Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow

#202 Sep 11 2012 at 11:53 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Cans of cat food (which is what's usually referred to) have always been more expensive than human food. Compare the price of a can of cat food to that of a can of tuna, for example. And that's far and away not the most inexpensive thing you could buy for human consumption. Even when looking at bulk bags of dry cat food, you'd still be better off buying bags of flour, rice, and beans. Yes. Even when the expression became common.
I'm just gonna guess you were not a viable human in the 70s'.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#203 Sep 11 2012 at 11:54 PM Rating: Excellent
]
gbaji wrote:
Cans of cat food (which is what's usually referred to) have always been more expensive than human food. Compare the price of a can of cat food to that of a can of tuna, for example. And that's far and away not the most inexpensive thing you could buy for human consumption. Even when looking at bulk bags of dry cat food, you'd still be better off buying bags of flour, rice, and beans. Yes. Even when the expression became common.
I'm just gonna guess you were not a viable human in the 70s'.

EDIT: Or the 60's
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#204 Sep 12 2012 at 12:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Garbaji's not really a viable human in any decade.
#205 Sep 12 2012 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
gbaji wrote:
Isn't it odd that the only people who actually seem confused about what "big government" refers to are liberals?

If you mean that liberals question what the definition means in the context that it's being used I'd say it's not odd at all. Them libs are some academic ya know.

Funny more people don't ask what 'big government' is in reference to when making political choices.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#207 Sep 12 2012 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
******
43,461 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Don't forget making sure women never get an abortion! Gotta have all kinds of government in them wombs!
It isn't counted on a census, therefor not part of government, therefor it doesn't count as a government action. It's like talking; A free action.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#208 Sep 12 2012 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure how you separate those two though. If a government takes on more things, then it can be said to have grown in "size". Everything else being the same, right?


Well if you aren't employing more people or increasing the money spent when you take on new tasks you're just increasing efficiency. Smiley: nod

gbaji wrote:
Both spending on rent and spending on a trip to Vegas increase the total amount of money you're spending. But when looking at cutting spending out of your budget, most sane people would cut the trips out first, right?


Don't lie, we know you'd starve yourself for a night in Vegas. Smiley: sly

Seriously though, I know the arguments already, no need to repeat them. That still isn't what I think of when someone says 'big government' though. However, I'll try to do so in the future if that helps any. Smiley: rolleyes

gbaji wrote:
Why? Because you imagine that Big means size and then assume a very narrow meaning for the word "size"? It's a phrase that has a very specific meaning in politics. Why go out of your way to ignore the meaning of the phrase meant by those who use it? Does every term in your field make perfect literal sense? But you use them anyway, right? So isn't it basically a form of denial for some to pretend that "big government" means something different?


On the previous page you mentioned like half the country (people you called "liberals") was misinterpreting what the phrase meant. Sounds like you have bigger problems than me suggesting a more accurate term.

Edited, Sep 12th 2012 8:10am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#209 Sep 12 2012 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Well you know what they say those that cant do teach.

And those that can't teach sway nobody on a forum.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#210 Sep 12 2012 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Well you know what they say those that cant do teach.

Close to being written in English but I think you needed to add maybe another 500 monkeys on that post.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#211 Sep 12 2012 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,915 posts
Are you sure? That's 488 more monkeys than needed for an apocalypse...
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#212 Sep 12 2012 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that even Wiki has more clue that you guys do:

Quote:
Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]

Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]



While I think the wiki page glosses over some key points, it at least gets right that this includes more than just dollars spent. Hence why I wonder when I run into people who seem to revel in this idea that it's just about dollars, so one dollar here is no different than a dollar there.


See what happens when you emphazise other contexts? Smiley: rolleyes


Yes. It supports the statement I made earlier about the difference between what government needs to do, versus what it can do. Did you even think about what you were saying?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#213 Sep 12 2012 at 4:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Guenny wrote:
I'm sorry, but a wiki page article on an abstract concept does not a definition make. Try again.


You missed what I was getting at with the phrase "even wiki...". Meaning even a relatively crappy and questionable source like wiki can noodle out that the phrase "big government" means more than just how much money is spent, so how the **** can so many supposedly educated intelligent liberals fail repeatedly to do the same?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#214 Sep 12 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

You missed what I was getting at with the phrase "even wiki...". Meaning even a relatively crappy and questionable source like wiki can noodle out that the phrase "big government" means more than just how much money is spent, so how the **** can so many supposedly educated intelligent liberals fail repeatedly to do the same?


Disagreeing isn't the same as misunderstanding. I'd ask how you couldn't understand that, but that would imply some sort of preconceived notion that you had the capacity to.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#215 Sep 12 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You missed what I was getting at with the phrase "even wiki...". Meaning even a relatively crappy and questionable source like wiki can noodle out that the phrase "big government" means more than just how much money is spent, so how the **** can so many supposedly educated intelligent liberals fail repeatedly to do the same?


Disagreeing isn't the same as misunderstanding.


Sure. And that would be a great point if this particular train of conversation didn't start with someone not knowing what was meant by the phrase "big government" (or pretending not to know).

Now, if you're willing to step up to the bat and actually disagree with the meaning as used by conservatives (that means not quoting liberals saying what they think conservatives mean btw), then by all means, knock yourself out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#216 Sep 13 2012 at 4:50 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

Now, if you're willing to step up to the bat and actually disagree with the meaning as used by conservatives (that means not quoting liberals saying what they think conservatives mean btw), then by all means, knock yourself out.


