|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted November 04, 2010 09:45 PM |
|
|
The point is however that people may not want the government to "steal" their money so that they can make another useless Zumwalt that does excatly the same things 20x cheaper Arleigh Burkes do.
If you're not into navy, let me explain: Zumwalt is a "stealth" destroyer. it's as stealth as everything else that big on the sea: you can pretty much track it down with Google Earth the moment it leaves the dock, which makes "stealth" worth billions of dolars a sad mockery. It's you ordinary Americans who paid for this BS, sadly.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 10:56 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:38, 14 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
What's not right to you, Elodin?
A) Government taking money from people's pocket (stealing) in general.
B) Government taking money from people's pocket (stealing), but only when the money is meant to be spent on helping people. Spending it on army justifies stealing.
Why exactly government theft for tanks fine and accepted, and goverment's theft for helping people bad and communistic?
You are a wierd person and I'd really want to know what logic is behind all of that.
I find nothing wierd about no wanting my money to be stolen by the government and given to someone else. In fact I find it wierd that some people think that such an action is ok.
All taxation is not theft. Taxation in the US that is for legitimate purposes (as spelled out in the Constitution) is legitimate taxation. Military spending is a legitimate expense spelled out in the Constitution.
Taxation for the purposes of wealth distribution is not Constitutional and is theft. In fact, the founding fathers specificly stated that welfare is not Constitutional. It is illegal and immoral for the government to take money from one person for the purpose of tranfering that money to someone else.
On of the reasons I think Marxism is wierd is that it does support the government taking by force what one person owns to transfer the property to another person. It is unfortunate that children in Marxist nations undergo intense brainwashing that makes them not question such a radical ideology.
Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison 1794
The dem create class warefare and try to buy votes with stolen money. They promise those who don't want to work hard to get ahead that the government will steal money from "the rich" and give it to "the less fortunate" if only they will vote for the dimwitcrats.
Quote:
And what evidence do you have that O'Donnell actually did turn to Christ? Because she claims so? Gee, great evidence. You're awfully quick to trust people that claim what you want to hear, Elodin. A very bad trait for anyone who's voting. It's pretty easy for a politic to lie to appease the majority.
No, I'm not at all "awfully quick to trust people that claim what I want to hear." Obama claims to be a Christian but I see no matching fruit. Indeed, I see fruit that does not grow on a "Christian tree." Obama is the consumate lying politician of your example.
Oh, by the way, I am not a Republican. I am an independant conservative.
Quote:
Or if you don't want to play global politics and care for overpopulation: Having more kids that you can afford is bad. Most people can "afford" 1-2 kids at most with the average payment.
Nah, that is pure bull. My parents were very poor and raised four kids so your premise that most people can only "afford" 1-2 kids is false.
What is unethical is calling sex using condoms "safe." It is a lie to say you can't get pregnant or get AIDS or an STD if you use a condom. The risks are lower, yes. But the risk is still there.
Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage is the true "safe sex."
Quote:
However with no contraception "since it's good to have more people!" would mean an average family would have like 10 kids or so.
Once again, your statments lacks credibility. In 1890 when condoms were not around the average household size was 4.93.
Clicky
Now perhaps we could return to the topic of the thread, the victorious tea party.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 11:28 PM |
|
|
Tea party victory?
There is no such thing as a Tea Party (upper case). There is no such thing as a Tea Party candidate. The tea parties were EVENTS. Due to the widespread popularity of those events certain people attached their names to it just for marketing purposes. By doing so they seriously hurt the movement. I call that a failure, not a victory. I call it a failure due to outside interference by a bunch of fanatics, who by attaching their names to it also attached the same negative stigma normally associated with those people.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 12:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage is the true "safe sex."
Nope, you can get an STD through intercourse with your spouse even if both of you have been "faithful".
There is no "safe sex". There are only varying degrees of "safe".
Back to your regularly schedule program....
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 12:50 AM |
|
|
*misses the good ol' days when you could be a sinner without having to worry about God's punishment AIDS*
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 01:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Taxation in the US that is for legitimate purposes (as spelled out in the Constitution) is legitimate taxation.
So if I understand right, if it is said in a centuries old book, then, it must certainly be the absolute truth. 
can you think for yourself, elodin, and not through the bible or the constitution?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tea party victory?
