Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#652 Feb 15 2018 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,521 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
What the fuck was that reply?
Pointing out that you're detached from reality.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#653 Feb 15 2018 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,718 posts
Somebody ate their Wheaties!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#654 Feb 16 2018 at 4:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
So, I mean, your claim is that President Barack Obama's actions and choices didn't cause a single death or act of violence around the world??
How did you pull that out of what he said?


Uh, because: "Not on my most partisan day would I claim that Obama caused violence and death around the world" is a bold and utterly idiotic claim. The fuck is wrong with you. Recent stroke?


I expect people to understand context? Especially when I explicitly define how I'm using the word "caused" in that very sentence you quoted. I did kinda spend a couple paragraphs explaining the difference between taking an action which causes a result, and failing to take an action which might have prevented a result.

You just chose to ignore those parts of my post. That's on you, not me.

Quote:
I mean ROFLMAO, are you too claiming here that Barack Obama has caused ZERO violence and ZERO death around the world?? If not, then what is your fucking problem here??


Within the clearly defined parameters of the word "caused" as I used it in the post you are referring to? Somewhat. Did I say "zero"? No. I was talking about "the death and violence" around the world, not "any". I also, had you bothered to actually read my post, made it very clear I was making a point about relative numbers.

Imagine a scenario where a war is brewing in a 3rd world country. If the US does nothing, this conflict will grip this nation for nearly a decade, spilling out into neighboring countries, and result in 10 million dead, and 50 million displaced people. if the US takes direct action, picks a side to arm, uses its air power to suppress the other side's heavy weapons, puts just enough troops on the ground to keep everyone honest, and applies political and economic pressures to keep neighboring states from joining, resulting in a conflict that lasts 3 years, costs 1 million lives and 5 million displaced, any sane person would argue that this action saved lives. But you could easily say "OMG! The US "caused" the death of one million people!!!!".

You could also say that by failing to act, the US "caused" the death of 10 million people. But is either really true? I suppose that's a more philosophical question, but the point I was trying to make is that it's unfair to express such things in such simplistic terms. Hence my point about not making that sort of blanket claim. That's not to say that I would not (or have not) place(d) blame on Obama for decisions he's made. I was speaking more in terms of the language I would use when doing it.

It's one thing to say (for example): By failing to extend the SOFA in Iraq, President Obama allowed conditions in Iraq to facilitate the spread of ISIS throughout the Middle East, and may have significantly increased the duration of the conflict and the total number of lives lost and displaced. That's not the same as simply saying "Obama caused a loss of X lives and displacement of Y people". I know. words are hard!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#655 Feb 16 2018 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What situation?


A situation where all Americans have health care.


It's not the having. It's the process of doing so that matters here. I like to live in a country where everyone has food, too. I don't think we should hand everyone free food every day, either. Why? Because when you create a base condition where people are required to earn their food, and their shelter, and yes, their health care, most people will rise to that requirement. And if the method by which they do this requires them to produce a value of labor output in excess of the exchange value of those things (ie: the dollar value of their labor exceeds the dollar value of their pay), then the net effect is a growing healthy economy that allows us to maximize the likelihood that each successive generation of people will be able to have food, and shelter, and health care.

If the method is "give everyone free stuff", then you will minimize the percentage of people who are generating a value of labor output in excess of the value/cost of those things. Which may lead to a successive weakening of our economic capability to ensure that each and every person gets those things, which over time can lead to rationing of those things, and, if not addressed, may even lead to full financial collapse. Which would result in a whole lot more people not getting even the most basic of human needs.

It's not as simple as you seem to want to make it.

Quote:
Don't want to get too far into it either, but what if any obligations do you think a state has to its citizens? That's a fundamental question.


It's a question that our founders answered nearly 250 years ago. The "obligation" of the state is to only provide an environment in which the people may thrive. So yeah. National defense. Some standard settings (weights, measures, currency, etc). Settling legal disputes. Shall I link to Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution again? It's almost like this is precisely spelled out for you already.

Quote:
ETA: And as your reply I assume you have an equal problem with "free" roads and K-12 education, for two things. All these years I guess I just didn't realize you're simply an amoral libertarian.


