• 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!

Best US President

Who Was the Best US President?

  • Abraham Lincoln

    Votes: 15 19.0%
  • Franklin Roosevelt

    Votes: 20 25.3%
  • George Washington

    Votes: 9 11.4%
  • Thomas Jefferson

    Votes: 5 6.3%
  • Theodore Roosevelt

    Votes: 4 5.1%
  • Woodrow Wilson

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Andrew Jackson

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Harry Truman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lyndon Johnson

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Other (please list below)

    Votes: 22 27.8%

  • Total voters
    79
voting certainly doesn't give me control over my actions. you annoying progressives continue to use your vote to control more and more of my actions in the economic sphere while the annoying social conservatvies use their vote to control more of my actions in the social sphere.

so as I first stated, I cherish liberty over democracy. Democracy can rightly be described as two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.
Anything can happen with only three voters. Limiting the number of voters constitutes a republic, so you are contradicting yourself in opposing democracy. By voters I mean those who directly vote on issues instead of being limited to picking pre-owned candidates to do all their voting for them.
 
You can’t claim any sides were switched as the radical republicans weren’t for the incorporation of the bill of rights as we know it today and certainly would not of been in favor of the civil rights legislation that stripped previously held employer rights
Since the 1960s, starting with the sons of a Wall Street kleptocrat, the Democrats have followed in the jackbooted footsteps of the Reconstruction Republicans.
 
So you have no problem with Jackson telling his troops to kill all the women and children to complete the extermination? Don't get me wrong, I love my country. I am just about as patriotic a person as you will meet. But the genocide of the indigenous peoples of America and slavery are two severely wrong points in our history and the sooner we face that the better. That includes recognising Andrew Jackson for the genocidal murderer that he was.

btw, you can call Godwinn all you want but in this case the reference to Hitler is based in fact.
Judging by the way they exterminated other Indian tribes and isolated White settlers, the Indians would have treated us even worse than we did them if they had been the ones with superior weapons. Also, they wouldn't have built a productive civilization like we did when that necessary fight to the finish was over.
 
most of that involves state vs federal powers. military is an obvious federal power. income redistribution and other attempts to gain power by creating "fairness" is not
gay marriage is not a federal matter, nor is abortion

Regardless of your motives for favoring big government in those areas, you're just confirming what I said.
 
Regardless of your motives for favoring big government in those areas, you're just confirming what I said.

more army might cost more but it doesn't infringe on our rights any more than a medium sized army

ever heard millions for defense but not a penny for tribute?

and your inability to understand the boundaries of federal authority is a given but still disappointing
 
more army might cost more but it doesn't infringe on our rights any more than a medium sized army

It means higher taxes. It means more power for the government. If you don't think either of those things are infringements on our rights then your whole position on everything seems to be falling apart, no?
 
It means higher taxes. It means more power for the government. If you don't think either of those things are infringements on our rights then your whole position on everything seems to be falling apart, no?

I am not an anarchist and I support government programs that are properly constitutional. The military is one and while I believe money is wasted, the function is legitimate. Welfare redistribution is not legitimate
 
I am not an anarchist and I support government programs that are properly constitutional. The military is one and while I believe money is wasted, the function is legitimate. Welfare redistribution is not legitimate

Well obviously you understand that both are constitutional. So you're just saying that you like big government when it is in the form of killing people, but you dislike big government when it is in the form of helping people. Just like I said.
 
Well obviously you understand that both are constitutional. So you're just saying that you like big government when it is in the form of killing people, but you dislike big government when it is in the form of helping people. Just like I said.

the military has always been constitutional. the stuff that you love only became "constitutional" due to the dishonest machinations of FDR's lapdogs. And only a fool can really believe that welfare socialism helps anyone other than the rich dem masters who use it to buy power. Making people dependent on government no more helps them than a dealer helps the addicts
 
the military has always been constitutional. the stuff that you love only became "constitutional" due to the dishonest machinations of FDR's lapdogs.

No, spending to provide for the general welfare was always constitutional. Obviously. It's the regulatory stuff that you're thinking of, not just spending.

And only a fool can really believe that welfare socialism helps anyone other than the rich dem masters who use it to buy power. Making people dependent on government no more helps them than a dealer helps the addicts

Huh. There you are asserting the dependency argument again. Have you come up with any shred of evidence to support that theory since last time I called you out on it and you were unable to come up with anything? Or, have you come up with an explanation for why intergenerational income mobility is so much higher in countries that spend more on poverty amelioration? Or are you still just flat out bald facededly wrong?
 
No, spending to provide for the general welfare was always constitutional. Obviously. It's the regulatory stuff that you're thinking of, not just spending.



Huh. There you are asserting the dependency argument again. Have you come up with any shred of evidence to support that theory since last time I called you out on it and you were unable to come up with anything? Or, have you come up with an explanation for why intergenerational income mobility is so much higher in countries that spend more on poverty amelioration? Or are you still just flat out bald facededly wrong?
\
income redistribution is not for the general welfare.

try again.

the sanctimonious nature of your posts is not merited by your knowledge
 
Of course it is. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth, our need for an educated workforce and strong consumer base, etc.

Income redistribution motivates those to become educated how? If I can suckle at the government teat and make as much as TD (who obtained a graduate degree) why would I want to become educated? Oh - I wouldn't. :roll:
 
Income redistribution motivates those to become educated how? If I can suckle at the government teat and make as much as TD (who obtained a graduate degree) why would I want to become educated? Oh - I wouldn't. :roll:

What are you talking about? Make as much as TD? Did somebody propose something like that?
 
Of course it is. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth, our need for an educated workforce and strong consumer base, etc.

you'd have to prove that federal income redistribution does what you claim.

I don't think you can manage that proof
 
Income redistribution motivates those to become educated how? If I can suckle at the government teat and make as much as TD (who obtained a graduate degree) why would I want to become educated? Oh - I wouldn't. :roll:


the purpose of income redistribution is twofold

to buy the votes of those given the handouts

and to provide a stream of money the "elite" can dip their beaks into and get rich from
 
What are you talking about? Make as much as TD? Did somebody propose something like that?

You're gonna take TD's money and give it away, no?
 
you'd have to prove that federal income redistribution does what you claim.

I don't think you can manage that proof

The diminishing marginal utility of wealth is obvious of course, so I assume you concede that one, which is enough alone to show that it promotes the general welfare. For the educated workforce and consumer spending, you're the one just randomly asserting that for some reason you can't quite explain you suspect that poverty amelioration programs have the opposite of the intended effect. YOU would need to come up with evidence to support your claim, not me. Regardless though, I've presented you the evidence many, many, times. As you know, intergenerational income mobility is much higher and poverty much lower in countries that spend more on poverty amelioration. That is, obviously, what one would expect to happen and in fact it does.
 
The diminishing marginal utility of wealth is obvious of course, so I assume you concede that one, which is enough alone to show that it promotes the general welfare. For the educated workforce and consumer spending, you're the one just randomly asserting that for some reason you can't quite explain you suspect that poverty amelioration programs have the opposite of the intended effect. YOU would need to come up with evidence to support your claim, not me. Regardless though, I've presented you the evidence many, many, times. As you know, intergenerational income mobility is much higher and poverty much lower in countries that spend more on poverty amelioration. That is, obviously, what one would expect to happen and in fact it does.

that is a complete fail

and furthermore people don't exist to serve your welfare socialist schemes. the rich pay too much taxes as it is and the government wastes too much money. subsidizing anything tends to increase it and the dems have subsidized dependency in order to get more dependent overs.

we make poverty too easy
 
Oh... It's the Republican binary thinking problem...

the real problem is the attitude that a person's wealth is always subordinate to the schemes of those who try to grab power by promoting the "general welfare". I love all the welfare socialists who constantly say the "rich don't need their wealth" etc. that sort of parasitic thinking needs to evaporate
 
that is a complete fail

and furthermore people don't exist to serve your welfare socialist schemes. the rich pay too much taxes as it is and the government wastes too much money. subsidizing anything tends to increase it and the dems have subsidized dependency in order to get more dependent overs.

we make poverty too easy

So, once again, you are unable to counter my evidence or come up with any of your own. Why do you think that keeps happening to you?
 
Back
Top Bottom