There is no such thing as a Tea Party (upper case). There is no such thing as a Tea Party candidate.
Sure there were taa party candidates. Some tea party candidates knocked off some long time Republican politicians in the primaries and went on to win the general election.
The tea party has had a tremendous impact on politics and there is more to come.
Quote:
Quote:
Taxation in the US that is for legitimate purposes (as spelled out in the Constitution) is legitimate taxation.
So if I understand right, if it is said in a centuries old book, then, it must certainly be the absolute truth.
can you think for yourself, elodin, and not through the bible or the constitution?
Yes, I can think for myself. However, your knowledge of the US legal system is somewhat lacking.
In the US the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. The Constitution says what Congress is allowed to appropriate money for and says that Congress can only appropriate money for what is specificly spelled out, the "enumerated powers." Military spending is one of the things congress can do. Welfare spending is one thing congress can't legally do.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 03:37 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 03:39, 05 Nov 2010.
|
But you still haven't proven any ability to think for yourself, Elodin, until you give a reason other than the Constitution saying so. Why on Earth would it be alright to tax people for war research (especially considering any enemy you fought after WW2 was technologically some 30 years behind you at best), and so wrong to introduce public healthcare? Is it because impoverished people, unlike the army, don't kill other people on the other side of the planet and convince you it's for your own good?
Hell, if I had to choose between having to pay a small part of the healthcare bills of some guy who can't afford it himself, and funding a nuclear test or the Iraq war effort, I know what'd be the more Christian choice.
I'm not saying your founding fathers' constitution's evil, I actually personally think it was quite remarkable for its time, I'm saying you need to learn to regard it for what it is, a historical, not a bloody religious document. There are reasons for everything that was written in it - you just need to at least TRY to use that Power Of Free Thinking of yours and discover those reasons to see which of them still apply and which just can't.
I mean, what would happen if every nation on the planet stuck to following its first written lawbook as the sole basis of its existence for all eternity? Ours was great for its time too, but it was written in the 14th century, goddamnit (well we'd probably be better off if we re-implemented it now, but still). It made sense at the time, but time moves on, and so do we - or at least we're trying.
But what would I know, I'm just one of those brainwashed commies bombed by your tax money.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 03:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
However, your knowledge of the US legal system is somewhat lacking.
where did I say I had any knowledge about that?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 04:08 AM |
|
|
DF:
Quote:
stealing is bad, right?
As it turns out, not always. If the government steals to fund its legitimate functions, then it's okay.
Also, your example with the minimum wage is completely wrong. You have high unemployment - if you abolished the minimum wage, it'd be lower. Wages are generally equal to the marginal productivity of labour, so if a worker isn't productive enough to justify the pay, then they're not going to be paid that. The minimum wage has nothing to do with that - just that if the marginal productivity of labour is below it, it stops the would-be employee and employer from making a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 04:09 AM |
|
|
What an incredible stupid system that puts military before the people's wellfare.
Honestly, I can't grasp that at all. That seems completly alien and unthinkable to put aside wellfare.
I guess I might live in a very socialist country after all. 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 04:22 AM |
|
|
Actually in absolute spending the US has the largest social welfare system in the world. And per capita is still one of the largest. The US is most definitely a welfare state.
The problem is that's it's freaking broken. It doesn't look out for the welfare of the people, it enslaves them. It doesn't help people, it hurts them. It doesn't make less poor people, it makes more. It doesn't give people motivation to better themselves, it demotivates them. It doesn't give them reason to educate themselves, it gives them reason to ignore education.
If a social program was actually effective then people wouldn't be so opposed to it. But it not only isn't effective, it does the opposite of what it's supposed to do. It's nothing more than another example of a government that is incapable of doing anything effectively and cost efficiently.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 04:54 AM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 05:13, 05 Nov 2010.
|
So you're saying the system in the US needs more success stories and fewer bloodsuckers?
Better break out the accountants and law enforcement officers.
Speaking of which, for Military spending, the Constitution puts a lot more focus on national defense than international offense.
Section 8
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Military is next to the misleading "General welfare". Which get misconstrued by the eyes of the beholder.
Quote:
Also under the power of Congress these are what is listed as far as defense:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
These provisions seem to maintain that national defense is about repelling invasion and securing the interior of the nation. Not invading other countries that have not declared war on the United States. It does not strictly say that the United States is allowed to invade other nations or that it cannot. Much like "General Welfare" is it misconstrued by the eyes of the Beholder.
Regardless. My hope is that the Tea Party will not disband once the Republicons fully regain power as they eventually will. Many of the original Tea Party members were the exact same people that were the original anti-war members before the Demonrats took it over.
Something else interesting:
Section 10:
Quote:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 07:14 AM |
|
|
Actually they put military before people's wellfare because the USA's economy has been surviving in the past decades on the loot of war ( like oil). Saddam was good when he served USA's purpose back in the eighties and was trained by the states to be Iran's main competitor. 30 years later they take him down, which was the right thing to do but for a very wrong reason. He wasn't brought down because of the atrocities he has commited like some naive beings might think but because the little soldier of Usa from back in the 80's refused to take orders and also that there is a lot of free oil there.
Also some American soldiers got the opportunity to sodomise some prisoners which they weren't able to do since the Gulf War.
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 07:27 AM |
|
|
If you actually believe that nonsense then you have no concept of reality whatsoever.
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 07:39 AM |
|
|
LoL, indeed. Me or you I wonder?
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 09:34 AM |
|
|
I agree with you on the welfare bit Bin. I have the same attitude, from what I've heard about it.
But could you explain what bit did Watcher get wrong and why? From a perspective as neutral as possible.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 11:38 AM |
|
|
So again we come to a conclusion that stealing for tanks is good, but stealing for healthcare is bad.
Oh well. As you see absolutely nothing wrong about it Elodin, I don't see there is indeed a point of continuing the discussion. Bak pretty much summed up my thoughts: a theft for a bad thing (buying more mass destruction weapons is BAD whether you believe your global cowboy US propaganda or not...) = good, a theft for a good thing (public healthcare so your child won't die since you can't afford a very costly operation and some can be really as expensive as a good car) = evil, commie, crime. I am at complete loss of words, but well, I won't try to convince you out of your twisted morals, pointless.
Quote:
It is the Marxist mind that is "not right" and "wierd", not me. But I understang that people in Marxist natinos undergo intense brainwashing as youngsters to that is somewhat understandable.
No offense, but you talking about brainwashing Elodin is somewhat funny.
Quote:
It is illegal and immoral for the government to take money from one person for the purpose of tranfering that money to someone else.
Someone else: an officer wanting a new Abrams tanks in his division.
You are talking paradoxes, Elodin. Theft is theft, Illegal and immoral despite it funds food or tanks. I think that when it funds tanks, it's even worse. Cause tanks will do absolutely no good at this world. A commie-fed kid may grow up to become a great doctor and save your kid's life one day. Think about it. Just no more constitution BS, it's just a piece of paper that means nothing to me or anything outside America.
Quote:
Nah, that is pure bull. My parents were very poor and raised four kids so your premise that most people can only "afford" 1-2 kids is false.
Nah, it's pure bull people can't win at lottery, I just did = everybody can.
Ever heard of the difference between "individual cases" and "majority" ?
Besides, I was not talking about 4 kids. I was talking about 10 and more.
Quote:
Once again, your statments lacks credibility. In 1890 when condoms were not around the average household size was 4.93.
Aww, my dear Elodin, please educate yourself Condoms were used by humanity since the ancient times. Just because they weren't made of latex doesn't mean there were none. There were also "irigators". (dunno the spelling). Not very efficient, but they were a contraception method anyway.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 12:13 PM |
|
|
Totally derailing this thread for a good reason.
Quote:
In 1890 the average household size was 4.93.
Just so you know, household size does not tell how many kids they had, it tells how many survived.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 12:29 PM |
|
|
I don't get how people think when they get like 10 kids. When I am thinking about the future, I am thinking that perhaps if I get children I should have 2, maybe 3 to help reduce the number of humans in the world. It take resposinbility.
And I think it is very not-moral to get children if you do not have a job and a stable economy. But it is also not nice to get kids if you work to much. Maybe focus on career first, get rich and then get children. xD
Poor people who get 10 kids have themselves to blame.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
