Quote:
Originally Posted by ECUBiBoy  People attach "ism" to the end of names and all sorts of things all the time to illustrate ideas. I'm not the first to do that. Have you not heard of Leninism, Thatcherism, or even Bushism? |
Yes, and in the end they're all equally as stupid when it comes to having a
serious discussion.
Quote:
|
These are all fairly well used. You seem to despise ideas and prefer knee-jerk, emotional politics.
|
And this is coming from someone who wants to label everything with obvious "Un-American" labels in an attempt to position oneself as being better than the next.
Excuse me while I laugh. Just what were you expecting when you label something as "Feminist" or "Leftist", just to name a few? Precisely... a reaction from those who would instantly react to such words (if they felt as if they were bad things) in hopes people would side with you. Or in more simpler terms, a "knee jerk" response.
What you do is not original, nor has never been used before as a deceptive argumentative tactic. Stop being such a hypocrite.
Quote:
|
I'm not really pary of all that many groups other than friends and family. I suppose you mean to imply that I'm part of the "libertarian group."
|
Nope. Try again, although I would advise you to not try and figure it out. Its message really does apply to all if you read between the lines.
Quote:
|
This is mis-leading though. I've said several times that I endorse libertarian ideas. This does not mean I cling to any libertarian parties (which tend to be fraught with in-fighting). It also does not mean that I want us to be ruled by libertarians. Quite the contrary, the whole point of my arguments is that I want us to be ruled by NOBODY. That's what the libertarian message is.
|
That's such a load of bull. There is no such thing as a country where a government provides absolute freedoms to everyone with no recourse. Essentially that would mean we would be under a lawless state where everyone has to fend for themselves, and with the absence of the most basic of rules what makes you think you'd survive one minute? Also, if you want to be ruled by NOBODY then why vote for any politicians then? That's completely adverse to the rhetoric you just spewed because you'd be placing someone in a governing position to look over your supposed absolute freedom. That wouldn't exist in a lawless state. If being a Libertarian is about being ruled by nobody as you claim, then they're a walking contradiction of ideals. But I know they're not, because I almost voted for one here in New York City by the name of Kristen Davis. Alas, she didn't run the best of campaigns even though she had great ideas.
Do you contradict yourself this much? Or do you think speaking in vague terms of empty rhetoric is going to save you in this debate?
Quote:
|
I've never made any arguments that have anything to do with the ridiculous "un-American" claims.
|
Bullshit. Your entire post was completely embodied with that message.
Quote:
|
In my experience, the only ones who spend a whole lot of time talking about "un-American" behavior are those in power. They use it as an excuse to make laws against such activity. I hope I don't need to provide the very obvious examples of this.
|
Not always. This isn't a tactic only reserved for people in power. It's used by practically everyone on a political scale. When it comes to providing a propagated stance for what is best for our country, the easiest way to do it is to label something you don't like with vocabulary that sounds foreign. Words like Fascist, Socialist, Marxist (or "-ism" if we're going to get anal about what you typed) instantly spark images of countries that are different than our own. And since we're supposed to be a "Democracy" and a "Capitalist" society, even though our own financial system is a huge hybrid of many different financial structures, that's supposed to be viewed as a "bad change" or a potential threat to the way everyday people live their lives. It cunningly taps into the very roots of indifference, bigotry and racism that have separated people for an eternity. This has been going on for centuries, even before you or I were born. What makes you think any of this has changed since you decided to have a political conscious?
Quote:
|
The entitlements do affect me. Numerous people around me take part in them. It's not even the disadvantaged who cash in on entitlements the most (as you implied in your last post). Most entitlements go to wealthy businesses, the elderly (who may or may not need it), and the politicians themselves (take a look at the lavish pensions and bonuses for being a member of Congress).
|
With no statistics to back this, I call bullshit.
Quote:
|
Getting rid of this burden would make our country's fiscal situation a lot healthier.
|
No it wouldn't. Assuming that all entitlement programs need to be eliminated is short sighted and ignorant. There are people who genuinely need them, like the poor. There are also those, like the elderly, who have contributed to these systems all their lives. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GET THEIR SHARE TOO. Who are you to tell them otherwise? There are ways to adjust the current systems so that abuses can be found and dealt with, while people who actually play by the rules get what they need. You simply can't do that by throwing them all out the window.
Quote:
|
Our entitlement system is unsustainable and basically amounts to theft.
|
Bullshit. Unless you can list particulars and prove that the majority receiving the subsidies from them are fraudulent then you have no grounds or any factual basis for this claim. This isn't a discussion just on ideas... you need facts to back your stuff up now.
Quote:
|
I am to curious to see how much deeper (as you claim) you can get on this subject. I continue to welcome a hard-hitting discussion rather than emotions, "shut up," and "stop while you're behind" over and over again.
|
Well, you are "behind" in this discussion. You still have nothing but ideological rhetoric to spew with absolutely no substance. After a while, that shit starts to get old. No sense in preaching about what our nation is supposed to be like when the audience needs some kind of logical affluence to attach to it. So yes, put up or shut up. And if you can't deal with little blurbs like that and other obvious jabs, then perhaps the internet is too explicit for you? Besides having a thick dick, it also helps to have a thick skin around here. So if you got something of real relevance to say with some substance, then bring it on. If you're gonna preach about ideology then keep it to yourself because everyone is sick of seeing it.