The Democrat Thread

[Jake]

I think, if I'm giving Nuke the benefit of the doubt, the issue is not that he doesn't care about poverty and structural racism, etc. He just doesn't think the government is what fixes those things. I don't know if his solution is time, business, philanthropy, or what....but I think this is what he means.

[Reddy]

I think, if I'm giving Nuke the benefit of the doubt, the issue is not that he doesn't care about poverty and structural racism, etc. He just doesn't think the government is what fixes those things. I don't know if his solution is time, business, philanthropy, or what....but I think this is what he means.

 

that's great of you to clarify, but he still (as well as the rest of 'em) refuse to say what THEY think will help, if not the gov't.

[witesoxfan]

The other thing is that you don't want to leave them dependent upon the government, because that is when taxes become extraordinary. The Native American population is entirely dependent upon the federal government at this point in time, and that was due to the way that situation was handled. Help them get on their feet and give them the tools to succeed on their own.

[DukeNukeEm]

I think, if I'm giving Nuke the benefit of the doubt, the issue is not that he doesn't care about poverty and structural racism, etc. He just doesn't think the government is what fixes those things. I don't know if his solution is time, business, philanthropy, or what....but I think this is what he means.

I dont care about poverty. In 1950 I would've cared about structural racism but 63 years later much has been done to rectify that issue, so I dont really care about that either.

 

What I do care about is how much I pay in taxes and where that money goes. I've never heard a compelling argument from anyone as to why I should be forced at gunpoint to give my money to something I dont care about. Some say a little welfare in the short term saves us a lot of welfare in the long term, I dont care... I dont want to pay for any welfare for anyone (or anything, since corporate welfare has gotten so crazy too). I should not be forced to pay for someone else's kids' schools, or their food, or their rent or their anything. Some say there is a benefit to it (I see none) and if those people feel obligated to subsidize others and their life then they can give money on their own accord, but taking it from me is stealing.

 

That's where I stand on this.

Edited January 24, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[Reddy]

I dont care about poverty. In 1950 I would've cared about structural racism but 63 years later much has been done to rectify that issue, so I dont really care about that either.

 

What I do care about is how much I pay in taxes and where that money goes. I've never heard a compelling argument from anyone as to why I should be forced at gunpoint to give my money to something I dont care about. Some say a little welfare in the short term saves us a lot of welfare in the long term, I dont care... I dont want to pay for any welfare for anyone (or anything, since corporate welfare has gotten so crazy too). I should not be forced to pay for someone else's kids' schools, or their food, or their rent or their anything. Some say there is a benefit to it (I see none) and if those people feel obligated to subsidize others and their life then they can give money on their own accord, but taking it from me is stealing.

 

That's where I stand on this.

 

wow. you just have no clue. please join the states that wish to secede from the union, because you have no place in a democratic republic.

[DukeNukeEm]

The other thing is that you don't want to leave them dependent upon the government, because that is when taxes become extraordinary. The Native American population is entirely dependent upon the federal government at this point in time, and that was due to the way that situation was handled. Help them get on their feet and give them the tools to succeed on their own.

I'd have cut them off a long time ago. If you lose a war you lose what you were fighting for... that's the f***ing breaks. No more free land or government handouts.

[BigSqwert]

I dont care about poverty. In 1950 I would've cared about structural racism but 63 years later much has been done to rectify that issue, so I dont really care about that either.

 

What I do care about is how much I pay in taxes and where that money goes. I've never heard a compelling argument from anyone as to why I should be forced at gunpoint to give my money to something I dont care about. Some say a little welfare in the short term saves us a lot of welfare in the long term, I dont care... I dont want to pay for any welfare for anyone (or anything, since corporate welfare has gotten so crazy too). I should not be forced to pay for someone else's kids' schools, or their food, or their rent or their anything. Some say there is a benefit to it (I see none) and if those people feel obligated to subsidize others and their life then they can give money on their own accord, but taking it from me is stealing.

 

That's where I stand on this.

 

 

So you'll be building your own roads to get around, your own school to learn, your own power grid to provide your home energy, etc. And when something bad happens to you and you need the fire department, police, or an ambulance you'll just handle the matter on your own without assistance.

[DukeNukeEm]

So you'll be building your own roads to get around, your own school to learn, your own power grid to provide your home energy, etc. And when something bad happens to you and you need the fire department, police, or an ambulance you'll just handle the matter on your own without assistance.

Ahh see you took it a little too far.

 

Roads- Eh, I could live with them being privatized (and some are) if it could be done in a good-faith way. But we all know the government would endorse one company to run a monopoly and before long it would function the exact same way most state bureaucracies do. The Interstates' serve a defense purpose and when they aren't being used for that it'd be kinda stupid to not open them up for civil use.

 

Fire departments and police departments exist to protect property rights, which should be the one and only function of a state. The same way the army is there to deter foreigners who would take all your stuff, police are there to deter the same threat on a domestic level. Fires are also really good at taking away all your stuff, even if you aren't the one who started the fire. Hence, fire department.

 

Public schools are disasters, but they are a necessary evil. If it were my way they'd have state and federal funding cut off completely, all their pet unions decertified and people without kids or kids in private school wouldn't pay taxes for them. If you're stupid and want your kids to grow up stupid send them to public schools, your loss.

[StrangeSox]

The sole role of the state should be to enforce private property rights through violence?

[Steve9347]

I dont care about poverty. In 1950 I would've cared about structural racism but 63 years later much has been done to rectify that issue, so I dont really care about that either.

 

What I do care about is how much I pay in taxes and where that money goes. I've never heard a compelling argument from anyone as to why I should be forced at gunpoint to give my money to something I dont care about. Some say a little welfare in the short term saves us a lot of welfare in the long term, I dont care... I dont want to pay for any welfare for anyone (or anything, since corporate welfare has gotten so crazy too). I should not be forced to pay for someone else's kids' schools, or their food, or their rent or their anything. Some say there is a benefit to it (I see none) and if those people feel obligated to subsidize others and their life then they can give money on their own accord, but taking it from me is stealing.

 

That's where I stand on this.

YOU BUILT THAT

 

[Steve9347]

The sole role of the state should be to enforce private property rights through violence?

They can't do that in his world, because in his world everyone defends themselves with automatic weapons and can't be treaded upon.

[DukeNukeEm]

The sole role of the state should be to enforce private property rights through violence?

Pretty much. If asking politely for people to not steal or kill worked I'd be down with that, but it doesn't. Oh well.

[StrangeSox]

It's pretty basic libertarian minarchism, which I have sort of a weird interest in. It's anti-democratic, and the most bizarre is when they take it all the way to supporting monarchy.

[DukeNukeEm]

It's pretty basic libertarian minarchism, which I have sort of a weird interest in. It's anti-democratic, and the most bizarre is when they take it all the way to supporting monarchy.

I use straw men all the time, so it'd be unfair for me to judge others for it.

[Reddy]

Long Live King Duke!

[StrangeSox]

I use straw men all the time, so it'd be unfair for me to judge others for it.

I don't think describing your stated beliefs as libertarian minarchism is a strawman. A state whose sole function is to enforce property rights is a pretty good definition of that. I didn't attribute Hans-Hermann Hoppe's ideas to you but said they were at the extreme end of that ideology. You can throw guys like Walter Block in there, too.

[DukeNukeEm]

I don't think describing your stated beliefs as libertarian minarchism is a strawman. A state whose sole function is to enforce property rights is a pretty good definition of that. I didn't attribute Hans-Hermann Hoppe's ideas to you but said they were at the extreme end of that ideology. You can throw guys like Walter Block in there, too.

Your attributing my arguments to arguments other people have made. I think I've given you enough material to disagree with in the past 20 posts, no need to bring others in.

[StrangeSox]

not actually what I was doing but w/e

[southsider2k5]

Your attributing my arguments to arguments other people have made. I think I've given you enough material to disagree with in the past 20 posts, no need to bring others in.

 

Filibuster is not about what you say, but what it can be spun into. Its why conversations never really go anywhere productive.

[Reddy]

Filibuster is not about what you say, but what it can be spun into. Its why conversations never really go anywhere productive.

 

what else do we NEED?:

I dont care about poverty. In 1950 I would've cared about structural racism but 63 years later much has been done to rectify that issue, so I dont really care about that either.

 

What I do care about is how much I pay in taxes and where that money goes. I've never heard a compelling argument from anyone as to why I should be forced at gunpoint to give my money to something I dont care about. Some say a little welfare in the short term saves us a lot of welfare in the long term, I dont care... I dont want to pay for any welfare for anyone (or anything, since corporate welfare has gotten so crazy too). I should not be forced to pay for someone else's kids' schools, or their food, or their rent or their anything. Some say there is a benefit to it (I see none) and if those people feel obligated to subsidize others and their life then they can give money on their own accord, but taking it from me is stealing.

 

That's where I stand on this.

[StrangeSox]

Filibuster is not about what you say, but what it can be spun into. Its why conversations never really go anywhere productive.

Pretending that I attributed Duke's views to Hoppe or said he shared the same views as Hoppe even after I explicitly said I wasn't doing that is why conversations fail to be productive.

[StrangeSox]

The Virginia state legislature is officially moving forward on a plan to split their electoral votes by district.

 

Effectively, in the last election, this would have neutered Virginia as a swing state. The President would have received 4 electoral votes from them, despite winning a majority in the state.

 

Credit where credit is due:

 

Florida GOP House Speaker Knocks Electoral College Scheme

 

"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and they beat us in the fourth," Weatherford told the Miami Herald. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better."

[Soxbadger]

Its just common sense. Eventually the tables will turn and no one wants the precedent that we change the rules every other year.

[StrangeSox]

The redistricting tables won't turn for at least two more Presidential elections, and that's if Democrats could make enough gains against the heavily gerrymandered districts to take control of the state legislatures.

 

They're only pushing for this in states that went for Obama but are controlled by Republicans. I'm not seeing Georgia or Texas Republicans wanting to adopt this system. It's just unusual that they're being so brazen.

[Soxbadger]

This isnt about Virginia. As soon as one state does it, every other state will feel that they are within their rights to do it. Most people understand that stacking the deck against an opponent who can also stack the deck does nothing except for create widespread cheating.