I'm not a libertarian. I'm a republican. Want to know the difference? A libertarian will argue that the government must never do anything it's not obligated to do. A republican recognizes that the government may not be obligated to do something (as I pointed out above), but this does not mean that it "may not" do that thing.

My issue is with your language use, which assumes that the government "must" do these things. No. It's not required to. It's not obligated to do so. There's no moral failing if it does not. Those assumptions are on the liberal side of things, which just as the libertarian says "absolutely not!", says "absolutely must!".

I'm a republican. I see things in the middle. The government is not required to do so, but also isn't required to prohibit such things. Especially if they are done at the state rather than the federal level. This is why, for example, Republicans don't see any conflict at all between being perfectly OK with Massachusetts passing a single payer health care system (Under a GOP governor no less!), while still opposing it at the federal level. That's because our system is actually constructed such that the federal government is only supposed to handle interactions between the states and other states within the US, and the collected states (the US) and other countries.

The states can certainly do things like provide health care, and education, and whatever else they want. There's no "must not!" aspect for us here. It's just a matter of doing it at the correct level of our system.

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah. Cause no one ever died until the US came along. Got it!


My response there was because Lolgaxe was being a flippant *****, dismissing the tens of millions of deaths cause worldwide via US warmongering.


Sure. Because a phrase like "via US warmongering" isn't flippant at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#656 Feb 16 2018 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,718 posts
gbaji wrote:
I expect people to understand context?


Why are you asking me, I honestly have no idea what you expect from people.


ETA: I actually agree with the rest of your post, I just had to make the funny.

Edited, Feb 16th 2018 5:14pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#657 Feb 16 2018 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,718 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's no "must not!" aspect for us here. It's just a matter of doing it at the correct level of our system.


I have seen you post similar, and I can agree with it. Up to a point. Or, maybe more accurately, past a point?

I think that if the correct level of our system refuses to do or is unable to do a thing*, then that thing can and should be done upstream in our system.

*When those things are
a) an action that is actively ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those in the downstream portion of our system
and/or
b) when corruption has taken hold of the reins in the downstream portion of our system.

Edited, Feb 16th 2018 5:25pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#658 Feb 16 2018 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's no "must not!" aspect for us here. It's just a matter of doing it at the correct level of our system.


I have seen you post similar, and I can agree with it. Up to a point. Or, maybe more accurately, past a point?

I think that if the correct level of our system refuses to do or is unable to do a thing*, then that thing can and should be done upstream in our system.

*When those things are
a) an action that is actively ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those in the downstream portion of our system
and/or
b) when corruption has taken hold of the reins in the downstream portion of our system.


I understand what you're saying, but I have reservations. My concern is that it's often subjective as to what is defined as "actively ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Which means that such rules can be subjectively applied in order to basically get around any restriction we might have regarding appropriate federal versus state powers. Just define the thing you want as falling into that category and you can impose it from the highest level. Which, IMO, defeats the purpose of the initial restrictions regarding such use of power based on government level within our system.

The second concern is that it's as likely for corruption to take hold of the reins in the upstream portion of our system as the downstream. In a system with the restrictions in place in terms of scope of government power relative to level of government power, we always have a check against corruption in the downstream sections. But those checks consists of "shall nots". The states "shall not" do X, Y, or Z, if those things are seen to infringe on rights of life, liberty, happiness, etc...

The dangers of "must do" thinking is that you can now force states "downstream" to do things rather than limit what they may do. Which means that it both allows for corruption at the top to "trickle down" through the system *and* increases the likelihood of that corruption taking root in the first place. Power attracts corruption. If the only power the federal government has in in telling states what they may not do, then it's inherently limited, and so is corruption. Once you cross that line into telling states what they must do, you've removed that limitation, and corruption will surely follow.

And once you have corruption at the top level, you're kinds screwed. Corruption or just plain bad policies at the state level can be mitigated. At the very worst, folks can "vote with their feet", by simply moving to a neighboring state that has different/better rules. Don't like living in a state where pot is legal? Vote to ban pot in your state, or move elsewhere. Want to live in a state where pot is legal? Vote to change the laws in your state, or move elsewhere. Once the ruling is made at the federal level, it's all or nothing. Everywhere. You have lost any power in the process.

