• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ya' just have to laugh...

zgoldsmith23 said:
All three of you talk about "personal freedom" but still want a government. Just a bit silly to me.
Click to expand...

It's a lot more silly to believe we can have a functional society without a government that must rein in absolute freedom for approved freedoms the majority can agree to.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
You have to defend your own personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Defending your liberty is the legitimate function of government as outlined in the Declaration of independence.

Anarchy is neither libertarian nor is it liberty.

Now, back to the original issue: money corrupting the government.

If either party took a stance against large donors and actually became a grass roots sort of party representing the people, I'd be flabbergasted and highly impressed. I, for one, would vote for that party.

So far, neither of the major parties is even close to getting rid of the corrupting influence of money.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
All three of you talk about "personal freedom" but still want a government. Just a bit silly to me.
Click to expand...

A government which governs least.

I think you are silly too ... ;)
 
Tettsuo said:
It's a lot more silly to believe we can have a functional society without a government that must rein in absolute freedom for approved freedoms the majority can agree to.
Click to expand...

The majority is usually wrong. The majority is weak. They are afraid.

Dittohead not! said:
Defending your liberty is the legitimate function of government as outlined in the Declaration of independence.

Anarchy is neither libertarian nor is it liberty.
Click to expand...

It certainly is liberty. Anyone can do what they please. They don't have to worry about whether it may "offend" or "hurt" someone. There would be no needless appeals to emotions.

Eighty Deuce said:
A government which governs least.

I think you are silly too ... ;)
Click to expand...

Least ... like zero.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
The majority is usually wrong. The majority is weak. They are afraid.



It certainly is liberty. Anyone can do what they please. They don't have to worry about whether it may "offend" or "hurt" someone. There would be no needless appeals to emotions.



Least ... like zero.
Click to expand...

Which means everybody can and likely will infringe upon the ability of others to do as they please, and then you have uncontrolled oppression. At least I know how my government oppresses me. No telling how an anarchist's selfishness might cause me harm.
 
MaggieD said:
Everybody lies. Democrats Ditch Plan to Stage Convention Without Corporate Cash - ABC News
Click to expand...

This isn't so much a "lie" though...

The Democratic Party has always been a party of good intentions... but lack of follow through... They make promises, then can't deliver...

They're the dreamers, the idealists, the people who want to help EVERYONE... They aren't the realists, the pragmatists, and the successful and sustainable policy makers...

In order for the Democrats to be able to do the large scope projects they want to do, it requires massive amounts of money... they always try to do it without or claim it doesnt, and then it either comes from large corrupt corporations, large corrupt unions, or corruptly taken from taxpayer money...

And, despite all the good intentions to their programs... for the greater majority of them, all they end up doing is enabling problems, creating other problems, or just are downright ineffective...

That's really the point of this election...


Obama came in promising the moon... and only delivered a massive amount of debt...

He's had to break campaign promise after campaign promise... Change platforms as the ideology met with reality, and suddenly pragmatism got in the way...

Still, he's promising to do more... (when he hasn't delivered to begin with)...


We need someone to come in and clean up THIS CURRENT MESS... not the one from 2007-2009... The one which we need to address from 2013-2017...

For that mess, we need someone who is sound with fiscal policy, can control spending, and revise the massive expansion in entitlement programs, which threaten to bankrupt us...

Obama hasn't even attempted that... in fact, he's added massively to the entitlement programs, with income security and medicare/medicaid...
 
MaggieD said:
Everybody lies. Democrats Ditch Plan to Stage Convention Without Corporate Cash - ABC News
Click to expand...

Or cry. Regardless of your politics, holding something as big as a convention without corporate cash is a noble goal.

To me, Obama's biggest disappointment was in not agreeing to use Federal matching funds like John McCain. Granted, he stuck to grass roots small donors, but would have been a huge political statement.

Big money in politics is terrible, especially in the small races that most directly affect people. It doesn't become good because your side has more of it.
 
tessaesque said:
Which means everybody can and likely will infringe upon the ability of others to do as they please, and then you have uncontrolled oppression. At least I know how my government oppresses me. No telling how an anarchist's selfishness might cause me harm.
Click to expand...

Again, you can defend your personal freedom. If someone tries infringing on your ability to do as you please, remove their infringement.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Again, you can defend your personal freedom. If someone tries infringing on your ability to do as you please, remove their infringement.
Click to expand...

By any means I choose? Sounds totally reasonable and safe.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
It certainly is liberty. Anyone can do what they please. They don't have to worry about whether it may "offend" or "hurt" someone. There would be no needless appeals to emotions.
Click to expand...

There will always be someone stronger than you are who will impose their will on you by force. If there is no government protecting freedom, there is no freedom, not even for the strongest.
 
Dittohead not! said:
all by yourself?
against a well armed gang of a hundred or so?

What you're advocating has on basis in reality.
Click to expand...

You can take on 100. There are more solutions, too.

1) You can take on the 100
2) You can bring your own 100
3) Join the 100
4) Go somewhere else.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
This isn't so much a "lie" though...

The Democratic Party has always been a party of good intentions... but lack of follow through... They make promises, then can't deliver...

They're the dreamers, the idealists, the people who want to help EVERYONE... They aren't the realists, the pragmatists, and the successful and sustainable policy makers...

In order for the Democrats to be able to do the large scope projects they want to do, it requires massive amounts of money... they always try to do it without or claim it doesnt, and then it either comes from large corrupt corporations, large corrupt unions, or corruptly taken from taxpayer money...

And, despite all the good intentions to their programs... for the greater majority of them, all they end up doing is enabling problems, creating other problems, or just are downright ineffective...

That's really the point of this election...


Obama came in promising the moon... and only delivered a massive amount of debt...

He's had to break campaign promise after campaign promise... Change platforms as the ideology met with reality, and suddenly pragmatism got in the way...

Still, he's promising to do more... (when he hasn't delivered to begin with)...

We need someone to come in and clean up THIS CURRENT MESS... not the one from 2007-2009... The one which we need to address from 2013-2017...

For that mess, we need someone who is sound with fiscal policy, can control spending, and revise the massive expansion in entitlement programs, which threaten to bankrupt us...

Obama hasn't even attempted that... in fact, he's added massively to the entitlement programs, with income security and medicare/medicaid...
Click to expand...

For those that had not seen this yet, I think it complements some of what you are saying. It also illustrates a point many of us have made, which is that American liberalism is being infected more with socialism/fascism notions.

This is from the floor of the DNC Convention. Right now.

 
zgoldsmith23 said:
You can take on 100. There are more solutions, too.

1) You can take on the 100
2) You can bring your own 100
3) Join the 100
4) Go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

but I want the freedom to stay where I am and not be run out of town by a gang, and I don't want to have to join one myself.

Take on a hundred single handedly? Sure, sure, that's the ticket, sure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
but I want the freedom to stay where I am and not be run out of town by a gang, and I don't want to have to join one myself.

Take on a hundred single handedly? Sure, sure, that's the ticket, sure.
Click to expand...

That's fine.
 
Debra said:
Oh for Pete's sake, GOP allows billionaires try buy this election flooding millions into their coffers the only way dems can compete is to allow corporate help, get over it ! after the President wins I am sure their going to work on legislation to change that citizens united ruling.
Click to expand...


Oh for pete’s sake do you even think before posting? Obama spent about 750 million in 2008 and plans to spend close to a billion dollars in this election. Do you really believe that threy are no corporate billionaires helping with his funding???

If I recall correctly, it was Obama that reneged on public financing of the general election of 2008 when he realized that he could out fund raise McCain. What was the term he used … the system of p8ublic financing is broken.

If the truth be told, that is all the liberals are worried about this year, is that the margin of fundraising and money spend on this election might not be so wide in their favor .. But trust me if obama raises the billion dollars he wants .. . And Romney come close to that same amount the liberals like yourself will continue to scream about corporate donors.
 
iliveonramen said:
You Republicans sure relish in the fact that our Democracy is taken over by moneyed interest.
Click to expand...

No, THIS Republican finds it ironic that The Party of Corporations Are Evil decides to accept millions from them when it's convenient.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
You can take on 100. There are more solutions, too.

1) You can take on the 100
2) You can bring your own 100
3) Join the 100
4) Go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

You don't really believe that. If you did, you'd move to wilds of Afghanistan. The government there is only 9.2% of GDP. If you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to. There are virtually no government regulations to worry about and the ones that exist you're pretty safe to ignore. You're even free to have your own private army.

Those remote tribal rejoins sound a tea party paradise.

But that's obviously nonsense. Civilization is better than nomadic anarchy. That's why we invented it 10,000 years ago and make distopian movies about it's demise.

Debate policies and amounts, not the premise of government.
 
Mithros said:
You don't really believe that. If you did, you'd move to wilds of Afghanistan. The government there is only 9.2% of GDP. If you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to. There are virtually no government regulations to worry about and the ones that exist you're pretty safe to ignore. You're even free to have your own private army.
Click to expand...

I've had this argument elsewhere. Problem is, there is still a government and, I'd still be at the mercy of those organizations for the weak such as the World Court, etc.

Those remote tribal rejoins sound a tea party paradise.
Click to expand...

I hate the TP and never mentioned 'em. Nice try.

But that's obviously nonsense. Civilization is better than nomadic anarchy. That's why we invented it 10,000 years ago and make distopian movies about it's demise.
Click to expand...

Civilizations make you sacrifice freedoms.

Debate policies and amounts, not the premise of government.
Click to expand...

Everything is debatable. And that, is not debatable. ;)
 
Debra said:
Oh for Pete's sake, GOP allows billionaires try buy this election flooding millions into their coffers the only way dems can compete is to allow corporate help, get over it ! after the President wins I am sure their going to work on legislation to change that citizens united ruling.
Click to expand...

It's my right to give money to my Congressman and Senators.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I've had this argument elsewhere. Problem is, there is still a government and, I'd still be at the mercy of those organizations for the weak such as the World Court, etc.
Click to expand...
Fair enough... You can't go somewhere where you can do absolutely whatever you want. So again, we're left with government as a necessity.

I hate the TP and never mentioned 'em. Nice try.
Click to expand...
Apologies for the inference, though Afghanistan really really is the perfect implementation of TP talking points.

Civilizations make you sacrifice freedoms.
Click to expand...
Agree, but they also safeguard freedoms.

Everything is debatable. And that, is not debatable. ;)
Click to expand...
True, but not every debate is worth having. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom