Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:35:26 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,769
1ball, I pity your gullibility, that you truly believe a greater percentage of Americans would see prosperity under Republican rule. Hell, Republicans don't even aim to benefit all of their own support base. They're happy to dupe stupid white people and Christians into enabling their top-down plutocracy for nothing in return. By pretending Democrats = Marxists, you self-rationalize your own radicalization of an otherwise deeply-flawed but nonetheless centrist party.
Milik_the_Red
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:39:11 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 6,123
1ball wrote:


Life is full of choices, including choosing whether to effectively or ineffectively oppose the greater of two evils. Choosing to support the lesser in order to effectively oppose the greater is simply using judgement, not being "freedom's enemy", or any such stark absolute. As long as you consistently oppose the greater, and when that becomes the party you previously supported, you then oppose them, you are not freedom's enemy. You are just someone who is making the best of a bad situation, opposing the most authoritarian as effectively as possible. Now if you really aren't decisive enough to choose which represents the greater threat to your economic liberty over the near and long term, then you probably aren't capable of voting responsibly. Informed consent is the goal for voters. An expectation that they will vote in what they perceive is their best interest is implicit in the system. Tossing up their hands and saying, "I'm in the wrong either way." is a copout.


You keep talking about a greater and lesser evil yet you show nothing to indicate why this is so.
I have given two examples to the contrary and you have made no attempt at refuting either. Therefore I consider the points conceded. To this end, you are okay with denying freedom, as long as it isn't one that directly affects you? Interesting...
You seem to put a great deal of thought into politics, yet for all of that you lack the conviction to stand your ground and try to demand that something better from your evil twins. By participating in a system you claim to know is broken, and that's a claim I am beginning to doubt, you perpetuate the problem and do nothing to find a solution. I vote Libertarian. I do this, not because we win, but because I am making a statement.
You vote for a failing and decrepit party that you, yourself, has admitted is evil. And them you have the audacity to imply that I'm being a cop out? That is a remarkable leap of logic.

As to your not believing my stance on freedom, I invite you to read the interview I did with lush back in 2009. In it you will see that my position on freedom, and my belief that if one believes in freedom, one cannot pick and choose which freedoms to support, has remained unchanged. The link is on my profile page. I do not require your belief for it to be true.

1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:10:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
1ball, I pity your gullibility, that you truly believe a greater percentage of Americans would see prosperity under Republican rule. Hell, Republicans don't even aim to benefit all of their own support base. They're happy to dupe stupid white people and Christians into enabling their top-down plutocracy for nothing in return. By pretending Democrats = Marxists, you self-rationalize your own radicalization of an otherwise deeply-flawed but nonetheless centrist party.


One of the biggest, juiciest, sugar-coated horse turds that your supposedly centrist party succeeded in selling you was the belief that people prosper when they drive costs up, spend tomorrow's money today and remove the benefits of competition for governance from you. Apparently you've somehow learned to swallow whole whatever they sell you. I'm sure it tastes better that way, but that doesn't change what it is.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:53:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
You keep talking about a greater and lesser evil yet you show nothing to indicate why this is so.
I have given two examples to the contrary and you have made no attempt at refuting either.


It's up to you to make the decision of what benefits you more. Since I don't know your personal situation I can't say for sure that voting for one party or the other does more damage to your interests. I can only point out the unintended consequences of the economic policies of the one that actually promotes centralization of authority to a much greater extent than the other. Getting the greater or lesser evil for you is what your vote can mean, but your choice is basically to speed up or slow down our approach to a command economy.

Quote:
Therefore I consider the points conceded.


Since I don't know your situation, considering your points conceded is irrelevant.

Quote:
To this end, you are okay with denying freedom, as long as it isn't one that directly affects you? Interesting...


When the system is set up so that I must either express an opinion and a vote between which freedoms to lose or express that I'm not going to decide which, I will choose to keep the freedoms I value most.

Quote:
You seem to put a great deal of thought into politics, yet for all of that you lack the conviction to stand your ground and try to demand that something better from your evil twins. By participating in a system you claim to know is broken, and that's a claim I am beginning to doubt, you perpetuate the problem and do nothing to find a solution.


What I do besides voting with a ballot is vote with my economic clout. In that respect, I oppose both right and left authoritarians. Voting my ballot as effectively as possible against the most damaging authoritarians is much easier and more liberating than taking a more active role in politics. I don't perpetuate the problem by voting as effectively as possible. I don't have that kind of voting power.

