• 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!

Would You Eradicate All Persons Who Don't Subscribe To Your Political Philosophy?

Would Like To See People With Opposing Political Philosophies Disappear Forever

  • Total voters
    56
Removable Mind said:
The title says it pretty much.

I think that there is enough political hatred among many of our great citizens of the U.S. who would, if they could, without consequences, be willing to remove, from our planet, all persons who oppose their respective political ideologies, philosophies, or party affiliation.

I think that many believe that reducing our country's political ideologies down to his or her own...would totally eliminate all of our political problems.

What say ye?
Click to expand...

What? Get rid of all the liberals? Who would I poke fun at if I got rid of all the liberals?
 
RamFel said:
What? Get rid of all the liberals? Who would I poke fun at if I got rid of all the liberals?
Click to expand...

According to some of your fellow Conservatives who voted in this poll...they would indeed eradicate EVERYBODY who disagree with their political ideologies. As far as I can tell, there were no Independents, Centralist, or Liberals who voted that way.

That's obviously not a representative vote for all Conservatives. I live in a fairly small semi-rural Conservative community on the outskirts of Austin. And I don't think that most would want to eradicate their opposing party/philosophies. Sure, there are probably a couple I believe that might. But they are indeed the exception but not the rule HERE. I can't say the same for other areas I've been around. I've heard a lot of vile comments.

Thanks for your comment.
 
Wake said:
You would stop at killing certain individuals?

What would you do if others came to fight you for killing the others? What if people knew your identity?

You see, I read a manga called Death Note. This only strengthens my belief.
Click to expand...

You posited absolute power.

As such, I have nothing to fear from those who might disagree with my decision.
 
Removable Mind said:
According to some of your fellow Conservatives who voted in this poll...they would indeed eradicate EVERYBODY who disagree with their political ideologies. As far as I can tell, there were no Independents, Centralist, or Liberals who voted that way.

That's obviously not a representative vote for all Conservatives. I live in a fairly small semi-rural Conservative community on the outskirts of Austin. And I don't think that most would want to eradicate their opposing party/philosophies. Sure, there are probably a couple I believe that might. But they are indeed the exception but not the rule HERE. I can't say the same for other areas I've been around. I've heard a lot of vile comments.

Thanks for your comment.
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe those who say they wouldn't do such acts with such power?

At a lower level, would you let any person command a tank through the city if they said they wouldn't hurt anyone?

People change with power. That is fact.
 
What if...? said:
You posited absolute power.

As such, I have nothing to fear from those who might disagree with my decision.
Click to expand...

It was merely a factual statement. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Below "absolute":

Great power corrupts greatly.
 
BentWingedAngel said:
Not always in a negative way. It depends on their level of consciousness.
Click to expand...

I think greater and greater power does lead to a change in a negative way. One can say power has an erosive affect on the person, much like hatred.

When one has great power...

...the person, the real person within, feels more comfortable about revealing itself.

I know people change for the worse when they feel they no longer have to fear consequences.
 
Wake said:
Do you actually believe those who say they wouldn't do such acts with such power?

At a lower level, would you let any person command a tank through the city if they said they wouldn't hurt anyone?

People change with power. That is fact.
Click to expand...

Wake...you'd better re-read my post. And in particular my opener for this thread.

My dire concern today is that so many people seem to be willing to totally eradicate people who don't believe like that do politically, socially, and within there specific religion. Those are really bad things to eradicate people over.

Over the past 30 or so years...It's my observation that people in general are becoming exponentially more divided and hold ill feelings toward people who don't subscribe to all of the aforementioned
 
Removable Mind said:
Wake...you'd better re-read my post. And in particular my opener for this thread.

My dire concern today is that so many people seem to be willing to totally eradicate people who don't believe like that do politically, socially, and within there specific religion. Those are really bad things to eradicate people over.

Over the past 30 or so years...It's my observation that people in general are becoming exponentially more divided and hold ill feelings toward people who don't subscribe to all of the aforementioned
Click to expand...

All of that is incorporated into my beliefs.

That does not negate the fact that power corrupts. Select uncorrupted people on this forum say they would not get rid of people; they cannot know for sure because they have not had such power.

That is what I take issue with. Power intoxicates like alcohol, addicts like nicotine.

It is the same as saying you won't become addicted if you smoke a few cigarettes per day for one week. They cannot know fore sure.