It doesn't even require conscious "corruption". Sometimes, the worst laws come about via the best intentions. A system where we experiment with such things at the state or even local level allows us a pretty nice way to back out of bad decisions when they are made. Dunno. I think that's just a better way of doing things. Is it perfect? Not remotely so. But, and I'm sure you've noodled it out by now, I don't want to live in a country where someone has decided, from on high, what the "perfect" set of rules are.

Edited, Feb 16th 2018 6:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#659 Feb 17 2018 at 12:42 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,567 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm a republican. I see things in the middle.
You're pretending to be a centrist? That's cute. Delusional, but cute.


gbaji wrote:
This is why, for example, Republicans don't see any conflict at all between being perfectly OK with Massachusetts passing a single payer health care system (Under a GOP governor no less!), while still opposing it at the federal level. That's because our system is actually constructed such that the federal government is only supposed to handle interactions between the states and other states within the US, and the collected states (the US) and other countries.
Exceptions to the bolded occur all the time. How is health care different?

Haha, just kidding. We've discussed this before and your answer boils down to "don't wanna".
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#660 Feb 17 2018 at 4:43 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
284 posts
gbaji wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What situation?


A situation where all Americans have health care.


It's not the having. It's the process of doing so that matters here. I like to live in a country where everyone has food, too. I don't think we should hand everyone free food every day, either. Why? Because when you create a base condition where people are required to earn their food, and their shelter, and yes, their health care, most people will rise to that requirement. And if the method by which they do this requires them to produce a value of labor output in excess of the exchange value of those things (ie: the dollar value of their labor exceeds the dollar value of their pay), then the net effect is a growing healthy economy that allows us to maximize the likelihood that each successive generation of people will be able to have food, and shelter, and health care.

If the method is "give everyone free stuff", then you will minimize the percentage of people who are generating a value of labor output in excess of the value/cost of those things. Which may lead to a successive weakening of our economic capability to ensure that each and every person gets those things, which over time can lead to rationing of those things, and, if not addressed, may even lead to full financial collapse. Which would result in a whole lot more people not getting even the most basic of human needs.

It's not as simple as you seem to want to make it.


Uh. Heh. Oh uh. Okay, "stuff" no, the things in question are water, food, shelter, and health care.

And holy **** dude. Your concern is with the economic power of the United States & capitalism, more than any citizen of it, I mean ******* APPARENTLY.

So, no, not as simple as I might make since I morally care about humans and you uh...[morally?] care about profits. Sorry for being such a simplistic person who wants my fellow humans to be taken care of by their state.

In your mind, should the US be wise to ease laws against *** slavery and child rape so as to compete with Thailand and the like? MIGHT BE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!!

What in the **** is wrong with your priorities????
#661 Feb 17 2018 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm a republican. I see things in the middle.
You're pretending to be a centrist? That's cute. Delusional, but cute.

When you realize that he's being 100% sincere, it's more sad and/or scary than cute. It also explains a lot that he legitimately thinks his positions are the midpoint between Anarcho-Capitalism and everything left of paleo-conservatism.


Edited, Feb 17th 2018 10:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#662 Feb 19 2018 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,521 posts
I've always contended that the extremism was just an act to get attention.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#663 Feb 20 2018 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm a republican. I see things in the middle.
You're pretending to be a centrist?


On the scale between "nearly zero government" libertarian ideology and "big government" liberal ideology? Yeah. The republican position is centrist. I know that it's easy to assume that the two major political parties are driven by equal and opposite ideological positions on every axis, but that's not really true at all.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
This is why, for example, Republicans don't see any conflict at all between being perfectly OK with Massachusetts passing a single payer health care system (Under a GOP governor no less!), while still opposing it at the federal level. That's because our system is actually constructed such that the federal government is only supposed to handle interactions between the states and other states within the US, and the collected states (the US) and other countries.
Exceptions to the bolded occur all the time.


What "is" and what Republicans believe "should be" are not the same. You get that, right? You're basically arguing that since the side we disagree with ideologically has won a battle on issue X, or issue Y, we should simply abandon our position on everything else? And you wonder why I often push the whole "slippery slope" argument in there. Your argument rests on the assumption that having accepted (not allowed, but been forced to accept) thing one, we should stand by and allow thing two, and thing three, etc.

Quote:
How is health care different?


It isn't. I'm just as opposed to direct federal involvement in individual people's education, or social welfare, housing, etc, as I am with it being directly involved in individual people's health care. Why do you think there's some sort of inconsistency here?

Quote:
Haha, just kidding. We've discussed this before and your answer boils down to "don't wanna".


If by "don't wanna", you mean "I don't believe this is something the federal level of our government should be directly dealing in", then yes. I've been incredibly consistent over a couple decades now on this forum about my positions vis-a-vis federal versus state versus local government interaction, responsibility, authority, etc.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#664 Feb 20 2018 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Uh. Heh. Oh uh. Okay, "stuff" no, the things in question are water, food, shelter, and health care.


Was there a point in that sentence? Either those things are so cheap and plentiful that it should be trivial to obtain with or without government assistance, or they are not. If they are, then there's no need for government to provide them. If they are not, then there's a significant enough expense involved for us to consider the total economic impact of providing this stuff "for free".

Pick one.

Quote:
And holy **** dude. Your concern is with the economic power of the United States & capitalism, more than any citizen of it, I mean ******* APPARENTLY.


When it's the economic power of the US that you're depending on to pay for all that free stuff, then those two things cease to be disconnected. One is dependent on the other. In a world where we spend a significant portion of the US economic power providing for those things, then any effect on the future size of that power has an effect on whether (or how much) of those things we can provide).

It's almost like I just wrote a few paragraphs explaining this, and you quoted me, and then you intelligently responded... Oh. Never mind. You just chucked out the entire thing and went off on an emotional based screed.

Quote:
So, no, not as simple as I might make since I morally care about humans and you uh...[morally?] care about profits. Sorry for being such a simplistic person who wants my fellow humans to be taken care of by their state.


You "care about people". Ok. Riddle me this. What happens if, in the process of caring for so many people, you bankrupt the system you're using to do the caring? There has to be a limit to what you'll give people "for free". My concern is that people who have your mind set never seem to acknowledge that such limits must be there. Oh. You'll say "we only want to provide this one thing, right now, cause it's really important". But in 20 years, the next crop of people with your mindset will have another "one thing" that they think is just as criminally negligent not to be provided "for free". And they'll be just as certain of the moral high ground they're standing on as you are today.

Ultimately, it's a question of negative versus positive rights. Do rights include the right to have things provided to you? Or only the right not to have things taken away. The latter form has inherent limits. The former does not. There is no end to the things we (or future versions of us) will claim must be provided as a "right". So yeah, I oppose this. And no, it's not just an economic argument, although that can certainly be a component of it.

Quote:
In your mind, should the US be wise to ease laws against *** slavery and child rape so as to compete with Thailand and the like? MIGHT BE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!!


How the heck do you leap to that conclusion?

Quote:
What in the **** is wrong with your priorities????


Nothing. You simply don't understand what they are, or how I'm applying them. The previous statement more or less proves this. The problem is that you simply do not understand the method I'm using to determine what actions a government should take, and those which it should not. The things you just listed are examples of things which infringe people's rights, and so a government (if it is good), should act to prevent them. The things you listed at the top of the post are not. If you don't have food because someone keeps coming up to you and stealing it, then that's something our laws should prevent (the stealing). If you don't have food because you have failed to acquire it in the first place, that's somewhat on you. As long as there exists a system in which you could, with a modest amount of participation, have acquired said food, that's the end of the government's responsibility in that area.

Guess what? The US has plenty of ways and opportunities for people to obtain sufficient food. Starvation is virtually non-existent in this country, and in the rare case where it (or even malnutrition) occurs, it's either the result of choices made (usually resulting from some form of substance abuse over time) or parental abuse of children. Um... both of which we also have ample tools available to deal with (and laws in the case of the latter).

Look. If we lived in a system that was somehow evil and rigged so that no one could possibly get ahead, or even obtain enough success for a basic existence, I'd be right there advocating for changes. But we don't. There is so much opportunity in the US compared to most of the rest of the world. Baring people with extreme handicaps of some sort, there's very little reason one could not manage to obtain basic necessities in the system we have. And if you fail that, through no fault of your own, there are ample charitable organizations to help you (the US is by far the most charitable nation in the world in this regard). There is little reason for the government to get involved in such things, except for the purpose of those in government wanting to take "credit" for helping people. It's not about morals for them, but political empowerment.

