UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-22-2011, 04:08 PM   #26
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Are you for real or are you joking?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 05:50 PM   #27
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Well, I'm not joking, but perhaps you could point out where you think I'm joking, instead of tossing a flat statement over something much more complicated?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 02:20 PM   #28
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Upon looking back, I'm assuming you're referring to me talking about the US conquering in order to curb population, and whether that was a joke or not.

In a sense, I'm not. It would be the easiest, most efficient way to both cut down on population, and ease up space at home.
However, the notion truly is ridiculous, and meant to be so. As I believe of any notion that includes a government-led effort to curb population (or solve any problem for that matter).

A much better idea, would be to put faith in the private market to develop solutions to these kinds of problems for profit, as it has always done. Colonization of the moon and mars is one possibility, space technology is getting better. Flying cities are another. We don't need the government to give money to people to get them to do things.
Put the power in the hands of an entrepreneur, and most any problem can be solved.



New ironic news:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprim...=2011&month=11
It's ironic because Reagan and Reaganomics are usually ridiculed.

And another:
Obama signs plain language Act
It's ironic because, while it advocates the use of plain language in federal documents, it does nothing to prevent bureaucracies from not doing so, and it wasn't written in the most plain language itself.

Last edited by unownmew; 12-02-2011 at 06:42 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 07:13 PM   #29
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
... Flying cities? What is this, Star Wars?

You can't put forth arguments like you have (some of which I actually agree with because I'm pretty libertarian), and then say "flying cities" with a straight face. This is killing your credibility, man.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:48 PM   #30
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
That is of course assuming the the majority of Americans make the same amount of money. Which they don't.

The reason there is higher taxes on the rich is because INDIVIDUALLY they have more money than the average American. Sure, combined the normal American income surpasses it, but INDIVIDUALLY, which is how taxes are done, they have much less cash on hand than the rich. The rich can foot a bigger burden because to be quite frank they simply have more money. If a rich man has 11 million dollars, and has 1 millon taken out in taxes, is that really a big deal? It is easier to make 1 million dollars 1.1 than 100 11o, is it not? Henceforth, the poor and middle classes are hurt more than the rich are.
*dodges flying bullet*

Safe from trolling.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:50 PM   #31
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
... Flying cities? What is this, Star Wars?

You can't put forth arguments like you have (some of which I actually agree with because I'm pretty libertarian), and then say "flying cities" with a straight face. This is killing your credibility, man.

Really? Are flying cities that impossible?

People used to think that about space too, and look where we've gone.
It's entirely possible that some time in the future, maybe even near future considering our rate of technological advancement, and if money is invested properly, that we may have floating or flying cities.

But if you're that skeptical, I can show you what I've read that makes it seem like quite a possibility:
Orbital Airship:
JP Aerospace ATO program
A proposed 3 state method of lifting payloads to orbit, an airship takes a payload from the ground to a [permanent and crewed] docking station in low earth orbit (within the atmosphere) From there a conventional rocket or another airship can take the payload the rest of the way to space. If such a docking station can be developed that "flies" or "floats" in the atmosphere, it's simply a matter of scale, interest, and funding to adapt the design for cities that can fly the same way.

Of course everything depends on interest and money, and not the actual viability of it. so if people aren't interested in making or paying for flying cities, that's not to say they are impossible, but they certainly won't be built.

I always think logically, so if I say something, there is always a backable reason for my belief in it, even if you think that reason is crazy. (Crazy people have more fun anyway, and they're usually the people who change the world as we know it)
I'm a TEA Party Conservative Republican, my credibility's already in question anyway. *shrugs*

Last edited by unownmew; 12-02-2011 at 09:01 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 01:13 PM   #32
Selena
Aroma Lady
 
Selena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Really? Are flying cities that impossible?
Considering floating cities are more viable and you didn't mention them, yes.
__________________
Trainer level 3: 53 KO \\ 187 TP \\ 37.5 SP
21 win 29 loss 1 draw (17/21/1 Without DQ)

B- grade ref.
Quote:
Originally Posted by empoleon dynamite View Post
Shouldn’t the Hoff be doing something if he’s still around? I have strict rules about leaving the pool, and I’m sure vanishing the pool out of existence breaks those rules in some way :P
Selena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 05:50 PM   #33
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I'm a TEA Party Conservative Republican, my credibility's already in question anyway. *shrugs*
No, we just find you entertaining. Continue believing what you want to believe and staunchly opposing Talon to your last breath, despite the "fact" proposed by the liberal media that harbors communists says that what he says makes sense. Continue to believe that free press is a myth, that global warming does not, has never, and will never exist, and most definitely continue to believe that Newt Gingrich is a viable candidate for President.

Oh, how it amuses me.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 02:40 PM   #34
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
And what saddens me, is to see those who refuse to open their eyes. For it's those types of people, who allow their government to creep ever further on their liberties and freedoms, that won't notice their enslavement until they're already neck deep in the chains and the only way out is complete overthrow of the government.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 07:43 PM   #35
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
And what saddens me, is to see those who refuse to open their eyes. For it's those types of people, who allow their government to creep ever further on their liberties and freedoms, that won't notice their enslavement until they're already neck deep in the chains and the only way out is complete overthrow of the government.
How is this relevant?

Enlighten me.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 11:17 AM   #36
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
People who refuse to notice their government is trying to encroach upon their freedoms, and refuse to acknowledge which people are doing it, they are only going to "wake up" when they find themselves in a Police state, when Rebellion is the only possible solution to restore their freedoms.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:47 AM   #37
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
People who refuse to notice their government is trying to encroach upon their freedoms, and refuse to acknowledge which people are doing it, they are only going to "wake up" when they find themselves in a Police state, when Rebellion is the only possible solution to restore their freedoms.
You know what the sad part about it is?

The fact that you think anything the government does is an encroachment to our rights. The fact that you will publicly denounce environmental standards when it was the people who wanted them.

You are a sad case, some North Dakota hick or something. That, and you are pro-gun.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 07:26 PM   #38
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
The fact that you think anything the government does is an encroachment to our rights.
Anything the government does is an encroachment on our rights. That's the definition of lawmaking.

However, the more rights we have encroached upon, the less damage we'll do to ourselves and our countrymen. Would you rather have an anarchy or a few less rights?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 10:45 AM   #39
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
You know what the sad part about it is?

The fact that you think anything the government does is an encroachment to our rights. The fact that you will publicly denounce environmental standards when it was the people who wanted them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Anything the government does is an encroachment on our rights. That's the definition of lawmaking.


I have nothing against being a good steward of the planet as a populace, but most environmental restrictions do nothing but put a bunch of animals or a piece of land before human progress, or even human sustenance.
Farmers Vs Fish
It's my belief that, citizens, should they choose to be, would be more efficient in preserving the planet, then Government could ever hope to be.

The Illogic of Animal Rights
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
You are a sad case, some North Dakota hick or something. That, and you are pro-gun.
*Points at Location*
Texas, get it right. And Damn right I'm pro gun. Give me three reasons why I shouldn't be, and I'll give you three reasons you're not a patriot.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
However, the more rights we have encroached upon, the less damage we'll do to ourselves and our countrymen. Would you rather have an anarchy or a few less rights?
"Government is at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, an intolerable one."
We didn't have total Anarchy back during George Washington's Presidency, despite having tens of thousands less restrictions, and I doubt we'd have it if we repealed every Federal law back to that time save Constitutional Amendments and started again fresh.

Some things would need to be addressed again quickly if that were done, but for the most part, I'm sure the freedom and liberty we would repossess by doing so would be unimaginable, and Anarchy not arise, save for the confusion of what to do with the new liberties.
(Note, I'm not advocating this specifically, a more reliable approach would be to systematically repeal the laws and replace only those being absolutely necessary, of course, to do this appropriately, would require true patriots in the Congress, instead of politicians.)

The role of Government isn't to save ourselves of our own "stupidity", it is to establish order and protect our rights from the encroachment of others (Criminals, Warlords, and Politicians)

Last edited by unownmew; 12-16-2011 at 10:51 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 03:38 PM   #40
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Shuckle

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
"Government is at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, an intolerable one."
We didn't have total Anarchy back during George Washington's Presidency, despite having tens of thousands less restrictions, and I doubt we'd have it if we repealed every Federal law back to that time save Constitutional Amendments and started again fresh.

Some things would need to be addressed again quickly if that were done, but for the most part, I'm sure the freedom and liberty we would repossess by doing so would be unimaginable, and Anarchy not arise, save for the confusion of what to do with the new liberties.
(Note, I'm not advocating this specifically, a more reliable approach would be to systematically repeal the laws and replace only those being absolutely necessary, of course, to do this appropriately, would require true patriots in the Congress, instead of politicians.)
I wouldn't go that far, to say that to not reform the laws would be antipatriotism. Once you go there, you get communist in your soup.

The fact is that often the laws are difficult to pick through and reform, and that the Tea Party in Congress is working to crash the government right now via bankruptcy. Cut taxes like Keynesians, spend like Kardashians...
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 05:28 PM   #41
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
I wouldn't go that far, to say that to not reform the laws would be antipatriotism. Once you go there, you get communist in your soup.

The fact is that often the laws are difficult to pick through and reform, and that the Tea Party in Congress is working to crash the government right now via bankruptcy. Cut taxes like Keynesians, spend like Kardashians...
The laws were designed to be difficult to pick through and reform. That's one of the ways Government grabs and holds onto ever more power.

Actually, it's the Democrats that are threatening the government shutdown this time (which actually isn't a bad thing), in attempts to make the TEA partiers conform to exactly the Democrat's desires, and nothing more or less.

They're also the ones saying each and every Jobs bill the House passes is "Dead on Arrival" in the Senate, no exceptions, until they conform to exactly what the Democrats want to pass.

I say, the more Impasse the better. Less Freedoms being taken by the minute by Big government.


Oh, and Talon, I have more information about "Bad Government Regulations" for you.
http://jobcreatorsalliance.org/

Last edited by unownmew; 12-23-2011 at 05:30 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2011, 10:21 AM   #42
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
The laws were designed to be difficult to pick through and reform. That's one of the ways Government grabs and holds onto ever more power.

Actually, it's the Democrats that are threatening the government shutdown this time (which actually isn't a bad thing), in attempts to make the TEA partiers conform to exactly the Democrat's desires, and nothing more or less.

They're also the ones saying each and every Jobs bill the House passes is "Dead on Arrival" in the Senate, no exceptions, until they conform to exactly what the Democrats want to pass.

I say, the more Impasse the better. Less Freedoms being taken by the minute by Big government.
How about:

The vast majority of the people in the world want the Democrat's bill to pass, and if it doesn't pass then the government will shut down and the Tea Party has yet to establish any plan that isn't cutting taxes to the bare minimum and cutting superficially?

You people make me angry! Refuting basic facts and replacing them with skewed, unprovable logic and then claiming that anything that's going against it is government propaganda? That's sick and low.

Hey, remember the Great Depression? What fixed that? Was it:

a.) Cutting taxes to the bare minimum
b.) Allowing government to stop so everyone could keep their freedoms and get more
c.) Massive government projects
d.) Hula hoops

The basic fact is that we are more affluent now than we ever were. If we raise taxes, we can eliminate the national deficit, especially if we cut spending! Now is the best time to act to save the government, and you and the Tea Party want us ALL to starve to death!

You're a good person, but your outrageously dissident political values are too much to stomach.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2011, 11:33 AM   #43
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
How about:

The vast majority of the people in the world want the Democrat's bill to pass, and if it doesn't pass then the government will shut down and the Tea Party has yet to establish any plan that isn't cutting taxes to the bare minimum and cutting superficially?
Really? The vast majority of people (in America) want the democrat's bill to pass? Do tell me then, from whence came the sweeping and overwhelming majority of Republicans to public office in the House of Representatives (which are proportioned by population, not by state) this past election? Do tell.

It would seem to me, that, the People have spoken, and they want nothing to do with the Democrats' Plans.
Simply because a media outlet claims one thing, doesn't make it true. Ever heard of Yellow Journalism?

Quote:
You people make me angry! Refuting basic facts and replacing them with skewed, unprovable logic and then claiming that anything that's going against it is government propaganda? That's sick and low.
I could say almost the same of you. What facts are we arguing? Reagan's tax cuts ushered in prosperity in America for over a decade, reaching well into Bill Clinton's term (which is precisely when taxes started to be raised again). That's indisputeable fact. Trickle down economics works, as you can clearly see, the standard of living for those considered "Poor" right now in America is well above that of other nations, and well above what it used to be as well. Things we take for granted, would be considered living as Kings in developing nations.

Quote:
Hey, remember the Great Depression? What fixed that? Was it:

a.) Cutting taxes to the bare minimum
b.) Allowing government to stop so everyone could keep their freedoms and get more
c.) Massive government projects
d.) Hula hoops
let's see... It was neither the New Deal, nor World War II, it was the end of WW2 that caused it, but WW2 could be attributed to more then the New Deal did.

http://universityofcommonsense.org/a...at-depression/
Quote:
The New Deal was simply a modern day “Stimulus Package”. It was birthed from the ideas of John Maynard Keynes who suggested that a central government could induce economic prosperity by “priming the pump”. He suggested that if the government simply spends money, that will create demand for products and services and it will jump start the economy. He famously boiled his theory down to this simple example: you can pay a man to dig a hole and another person to fill it. The fact that nothing productive is taking place doesn’t matter, the spending alone will stimulate the economy. He argued that debt spending was the best way to go, because taxes can damage an economic recovery by taking real capital out of the economy, thus defeating the purpose.
I wonder...

Quote:
The basic fact is that we are more affluent now than we ever were. If we raise taxes, we can eliminate the national deficit, especially if we cut spending! Now is the best time to act to save the government, and you and the Tea Party want us ALL to starve to death!
You're absolutely right. America as a whole is much more affluent then it has ever been. So, let's take the money out of the economy and give it to government? Wouldn't that just lower the standard of living for everyone?

If you tax too much, no growth is developed, and the money starts to dry up, so you want to have low taxes so there are more outlets to tax from continually growing. It's Taxes that starve the people, not the TEA party, and reigning in government spending, will do wonders on it's own to reduce the debt.

Quote:
You're a good person, but your outrageously dissident political values are too much to stomach.
I can say the same of you, but thank you for the compliment you did give me.

Last edited by unownmew; 12-25-2011 at 11:37 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.