Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
Your last sentence kind of ends this debate. Have a good night.
Your last sentence kind of ends this debate. Have a good night.
In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as pre
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
No, you don't get away that easy. Answer my question. Are you willing to give up the things not mandated in the fucking constitution that you wouldn't have without the government? I'll retract my last two sentences above if it makes you feel better.
No, you don't get away that easy. Answer my question. Are you willing to give up the things not mandated in the fucking constitution that you wouldn't have without the government? I'll retract my last two sentences above if it makes you feel better.
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
Fine. First off, do you know what a "collective good" is? If not, do some reading. There are certainly some goods that cannot be built or maintained privately, like roads for instance. But roads were maintained by each state until the Eisenhower years, when he saw the need to have a inter-state system, primarily for US defense plans, but had a secondary advantage of better and faster roads. In theory, I have no problem with this except as history will show time and time again, when you give power to an institution, not only will it protect that power, it will expand it. Since then, the Federal government has engaged in "greenmail" by withholding funds from states that do not agree with its mandates... and BTW, that money was contributed by people who LIVE in said states.
Your other examples of water and power, yes, there can be no escaping some regulation of industries that have a defacto monopoly to ensure fairness and quality. But I would bet you dollars to donuts, cities/states with privately owned and run water/sewage and power plants are infinitely better than a government owned system, and this is the case in most of the US.
So, your assertion that roads, water, and power are benefits of "socialism" are unequivocally and demonstrably false. They are collective good, that do not need government ownership to function, only in some cases political action to start the project and/or maintain oversight in the name of the people who pay for it. Now if you want to expand the argument you make to things like public food, health care, education, etc., each would have to be discussed separately as in my estimation, some items are collective goods and other are not. The ancillary discussion as to whether those items should be owned and operated by the government, well I would argue 99 times out of 100 that they would be better off being run privately.
The long journey through political theory/philosophy that brought me to my views are anything by "juvenile". I studied these subjects in college, then in graduate school, and read these kinds of things regularly as a hobby. I know that some things are inherently collective goods, and government does have a Constitutional role in either jumpstarting them being created and/or regulating them. But always remember, the US Federal government was there primarily for one thing: mutual defense of it's member States. Read the Constitution some time, those dudes understood the brutal lessons of history, and that a government should never be given too much power, especially our Federal government, as it is too removed from the people to govern effectively (see Article 10) and had too much potential to go astray and amass too much power, even in the name of so-called good causes.
So next time, before you start with the name calling, so yourself a favor and think first. Resorting to name calling is the last ditch effort of someone with no ideas. Disagree all you want, but do it logically and in a manner that is civil. I think there's entirely too much namecalling these days. :2 cents:
Fine. First off, do you know what a "collective good" is? If not, do some reading. There are certainly some goods that cannot be built or maintained privately, like roads for instance. But roads were maintained by each state until the Eisenhower years, when he saw the need to have a inter-state system, primarily for US defense plans, but had a secondary advantage of better and faster roads. In theory, I have no problem with this except as history will show time and time again, when you give power to an institution, not only will it protect that power, it will expand it. Since then, the Federal government has engaged in "greenmail" by withholding funds from states that do not agree with its mandates... and BTW, that money was contributed by people who LIVE in said states.
Your other examples of water and power, yes, there can be no escaping some regulation of industries that have a defacto monopoly to ensure fairness and quality. But I would bet you dollars to donuts, cities/states with privately owned and run water/sewage and power plants are infinitely better than a government owned system, and this is the case in most of the US.
So, your assertion that roads, water, and power are benefits of "socialism" are unequivocally and demonstrably false. They are collective good, that do not need government ownership to function, only in some cases political action to start the project and/or maintain oversight in the name of the people who pay for it. Now if you want to expand the argument you make to things like public food, health care, education, etc., each would have to be discussed separately as in my estimation, some items are collective goods and other are not. The ancillary discussion as to whether those items should be owned and operated by the government, well I would argue 99 times out of 100 that they would be better off being run privately.
The long journey through political theory/philosophy that brought me to my views are anything by "juvenile". I studied these subjects in college, then in graduate school, and read these kinds of things regularly as a hobby. I know that some things are inherently collective goods, and government does have a Constitutional role in either jumpstarting them being created and/or regulating them. But always remember, the US Federal government was there primarily for one thing: mutual defense of it's member States. Read the Constitution some time, those dudes understood the brutal lessons of history, and that a government should never be given too much power, especially our Federal government, as it is too removed from the people to govern effectively (see Article 10) and had too much potential to go astray and amass too much power, even in the name of so-called good causes.
So next time, before you start with the name calling, so yourself a favor and think first. Resorting to name calling is the last ditch effort of someone with no ideas. Disagree all you want, but do it logically and in a manner that is civil. I think there's entirely too much namecalling these days. :2 cents:
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
Bottom line, friend, is that you do in fact support things that aren't mandated in the constitution and that makes your position at best hypocritical. I'm truly impressed with your scholarship and knowing that you're actually not an idiot makes me wonder why you make false arguments. Shall I pick at that? Experience tells me it's got everything to do with your religious beliefs. As for my "name calling", you have to expect a tone in kind with your own. Not that it matters. You've exposed your arguments as even weaker than I've painted them. You're not ignorant and should know better. That makes it even worse.
Bottom line, friend, is that you do in fact support things that aren't mandated in the constitution and that makes your position at best hypocritical. I'm truly impressed with your scholarship and knowing that you're actually not an idiot makes me wonder why you make false arguments. Shall I pick at that? Experience tells me it's got everything to do with your religious beliefs. As for my "name calling", you have to expect a tone in kind with your own. Not that it matters. You've exposed your arguments as even weaker than I've painted them. You're not ignorant and should know better. That makes it even worse.
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
Bump
Overall I do approve of his job performance, but he's this close to losing me.
Bump
Overall I do approve of his job performance, but he's this close to losing me.
Deepcover
Closed Account
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
Well for now I approve of some of things the President is doing but then again people forget Obama isn't perfect and also he's gotten the worst criticism probably since Harry Truman took office.
Well for now I approve of some of things the President is doing but then again people forget Obama isn't perfect and also he's gotten the worst criticism probably since Harry Truman took office.
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
In general I think he's doing good despite the fact that the GOP is stonewalling him at every opportunity.
I do wish that he'd play more hardball with them, but he rather compromise with them(which really means that the GOP will get what they want and Dems get screwed).
In general I think he's doing good despite the fact that the GOP is stonewalling him at every opportunity.
I do wish that he'd play more hardball with them, but he rather compromise with them(which really means that the GOP will get what they want and Dems get screwed).
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
lol its funny to see those who believe in the false left vs right paradigm
lol its funny to see those who believe in the false left vs right paradigm
Re: In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing as
It's not so much that I disapprove as I think he's been rather lackluster in a lot of areas. He needed to grow a pair of balls years ago also.
Sadly, do I think any of the other major candidates for the presidency either back when he was elected or now would have done better than he did, nope. Do I think they would have done worse, some a lot worse? Yes, most likely I do. It's a pretty sad state of affairs we're in.
It's not so much that I disapprove as I think he's been rather lackluster in a lot of areas. He needed to grow a pair of balls years ago also.
Sadly, do I think any of the other major candidates for the presidency either back when he was elected or now would have done better than he did, nope. Do I think they would have done worse, some a lot worse? Yes, most likely I do. It's a pretty sad state of affairs we're in.
Similar threads