And even if we go past that point, there are levels of government as well (as I mentioned above), where a local or state government may decide to take on these things for those living in their respective areas. Again, this is not something that must be done at the highest level of our government, as some sort of moral imperative. It is, for the most part, a political stunt, used to try to win votes.

Edited, Feb 20th 2018 7:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#665 Feb 21 2018 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,521 posts
You know there's a problem with conservatives when a guy who has spent decades going out of his way to make sure everyone within earshot knows they're a conservative tries to distance himself from it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#666 Feb 22 2018 at 12:25 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,567 posts
gbaji wrote:
Look. If we lived in a system that was somehow evil and rigged so that no one could possibly get ahead, or even obtain enough success for a basic existence, I'd be right there advocating for changes.
No one? No; that's an absolute...but you knew that.

"Many"?...yes. You'll deny that of course, but you'll still be wrong.


At least you manned up long enough to admit that your response to most forms of welfare is "don't wanna". Good for you!!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#667 Feb 22 2018 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
Quote:
On the scale between "nearly zero government" libertarian ideology and "big government" liberal ideology? Yeah
If you're going to include the fringe Libertarians, then you should include fringe Communists. No longer centrist anymore though if you do that Smiley: frown
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#668 Feb 22 2018 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, the issue is that Gbaji honestly believes that everyone to the left of him is pretty much the same jumble of socialist/communists with no real distinguishing ideologies.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#669 Feb 22 2018 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,654 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
On the scale between "nearly zero government" libertarian ideology and "big government" liberal ideology? Yeah
If you're going to include the fringe Libertarians, then you should include fringe Communists. No longer centrist anymore though if you do that Smiley: frown
The halfway between all government and no government is half government. So I'll just assume he's fine with a 50% tax rate.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#670 Feb 22 2018 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Look. If we lived in a system that was somehow evil and rigged so that no one could possibly get ahead, or even obtain enough success for a basic existence, I'd be right there advocating for changes.
No one? No; that's an absolute...but you knew that.


Fair enough. I was setting a lower bound. If it was impossible to succeed, I'd be advocating for changes. Everything that isn't "impossible" is, by definition, within the realm of "possible". At which point, we're really talking about degrees of difficulty.

Quote:
"Many"?...yes. You'll deny that of course, but you'll still be wrong.


Outside of the previously mentioned folks with some sort of disability? I'd say your "many" is a "very small percentage of the population. Seriously. What percentage of the working age population do you actually believe are incapable of obtaining even a basic living level via their own labor? I'm curious where you think this number lies?


Quote:
At least you manned up long enough to admit that your response to most forms of welfare is "don't wanna". Good for you!!


Only for an absurd interpretation of my own position. It's not about what I do or don't want to do. It's about what I believe is best for the whole of our population. I happen to believe that the more "help" we put into our systems, the more that help creates a disincentive for people to help themselves. Which, over time, creates an ever larger portion of our population into economic dependency on the government to "help" them.

I "don't wanna" see those people living in that state of dependency. I "do wanna" see them become self sufficient productive members of society. There are a whole host of reasons why this is a good thing. Economic factors are one (positive net versus negative net). But there are social factors as well. There's a strong correlation between low social self esteem and that state of dependency (well, any state of dependency really). People are not empowered by government assistance. They often feel like second class citizens, and no amount of hand wringing and telling them it's ok will change that.

Kids who grow up in those environments feel increased alienation towards the rest of society, which they see as passing them by. This leads to increased anger, resentment, drug use, drop out rates, increased likelihood of joining a gang to gain a sense of purpose and place otherwise missing in their lives, violence, etc. All of which, perversely, increase their odds of also growing up to be in the same state of dependency.

I'm not some cruel heartless person who wants people to suffer. I just happen to think that there are better ways to help than with institutionalized government social programs. The reality is that a whole lot of people who are on those systems, and who think they can't get by without them, absolutely could. But we make it easy for them to stay in the system, and increasingly difficult for them to get out. I don't think we're helping them in the long run with this, and we're absolutely not helping "us" as a people either.

You're free to disagree, but I can at least speak to my position and reasoning. Can you? Beyond simplistic emotion laden platitudes?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#671 Feb 22 2018 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, the issue is that Gbaji honestly believes that everyone to the left of him is pretty much the same jumble of socialist/communists with no real distinguishing ideologies.


I've yet to see any evidence that even mainstream Democrats have a firm line at which they'll stop pushing towards more government social services. So yeah, the only difference between current day Democrats and hard core Communists is time, and what can realistically be achieved "today" given the current degree of opposition to the direction they want to drag us all in.

Where's the stopping point? Is there one? I've mentioned before that the problem with "positive rights" is that there's no bound to it. There's no limit on what could be labeled as a "right" once you define rights as a whole in a positive manner rather than negative. The same exact mindset and argument that pushes for Obamacare today, will push for single payer tomorrow, and push for full socialized health care the day after that. That same mindset will push for socialized housing, and socialized transportation, and socialized entertainment, and socialized clothing, and socialized <everything>. The argument that it's unfair for some people to have <something> while other people do not, can be applied to <everything>.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2018 6:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#672 Feb 22 2018 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Well, the issue is that Gbaji honestly believes that everyone to the left of him is pretty much the same jumble of socialist/communists with no real distinguishing ideologies.
I've yet to see any evidence that even mainstream Democrats have a firm line at which they'll stop pushing towards more government social services. So yeah, the only difference between current day Democrats and hard core Communists is time, and what can realistically be achieved "today" given the current degree of opposition to the direction they want to drag us all in.

You could have just said "You're right, Joph".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#673 Feb 22 2018 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,370 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Well, the issue is that Gbaji honestly believes that everyone to the left of him is pretty much the same jumble of socialist/communists with no real distinguishing ideologies.
I've yet to see any evidence that even mainstream Democrats have a firm line at which they'll stop pushing towards more government social services. So yeah, the only difference between current day Democrats and hard core Communists is time, and what can realistically be achieved "today" given the current degree of opposition to the direction they want to drag us all in.

You could have just said "You're right, Joph".


I thought I just did. The part that's missing is you saying "and he's right" in your post.

I would say that the key difference between a Democrat and a Communist is that the Communist knows and admits the ultimate end point he wants us to go to. I'm honestly not sure if Democrats actually don't realize where they're going to end up and are just foolishly focused on the cause in front of their feet, never lifting their heads up to see what lies in the direction they're going; or if they do know this and want to go there, but realize that it's politically problematic to be public about it so they pretend it's just about "this thing right here" and just hope no one will catch on.

In the end though, it doesn't matter. I can see where things are heading and react accordingly in either case.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2018 7:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#674 Feb 22 2018 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The part that's missing is you saying "and he's right" in your post.

Oh, that's not by accident Smiley: laugh

But thanks for not only proving my basic point but expanding to prove my broader one as well Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#675 Feb 23 2018 at 12:21 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,567 posts
gbaji wrote:
I would say that the key difference between a Democrat and a Communist...
Given that in the past you couldn't discern Communists from friggin' Nazis I'll just go with the notion that you have the same problem with Commies and Democrats.Smiley: schooled


Edited, Feb 22nd 2018 11:22pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#676 Feb 24 2018 at 4:53 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
284 posts
gbaji wrote:
You "care about people". Ok. Riddle me this. What happens if, in the process of caring for so many people, you bankrupt the system you're using to do the caring?


That's super bizarre, considering the US is 20 trillion in debt and spends 1 trillion a year on warmongering.

I think you are massively not realizing what particular effort/cause is close to bankrupting the nation....

...nor who has gained monies from that 1 trillion a year. [Welfare queens got nothing on Armament Engineer Queens]


....uh, I mean you need to go to remedial school for a lot of things at this point, dude. And yeah, I say this as a defender and admirer of you here on this centrist website with many useless mush-brained cunts who also ignore trillions on warmongering and millions of dead innocents murdered by Trump and Obama and Bush, but you are also DAFT.

Is halving the DOD budget possible? Would that $500 billion be better used on "caring for so many people", and equally not bankrupting the system?


You really need to self-interrogate per morality, and mathematics, and etc. So do all of you other couch-chair ******* Obama apologists. Double-tap. Look into it and war crimes, just for one thing. First Responders, weddings....etc. And Hillary lost in no small reason due to Obama sucking *** at helping poor people, minorities, etc.

Edited, Feb 24th 2018 6:03am by Palpitus1
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT