• 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!

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

Tucker Case said:
That's exactly the type of thing that I'm thinking about. Personally, I don't frequent titty bars myself, but I think people have a right to do so. I also think they have a right to live in a town free form titty bars.

I would prefer not to live next door to a titty bar, especially if I had children.

In order for me to support this personal right, I must in turn support similar personal rights which I may not agree with in nature, or else I am engaging in hypocrisy.

That's the bitch about freedom. In order to guarantee as many freedoms as possible that I agree with, I must also be equally willing to support many freedoms which I personally find thoroughly objectionable (such as a local dancing ban).
Click to expand...


Yeah it is tough call. I do think business can be regulated and the goal of tiddie bars is not that high minded.
 
Tucker Case said:
I think welfare should be a state issue, not a federal one. If a state wants to have welfare, they would need to fund it form their own taxes. Of course, this would probably mean that most rich people who would receive the brunt of the taxes would move, but so be it. That would be the result of it.

Personally, I would support unemployment and a rudimmentary form of welfare that would not be abused and be willing to pay extra taxes to have this privelidge within my state, but only if it were abolished as the national standard.
Click to expand...
Abuse can't be prevented only minimized and I consider that sufficient. I would rather let 1 guy get away with soaking me to ensure that 10 didn't freeze or starve to death.
 
Goobieman said:
Its pretty clear that forcing morality on others is unacceptable only when you disagree with the morality being forced.
Click to expand...
Why don't people, especially conservatives understand that there is a good reason why some things must be forced on society for it's own good. Because there are people who don't give a **** about anything or anyone but themselves, until it becomes relevant to them of course. I like to call this NRS (Nancy Reagan Syndrome). Stem cell research? NO WAY, until alzheimers affects me or my loved ones. Welfare? NO WAY, until I get rearended and can't ever walk again... or laid off and can't find work...
 
Slippery Slope said:
Why don't people, especially conservatives understand that there is a good reason why some things must be forced on society for it's own good. Because there are people who don't give a **** about anything or anyone but themselves, until it becomes relevant to them of course. I like to call this NRS (Nancy Reagan Syndrome). Stem cell research? NO WAY, until alzheimers affects me or my loved ones. Welfare? NO WAY, until I get rearended and can't ever walk again... or laid off and can't find work...
Click to expand...
So.......I have to have my ability to obtain and accumulate property(money) hindered on behalf of someone I will probably never meet because it is for my own good? Or I have to understand that my charitable donations are less effective than government beauracracies? Again, no one is constitutionally required to give a **** about society, at least none of the constitutional and founding writings I've ever read. BTW, conservatives typically give more to charity, we just don't like the nanny state forcing people to "share" by over taxing them, that's not charity, that's theft.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Why don't people, especially conservatives understand that there is a good reason why some things must be forced on society for it's own good.
Click to expand...
Like... banning abortion?
Marriage defined as man-woman?

Oh, you didn't mean -those- things. Hmm.

And so, we're back to it being Ipretty clear that forcing morality on others is unacceptable only when you disagree with the morality being forced.
 
disneydude said:
Can this guy get any more ridiculous?

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent - Yahoo! News

One day he is going to realize that over half the country think he is nothing more than a big clown.
Click to expand...
He is the one guy who actually got BHO to reveal what he was about.

A socialist with redistribution on his mind.

Joe stood there and listened, then countered, and at the very end had BHO drop the nugget that gave us insight to who Obama is. A socialist with redistribution of wealth as his game plan.

Joe did what the press didn't want to do... in 5:27.

We need more Joe's asking questions... the press largely having become cheerleaders for BHO, and abrogating their role as reporters in the process.

Welcome Joe.

He should have moderated at least one debate.
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
Why don't you explain for us your idea of what the "wellfare state" is, so that we can properly discuss it? Please try and make it longer than 2 sentences if possible.
Click to expand...

As if you're capable...