I daresay it is facetiousness.
 
Wake said:
It was merely a factual statement. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Below "absolute":

Great power corrupts greatly.
Click to expand...

I believe the quote is actually "tends to corrupt"
 
atrasicarius said:
You're still not getting it. There's about 4 people for every 1 job opening. No matter how hard people try, there will always be people who can't find work. You can't magically make jobs appear. So, if some people only look for 3 hours a day, do they deserve to be screwed over because they aren't looking 6 hours a day?
Click to expand...

Hours? I think of it in terms of number of applications, not number of hours.

By your standard doing 5 aps in 6 hours is better than my record 20 aps in 45 minutes.

At those rates, guess who finds the job first? But when the government is cutting you a check for nothing, why look for work at all?
 
Jerry said:
Hours? I think of it in terms of number of applications, not number of hours.

By your standard doing 5 aps in 6 hours is better than my record 20 aps in 45 minutes.

At those rates, guess who finds the job first? But when the government is cutting you a check for nothing, why look for work at all?
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. So, alright, do the people who only fill out 5 apps a day deserve to be screwed over because they aren't filling out 20 apps a day? Also, I don't necessarily support welfare. A better system would be a public works program. If every citizen could find a job if they wanted one, then there would be no excuse for propping up the ones who don't work.
 
atrasicarius said:
Nice dodge. So, alright, do the people who only fill out 5 apps a day deserve to be screwed over because they aren't filling out 20 apps a day? Also, I don't necessarily support welfare. A better system would be a public works program. If every citizen could find a job if they wanted one, then there would be no excuse for propping up the ones who don't work.
Click to expand...

The current standard for the SNAP program is 5 aps per week.

Per. Week.

If you can't even accomplish that, then yes you deserve to be screwed.

There are lots of great programs in place to help people find a job, but they don't want to because they're getting paid for nothing by big-bro.

Well, ok, not nothing...they're getting paid to keep the people who gave them those benefits in office. They are being paid for their vote, essentially. This is how democracies die. This is how our democracy will die. There is no avoiding it.
 
Removable Mind said:
According to some of your fellow Conservatives who voted in this poll...they would indeed eradicate EVERYBODY who disagree with their political ideologies. As far as I can tell, there were no Independents, Centralist, or Liberals who voted that way.

That's obviously not a representative vote for all Conservatives. I live in a fairly small semi-rural Conservative community on the outskirts of Austin. And I don't think that most would want to eradicate their opposing party/philosophies. Sure, there are probably a couple I believe that might. But they are indeed the exception but not the rule HERE. I can't say the same for other areas I've been around. I've heard a lot of vile comments.

Thanks for your comment.
Click to expand...

That's pretty sad. I don't hate liberals, per se because I have liberal friends, and I base friendship on likability, and character. They're basically good people.

Now, I have a real problem with the activist liberal. The die-hard, take no prisoners liberal who spreads lies and misinformation.

But the common every day co-worker, neighbor, or liberal friend...I have no problem with.
 
evanescence said:
What work? Even if people find work these days, it is mostly part time hours. Who can support a family on that? I know I couldn't.
Click to expand...

Uh that's right, part-time at the gas station and delivering pizzas. 60+ hours per week doing 2-3 part time jobs.

You have a family to support, so if that's what it takes, then do it.
 
Jerry said:
The current standard for the SNAP program is 5 aps per week.

Per. Week.

If you can't even accomplish that, then yes you deserve to be screwed.

There are lots of great programs in place to help people find a job, but they don't want to because they're getting paid for nothing by big-bro.

Well, ok, not nothing...they're getting paid to keep the people who gave them those benefits in office. They are being paid for their vote, essentially. This is how democracies die. This is how our democracy will die. There is no avoiding it.
Click to expand...

Jesus dude, you just don't want to be pinned down, do you? There are more unemployed people than there are job opportunities. That means a certain percentage of people will always be unemployed. What do you suggest we do about this problem?
 
Jerry said:
Uh that's right, part-time at the gas station and delivering pizzas. 60+ hours per week doing 2-3 part time jobs.

You have a family to support, so if that's what it takes, then do it.
Click to expand...

Even that wont cut it. There's the mortgage, utilities, groceries, doctor bills, gas, health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, disability insurance, home owner's insurance, et cetera. Neither my husband nor myself could work enough ****ty jobs to cover nearly $500 worth of insurance each month. Your answers are too simplistic.
 
atrasicarius said:
Jesus dude, you just don't want to be pinned down, do you? There are more unemployed people than there are job opportunities. That means a certain percentage of people will always be unemployed. What do you suggest we do about this problem?
Click to expand...

What problem?

Unemployment - Google public data

As you said, there will always be a % who are unemployed...because they are disabled, a student, under age, etc. This is not a problem. You want the unemployment rate at around 5%. The link I gave above shows that here in SD the problem is that we have to many jobs and not enough people.
 
Jerry said:
Uh that's right, part-time at the gas station and delivering pizzas. 60+ hours per week doing 2-3 part time jobs.

You have a family to support, so if that's what it takes, then do it.
Click to expand...

60hrs/week * $8 (some states like VT have higher minimum wages) * 4 = 1920 (-1920 * .23) 1478/mo (because most of the working poor don't claim dependents because they don't trust themselves to have the money to pay if they end up owing taxes). That's barely enough money to support 1 person in some states, let alone a family.
 
evanescence said:
Even that wont cut it. There's the mortgage, utilities, groceries, doctor bills, gas, health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, disability insurance, home owner's insurance, et cetera. Neither my husband nor myself could work enough ****ty jobs to cover nearly $500 worth of insurance each month. Your answers are too simplistic.
Click to expand...

Your situation is fact-dependent. Even if you had attempted to publish your personal financial details on this forum, which you did not and so shouldn't expect myself or anyone else to know about your life, I am not a licensed financial adviser.

So, enough attention whoring, this thread is not about you.

If your mortgage is more than a 15 year fixed, paying not more than 1/3rd of your income, with 20% down, you're paying to much. That's not the economy, that's you making a mistake.

If you do not own your car outright and thus have payments, that's not the economy, that's you making a mistake.

If you have a credit card, that's not the economy, that's you making a mistake.

You are not automatically blameless for your financial problems. You chose where to live and what to put into your home, which effect your insurances, so that cost is all on you. If you have to pay more for car insurance because you don't know how to drive, that's on you. If you didn't get a job while things were good which offered a benefits package, that's on you.

If your medical coverage is anything more that catastrophic-only (self-insuring everything else), you're paying to much. That's on you.

If you've eaten out even once in the last fiscal year, you loose all right to complain because you're spending money you should be putting to bills.
 
Jerry said:
If you do not own your car outright and thus have payments, that's not the economy, that's you making a mistake.
Click to expand...

Yea, that doesn't work. I had to get a car on a loan because no one in my family, nor myself, could save enough money to even buy a clunker and because I live in IN, I actually need a vehicle to get back and forth to work.
 
xpiher said:
60hrs/week * $8 (some states like VT have higher minimum wages) * 4 = 1920 (-1920 * .23) 1478/mo (because most of the working poor don't claim dependents because they don't trust themselves to have the money to pay if they end up owing taxes). That's barely enough money to support 1 person in some states, let alone a family.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

Jerry said:
So, enough attention whoring, this thread is not about you.
Click to expand...

Um, excuse me? You spend several pages whining about your ex and derailing a thread, and then have the audacity to write this crap. Bah. You're not worth my time.
 
xpiher said:
60hrs/week * $8 (some states like VT have higher minimum wages) * 4 = 1920 (-1920 * .23) 1478/mo (because most of the working poor don't claim dependents because they don't trust themselves to have the money to pay if they end up owing taxes). That's barely enough money to support 1 person in some states, let alone a family.
Click to expand...

I've don it with less, in NY, with a stay-at-home mom and 2 kids.

What you can't do is maintain your current lifestyle, but you can put food on the table and a roof over heads. You just have to bust your lifestyle down to your new income.

Or you can move to a state like mine where there's plenty of entry level jobs beginning at $10-12PrHr.
 
xpiher said:
60hrs/week * $8 (some states like VT have higher minimum wages) * 4 = 1920 (-1920 * .23) 1478/mo (because most of the working poor don't claim dependents because they don't trust themselves to have the money to pay if they end up owing taxes). That's barely enough money to support 1 person in some states, let alone a family.
Click to expand...

Well said. Of course Walmart's CEO only made 35 million last year so he needs his taxes lowered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom