy" with "republic" in my post, and then reread the whole thing and respond where relevant.

    That's correct, the winning side has to pass its new rules through Congress, and if they're truly poor rules such that the country stops supporting them, in four years the people can elect a new leader who will change them. They can also elect new representatives at every level of government, every so often, if the will of the people is not being represented.
    No, that is not what I meant. There are rules that, even if Congress and the POTUS set up, are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is supposed to prevent such abuses, but it is not always reliable. The government is supposed to serve as a CHECK to popular will much of the time, because popular will is often stupid, and it may want that which actually takes rights away.


    Some things government should not do such as what, Merc? Tax you more than you're comfortable with? If you think American taxes are bad even at the highest brackets, take a peek at European tax codes some time.
    Well, the average American taxpayer is working until May to pay their federal, state, and local taxes for the year. Taxes may be higher in other parts of the world, but that doesn't mean we have it good here. It means that other countries have it worse. Also, the corporate income tax rate in the United States is the second-highest in the world, after Japan's. But let's take a short list of things the federal government is not supposed to do, shall we?

    - Criminalize vices

    - Fight a paramilitary drug war

    - Deficit spend for decades at a clip

    - Take over private businesses

    - Use taxpayers' money to bail out private businesses

    - Invade sovereign countries in an offensive war

    - Aggrandize itself to the detriment of state and local governments

    - Hold people without lawyers or trials

    - Search people and property and conduct wiretaps without warrants


    And several other things explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.


    When it comes to social policy, I'm with you all the way that government has no reason to be involved--there's no practical reason that different people can't choose their own social practices. But unfortunately it's not really practical to allow each individual to choose the amount of tax he pays, and so we have to vote on representatives to determine these laws for us. If you don't like the way you're being taxed, either vote out the representatives who are passing these budgets, or get together a class action lawsuit, take it to court and prove that it's unconstitutional. That's how policy change is made in a republic (though I'm sure you'll forgive me for using the word interchangeably with "democracy" to denote the general idea of a government where the decisions ultimately come from the majority's rule.)
    THIS IS NOT A COUNTRY IN WHICH THE DECISIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO COME FROM THE MAJORITY. I cannot stress this enough. We have a constitution and common law set up specifically to restrain the three branches of the federal government AND the people.



    The governmental system itself is the very thing allowing us to make money in the first place--and yet many Libertarians complain that they don't owe that system anything. You can't have any realistic views on economics if you assume everyone lives in a perfect vacuum.
    A) Libertarianism does not assume people live in a "perfect vacuum;" and B) the government often is the thing that people make money despite. How would it be inconsistent to claim that the federal government should be limited to the minimum of defense, contract enforcement, infrastructure, etc.? It's pretty flimsy to use the "social contract" claim that the amount of taxes we pay is OK, since the government does so many things. What if you don't want the government to do most of what it does?


    Libertarianism, ironically, is reminiscent of total socialism because both seem to look good on paper, in theory, and then fail miserably when implemented in any scenario involving real people--the recent financial market debacle should be evidence enough that total deregulation of industry is entirely impractical.
    A) None of the industries that melted down were completely deregulated; and B) economic freedom correlates with and causes economic wealth. This has been been shown clearly over the last century.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #106
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ^ I don't hate Libertarians. I think they've got it closer to the ideal economic system than the far left does...I just think their system is impractical in real life, that's all. No offense intended to them personally.

    Also: I agree that the government could largely have prevented this by regulating the financial investment and real estate industries more heavily. Libertarians would tend not to agree with that.

    However, it's not solely the fault of government because private financial entities were the ones offering these bullshit loans to hopelessly underqualified people, etc. etc...it's a combination of irresponsible business practices and poor government oversight.
    No offense taken at all. I wasn't offended, just wondering why Libertarians (or any ideology) was added to that portion of your discussion.

    However you are wrong on several points. I am not in agreement that the gov't should regulate more. The Libertarian mindset is one in which these things would never have occurred in the first place:

    - the gov't forced the banks to create these subprime loans, by way of penalization.
    - the gov't used taxpaying dollars to secure the loans
    - the gov't bought and sold those bad loans as investments under umbrella corporations that are not subject to the same rules and regulations as other "private" businesses.

    Please reread my post if this wasn't clear to you:
    - the gov't, under Jimmy Carter, forced the banks to make the loans.
    - the gov't, under Bill Clinton, forced the GSEs to make these loans equal to half of their portfolios.
    - the Republican Congress allowed these loans to be secured with taxpaying dollars.

    If you have a way to explain how MORE gov't regulation would be beneficial to us, please let me know.

  7. #107
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Another thing we have to ask, as citizens, is exactly where are tax money is going. To my knowledge we are fighting one war, but we have troops in over 130 countries. As I've said before, the gov't should manage the money they already have before asking for more.

  8. #108
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Why were you trying not to say that? I remind people of the laws of this country at every turn. If you really have knowledge of something, you shouldn't withhold it.
    I was referring to the ranting statements that followed, specifically, "Shut the hell up, read a history book, and then open your mouth." I want to say it sooooooo often.

  9. #109
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    I was referring to the ranting statements that followed, specifically, "Shut the hell up, read a history book, and then open your mouth." I want to say it sooooooo often.
    Oh yeah, point definitely taken! Wanted to say the same thing many times, in many threads...

  10. #110
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Risen. Your profressionalism hopefully gets through to those who believe the history that was taught to them in blips. It is OUR responsibility to spot the reads and overlap them with possible misswritings/missinterpretations by what is inconsistent due to making the same mistake over again. I read some posts and it's like people are rewriting history. How do i know? Inconsistent misswritings that have historically lead to making the same mistake over again. And they cover up their blip buyin ass with the use of "Shut the hell up, read a history book, and then open your mouth". It's almost like they're talking to themselves.

    I appreciate your professionalism Risen. I would like to post more than a couple of one-liners but i stoped caring beyond the MBTI part of it long ago. When it gets into a realm beyond MBTI, *wondering if it's really worth it* usually blocks posting anything further than a one-liner. You at least have the glass full. Don't give up. And keep on NOT takin any shit

    Thanks Risen.
    Last edited by professor goodstain; 04-19-2009 at 03:06 PM. Reason: My slight dyslexia.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

Similar Threads

  1. The future of the Republican party
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 797
    Last Post: 09-22-2015, 01:06 PM
  2. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. media coverage of the tea parties Part 2, (the video they don't want you to see)
    By cogdecree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 06:36 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