• 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!

For liberal women only

How did you vote

  • married or in long term relationship voted obama

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • single and voted obama

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • lesbian but in long term relationship voted obama

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • single and lib but voted Romney

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
Um......no............ Are you crying "flame bait" and "hijack" because you're uncomfortable with answering any question that makes you think a little deeper about your political viewpoint?
Lets recap shall we?.....

I asked you...."if you know of a better protection for privacy and individual rights than the constitution or the government, then lets hear it."

Your response was another question: "Well, why don't we just go full Socialism then? After all, we can trust the government to protect us, right?"

Unfortunately, you failed to answer what you would replace the protection of our rights or the constitution with.

And my second question, "what would you prefer, a government that protects everyone's rights or only those with lots of money?"

Your answer was another question: "As in, full Socialism is a "government that protects everyone's rights"?

So really the only deep thinking your answers have inspired is that you think the Constitution is nothing but pure socialism and you'd replace it with a totaltiarian, oligarichy, authoritarian, facist, dictatorshisp that favors the rich.
 
I have no reason to respond to your argument. In order for it to justify a response from me it would have to somehow attempt to warrant government action.
Good, then don't respond....I'm sure I won't miss a thing if you don't.
 
So really the only deep thinking your answers have inspired is that you think the Constitution is nothing but pure socialism and you'd replace it with a totaltiarian, oligarichy, authoritarian, facist, dictatorshisp that favors the rich.

Um, no again. I love how you're responding to what you want me to say instead of what I'm actually saying.

Let's recap with actual quotes so it's easier to read. Here's how it began:

If you want to look at it that way then everything in life can be an intrusion into one's private life. But the government is the only legal protection we have in preventing private entities from invading our private lives and using our private information against us. So if you know of a better protection for privacy and individual rights than the constitution or the government, then lets hear it.

Well, why don't we just go full Socialism then? After all, we can trust the government to protect us, right?

To which you directly replied:

Well what would you prefer, a government that protects everyone's rights or only those with lots of money?

That was a direct reply to my question about Socialism. So, obviously, I had to ask this question to clarify what you actually believed "a government that protects everyone's rights" was:

As in, full Socialism is a "government that protects everyone's rights"?

And all you could come up with was...

Are you invoking "socialism" to flame bait me, Josie? Sure looks like it.

LOL!

Your reply to me asking if we should go "full Socialism" was "Well, do you want everyone's rights protected or not?" and then...

So really the only deep thinking your answers have inspired is that you think the Constitution is nothing but pure socialism and you'd replace it with a totaltiarian, oligarichy, authoritarian, facist, dictatorshisp that favors the rich.

What YOU implied was that a government that protects everyone's rights was Socialism. The Constitution DOES protect everyone's rights (not just the rich), therefore, you believe the Constitution is a Socialist document.

I am a libertarian so your idea that I want a massive, Fascistic government is laughable.
 
Um, no again. I love how you're responding to what you want me to say instead of what I'm actually saying.

Let's recap with actual quotes so it's easier to read. Here's how it began:

To which you directly replied:

That was a direct reply to my question about Socialism. So, obviously, I had to ask this question to clarify what you actually believed "a government that protects everyone's rights" was:

And all you could come up with was...

LOL!

Your reply to me asking if we should go "full Socialism" was "Well, do you want everyone's rights protected or not?" and then...

What YOU implied was that a government that protects everyone's rights was Socialism. The Constitution DOES protect everyone's rights (not just the rich), therefore, you believe the Constitution is a Socialist document.

I am a libertarian so your idea that I want a massive, Fascistic government is laughable.

All that and you still haven't answered the one question that I asked you in the first place......

"....if you know of a better protection for privacy and individual rights than the constitution or the government, then lets hear it."

I didn't bring up socialism, you did, josie. So I'm going to ask you once again and as clear and as simple as I possibly can....

What do you have, or propose, or suggest, that would protect everyone's individual rights and specifically the right to privacy better than the Constitution, the BoR and the Government that enforces it?
 
"....if you know of a better protection for privacy and individual rights than the constitution or the government, then lets hear it."

The job of the federal government is to protect our privacy and individual rights. That doesn't mean they are to run every aspect of our lives. I understand that YOU think that would be a great thing, but I certainly don't.

I didn't bring up socialism, you did, josie.

Sure you did. It's what you want, you just won't call it that because it's some sort of "Bogeyman" word to you.
 
The job of the federal government is to protect our privacy and individual rights.
See, now that wasn't so hard to admit, now was it? Maybe I should put your quote in my sig so you don't forget it. lol

That doesn't mean they are to run every aspect of our lives.
Thats true, too.

I understand that YOU think that would be a great thing, but I certainly don't.
For a so called Libertarian you sure like to tell people what they think. So why don't you just admit that you like to tell them what to do in their private lives, too?

Sure you did. It's what you want, you just won't call it that because it's some sort of "Bogeyman" word to you.
Unlike you, I know what I said and what I think and no one is going to tell me otherwise, least of all you.
 
So why don't you just admit that you like to tell them what to do in their private lives, too?

I'm sorry, what? Whatever gave you that idea?
 
I'm sorry, what? Whatever gave you that idea?

When you first brought up birth control and then tried to tell me what I think and tried to put words in my mouth.
 
When you first brought up birth control and then tried to tell me what I think and tried to put words in my mouth.

So because I "put words in your mouth" I like to tell people what to do in their private lives? How did that even make sense in your head?
 
Good, then don't respond....I'm sure I won't miss a thing if you don't.

Believe me you do not want to me humor your argument as serious. The argument that price of a good would somehow warrant the government acting to resolve that problem or to worse take over the distribution of that good is ludicrous and from understanding the only way you could somehow argue such a thing is to use an emotional argument geared towards some kind of idea of social justice. Of course, justice has nothing to do with your idea at all, but then, that is usually the way it goes with such ideas.
 
So because I "put words in your mouth" I like to tell people what to do in their private lives? How did that even make sense in your head?
I give up Josie. Your circular reasoning and short memory is getting the best of me and I really don't have much more to say to you.
 
I give up Josie. Your circular reasoning and short memory is getting the best of me and I really don't have much more to say to you.

LOL! In other words, you realize that what you said makes zero sense so you've decided to stop talking. Good idea. :)
 
LOL! In other words, you realize that what you said makes zero sense so you've decided to stop talking. Good idea. :)
There you go again telling me what I think. :roll:
 
Believe me you do not want to me humor your argument as serious. The argument that price of a good would somehow warrant the government acting to resolve that problem or to worse take over the distribution of that good is ludicrous and from understanding the only way you could somehow argue such a thing is to use an emotional argument geared towards some kind of idea of social justice. Of course, justice has nothing to do with your idea at all, but then, that is usually the way it goes with such ideas.
After telling me you're not going to take me seriously, do you really expect me to take you seriously? I don't think so...but thanks for the laugh. LOL
 
After telling me you're not going to take me seriously, do you really expect me to take you seriously? I don't think so...but thanks for the laugh. LOL

It doesn't matter. Enjoy believing that social justice is actually justice though.
 
It doesn't matter. Enjoy believing that social justice is actually justice though.
You really are hoot, Henrin. lol

It doesn't matter what you expect. Enjoy believing that social justice is actually justice though.
Social justice? Seriously, Henrin I don't know why you bother trying to have a discussion with anyone let alone me when you can have a discussion and tell yourself of what others believe all by yourself.
 
You really are hoot, Henrin. lol

Social justice? Seriously, Henrin I don't know why you bother trying to have a discussion with anyone let alone me when you can have a discussion and tell yourself of what others believe all by yourself.

I already know what you believe. I'm just here have fun with your denial of it is all.
 
I already know what you believe. I'm just here have fun with your denial of it is all.
Really, and what is it I'm supposed to have denied? Oh yeah, I guess it must been that I denied denying what I didn't deny before I denied it..or was it after? Oh nevermind, I"m sure you'll tell me after you've finished telling me what I believe and then rebutting it and claiming victory without a word from me.
 
Really, and what is it I'm supposed to have denied? Oh yeah, I guess it must been that I denied denying what I didn't deny before I denied it..or was it after? Oh nevermind, I"m sure you'll tell me after you've finished telling me what I believe and then rebutting it and claiming victory without a word from me.

I doubt many people thought they wouldn't be able to afford health care unless they bought health insurance, either...but here we are....at the mercy of private insurance companies with little or no consumer protection from being denied coverage.

We both know where that leads and we both know what is behind it.
 
We both know where that leads and we both know what is behind it.
Do "we"?


I doubt many people ever thought the government would at some point give themselves the authority to know what people are doing towards their health years ago and yet that is exactly what they know today.

So what is it exactly that you think the government knows?
 
Yes. We both know the only place it leads is to social justice hogwash.
Well, I don't recall saying anything about "social justice" the entire time I've been here at DP. So what is it about social justice that "we both know" that only you seem to know?

I already told you.
Did you? I must have missed it.

The argument that price of a good would somehow warrant the government acting to resolve that problem or to worse take over the distribution of that good is ludicrous and from understanding the only way you could somehow argue such a thing is to use an emotional argument geared towards some kind of idea of social justice. Of course, justice has nothing to do with your idea at all, but then, that is usually the way it goes with such ideas.

Are you trying to talk about health care? I don't understand your argument about social justice. Isn't social justice the core of Jesus's teachings in the Bible and taught in almost every Christian church in the country? But you make it sound like a dirty word. Is it the word "social" that bothers you? No, it appears to be the word "justice". Sorry, but I don't know wtf you're talking about so I guess that means "we both" don't know either.
 
Well, I don't recall saying anything about "social justice" the entire time I've been here at DP. So what is it about social justice that "we both know" that only you seem to know?

You were referring to it, even if you did so inadvertently.

Did you? I must have missed it.

Yes, I did.

Are you trying to talk about health care? I don't understand your argument about social justice. Isn't social justice the core of Jesus's teachings in the Bible and taught in almost every Christian church in the country?

No, Social justice has nothing to do with Jesus.

Is it the word "social" that bothers you? No, it appears to be the word "justice". Sorry, but I don't know wtf you're talking about so I guess that means "we both" don't know either.

I doubt many people thought they wouldn't be able to afford health care unless they bought health insurance, either...but here we are....at the mercy of private insurance companies with little or no consumer protection from being denied coverage.

Lets see when the government ended the practice of being denied coverage due to a pre-existing conditions one the underlining themes laid out by its supporters was that it was unfair that these people were denied due to sickness. Of course, what is the objective of forcing insurance companies to cover these individuals? Social justice. It's always about equality, fairness, or what people need or in some cases want. If people need food the government should help those in need to obtain it. If people need housing the government should house those individuals or help them towards buying a home. If people need healthcare/insurance and someone is denying them access those people should be forced to comply and if its just too expensive the government should assume control over it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom