09-06-2011, 08:07 PM | #26 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Eh, it is not the temperature, but the air pressure that causes it to evaporate. One thing you will learn is that pressure also has a big thing in state changes.
__________________
|
09-08-2011, 08:19 AM | #27 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Again, instead of trying to debate my points, you attempt to discredit me or my argument. Why? Perhaps, not a sign of brainwashing, but of not being at clear to you as I thought I was? Here's what I believe: Government is a necessary Evil. Government's duties are to protect the God-given rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for all men and women, bond or free, black, white, red, yellow, or brown. As well as enforce laws for the protection of the state, and protection of society (such as preventing murder, and enforcing the punishment for those who murder), and protect other human rights, as set forth in the first ten amendments. In other words, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The best, most idealic form of Government the world has ever known, is the one set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America. No government is perfect. All governments are susceptible to corruption, and as a fact, will become corrupted at one point or another, attempting to establish itself as the ultimate power over the people it is meant to protect from such an Evil. Regulation at certain points are necessary, however, should be enacted and enforced as minimal and as wisely as possible. Taxes are necessary for government to function, but at a certain point reduce the wealth creation in a capitalistic society, as mid-sized businesses can not prosper if the majority of their profits are being taken for taxes and regulations. Thus a stranglehold of Taxes will kill off it's very life force, those who earn money, which are taxed. Communism, as attempted around the world, brings unsustainability, and results in making the rich richer and the poor, poorer, as demonstrated through history. Government must be beholden to the people, accountable for it's actions, and always thoroughly examined, otherwise, it will start to abuse it's power, and start to dictate control over it's citizens. Quote:
Quote:
I'm not going to argue the "validity" of the Afgan war, because, not being one of the strategic officers, I can not offer their detailed assessments of the risks and benefits. Regardless, we are where we are now, and we must finish it, even if it was a "wrong" decision. "Pulling out", is not an option, it is admit to defeat. A loss which quite likely will embolden our enemies to strike us even harder in the future. Removing dictators who ignore human rights, is never a bad decision though. Installing a puppet dictator who answers to us, while not the best decision, may be the lesser of two evils. The greater, being allowing an enemy state to build up to attack us. When it comes to decisions like this, you'll find everything is the wrong answer, and all you can do is make a decision and stick with it. Quote:
Again, I say, regardless of whether something was "justified" or "right," makes no difference, once you have made a serious decision, it is your responsibility to carry out that decision completely, or things will turn from bad to worse. If war is declared, we damn well better be aiming to win completely. If you declare war, you'll piss off those you invaded, they don't care if you "had a sudden change of heart," and pull out quickly afterwards, they'll resent you anyhow, no matter how much you apologies and how low you bow to them, and they will then build up during "peacetime" to attack us back, and their goal WILL be to Win. And then we'll have to go to war anyway. Why should we let an enemy choose the time and location? If we have the advantage, press that advantage. If we have a goal, seize that goal. Half-measures never bring anything good, and I'm afraid, anyone who does not understand that, does not understand War. Choose one side, or the other, but once you choose, stand by your choice, to the last man. Ours or theirs. If you rethink your choice, and find a better option, go with it, but go with it as completely as your previous choice, ceasing to follow the first. Iraq and Afganistan are tough, in that we're not fighting a nation, but a very mobile group of terrorists who are hiding behind innocent. If our goal was to truly dominate, we could just wipe the nation and it's people off the map. However, that's not our goal, our goal is to liberate them from oppressors while eradicating the toxins swimming freely through their system. |
||||
09-08-2011, 07:31 PM | #28 | |||||
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
Also, even though we invaded Vietnam, and Cambodia, we are in good relations with each of them, and it dosen't matter. And, what do you mean, it does not matter if it was wrong or right? The Crimean war was regarded as the most pointless war ever. Considering that protests over Vietnam was also a factor in withdrawing, I think your point is moot. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Allowing the enemy state to attack us is generally a bad thing from a strategic standpoint, but it is not a "evil thing." Quote:
Everything is the wrong answer is just an excuse to excuse your actions. Making a decision and sticking with it, at times fails, which is why we withdrawed out of Vietnam. It did not work. Keeping it up would have been very bad.
__________________
|
|||||
09-08-2011, 08:10 PM | #29 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
To govern is to regulate. To regulate is to intefere with private affairs, be they business affairs, religious affairs, organizational affairs, or any other kind of affair, and to say "This is what you can and cannot do." You are saying, "The government can never regulate properly" and implying ... what? I didn't put the words in your mouth -- you practically spelled it out yourself. You are implying that "best government is no government." At least you are when you rail against government regulation as hard as you do here. Then like I said in my original post, you seem to post along the Tea Party line the other half of the time. Like in your reply to me, where you try to explain how you are not an anarchist (fine, I don't care, I just ask that you be consistent, either be an anarchist or be a Tea Partier), you say that the best government the world has ever known is that founded by the Founding Fathers, the men who drafted together the Articles of Confederation and later the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the same government which specifically says in its charter (i.e. the Constitution): Quote:
If you feel that a particular vein of government regulation is unjust or illogical, that's fine. But don't act like "DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATION! UP WITH A RETURN TO AMERICAN SENSIBILITIES OF OLDE!" makes any sort of sense. Because it doesn't. Because America has been a government which regulates ever since the Articles of Confederation produced the most ineffective, toothless government ever and the Founding Fathers realized, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh shit. If we want this new government to have any power whatsoever, we're gonna have to draft some major changes. Give it some fangs." And they did. Those fangs you're railing against were created by the same Founding Fathers and into the same Constitution you're so quick to celebrate. I believe that this is one reason why it's tough for people to find satisfaction in debating with you. You seem to island-hop from platform to platform, setting foot on whichever island suits you best for the current argument. You can't be both a Republican and a Democrat. You can't be both a Socialist and a Fascist. And, in this case, I would say that you can't be both an anarchist and a Federalist. That's great that you want to claim that you're not, but many of the things you have written in this post would have made Alexander Hamilton's toes curl.
__________________
Last edited by Talon87; 09-08-2011 at 08:16 PM. |
||
09-08-2011, 08:16 PM | #30 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
09-08-2011, 08:29 PM | #31 |
Golden Wang of Justice
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
Don't post mozz don't post mozz don't post mozz
/has stroke
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
09-09-2011, 09:28 PM | #32 | ||||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
And if you think the government is going to play nice competing with private entities, you're deluding yourselves. Once they have that power, there's nothing stopping them from abusing it. Quote:
War does not discriminate between "Right" and "Wrong," both sides commit atrocities, and history is written by the victor. What I mean by "it does not matter," is, in a War, you have to make life and death decisions almost every day. Each decision will result in good and bad results, you most often do not have the time to comprehensively think out pros and cons or come up with alternate solutions, you simply have to make a choice, and follow through with it. Once that choice is made, you can not go back. Whether it was a right or a wrong decision depends only on the result. The only time to back out, is when you know more lives will be lost by continuing through. The only things that can be considered, is, how few lives can be lost for the most benefit. Quote:
Quote:
It's a cheesy Spiderman line, but it's absolutely true: "With great power, comes great responsibility." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If someone is unilaterally at war against us, their goal, our total destruction, or enslavement, it is completely naivety to think we could resolve it through negotiations. The only choice is to bring the war to them, and wipe them out of existence. There is Good and Evil in the world, and Evil, left unchecked, will destroy the good as much as it can. Even Switzerland would be forced to declare war if someone attacked them unilaterally, unless they just wanted to roll over and die. Quote:
We withdrew from Vietnam because we were not willing to do what was necessary to win. Using Helicopters is fine and all, but if we're not fighting seriously, it doesn't matter what advanced technology we use. Quote:
That doesn't meant government shouldn't regulate, it means the citizens should regulate what the government can and can not do with that regulatory power. Quote:
Commerce: Quote:
It is the various interpretations of the Necessary and Proper Clause, that allows government to regulate businesses. Here's some reading on that: Obamacare [Will edit later with more evidence] Quote:
I'm railing against powers the Federal Government was never given but simply assumed, which interfere with and are harmful to, citizens, the economy, and Freedom. Quote:
In an openminded debate, all parties come to realize their true beliefs, and allows for the exchange and new creation of ideas for the education of all parties. Unless someone is deadset on not changing, I can't see why a debate would not be a good idea, for anything. Quote:
Thankfully from this failure, came the best government known to man. It's creation more researched then any other government in the world. Last edited by unownmew; 09-09-2011 at 09:30 PM. |
||||||||||||||
09-10-2011, 12:28 AM | #33 | |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Quote:
Your viewpoints are so back and forth. One sentence you will talk about how the government is choking us and wasting our tax dollars. The next one you're saying how the government is the best one ever. It's because of statements like this we question the validity of your opinions. |
|
09-10-2011, 01:19 AM | #34 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
-------------------------------------- Last edited by deoxys; 09-10-2011 at 01:27 AM. |
|
09-10-2011, 07:40 AM | #35 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Unown, even Switzerland does not have an army. That is like saying Japan would go to war.
Also, sometimes the "rightness" of a war is what causes it to be finished or not. Sure, terrorists did bomb us. But, what about the people on Iraq, who had nothing to do with that. Saddam Hussein actually did something we could not do, which was to keep the various ethnic groups from slaughtering each other. Even here of insurrectionists? That was because of us. The reason the terrorists bombed us in the first place was because we muddled in Middle East affairs, Isreal, Iraq, etc. The same would happen if we kept muddling in SE Asain affairs, don't you think that China would be mad?
__________________
|
09-10-2011, 08:48 AM | #36 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Our Constitution laid out the best form of government the world has ever known. Every other form of government pales in comparison to the freedoms our Constitution allows. However, all govenments are a necessary evil, including ours. Ours is simply the "least of those evils." I fail to see how that is contradicting. If you could point out how it is, I'd greatly appreciate it. Quote:
I'll agree that if America aggressively attacked or invaded another country for sole reasons of conquering or conquest, that war should be stopped, however, if we go to war in defense of ourselves, our allies, or to liberate a people, that war ought not to be stopped, even if some resources are plundered in the process. That does not excuse the plundering though, unless it is from our enemy. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was able to keep the various tribes from warring, does not excuse his train of human abuses. From rape to murder, do you really think that should have been "ignored" to keep bloodfeuds in that country from sprouting up? Terrorists hate us for more then just meddling in middle-eastern affairs. They hate everything America stands for. They hate Christianity. They hate our ally Israel. They have declared a Holy War against us and Israel, and will stop at nothing short of our ruination. There is no cure for that, no amount of cessation we can give to make them change their mind, and any cessation we do give, only gives them a greater advantage against us. What you seem not to understand is their Fervor against America, which knows no bounds. You can't sympathize with that kind of hate. Last edited by unownmew; 09-10-2011 at 10:44 AM. |
||
09-10-2011, 09:01 AM | #37 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Swizerland has a small force, sort of like a large police force, but that is it. Japan can't have an army or a navy thanks to WWII, and I was in no way implying we should not have an army, stop making stupid conclusions.
__________________
|
09-10-2011, 10:40 AM | #39 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
In other words, they renounced their right to host a military force clearly intended as an invasion force. They did not renounce their right to a defense force, hence the SDF into which they've been pouring funding. There are several reasons for this increased spending in recent years but it is in large part because the terms of the surrender, i.e. the terms for the 1947 Constitution, were not entirely one-sided. In return for giving up their right to a militant army or navy, the Japanese were promised protection via the American armed forces. Quoth the Wiki: Japan's national defense policy has been based on maintaining the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with the United States, under which Japan assumed unilateral responsibility for its own internal security and the United States agreed to join in Japan's defense in the event that Japan or its territories were attacked.In recent years, thanks to the wars started by Bush Jr., the American military has been stretched too thin. (If you want evidence of this, you need only look to Libya, what would have been our third military theater had we been able to muster the forces, equipment, funds, etc.) So the Japanese, whose Constitution still affords them the basic sovereign right to protect themselves, have been putting more money towards the SDF in recent years precisely because they fear that with a weakening American presence in the region the Chinese or the Koreans might do something. Basically, the Japanese have said, "America, you've reneged on your 1960 promise. So now all bets are off and you're damn right we're gonna do whatever it takes to protect ourselves. Sorry, but you didn't uphold your end of the agreement." For more on this, read Wikipedia's articles on Japan's national defense policy and the SDF. The quote towards the bottom of that first page is particularly worth your read.
__________________
|
|
09-10-2011, 10:50 AM | #40 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Lybia would be a war I can fully support withdrawing from, but once we're there, we might as well do it right, which Obama is not doing. I completely agree that America is spread too thin though. |
|
09-10-2011, 12:27 PM | #41 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Does there have to be profit in it for the war to be justified? Humanitarian aid isn't good enough? Funny: your lot always seem to insist that Iraq wasn't about regional stability or money and was entirely about humanitarian aid and you're 100% behind that. Funny, funny, funny.
Libya, they revolted on their own first and pleaded for us to come and help. That's when we should. Too bad we only weakly did. Iraq, there was no active insurrection and instead we lit the fire. Which causes everyone to blame us for establishing a puppet government rather than aiding resistance cels. War we shouldn't have done.
__________________
|
09-10-2011, 02:11 PM | #42 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
09-10-2011, 05:00 PM | #43 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
The problem with Libya however, is that, We Do Not Know Who It Is We're Helping. Why do not know where their loyalties lie, nor where they get their funding. It's suspected they have ties with terrorists, and if they do, when they take over control of the government, what then? America may have another enemy. It would have been better if we had considered everything before involving ourselves with the Civil War there, however, it is too late, and all we can do now is Kick A Old-school American Style, like back in the World Wars. (which we're not doing...) Also, Talon, I'd like some responses to my other points I gave further up, instead of the meat of the issue simply being ignored. No counterpoints would mean, you can't disagree. Quote:
Feel free to correct me on that though with direct correlations between our actions then, and the occurrences now. Last edited by unownmew; 09-10-2011 at 05:04 PM. |
||
09-10-2011, 05:13 PM | #44 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
Confusing statement is confusing. If we help the terrorists, will that not make things a little bit better? I understand that they've done horrible things to us, but the people responsible for that are dying off. It's time to get some peace imo. But, more importantly, how on earth did this topic come up? Thread title says, "Lobbying".
__________________
|
|
09-10-2011, 06:24 PM | #45 | ||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
As far as your arguments concerning the Tenth Amendment are concerned, you might be surprised to learn that I am sympathetic. I actually believe that the issue of states' sovereignty is a relevant one. However, the idea of states as sovereign powers was for better or worse pretty much stamped out when the South lost the Civil War and the North was able to solidify the idea of a UNITED states over a united STATES. Gone was the image of the USA as a collection of European countries or Greek city-states and in its place was an image of England with her various counties. That's all the states effectively are today -- counties of a larger parent nation, nothing more -- and I think that that is rather blatantly unconstitutional. I think it would be nice if each state were able to pass its own individual laws concerning gay marriage, child welfare, health care, so on and so forth. But unlike you, I would never in one million years call for the radical abolition or reversal of federalism. And the last thing which I would target first would be federal regulation. The FDA, the EPA, the FCC, these are all regulatory bodies which it would be devastating to see abolished in the name of Sarah Palin's war to take back Amer'ca from "Obama." (Yes, because it's clearly Obama who took it away. [/sarcasm] Ugh.) I'm done "debating" with you on this topic, if not period, because you keep repositioning the line in the sand, you keep changing your stance whenever people take issue with the dogmatic claims you voice, and I've had enough of it. That is why I didn't reply yesterday: because I was going to basically say this and decided, "You know? No. No need to be mean. No need to be rude. No need for hurt feelings. He can take a hint." But since you asked, you received.
__________________
|
||
09-10-2011, 08:05 PM | #47 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Lesser of Two Evils. No government can be perfect, and it will always lean towards giving itself more powers. However a government is necessary for civilization to survive and ultimately thrive, therefore by necessity, we must accept something bad, unless we'd rather live in Anarchy, which is an even worse state to be in. Our government is better then a monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, or theocracy, but that doesn't make it good. 1 + -2 is still -1, which is better then an even lower number from a different form of government (say, -4), but we're still in a bad situation, it's simply better then what we could be in otherwise. This has been my position from the start, but I guess I've been unable to articulate that understandably, so, again, my apologies. Quote:
I'm not opposed to keeping some regulatory bodies for quality protection (though if something is unconstitutional, I'd rather it get out, no questions asked, because accepting something simply because it's "good" even though it violates the law of the land, is the first step to allowing further abuses and power grabs), what I'm against is certain regulations which directly interfere with and hinder small and mid-sized business growth (which growth is the backbone of our economy), like forcing them to pay for every employee's healthcare. I'm also for removing waste, fraud, and abuse hidden in numerous laws and regulations. Quote:
Last edited by unownmew; 09-10-2011 at 08:10 PM. |
||||
09-10-2011, 08:58 PM | #48 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
All shall bow before BLAZEVA'S TAX PLAN FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA!!!!!!!
Tax cuts to the poor and middle class Tax increases on upper class peoples Uses taxes to cut the deficit. Cut defense spending. Use money from that for education, healthcare, social security etc. Thank you come again.
__________________
|
09-10-2011, 10:40 PM | #50 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Sometimes I look at the way the government is run and say "Man, I can't wait until the boomer generation is out the door. Then we'll get shit done right."
And then I realize how completely wrong that is and silently weep myself to sleep. I love how heavily this topic derailed, but it's the best derailment ever. Also, unown, whether intentional or not, you are definitely the most effective troll ever. Congratulations. You successfully made me want to break the fuck out of my computer. No one has ever done that |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|