• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

South Carolina governor: Confederate flag comes down Friday

Argumentum ad populum

You were working with it a few pages ago. Remember when the people and their wishes were important in all of this? :lol: The contradictions keep rolling.

Regardless, liberal socialism is simply illogical as their views on property conflict and must undermine each other leaving both rather nonexistent in any sort of foundation or meaning. In practice what appears to happen is the public side of the equation gets stronger as the system ages, while the private side becomes more of an illusion than anything else. As it stands all around the world all that is really left of the private side of the equation is renting.

Actually, social liberalism is quite simply about finding a balance between these things. One has never been necessarily held as more important than the other and that's where you seem to get things wrong. Like with all ideologies, liberalism examines the best way to govern and makes decisions based a large array of factors (including culture, religion, rights held by the people, obligations of the state etc.).

That's what makes it an ideology and why liberals can and do disagree with each other quite regularly. In contrast, libertarianism, as you have displayed it on this forum for 5 years, is basically "I don't like no gub'mint!". That's not an ideology of any sort, Henrin. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. :shrug:
 
Good to know. Although I feel as I'm not being insulting personally. My stance on Libertardism is just that - empty rhetoric made by disillusioned Rethuglicons who seem to have a deep hatred of the poor, the sick and the needy. They seriously believe in a non-governmental interfering system that allows for free reign without any recourse to civil, ethical and constitutional law other by what they cheery pick as being fit for the rest of society. I am not mocking Henrin's beliefs. I simply cannot see them as being viable for the common good. I see the ideologies (or lack thereof) of Libertardianism as being no ideologies at all. Henrin has yet to produce a substantiated argument for why I should take his beliefs seriously when he says nothing more than catch phrases and buzz words. It's not just him nor am I personally attacking him for his political beliefs upon which he has every right to express. My experiences has been with many Libertardians that they cannot or will not (for some odd reason) validate their arguments with common sense, for example, on how a lack of taxes will somehow form a coalition of voluntaryism.


I meant no offense to no one.

I was never a republican and I only voted for one once when I was eighteen. I suppose you can use that against me if you want, but it was a very long time ago and I was very different person then. I don't hate the poor, the sick, the needy, the elderly, or anyone else really. Yeah, I might not be the nicest guy around, and yeah, sometimes I can be an asshole, but I don't hate anyone. I'm against welfare as I feel it is a personal decision that one makes on who they desire to offer assistance or if they wish to offer assistance at all. I am not opposed to people going out of their way to help their neighbor, and in fact, I encourage it as I feel it is important to help those in need.
 
You were working with it a few pages ago. Remember when the people and their wishes were important in all of this? :lol: The contradictions keep rolling.

You of all people should know I can't admit what I was doing there.

Actually, social liberalism is quite simply about finding a balance between these things. One has never been necessarily held as more important than the other and that's where you seem to get things wrong. Like with all ideologies, liberalism examines the best way to govern and makes decisions based a large array of factors (including culture, religion, rights held by the people, obligations of the state etc.).

That's what makes it an ideology and why liberals can and do disagree with each other quite regularly. In contrast, libertarianism, as you have displayed it on this forum for 5 years, is basically "I don't like no gub'mint!". That's not an ideology of any sort, Henrin. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. :shrug:

That is simply what they say, but again, you can't balance two competing forces without them leaving each other in ruin. It simply doesn't work on any logical basis.
 
I'm against welfare as I feel it is a personal decision that one makes on who they desire to offer assistance or if they wish to offer assistance at all.

Not sure if I understand that.

I won't argue that welfare is an abused governmental program full of holes in need of fixing. However, it does not make those who truly need it as being helpless or hopeless as many Libertardians will have me to believe. You simply cannot generalize people who are on some form of governmental assistance as being second-class, or in many cases, non-citizens. I used to work with homeless people to find housing, health and dental care, even some form of employment in order to achieve a better quality of life. Many were not looking for a handout or to be dependent but suffered from mental and/or physical illnesses that limited their ability to function as a "normal" adult human being. So why, for example can you as a Libertardian deny such individuals the opportunity for a better quality of life in good conscience?
 
You of all people should know I can't admit what I was doing there.

Oh, I know exactly what you were doing. However, seeing how you dropped it, I actually thought you were being serious and just refused to answer.

That is simply what they say, but again, you can't balance two competing forces without them leaving each other in ruin. It simply doesn't work on any logical basis.

Funny you should make such a statement considering you can't have a society to any degree without certain ground rules and individuals in charge of enforcing them. You know, a government of some sort.
 
Not sure if I understand that.

It means that what you wish to do with your money and your time is your decision to make. I do not think it is my place to tell people what they should care about or how they should live their lives. If they wish to spend their money and time on helping those in need then I support their decision, but if they don't, well, while that is a shame, it's their decision to make.

I won't argue that welfare is an abused governmental program full of holes in need of fixing. However, it does not make those who truly need it as being helpless or hopeless as many Libertardians will have me to believe. You simply cannot generalize people who are on some form of governmental assistance as being second-class, or in many cases, non-citizens. I used to work with homeless people to find housing, health and dental care, even some form of employment in order to achieve a better quality of life. Many were not looking for a handout or to be dependent but suffered from mental and/or physical illnesses that limited their ability to function as a "normal" adult human being. So why, for example can you as a Libertardian deny such individuals the opportunity for a better quality of life in good conscience?

It is my opinion people are not owed a certain quality of life at others peoples expense. If you are benefiting from the property of someone else against that persons will then I simply do not think that I am wrong in taking that benefit away. I feel that the way to a more caring society is not one through government welfare, but one by which the people take it on themselves to care for their fellow man. Maybe that is a naive position to take, but I do not feel that a coercive system of care will ever bring about a better world.
 
governor-nikki-haley-signs-bill-20150709-205714-247.jpg




A governor whose parents are Indian, surrounded by blacks and whites, signing a bill to remove a symbol of hatred 50 years after it was put there by a government that had just 2 years earlier enforced segregation. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states and my Cuban wife just made me tamales. What a time to be alive.

What's in a tamale? I don't remember ever having one.
 
Doesn't Nikki Haley know what she did here? The Republicans are all racists. As Joe Biden said, they want to put blacks back in chains. Haley blew it. I wonder if the GOP will toss her out now. Not share their racist code words with her anymore. I wonder if the left will support her the next time she runs for office.
 
Doesn't Nikki Haley know what she did here? The Republicans are all racists. As Joe Biden said, they want to put blacks back in chains. Haley blew it. I wonder if the GOP will toss her out now. Not share their racist code words with her anymore. I wonder if the left will support her the next time she runs for office.

The left will never support her regardless of what she does.
 
He's not providing two strict choices. He's questioning what difference it makes to leave it up if it makes no difference to take it down. ;)

The difference is in whether or not we as voters see our elected reps cave in to PC demands of some faux outrage that was started on opportunity, and false narrative....Personally, IF the people of SC wanted the flag moved to a museum, and spoke through referendum then that would have been proper, but these reps took the easy way out, using their power to cave in to the 'race rage' crowd who took this tragedy, and used it to force an issue that was never the cause of their pain....But I understand that is how progressivism works. I just fear the day when this type of thing keeps going.
 
The left will never support her regardless of what she does.

I think I can say with confidence that the "left" STRONGLY supports Nikki Haley signing this bill.

So... you're wrong.
 
She's just having the flag taken down and placed in a museum of history.

I would have it incinerated.
 
Usa! Usa! Usa!

Edit: I meant U.S.A. x 3, but the forum auto-corrected me. Now it just looks like I'm making monkey sounds.
 
I just hope that they treat the Confederate Battle Flag with the respect it deserves, and prominently display it in a museum as a reminder of the cultural heritage of the Confederacy. Perhaps an annex to the Holocaust Museum?
 
I think I can say with confidence that the "left" STRONGLY supports Nikki Haley signing this bill.

So... you're wrong.

Given the left routienly throw their own under the bus ... we'll see in her re-election how many liberals vote for her vs. previous elections.
 
Back
Top Bottom