The Welfare state is...
....a political system based on the premise that the government (and not the individual, corporations, or the local community) has the responsibility for the well being of its citizens, by ensuring that a minimum standard of living is within everyone's reach. This commitment is translated into provision of universal and free education, universal medical care, insurance against disability, sickness, and unemployment, family allowances for income supplement, and old age pensions.

...a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.

I ask again:
Since you have a plenary opposition to the legislation of morality, you then oppose the welfare state -- right?
 
Leftist Protozoa said:
You say that like there's something wrong with it.

Sadly, Obama is not a Socialist. I wish he was, but he is not.
Click to expand...
If it worked anywhere then maybe I'd have Hope for the Change he's about to bring.

There is something wrong with it... it's never worked anywhere it's been tried. It's caused all manner of mayhem and hardship.

Have you ever lived in a Communist country? During or after the Commi scum had devastated the country?

Obama's a socialist like many of the left in congress... just listen to his words, and check out his voting record.

Government is his pack mule and he's gonna ride it hard.

Let's say he's the anti-Reagan.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So.......I have to have my ability to obtain and accumulate property(money) hindered on behalf of someone I will probably never meet because it is for my own good? Or I have to understand that my charitable donations are less effective than government beauracracies? Again, no one is constitutionally required to give a **** about society, at least none of the constitutional and founding writings I've ever read. BTW, conservatives typically give more to charity, we just don't like the nanny state forcing people to "share" by over taxing them, that's not charity, that's theft.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. All you give a **** about is obtaining a accumulating money to buy stuff. You cry that the government is taking money from you to help someone else. I see no charity or empathy in your post. This is why these systems were put in place. To be humane to your fellow man. To raise the level of humanity. The rising tide lifts all boats. Not everyone on welfare is a lazy ass who just wants to bask in the sun and collect a check from your taxes.

There is no question that government is inefficient and wasteful. That is an issue separate from being humane to your fellow man. As I said, most conservatives have NRS.
 
Goobieman said:
Like... banning abortion?
Marriage defined as man-woman?

Oh, you didn't mean -those- things. Hmm.

And so, we're back to it being Ipretty clear that forcing morality on others is unacceptable only when you disagree with the morality being forced.
Click to expand...
No, those things are not progressive and stifle the progress of our society.

Morality. I don't base my world view or morality on xianty because xianity is quite immoral. Society sets it's own morals like it or not and religion follows along and accepts those morals once they see the scale tipping in that direction.

Opposition to abortion is a subject that xianity has held fast to and only marginally suffered because of that stance.

Gay marriage will come around too just like interracial marriage. One day in the future xians will claim that it was the xians that fought for gay rights just like they now claim to have been the catalyst for ending slavery and then segregation.
 
zimmer said:
He is the one guy who actually got BHO to reveal what he was about.

A socialist with redistribution on his mind.

Joe stood there and listened, then countered, and at the very end had BHO drop the nugget that gave us insight to who Obama is. A socialist with redistribution of wealth as his game plan.

Joe did what the press didn't want to do... in 5:27.

We need more Joe's asking questions... the press largely having become cheerleaders for BHO, and abrogating their role as reporters in the process.

Welcome Joe.

He should have moderated at least one debate.
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't understand socialism, socialists, redistribution of wealth, Obama's ideas on this and probably a lot more. It's ignorance plain and simple. Go ahead and praise Joe the not so much a plumber for making up a scenario and presenting it as a dilemma that he faced. In otherwards he lied when he could have just asked a question. This exposes Joe the not so much a plumbers morality. He gets bad press for being deceitful and then he goes on to do interviews and exposes his ignorance to the entire country. Of course the sheeple on the right don't care about all that they onyl care that Obama said "...spread the wealth around". Not understanding what that means (because Faux news certainly won't explain it properly) and then not listening to the explanation afterwords shows that people like you only care about your opinion and not the truth. You want Obama to be a whacko leftwing commie socialist so if you can squeeze any bit of that from anything he or anyone who knows him then you're satisfied that you were right about him. :roll:
 
Slippery Slope said:
My point exactly. All you give a **** about is obtaining a accumulating money to buy stuff. You cry that the government is taking money from you to help someone else. I see no charity or empathy in your post. This is why these systems were put in place. To be humane to your fellow man. To raise the level of humanity. The rising tide lifts all boats. Not everyone on welfare is a lazy ass who just wants to bask in the sun and collect a check from your taxes.

There is no question that government is inefficient and wasteful. That is an issue separate from being humane to your fellow man. As I said, most conservatives have NRS.
Click to expand...
It's a matter of private property.
 
Goobieman said:
As if you're capable...

The Welfare state is...
....a political system based on the premise that the government (and not the individual, corporations, or the local community) has the responsibility for the well being of its citizens, by ensuring that a minimum standard of living is within everyone's reach. This commitment is translated into provision of universal and free education, universal medical care, insurance against disability, sickness, and unemployment, family allowances for income supplement, and old age pensions.

...a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.

I ask again:
Since you have a plenary opposition to the legislation of morality, you then oppose the welfare state -- right?
Click to expand...
No, I do not have a plenary (good word BTW) opposition to morality. I oppose society being stifled by antiquated religious morality.

So please tell me what is so bad about the welfare state? All of those things sound like a place I would like to live but I gather you would rather live in an ologarchy or corporatocracy where, unless you are smart enough or privileged enough, you find yourself at the bottom of the class divide.

Oh and my apologies, I mistakenly put you in the same cast as our "one liner participants" who always have something smart assed to say but nothing substantive to add to the discussion. My bad.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
If it worked anywhere then maybe I'd have Hope for the Change he's about to bring.

There is something wrong with it... it's never worked anywhere it's been tried. It's caused all manner of mayhem and hardship.

Have you ever lived in a Communist country? During or after the Commi scum had devastated the country?

Obama's a socialist like many of the left in congress... just listen to his words, and check out his voting record.

Government is his pack mule and he's gonna ride it hard.

Let's say he's the anti-Reagan.
Click to expand...

Thank god (I know) that he's the anti-reagan...

You really do need to educate yourself on the difference between communism and socialism.
 
American said:
It's a matter of private property.
Click to expand...
Maybe we as humans would be better off with a little less materialism and a little more charity? Why do you think its necessary for one person, who builds the roads your company uses to make its profits, should not have a decent standard of living while the guy who uses the road has more than he'll ever need? Couldn't he do with a little less so that the laborer has a little more? How horrible it must be to only have 400 million in assets instead of 500 million so that joe the plumber can make 40k instead of 30k?
 
Slippery Slope said:
My point exactly. All you give a **** about is obtaining a accumulating money to buy stuff.
Click to expand...
You don't have a point, you merely want to call people who want to make choices with their earinings greedy for not wanting government to steal from them to redistribute to people who won't earn a living.
You cry that the government is taking money from you to help someone else. I see no charity or empathy in your post.
Click to expand...
I don't care what you see in my post, I give to charitable causes constantly, many times at a sacrifice to a night out, I give more than money, I give time as well, so your opinion and the government's opinion of where my money should go....past what is constituitional is none of your business.
This is why these systems were put in place. To be humane to your fellow man.
Click to expand...
You really need to read more history, start with Huey P. Long, there was no "charity", rather they were populist methods of ensuring votes to the campaigns.
To raise the level of humanity. The rising tide lifts all boats. Not everyone on welfare is a lazy ass who just wants to bask in the sun and collect a check from your taxes.
Click to expand...
Ironically, people will start losing jobs when taxes go up, so more people will need welfare, sounds more like a sinking ship than a rising tide. You want people's lives to improve, stop taking from those who hire, hint, they aren't the middle class or poor.
There is no question that government is inefficient and wasteful. That is an issue separate from being humane to your fellow man. As I said, most conservatives have NRS.
Click to expand...
So let private charities and citizens do the job, they are better at it.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
Maybe we as humans would be better off with a little less materialism and a little more charity?
Click to expand...
Not your call, or the governments, forcing people to part with what they have legally and morally earned is theft.
Why do you think its necessary for one person, who builds the roads your company uses to make its profits, should not have a decent standard of living while the guy who uses the road has more than he'll ever need?
Click to expand...
That's the contract signed, and the choices made lead up to that.
Couldn't he do with a little less so that the laborer has a little more?
Click to expand...
Not your call.
How horrible it must be to only have 400 million in assets instead of 500 million so that joe the plumber can make 40k instead of 30k?
Click to expand...
Again, not your call.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
Maybe we as humans would be better off with a little less materialism and a little more charity? Why do you think its necessary for one person, who builds the roads your company uses to make its profits, should not have a decent standard of living while the guy who uses the road has more than he'll ever need? Couldn't he do with a little less so that the laborer has a little more? How horrible it must be to only have 400 million in assets instead of 500 million so that joe the plumber can make 40k instead of 30k?
Click to expand...
Who says I don't think they deserve a decent standard of living? That's not the point at all, but merely a liberal heart-string pulling talking point. Why do you feel that babies shouldn't live? I don't believe in socialism/communism, and neither should you. Read the actual account of the Piligrims in their first year.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Maybe we as humans would be better off with a little less materialism and a little more charity?
Click to expand...

This would be great if it were not taken under threat of force by the government.

Slippery Slope said:
Why do you think its necessary for one person, who builds the roads your company uses to make its profits, should not have a decent standard of living while the guy who uses the road has more than he'll ever need?
Click to expand...

Each person earns according to his ability. I don't remember anything in the Constitution about a "right" to never be poor.

In a free society it is not anyones call to make. Charity should be voluntary and not forced, otherwise it is no longer charity.

Slippery Slope said:
Couldn't he do with a little less so that the laborer has a little more? How horrible it must be to only have 400 million in assets instead of 500 million so that joe the plumber can make 40k instead of 30k?
Click to expand...

It is his right to make that call, not the governments.

It is obvious you care little for freedom of choice and would rather see forced wealth distribution like early Communist Russia etc.
 
Obviously you don't understand socialism, socialists, redistribution of wealth, Obama's ideas on this and probably a lot more. It's ignorance plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Having lived in socialist Utopian countries like Germany, Finland and Sweden... Former east Germany and Poland after The Wall came down... Mexico and Kanuckistan... I know socialism all too well. I don't need a Kool-Aid consumer to tell me about socialism. I've seen its damage first hand on many fronts and degrees.

Obama is a socialist. He believes in government. "Spreading the wealth around" for him does not mean the private sector creating opportunity, it means government coercion, intrusion, penalization (for success), and the iron hand of government redistributing said wealth.


In otherwards he lied when he could have just asked a question.
Click to expand...
LOL... he asks a question that gets Obama to reveal who he is, and typical of a socialist... he attacks the messenger. Obama left further quotes bad mouthing Joe, and McCain's use of him. What's that tell ya?

Let's give you a Gold Star and paste it on your forehead. You're a real trooper for the cause.

You want Obama to be a whacko leftwing commie socialist so if you can squeeze any bit of that from anything he or anyone who knows him then you're satisfied that you were right about him. :roll:
Click to expand...
Look... Obama revealed who he is with three UNSCRIPTED MOMENTS:

1. Clinging to their guns and religion.
2. Spread the wealth around.
3. We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK

Only one moment was required, and Joe the Plumber scored the money quote.

To watch the vultures in the press dig into Joe was a spectacle. Incredible really. Finally someone does the job the press should be doing and HE GETS INVESTIGATED!

Go figure.

Obama... An American radical. Socialist.
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
No, I do not have a plenary (good word BTW) opposition to morality. I oppose society being stifled by antiquated religious morality.
Click to expand...
That's not what you said.
Your statement of opposition to the legislation of mroality had no qualifications.

Given that, why do you not oppose the Welfare State?

So please tell me what is so bad about the welfare state?
Click to expand...
It is based on the moral position that "it is the right thing to do" -- indeed, it is based on the Christian moral value of Charity. If you oppose the legislation of morality, as you do, you must then oppose said welfare state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom