UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-06-2011, 08:07 PM   #26
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
I was not aware of that, I thought Mercury was the only metal that was liquid at room temperature, not a gas.
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 08:19 AM   #27
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
You don't seem able to make up your mind between anarchy and the Tea Party. Half of your last post was completely anarchistic. You draw this very hard, very deep line, declaring that corruption in government is inescapable and that for this reason government ought never to be allowed to tell people what to do. LOL, government telling people what to do is government. If you want to completely strip them of every tooth and claw they have, then you are advocating anarchy. And while I don't particularly care about anarchism, I do care that you turn around in the same post and PRAISE THE TEA PARTY! That's just crazy talk. Doublethink. A sign, perhaps, of brainwashing and of very shallow thinking. You try to imply that Obama is evil because he attempts to govern, then you turn right back around and plug a political party that (whether you like it or not) is populated and led by those in this country MOST eager to pass legislation against gay marriage, gay adoption, stem cell research, abortion, and a host of other issues which, were you truly an anarchist, you would be disgusted that they're trying to push.
Anarchy?! Where in that post did I say "Abolish Government! Destroy Government!"?
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:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Unown, I don't think you know how much regualtion has actually helped people and has been right. Even read the Jungle? If it was not for that book, we may as well be eating rats in our meats. Government regulation revolutionized the economy, industry, education, immigration, war, an many other things, mostly for the good, occasionally for the bad, because nothing is ever perfect. And not all people are going to take advantage of every little thing, there are governments with more government control that are perfectly fine. There is corruption in EVERY government, no matter how much control they have.
I have not read it, but I learned about it in history. Along with child labor laws, I agree, that kind of regulation is good, however, all regulation must be examined thoroughly to see if it's "intended purpose" will actually be fulfilled, AND, if it is worth the cost it will inevitably impose upon the companies that will be regulated by it. At some point, regulation becomes excessive, and destructive, and it is the government's job to stop once that point has been reached. Why must every employer (small, medium, start-ups, and large companies) pay for every single employee's health insurance? Health insurance is not a right, and the cost to businesses with this regulation, is astronomical, small companies and start-ups will never be able to afford it, and then you get increased unemployed, and uninsured citizens because of it. Good Regulation? Or Bad?

Quote:
And what I meant about Vietnam is that we seem to be going nowhere. The Afghanistan has its ties with the Second Persian Gulf war, a result of the first Persian Gulf war. The first one was to keep Iraq out of Kuwait? No, that was not the reason. The reason was to keep Iraq out of Saudi Arabian oil fields. Economic all the way. And, both the Afghan and the Vietnam wars involve the United States government trying to push our government onto other people. Because, we Americans are ignorant assholes, and we are basically imperializing. Vietnam involved a weaker, less technologically advanced nation KICKING OUR ASS. Same here, though to a slightly lesser extent.
We lost Vietnam because we did not equip our troops properly, and then we decided to pull out before the job was done. That will only delay the problem. Thankfully it's remained delayed, but, eventually we'll be forced to finish everything we, and those against us, start, whether we want to or not.

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:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
The point about Vietnam and how we shouldn't pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan because too much has already been invested in these wars is an example of the sunk cost fallacy which says:

The idea at play in the minds of the victims of this fallacy is, "We've already come this far. We may as well finish what we started." The problem is, it assumes that finishing what one started is always better than cutting one's losses. And this is not true. It has to be determined on a case-by-case basis whether more damage would be incurred by leaving now versus continuing to stay.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is unfortunately no way to predict the future. It could easily go any which way. Stay and be praised, stay and be condemned, leave and mend fences, leave and things go to hell even quicker. Any of these is possible. Current policy hopes for the first scenario to come true but with each passing day it seems that the second is what is playing out and now the only question is not if we leave but when we leave whether it'll be #3 or #4 which is how things ultimately play out.

Personally, I don't look at Iraq as a Sunk Cost situation in the first place. I brought that up because you seem to, as you have pointed to Vietnam and drawn comparisons saying "pulling out is wrong, we have to finish what we started." But in my opinion, the war was never justified and so we should have never invaded and should have immediately pulled out or made urgent arrangements to pull out when we finally ousted Bush from office. Serious charges of war crimes have been levied against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and were it not for their privileged positions as important men of power in the most powerful country in the world, they would probably have been brought before the Hague long ago. In any event, reality is not so easy, we did invade, and given that we already invaded the question we must ask is "Do we play it selfish and call the troops home in a bid to cut government spending? or do we play it altruistic and stay, not as propper-uppers of an artificial regime but instead as UN and Red Cross-style aid [even as an armed military presence] who go from village to village vaccinating babies, installing burners or woodstoves in homes, teaching children how to read in their native languages, teaching the willing how to speak English in order to broaden their employment opportunities, etc?" I tend to like the latter. But unfortunately a lot of people here at home are saying "BRING THE TROOPS HOME!" not for the right reasons (we should never have been over there in the first place) but for the wrong reasons (selfish desire to cut federal spending in our country's greatest time of economic crisis since the Great Depression).
I've addressed this above, however, I'd like to reiterate, the likely hood of the losses being even greater in the future, is much greater when you do a half job. If you do not eliminate enemies when they are but a small prick, they will fester and grow, until you are forced to either, remove the limb completely, or die. There is no negotiation with people who are dead set in hating you, so why try?

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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 07:31 PM   #28
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


I have not read it, but I learned about it in history. Along with child labor laws, I agree, that kind of regulation is good, however, all regulation must be examined thoroughly to see if it's "intended purpose" will actually be fulfilled, AND, if it is worth the cost it will inevitably impose upon the companies that will be regulated by it. At some point, regulation becomes excessive, and destructive, and it is the government's job to stop once that point has been reached. Why must every employer (small, medium, start-ups, and large companies) pay for every single employee's health insurance? Health insurance is not a right, and the cost to businesses with this regulation, is astronomical, small companies and start-ups will never be able to afford it, and then you get increased unemployed, and uninsured citizens because of it. Good Regulation? Or Bad?


We lost Vietnam because we did not equip our troops properly, and then we decided to pull out before the job was done. That will only delay the problem. Thankfully it's remained delayed, but, eventually we'll be forced to finish everything we, and those against us, start, whether we want to or not.

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.


I've addressed this above, however, I'd like to reiterate, the likely hood of the losses being even greater in the future, is much greater when you do a half job. If you do not eliminate enemies when they are but a small prick, they will fester and grow, until you are forced to either, remove the limb completely, or die. There is no negotiation with people who are dead set in hating you, so why try?

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.
A few things. One, people have different views on the healthcare thing. I prefer the way the Canadians do it, and, "Socialized healthcare", is a scare tactic. Have you ever read anything actually true about things like socialism or communism? It is much different than the Soviet version of it.

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:
We lost Vietnam because we did not equip our troops properly, and then we decided to pull out before the job was done. That will only delay the problem.
First war in which helicoptors were used, as well as having superior weapons makes me laugh at this. THEY KICKED OUR ASS! Accept it. United States lost. Also, the problem has pretty much settled down since then, so you are wrong.

Quote:
However, that's not our goal, our goal is to liberate them from oppressors while eradicating the toxins swimming freely through their system.
Got to keep things in perspective. Do we really have the right to say how people live, which is what we are doing? No. This war is a politically motivated war, and has nothing to do with invasions or Nazis. Yes, they attacked us, but we should just bomb them a few times and be over with it. Not invade and change everything to our liking.

Quote:
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.
Some much contradiction in this paragraph. Removing dictators that ignore human rights is a must, but putting them in is okay? Alright, Soviet.

Allowing the enemy state to attack us is generally a bad thing from a strategic standpoint, but it is not a "evil thing."

Quote:
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
This is why your statement makes no sense. We do the same, do we not? We should just not go into war in the first place, like Switzerland. :3

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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 08:10 PM   #29
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Anarchy?! Where in that post did I say "Abolish Government! Destroy Government!"?
Again, instead of trying to debate my points, you attempt to discredit me or my argument.
"Government regulation can not, and never will be done right." - you, about a page ago

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:
Originally Posted by The American Constitution, Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
You read that correctly: the Federal government since George frickin' Washington has held the right to regulate businesses (which are one of many things which fall under the umbrella term "commerce"). To tell them what business practices they can and cannot do. To say "you must go green 'cause we say so" or "you must cut CO2 emissions 'cause we say so," etc. Like a fairly typical Tea Partier, you are hiding behind the Constitution like it is some impenetrable shield which will deflect all of our arguments and protect you from our logical onslaught: but the sad truth is, you're hiding behind a shield that has already stabbed you. APPARENTLY. Because you're railing against government regulation and there's just one of MANY examples in the Constitution outlining how even in George Washington's day it was 100% a-okay for the federal government to say "Here are the rules, bitches, and you'd best abide by them."

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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 08:16 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 Talon87 View Post




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.
This. so much this. The Articles of Confederation completely failed as government.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 08:29 PM   #31
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
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.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 09:28 PM   #32
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
A few things. One, people have different views on the healthcare thing. I prefer the way the Canadians do it, and, "Socialized healthcare", is a scare tactic. Have you ever read anything actually true about things like socialism or communism? It is much different than the Soviet version of it.
Scare tactic or not, it's still socialized. Putting the government in complete charge of business is socialism. Why? Because, even if it states that other companies are allowed to sell healthcare, no private entity can compete with government prices and make a profit, because government can reduce prices so it takes a net loss, and supplement that with Tax funds to keep it running.
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:
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.
Yes protests are one reason America chose to lose the war in Vietnam. It really is a shame, all that blood spilt for absolutely nothing. You might as well have just sent those brave men and women to a concentration camp, that's how little their sacrifice meant in the end. The survivors weren't even hailed as heros in their own country, but hated, simply for being committed to defend their country and following orders.

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:
First war in which helicoptors were used, as well as having superior weapons makes me laugh at this. THEY KICKED OUR ASS! Accept it. United States lost. Also, the problem has pretty much settled down since then, so you are wrong.
Yes I accept the US lost, because it lost it's will to fight, and only continued the war halfheartedly until it could fully pull out. Our Men and Women bled and died for nothing. Absolutely Nothing.


Quote:
Got to keep things in perspective. Do we really have the right to say how people live, which is what we are doing? No. This war is a politically motivated war, and has nothing to do with invasions or Nazis. Yes, they attacked us, but we should just bomb them a few times and be over with it. Not invade and change everything to our liking.
Think about it this way: Do we have the right to allow human abuse, when we have the power to stop it? If we can liberate a people from abuse, and allow them to choose their own path (where if they were ruled by a dictator, they could not), should we not?

It's a cheesy Spiderman line, but it's absolutely true:
"With great power, comes great responsibility."


Quote:
Some much contradiction in this paragraph. Removing dictators that ignore human rights is a must, but putting them in is okay? Alright, Soviet.
I agree the two statements completely contradict each other. That's why one must choose the lesser of two evils. In our quest to liberate from tyranny, if the US is in danger, we must protect ourselves first, or our cause dies with us, and there will be no one that can save others from tyranny in the future.


Quote:
Allowing the enemy state to attack us is generally a bad thing from a strategic standpoint, but it is not a "evil thing."
Yes, but as I said above, if we can not protect ourselves first, we will not be able to protect others. As much as we want to help others in need, if we fall, so will those in need.



Quote:
This is why your statement makes no sense. We do the same, do we not? We should just not go into war in the first place, like Switzerland. :3
So, you're saying we should just let Terrorists bomb us all day, simply because it's better then going to war?
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:
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.
No, it may be used as an excuse by some, but it truly is how war works. A bad decision could be the "most right" decision available at the time, but it does not excuse the bad decision, it only makes it tolerable.

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:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
"Government regulation can not, and never will be done right." - you, about a page ago

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."
That is as I said, you can never trust a government to regulate Correctly.
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:
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):

[Commerce Clause in the Constitution]

You read that correctly: the Federal government since George frickin' Washington has held the right to regulate businesses (which are one of many things which fall under the umbrella term "commerce"). To tell them what business practices they can and cannot do. To say "you must go green 'cause we say so" or "you must cut CO2 emissions 'cause we say so," etc. Like a fairly typical Tea Partier, you are hiding behind the Constitution like it is some impenetrable shield which will deflect all of our arguments and protect you from our logical onslaught: but the sad truth is, you're hiding behind a shield that has already stabbed you. APPARENTLY. Because you're railing against government regulation and there's just one of MANY examples in the Constitution outlining how even in George Washington's day it was 100% a-okay for the federal government to say "Here are the rules, bitches, and you'd best abide by them."
Yes, the federal government can regulate Commerce between the states and between other nations. It does not say it can regulate businesses, it says Commerce.
Commerce:
Quote:
an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

1. the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services

1 : the exchange or buying and selling of goods, commodities, property, or services esp. on a large scale and involving transportation from place to place
Commerce is buying and selling, and has nothing to do with the inner workings of how a business acquires products for said commerce.

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:
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'm not railing against the fangs. Obviously the Articles of Confederation were an "off-hands" approach to attempt to unite the states, which failed completely.
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:
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.
I'm registered republican, but I am a Conservative. I apologize I'm not as good as I thought I was in getting my points across clearly. But then, the debate also helps me solidify and realize what my real beliefs are, allowing me to be more concise and clear in the future.

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:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
This. so much this. The Articles of Confederation completely failed as government.
I completely agree.
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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 12:28 AM   #33
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew
Thankfully from this failure, came the best government known to man. It's creation more researched then any other government in the world.
Okay. So it's the best government ever. But it should have no power whatsoever with business and other functions. And because it wants to, it's horrible.

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.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 01:19 AM   #34
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew
So, you're saying we should just let Terrorists bomb us all day, simply because it's better then going to war?
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.




--------------------------------------

Last edited by deoxys; 09-10-2011 at 01:27 AM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 07:40 AM   #35
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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?
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 08:48 AM   #36
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
Okay. So it's the best government ever. But it should have no power whatsoever with business and other functions. And because it wants to, it's horrible.

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.
Is it contradicting? I never said government should have "no power," I said it's power should be regulated by the citizens, not allowed to run rampant.

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:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
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?
Switzerland has no army? No military equipment at all? Well, I hope they never end up in the middle of anything, otherwise, they'll be destroyed in no time. If you honestly think America should have no military, I have nothing more to say, just nicely surrender yourselves to the "mercy" of terrorists or any other hostile foreign power when they come knocking. Likely though, you won't be spared easily unless you pledge yourself to their ideals.


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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 09:01 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
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 09:35 AM   #38
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
>Japan can't have an army
>Spends $41.1 billion dollars on military anyway
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 10:40 AM   #39
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
>Japan can't have an army
>Spends $41.1 billion dollars on military anyway
"The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes." - Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 10:50 AM   #40
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
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."
Libya was entirely started by Obama, and, as far as I'm aware, opposed by many Americans. (there's no profit to it, and even if we liberate them, there's little evidence they will be on our side afterwards.)
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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 12:27 PM   #41
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 02:11 PM   #42
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
Libya was entirely started by Obama, and, as far as I'm aware, opposed by many Americans. (there's no profit to it, and even if we liberate them, there's little evidence they will be on our side afterwards.)
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.
You so funny because we bombed the fuck out of Libya earlier. Like in the 1970's.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 05:00 PM   #43
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
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.
I just got through saying humanitarian aid is reason enough to go to war. I also said, since we're there, we'd better do it Right, whereas Obama's just weakly helping out, and not leading in any manner.

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:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
You so funny because we bombed the fuck out of Libya earlier. Like in the 1970's.
Well considering Libya isn't attacking us, but instead is in a Civil War, would likely mean, what we did back then, didn't do much to start the revolt that's happening now.
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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 05:13 PM   #44
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
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.
Oh, we can't help them! They might be terrorists, and if we put them in power, they will hate us.

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".
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 06:24 PM   #45
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
"Government regulation can not, and never will be done right." - you, about a page ago
That is as I said, you can never trust a government to regulate Correctly.
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.
This is why I didn't bother replying to you yesterday. You keep moving the line in the sand, you keep changing the grounds for discourse, and now you're even appealing to semantic insanity. You're probably thinking right now, "What did I do? 'Semantic insanity'? What's he talking about?", so let me tell you what you've just done in the quote I've quoted. This is you: "I never said they shouldn't regulate! Show me where I said that! I just said that if they do regulate it will never be done right. YOU chose to draw an inference from that. YOU chose to infer that when I said 'any regulation they do will blow up in their faces' that I desire to see no federal regulation. " Fuckin' A, are you kidding me? Are you a troll? Of course I drew an inference from that! A basic, human inference! When you say "Government can never regulate correctly," of course I conclude that you do not wish to see them regulate. Because why oh why on earth would you want to see them regulate incorrectly? So I respond to you, and you come back at me with the crazy-ass and indignant reply that you did. "I never said they shouldn't regulate! I just said that if they do regulate it's not gonna go over too well!" You're as bad as a politician. Either be in favor of government regulation or be against it. Knock it the fuck off with having one hand in the federalist cookie jar and one hand in the Tenth Amendment cookie jar. "Government can never regulate properly! ... but I still want it to regulate. " Madness.

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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 06:30 PM   #46
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 Talon87 View Post
[i] Are you a troll?
Spoiler: show


Sorry, but Unown, I have seen you take so many stance in this argument, either you have multiple personality disorder, or you are a troll. And not even a professional one either.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 08:05 PM   #47
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
Oh, we can't help them! They might be terrorists, and if we put them in power, they will hate us.

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".
If the people we help, will hate us the same regardless of our help, and are simply using us to further their goals, to eventually attack us. Go figure. Unless each and every leader is eliminated, they will simply rally more to their cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
This is why I didn't bother replying to you yesterday. You keep moving the line in the sand, you keep changing the grounds for discourse, and now you're even appealing to semantic insanity. You're probably thinking right now, "What did I do? 'Semantic insanity'? What's he talking about?", so let me tell you what you've just done in the quote I've quoted. This is you: "I never said they shouldn't regulate! Show me where I said that! I just said that if they do regulate it will never be done right. YOU chose to draw an inference from that. YOU chose to infer that when I said 'any regulation they do will blow up in their faces' that I desire to see no federal regulation. " Fuckin' A, are you kidding me? Are you a troll? Of course I drew an inference from that! A basic, human inference! When you say "Government can never regulate correctly," of course I conclude that you do not wish to see them regulate. Because why oh why on earth would you want to see them regulate incorrectly? So I respond to you, and you come back at me with the crazy-ass and indignant reply that you did. "I never said they shouldn't regulate! I just said that if they do regulate it's not gonna go over too well!" You're as bad as a politician. Either be in favor of government regulation or be against it. Knock it the fuck off with having one hand in the federalist cookie jar and one hand in the Tenth Amendment cookie jar. "Government can never regulate properly! ... but I still want it to regulate. " Madness.
I apologize for offending you. I felt attacked myself, because I thought I had been clear, when I apparently was not, so I again apologize for being unclear.

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:
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 fully support states' rights, and am grateful to know you do (at least at some level) as well.

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:
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.
I apologize again for being unable to articulate my views clearly and concisely, I never meant to make it seem as though I changed positions on my views, I thought I was continually clarifying misunderstandings of them.

Last edited by unownmew; 09-10-2011 at 08:10 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 08:58 PM   #48
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 09:37 PM   #49
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Cut Social Security IMO. Old people run this damn country.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 10:40 PM   #50
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
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
deoxys 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 03:36 AM.


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