Quote:
I vote Libertarian. I do this, not because we win, but because I am making a statement.


That and $3.49 will buy you a Happy Meal.

Quote:
You vote for a failing and decrepit party that you, yourself, has admitted is evil.


I vote as effectively as I can against the party that represents the bigger threat to me and those I love.

Quote:
And them you have the audacity to imply that I'm being a cop out? That is a remarkable leap of logic.


It's a copout. It's not likely to cost you much, unless you live in a swing state that's decided by one vote, but knowing that you're not opposing the party that you believe is the most damaging to your personal interests takes a toll on you.

Quote:
As to your not believing my stance on freedom, I invite you to read the interview I did with lush back in 2009. In it you will see that my position on freedom, and my belief that if one believes in freedom, one cannot pick and choose which freedoms to support, has remained unchanged. The link is on my profile page. I do not require your belief for it to be true.


I believe that you think you're voting intelligently, but I don't believe you've seriously considered the principles involved. You can have most of the freedoms you want by simply ignoring the laws whenever you can get away with it. Smoke pot, drive fast, whatever. For the most part, you can associate with whomever you want to, assuming they're willing and assuming you don't live in a union-shop state. But you can't avoid the consequences to your dollars of having them being consistently devalued by a party that refuses to stop addicting people to federal subsidy.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Milik_the_Red
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:19:16 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 6,123
I see you enjoy the snip and snipe tactic while prolonging the inevitable conclusion that it is not the material, but the discussion itself that you enjoy. A tried and true tactic, even if somewhat worse for the wear.
So, skipping through your scissor shreds, it's clear that, at best, principled stand points mean far less to you than what you feel are material gains. This is, of course, your right and I would be the last one to deny you such.
I will say that the noble fight is not won by conession, and feeding the monster only makes it more hungry. I find it amusing though, that you would deride my vote as worthless in a representitive republic. The system was designed to minimize the impact of a single vote. With a population of three hundred million, your vote for a massive party has far less importence than mine.

I also see that the thread follows the typical pattern of political discussions one sees in the myopia of two party rule. It becomes irrelevent to the partisan who is right. What matters is who wins. It has all the trappings of a football game, and its fans care less for consequence than they do in the win. Nothing is missing save the pom poms.

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:52:18 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,769
1ball wrote:


One of the biggest, juiciest, sugar-coated horse turds


I love it when you get all scatological, 1ball. drunken
angieseroticpen
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:07:53 AM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 1,571
Location: United Kingdom
WellMadeMale wrote:


Why does there have to be a war, to begin with? And if there is warfare, why would America have to be involved, aside from the fact that our leaders (both Democrats & Republicans, can't seem to let a good opportunity for war profiteering pass by without stepping up to the trough).

How much military & domestic financial aid has the United States been giving to Israel since that nation tried to sink the USS Liberty? Israel has plenty of firepower they've purchased or been given over the last 30 years and if they wish to start some shit, let 'em, I say.

Israel also has nukes, they've had them since the 1960s while pretending to the world that they do not. And they are whining about Iran having the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons? Gimme a fucking break.



I sincerely hope that war can be avoided but that would take a regime change in Iran. The present regime have said over and over again that they want Israel destroyed and openly fund Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Most of Iran's neighbours do not want Iran having a nuclear capability because they know how unstable the Iranians are. Both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have granted Israel use of their airspace for any attack and both the USA and Israel have military bases inside neighbouring Geogia. Netanyahu had originally intended attacking Iran's nuclear facilities in the Spring of this year but was persuaded by Obama to hold off any attack until after the Presidental elections. So there we have it. Come November 7th Israel will be free to attack unless Iran ceases its development of nuclear weapons.

They stopped Iraq from developing them in 1981 and they will do the same with Iran. Both Europe and America will become involved because the Iranians will retaliate and the oil supplies in the Middle East will be affected. Sorry to be a harbinger of doom but all this seems inevitable in the present circumstances. Some may scoff at such an event happening but let us not forget that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 and for any biblical scolars here, a catastrophic Middle East war is prophesied, and as it has a 100% record so far in being correct with its prophesies I for one won't be treating current events lightly.

So back to my question.............. which ot the two men can be best trusted to deal with the coming events and who is Statesman enough to lead the World in bringing a peaceful solution to this.





