The Political Discussion Thread

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

^ I love how UKIP and the conservative party are right next to each other.

I think the lib dems are on the right because of their economic policy not social.

Col.Foley, I not saying the government should run every-ones lives I just believe ensuring that everyone has access to at least some form of healthcare without relaying on charity.

[Goose]

Col.Foley, I not saying the government should run every-ones lives I just believe ensuring that everyone has access to at least some form of healthcare without relaying on charity.

this.

[DigiFluid]

Not that anyone gives a damn about the French-language debate anyway, but I found this pretty funny:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6322728

[mad_gater]

^ I love how UKIP and the conservative party are right next to each other.

I think the lib dems are on the right because of their economic policy not social.

Col.Foley, I not saying the government should run every-ones lives I just believe ensuring that everyone has access to at least some form of healthcare without relaying on charity.

so you would rather that instead of the needy receiving true help from people exercising the act of love that is true charity....that they instead be enslaved to government for their livelihood? because that's what they'll be...slaves...because they will feel compelled to keep voting for the candidates that promise to continue to give them free stuff at the expense of the taxpayer

I'll have to admit that for right now government welfare is necessary until private charities can match with the same kind of services...the first step towards this would be to eliminate redundancy of services between the government and private entities....there are services being provided by private charities that are also being provided by the government.....gradually funnel them from the government version to the private version.....resulting in a savings to the taxpayer....savings that could potentially be invested into private charities to add more services.....allowing the government to eliminate more redundancy from its welfare rolls....meaning that just by eliminating redundancy of services between government and private sector....there exists the potential for a self-feeding cycle to initiate whose endpoint would be that government rather than charity would be the last resort for the needy

and really what it boils down to for people like me and foley is that to rely on government for any part of your livelihood is a supremely horrible idea and such dependence should therefore be reduced drastically if not completely eliminated....I'd rather make my own life...not have it handed to me on a silver platter by some faceless government bureaucrat....we must rely on the fruits of our own labor....not someone else's

but as I said...for right now it's a necessary evil.....until private charities are in a position to expand to fill the gap

[mad_gater]

only thing the government should be guaranteeing is that everyone has equal access to the means by which they can pull themselves out of poverty.....not keep them beholden to government for their livelihood

[s09119]

We're still having this debate about how we should rely on charity over welfare?

Still?

Look, the "welfare should be abolished, let the strong survive" people lost the argument pretty much the world over decades ago. Can we move on?

[Ukko]

We're still having this debate about how we should rely on charity over welfare?

Still?

Look, the "welfare should be abolished, let the strong survive" people lost the argument pretty much the world over decades ago. Can we move on?

Nope. The "evil government" rants will continue.

[Col.Foley]

We're still having this debate about how we should rely on charity over welfare?

Still?

Look, the "welfare should be abolished, let the strong survive" people lost the argument pretty much the world over decades ago. Can we move on?

No.

Because as long as people like you make this claim, falsely, about other people's arguments then one will continue to argue about it. As long as people continue to smear people who want to have less Government, either intentionally or not intentionally, there will be those that will continue to argue. As long as people so obviously miss the poinst and assign their own personal bias and opinions to any given subject, people will continue to try and correct the record. And as long as there are those that would use their own personal opinions and biases about people to justify their own political ideology and their own want for massive Government control in all of our lives, which will lead to less liberty in all of our lives, then there will be those that will stand against those people.

No one. no one actually says what you claim they say. And if they do they are in such a small minority in America as to not be discussed. Most people in this country, most Conservatives, Libertarians, and Christians, advocate that the strong must help out for the weak and even provide for the weak until the weak can again start provind for themselves. Until the weak can get what they want, and of course they will always be some things that we will need to do to help eachother out. In fact most people I know, most people I listen to, take it as their religious and moral obligation to help out the weak in times of needs and be strong citizens all on their own and be examples and lights in the darkness to help guide people out of their darkness.

Now, to Ukko's point, whether or not the Governmeent is evil is beside the point. It really is. What is not beside the point is when the Government is spending so much money on all of these things that it is threatening the stability and the security of the country until we risk not having one. And on top of that it creates a sense of dependency, to the Government, and usually does not end up solving the problem at all but at the best passing it on down the road.

[Col.Foley]

^ I love how UKIP and the conservative party are right next to each other.

I think the lib dems are on the right because of their economic policy not social.

Col.Foley, I not saying the government should run every-ones lives I just believe ensuring that everyone has access to at least some form of healthcare without relaying on charity.

So instead of relying on charity, which is not the point of charity, people will then rely on the Government? An organ that often enough when it does the things you advocate ends up spending more money then they take in, which is called running up a debt, which is insane for the individual, and that ends up usually causing societie's economies to collapse where as they cannot provide health care for their people, or a military, or a police force, or other 'basic' services.

[s09119]

No.

Because as long as people like you make this claim, falsely, about other people's arguments then one will continue to argue about it. As long as people continue to smear people who want to have less Government, either intentionally or not intentionally, there will be those that will continue to argue. As long as people so obviously miss the poinst and assign their own personal bias and opinions to any given subject, people will continue to try and correct the record. And as long as there are those that would use their own personal opinions and biases about people to justify their own political ideology and their own want for massive Government control in all of our lives, which will lead to less liberty in all of our lives, then there will be those that will stand against those people.

No one. no one actually says what you claim they say. And if they do they are in such a small minority in America as to not be discussed. Most people in this country, most Conservatives, Libertarians, and Christians, advocate that the strong must help out for the weak and even provide for the weak until the weak can again start provind for themselves. Until the weak can get what they want, and of course they will always be some things that we will need to do to help eachother out. In fact most people I know, most people I listen to, take it as their religious and moral obligation to help out the weak in times of needs and be strong citizens all on their own and be examples and lights in the darkness to help guide people out of their darkness.

Now, to Ukko's point, whether or not the Governmeent is evil is beside the point. It really is. What is not beside the point is when the Government is spending so much money on all of these things that it is threatening the stability and the security of the country until we risk not having one. And on top of that it creates a sense of dependency, to the Government, and usually does not end up solving the problem at all but at the best passing it on down the road.

And as long as people like you continue to, falsely, assert that conservatism has demonstrated some great wave of helping the downtrodden in this nation instead of aiming to convince them they should give their all to help the rich get richer, we'll get nowhere. Except losing more of the liberty you claim to love so much.

[Col.Foley]

And as long as people like you continue to, falsely, assert that conservatism has demonstrated some great wave of helping the downtrodden in this nation instead of aiming to convince them they should give their all to help the rich get richer, we'll get nowhere. Except losing more of the liberty you claim to love so much.

I make no such assertions. And again most Conservatives I know do not do this, in fact they do the opposite.

[s09119]

I make no such assertions. And again most Conservatives I know do not do this, in fact they do the opposite.

Yes, and there are so many liberals who want to force people into desperate dependence on the government so we can manipulate them and bend them to our partisan will.

All those college kids want to enslave the people they're idealistic enough to want to help. Right.

[Col.Foley]

Yes, and there are so many liberals who want to force people into desperate dependence on the government so we can manipulate them and bend them to our partisan will.

All those college kids want to enslave the people they're idealistic enough to want to help. Right.

I wonder where the cause for Sarcasm comes from because I have never said this and I have never believed this. I wonder where you are getting this stereotype of a stereotype in...you are stereotyping a stereotype. Hehehe.

And I am sure that college kids want to help, how to do it, thats the question.

[s09119]

I wonder where the cause for Sarcasm comes from because I have never said this and I have never believed this. I wonder where you are getting this stereotype of a stereotype in...you are stereotyping a stereotype. Hehehe.

And I am sure that college kids want to help, how to do it, thats the question.

Oh, because your last two posts weren't filled with stereotypes

College kids decided the best way was to use the resources of the most-powerful country on Earth, with the largest GDP, to use a tiny fraction of all that advancements to help those who are on the lower side of the socio-economic/genertic lottery.

[Col.Foley]

Oh, because your last two posts weren't filled with stereotypes

College kids decided the best way was to use the resources of the most-powerful country on Earth, with the largest GDP, to use a tiny fraction of all that advancements to help those who are on the lower side of the socio-economic/genertic lottery.

You see I am having a lot of trouble this this post because I do not how to answer it. I agree with everything that is said in it and that is the way things should be but on one hand you have an ideology, even some Conservatives, say you have to do certain things in a certain way in order to help. That people have to be forced into it. And not only do people have to be forced into it by the Government or by being shamed into it, you have to do it in a certain way...or you are evil. And oh by the way special exemptions can be given to our COmapnies who support our ideology, who give to our candidates, and who we consider to be special and righteous. Those like GE, the Unions, and others.

The real problem that we have is how best to help people, how best to serve humanity, how best to make sure that humans can have a good life for themselves is fundamentally different from eachother. So even if you use words I can agree with I can never agree with it because I know through context and talking to you what your ideology dictates you do to 'help' me. Which I believe that most of the ways you can 'help' people actually do a lot greater harm to them in the long run.

And no, I am not saying that most college kids want to manipulate the world and stuff. Many people do honestly believe they are helping, and while I disagree, I can respect that. I do not believe that most liberals are evil, control freaks, slavery, or yadda yadda. In fact I do not even believe Liberalism itself is evil.

I think I should clear something up though because I am not sure if people can get it still. I am not Conservative, I am primarily a Libertarian.