“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:01:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
I see you enjoy the snip and snipe tactic while prolonging the inevitable conclusion that it is not the material, but the discussion itself that you enjoy. A tried and true tactic, even if somewhat worse for the wear.
So, skipping through your scissor shreds, it's clear that, at best, principled stand points mean far less to you than what you feel are material gains. This is, of course, your right and I would be the last one to deny you such.
I will say that the noble fight is not won by conession, and feeding the monster only makes it more hungry. I find it amusing though, that you would deride my vote as worthless in a representitive republic. The system was designed to minimize the impact of a single vote. With a population of three hundred million, your vote for a massive party has far less importence than mine.

I also see that the thread follows the typical pattern of political discussions one sees in the myopia of two party rule. It becomes irrelevent to the partisan who is right. What matters is who wins. It has all the trappings of a football game, and its fans care less for consequence than they do in the win. Nothing is missing save the pom poms.


I "snip" so that I don't have to throw in phrases like "you claim that" or "you say that you believe". Your own words speak for you and I let you know which ones I'm responding to. Your dismissive approach by pretending your vote is more "noble" and mine is all about "material" gain is typical of those who don't see the big picture. Your choice is to slow down or speed up an approach to a strong central government with progressively weaker protections for the individual rights that are most essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The dilution of my vote is not relevant. The fact that I've opposed the most coercive party is. Who wins a discussion is irrelevant, but whether anything valuable is learned by any of the participants is not.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Dirty_D
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:05:57 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,587
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
I see you enjoy the snip and snipe tactic while prolonging the inevitable conclusion that it is not the material, but the discussion itself that you enjoy. A tried and true tactic, even if somewhat worse for the wear.
So, skipping through your scissor shreds, it's clear that, at best, principled stand points mean far less to you than what you feel are material gains. This is, of course, your right and I would be the last one to deny you such.
I will say that the noble fight is not won by conession, and feeding the monster only makes it more hungry. I find it amusing though, that you would deride my vote as worthless in a representitive republic. The system was designed to minimize the impact of a single vote. With a population of three hundred million, your vote for a massive party has far less importence than mine.

I also see that the thread follows the typical pattern of political discussions one sees in the myopia of two party rule. It becomes irrelevent to the partisan who is right. What matters is who wins. It has all the trappings of a football game, and its fans care less for consequence than they do in the win. Nothing is missing save the pom poms.


You are so much more eloquent at saying what I wish to say! Big Hugs


Milik_the_Red
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 3:12:35 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 6,123
naughtynurse wrote:


You are so much more eloquent at saying what I wish to say! Big Hugs


Ah, thank you. Like a game without end, this thread will meander like the Nile, washing away facts under the righteous ferocity of absolutism. Oddly, as an outsider to the major parties, I have no vested interest, and at times crossover when the need arises. Sadly, the fans in the stadium seats, with slogan banners fluttering in the breeze, continue voting for anyone with their parties letter behind their name. This is exactly the reason I do not often delve into the political arena.

principessa
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 4:52:14 PM

Rank: Sophisticate
Moderator

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,983
Location: Canada
Sometimes no words are needed.





Guest
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:58:28 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 891,899
I sure as hell hope not. If they do I'm moving to Canada.
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:17:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:


Ah, thank you. Like a game without end, this thread will meander like the Nile, washing away facts under the righteous ferocity of absolutism. Oddly, as an outsider to the major parties, I have no vested interest, and at times crossover when the need arises. Sadly, the fans in the stadium seats, with slogan banners fluttering in the breeze, continue voting for anyone with their parties letter behind their name. This is exactly the reason I do not often delve into the political arena.


If you just aren't capable of judging between two realistically possible alternatives, believing you are nobly holding yourself above the fray is just self-aggrandizing to cover up that deficiency. Granted, a vote is all but useless, except in swing states, but if you're in one, you can actually prevent the greater of two evils. All you need is the ability to decide what's in your best interest.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
petersr
Posted: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:25:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/2/2010
Posts: 69
Location: St. Petersburgh, United States
Yes .People are sheep. And the biggest sheep dog will win.The louder the bark the bigger the lies. And it seems the more lies the more people will vote for. Plain and simple.
Milik_the_Red
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:12:52 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 6,123
1ball wrote:


If you just aren't capable of judging between two realistically possible alternatives, believing you are nobly holding yourself above the fray is just self-aggrandizing to cover up that deficiency. Granted, a vote is all but useless, except in swing states, but if you're in one, you can actually prevent the greater of two evils. All you need is the ability to decide what's in your best interest.


This is really good stuff. Cleverly, you begin with a base and completly unproven assumtion and procede on as if it were indisputable fact. Then, having seized what you percieve as the high ground, you disparage the wisdom and intellect of any who dare not take your assumptions as fact.

Even better, you manage to disregard the stand you do not approve of and again treat your position as being the only possible correct one simply because you say it is. Ive seen others use such obfuscation before and you do it better than most.

The coup de gras is that there has not been a shred of objective evidence offered to support your point, nothing other than condecending proclamations that, should we differ from your assumption, we must not truly understand the issue at all. Usually such a tactic is very effective in appearence. Fortunatly, this isn't my first rodeo in a discussiom blog.

Dirty_D
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:24:26 AM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,587
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:


This is really good stuff. Cleverly, you begin with a base and completely unproven assumption and proceed on as if it were indisputable fact. Then, having seized what you perceive as the high ground, you disparage the wisdom and intellect of any who dare not take your assumptions as fact.

Even better, you manage to disregard the stand you do not approve of and again treat your position as being the only possible correct one simply because you say it is. I've seen others use such obfuscation before and you do it better than most.

The coup de gras is that there has not been a shred of objective evidence offered to support your point, nothing other than condescending proclamations that, should we differ from your assumption, we must not truly understand the issue at all. Usually such a tactic is very effective in appearance. Fortunately, this isn't my first rodeo in a discussion blog.


Sadly, on this site he is the voice of the republican candidate. Not all Republicans respond in this manner! The demographic that frequent this site tend to be more involved with the issues that the Democrat's embrace. On some other sites that I follow, it is the Republicans that are the main voice. It all comes down to what are your most important issues?


Milik_the_Red
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:39:00 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 6,123
naughtynurse wrote:


Sadly, on this site he is the voice of the republican candidate. Not all Republicans respond in this manner! The demographic that frequent this site tend to be more involved with the issues that the Democrat's embrace. On some other sites that I follow, it is the Republicans that are the main voice. It all comes down to what are your most important issues?


What issues are most important to me? Okay, as 1ball has asked the same question, here is the short answer. I want the government to stop trying to control our lives. That's my biggest concern. It doesn't matter if you are talking about gay marriage and abortion, or gun control and freedom of religion, (as opposed to freedom FROM religion as the courts see it)

However you cut it, We the People are being treated like We the children. I don't affiliate with a party because they both violate our rights equally, and if one is willing to let someone else's one shot at life be lessened and controlled, then how can one expect others to stand up for them?

1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:01:18 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
What issues are most important to me? Okay, as 1ball has asked the same question, here is the short answer. I want the government to stop trying to control our lives.


Then you should very much want a weak central government with strong protections for individual rights. It will protect us from overreaching state governments while they will compete with each other for us. Strong central governments with weak protections for individual rights inevitably overcontrol, especially when they are democratically elected, because people vote for controls on the other guy without realizing what the consequences will be.

Quote:
That's my biggest concern. It doesn't matter if you are talking about gay marriage and abortion, or gun control and freedom of religion, (as opposed to freedom FROM religion as the courts see it)


How about economic control? That's what really distinguishes good government from bad. When your property rights become meaningless due to government controls, when the government can decide that you are making too much and must "share and share alike", and when the government prints fiat money to solve its problems and devalues the entire society as a result, none of those other issues matter, because such a government has the power to make anything illegal.

Quote:
However you cut it, We the People are being treated like We the children.


That's because we don't consistently vote against centralization of economic control.

Quote:
I don't affiliate with a party because they both violate our rights equally, and if one is willing to let someone else's one shot at life be lessened and controlled, then how can one expect others to stand up for them?


It would be virtually impossible for both of them to violate our rights equally. One of them will always be more economically controlling and that one will be the greater threat in the long run. Limiting economic options is control.

Y'all can pretend I'm a Republican all you want, but I'm hoping to live to see the day when I can vote for Democrats because they've kicked the authoritarians out of the party. I have voted for Libertarians and other third party candidates when there was no possibility of my state swinging. Minarchists and other forms of libertarians are against much of what the Republican party does to attract votes and would gladly jump ship if the Dems offered a better alternative. But as long as a vote for Republicans is the most effective way to vote against centralization of authority, that's the safer government to have. Without economic options, you're on a plantation. 50 different states with meaningful differences between them is our best bet for avoiding a nationwide plantation.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 9:16:30 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
I agree that govt. controls too many aspects of our lives they have no business in, but one party wants to control morality more then the other and will say or do anything to regain office to achieve their agenda, even developing romnesia, shape shifting with the prevailing winds to obtain undecided votes.

1ball
Posted: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:32:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
tazznjazz wrote:
I agree that govt. controls too many aspects of our lives they have no business in, but one party wants to control morality more then the other and will say or do anything to regain office to achieve their agenda


It's easy to escape moral controls. People do that all the time. But escaping economic controls requires more money than most people have. How do you get a job that's been exported overseas because the cost of doing business here is too high? How do you recover property value that decreases due to excessive taxation? How do you save for your future when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:38:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,227
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


It's easy to escape moral controls. People do that all the time.


Only immoral people.

1ball wrote:
But escaping economic controls requires more money than most people have. How do you get a job that's been exported overseas because the cost of doing business here is too high?


If you don't like it where you are, isn't it your responsibility to move somewhere more to your liking? That's what you've been preaching for weeks now. Which is it? Go where the jobs are, or stay home and bitch?

1ball wrote:
How do you recover property value that decreases due to excessive taxation?


Is it the government's responsibility to look after your property values and make sure they stay within limits that you define? Buying property is a risk, just like any other durable good. Sometimes they increase in value, sometimes they tank. Either way, it's none of the government's business. The government's business is: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." and that's it.

1ball wrote:
How do you save for your future when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else?


Don't like it? Quit your idiotic support of our current two-party system of government. One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results each time." Stop insanely supporting the Republicans. Stop insanely supporting the Democrats. Support candidates whose core values you believe in. If there's no political party that has the same beliefs that you do, then start one. But refrain from the impossibly stupid act of telling people to vote for the party that will only fuck you a little bit, instead of the other party, which will fuck you right up the cornhole without any lube...

Unless you like it like that.
Ruthie
Posted: Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:53:45 PM

Rank: Empress of the Moon
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 4,462
Location: The moon.
MrNudiePants wrote:


But refrain from the impossibly stupid act of telling people to vote for the party that will only fuck you a little bit, instead of the other party, which will fuck you right up the cornhole without any lube...

Unless you like it like that.


Who can argue with this?

http://








Guest
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:43:15 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 891,899
So, when are the elections?
Milik_the_Red
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:33:42 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 6,123
MrNudiePants wrote:


Don't like it? Quit your idiotic support of our current two-party system of government. One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results each time." Stop insanely supporting the Republicans. Stop insanely supporting the Democrats. Support candidates whose core values you believe in. If there's no political party that has the same beliefs that you do, then start one. But refrain from the impossibly stupid act of telling people to vote for the party that will only fuck you a little bit, instead of the other party, which will fuck you right up the cornhole without any lube...

Unless you like it like that.


His arguments are circular and have no end. Presented with differing views he makes statements like 'it would be virtually impossible' or 'how do you save for the future when the gov takes it and gives it to somebody else'

These are nonsensical points. It doesn't matter how you answer because he will simply go back to the beginning of his talking points. It's double speak and just by trying to debate the details allows him to keep the conversation traveling in a circle.

I go back and say there is no difference. Both parties waste, both parties pander and both parties lie. Those are the provable facts. Pick up a paper and the details are there, issue after issue.
1ball, if you want to vote on your knees, I'm going to support your right to do it, but you could at least return the favor.

Now, go ahead and put the needle back on the record so we can hear again how one must suck just a little less than another. We are just dying to hear it again.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:18:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,227
Location: United States
She wrote:
So, when are the elections?


Always the first Tuesday of November.
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 9:52:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
1ball wrote: It's easy to escape moral controls. People do that all the time.

MrNudiePants wrote:
1ball wrote: It's easy to escape moral controls. People do that all the time.

Only immoral people.


People who reject the morality others are trying to impose on them. A legal code is imposed. A moral code must be voluntarily accepted.

1ball wrote: But escaping economic controls requires more money than most people have. How do you get a job that's been exported overseas because the cost of doing business here is too high?

Quote:
If you don't like it where you are, isn't it your responsibility to move somewhere more to your liking?


It's not a matter of responsibility to leave. The poorer people in our society hurt themselves by doing what drives jobs away, because they aren't welcome in the places the jobs move to. Immigration laws keep them out.

1ball wrote: How do you recover property value that decreases due to excessive taxation?

Quote:
Is it the government's responsibility to look after your property values and make sure they stay within limits that you define?


If the federal government causes property values to drop, state property tax revenues are hurt. If the state tries to keep the revenues up anyway, that hurts property values even more. Eventually the state loses population. It's already happened to union shop states like Michigan.

Quote:
Buying property is a risk, just like any other durable good. Sometimes they increase in value, sometimes they tank. Either way, it's none of the government's business.


Naive. Property values are a reflection of confidence in the stability of the society. If confidence in the stability of the society isn't important to the government, then the society won't attract investment.

Quote:
The government's business is: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." and that's it.


And it does that by causing wealth to evaporate?

1ball wrote: How do you save for your future when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else?

Quote:
Don't like it?


I got around it. I haven't paid any FICA in more than a decade. I haven't paid any income tax in a while either. There's no doubt that the boomer generation has totally screwed the younger generations. People in their twenties now will be working until they die.

Quote:
Support candidates whose core values you believe in.


You believe you can actually tell the core values of the candidates? They say and do what they think will get them elected. If being elected is the only core value they have, you pretty much have to pay attention only to their party platform. Opposing the party you most don't want in power by enlisting the aid of others who oppose it is strategic.

Quote:
If there's no political party that has the same beliefs that you do, then start one.


Naive.

Quote:
But refrain from the impossibly stupid act of telling people...


Lfunny

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:36:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
I go back and say there is no difference. Both parties waste, both parties pander and both parties lie. Those are the provable facts. Pick up a paper and the details are there, issue after issue.


Both parties waste, because that's how candidates get reelected. The voters have to fix that.

Both parties pander, because that's how they build a base and then attract the gullible. The Dems pander to those who want what others have without going to the trouble of earning it. Entitlement minded Dem voters want a cradle to grave nanny without the behavioral rules that a good nanny would impose, but one who would impose behavioral rules on others. They want to dictate a command economy.

The Republicans pander to those who want their moral code to become the legal code and to those who want to push power back to the states, where competition between states will drive the evolution of public policy and where they can try to keep the federal government from forcing them to support people they aren't morally obligated to support.

People within both parties lie, but when a party has enough power, it must attempt to give a "win" to its base. Wins that destroy what is crucial to the society, investor confidence and productivity are more dangerous than wins that impose or defeat the social rules that both parties are fond of trying to impose on each other. Investor confidence and productivity are damaged by pandering to the entitlement minded. Perhaps in your individual case, that's good for you, so it would make sense to oppose Republicans as effectively as you can. But if that's not the case, if you actually benefit from a good economy, opposing Democrats and shifting entitlements into the realm of state governments where their effects have less impact on the national economy, makes sense. It is a win for liberty and a win for the economy.

Quote:
Now, go ahead and put the needle back on the record so we can hear again how one must suck just a little less than another. We are just dying to hear it again.


I don't believe it's a little less. I believe it's a lot less. But for you, maybe you have a business that benefits from sales to the entitlement minded. I could see why you might not want to upset your apple cart. Or maybe you just have difficulty with the idea of holding your nose and voting for the party whose social rules you don't like. I've just ignored their rules whenever I didn't like them.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
JessicaX
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:48:50 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 6/6/2011
Posts: 1,086
The soulless shape-shifter is on a role, victory is close. Let's hope a few more voter registration cards printed by Arizona's republican party get distributed with the correct date of the election (November 6) in English and the incorrect date of 8 November in Spanish get to voters. That should do it ... Get used to President Romney.





Ginnifer
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:18:29 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 10/21/2012
Posts: 2
Location: United States
I was so disappointed from the debate tonight! I was for Romney - even contributed to his campaign. I don't think the government should bail out companies, dump on Mubarack, and raise taxes on the rich. I think we should bomb Iran now before it's to late. These were all things the Governor has agreed with until tonight.

Now he wants a world to be at peace? What planet is he from? What happened to Mitt? What a flip-flopper!

I have no idea where he stands anymore. I am joining the move here to Congressman Paul.
Tk87
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:34:28 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 10/21/2012
Posts: 1
Location: United States
Yes they will, they have the popular vote sewn up and they are working on several Obama electors to vote Romney when he wins the popular vote. You heard it here first folks.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.