Sure, state it completely for me without equivocation and we'll disagree.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#217 Sep 13 2012 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
And that would be a great point if this particular train of conversation didn't start with someone not knowing what was meant by the phrase "big government" (or pretending not to know).
I agree, but you keep going on and on about how it isn't just a buzzterm and it "really really really means something concrete!" and leaving the rest of us to roll our eyes.

I changed the implication of your "someone" to mean you. I know you have difficulty with subtlety. I'm a helper.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#218 Sep 13 2012 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He posted a link definitively stating that "Big government" means government some people think is too big! What else could you want? That's no buzzword with limitless room for flexibility, that's a hard and solid definition to take to the bank!

Edited, Sep 13th 2012 8:31am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#219 Sep 13 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
I'm naming my **** Big Government in honor of this thread.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#220 Sep 13 2012 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm naming my **** Big Government in honor of this thread.


Mine's also named for a forum thread.


It's "For Joph."
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#221 Sep 13 2012 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: inlove
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#222 Sep 13 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Now, if you're willing to step up to the bat and actually disagree with the meaning as used by conservatives (that means not quoting liberals saying what they think conservatives mean btw), then by all means, knock yourself out.


Sure, state it completely for me without equivocation and we'll disagree.


Assuming you mean what's meant by "Big Government" and not the statement you quoted above. How about I just quote what I already wrote in this thread:

Quote:
Small (or Big) government refers to the scope of government more than the actual dollars spent (although less dollars is good as well obviously). I know for a fact that I've explained this on this forum at least a dozen times. And I know that I've responded to that precise "why support the military" argument that the left weakly tosses out there at least as many times as well.

The constitution defines a set of things that the federal government is required to do. Maintain some form of military is one of them. So while we can argue about the size of the military itself, and whether its actions are ones we agree with, in the terms of the "scope" of government, it's in scope. Health care, is not. Social Security is not. Income assistance is not (that's welfare btw). Education is not. At least half of what we spend money on at the federal level is on things that are *not* in the scope of the (necessary) federal powers of our government. Can the federal government do them? Yes. Should it? That's a matter of political position.

Those who are against "big government" believe that the federal government should not involve itself in those extra areas (or should do so to a much lesser degree). Those who are for big government believe that the federal government should involve itself in those extra things. So when Obama says that "we need to help ensure that every child receives the best education possible, with the best health care possible, and the best nutrition possible", he's clearly an advocate of the big government side of things.


The only addendum I'd toss in is to make clear that something can be in scope but still considered big government if it's particularly wasteful or appears to be unnecessary. So while interstate commerce falls in the scope of federal powers, using it to force people to buy health insurance is seen as big government. In that case, it's stretching the definition of the thing itself. And yes, military spending, especially when the purpose seems more about bringing dollars into someone's district rather than actually building effective military capability can also be seen as "big government".

There's zero equivocation in that statement. It's absolutely clear about what makes something in or out of scope (and thus leaning towards small or big government), and provides a list of examples. This is pretty consistently what conservatives in the US mean when we talk about big versus small government.

Do you think that there's some other meaning that conservatives have which is contradictory to this one?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#223 Sep 13 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Those who are against "big government" believe that the federal government should not involve itself in those extra areas (or should do so to a much lesser degree).
Quote:
There's zero equivocation in that statement.

*snrk*
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#224 Sep 13 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Those who are against "big government" believe that the federal government should not involve itself in those extra areas (or should do so to a much lesser degree).
Quote:
There's zero equivocation in that statement.

*snrk*


That's not equivocation Joph. That's also not my definition of "big government", but a statement about the positions those who oppose big government tend to take. Your argument is like saying that because not all vegetarians eat nothing but vegetables, that my definition of vegetables is wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#225 Sep 13 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's not equivocation Joph.

Smiley: laugh

Ah, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#226 Sep 13 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's not equivocation Joph.

Smiley: laugh

Ah, you.


It's not. Equivocation is when you use words that are intentionally vague or misleading, usually with the purpose of making it harder to counter. None of the words I used when explaining what conservatives mean when they say big government have multiple meanings or are in any other way unclear. Remember, Smash asked for the meaning of big government as used by conservatives. Try to keep your eye on the ball.

What you've latched onto is a statement about what conservatives do in response to instances of big government. That, obviously, may vary, but has nothing at all to do with what the term "big government" means. Unless you're arguing that every single person within a large label like "conservative" or "liberal" must all hold exactly the same positions on everything?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#227 Sep 13 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
There's zero equivocation in that statement.

There is. If NECESSARY, I can point you in the PROPER direction of where it equivocates, or in a more GENERAL sense, how taking as your definition threatens the WELFARE of your overall argument.

Let me know how much help you need, Slappy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#228 Sep 13 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
Okay, so I believe the government should be just the right size. *Poof* I'm a conservative!

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#229 Sep 13 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's zero equivocation in that statement.

There is. If NECESSARY, I can point you in the PROPER direction of where it equivocates, or in a more GENERAL sense, how taking as your definition threatens the WELFARE of your overall argument.


By all means, point away. Or, since you appear incapable of actually reading what I wrote before putting words in caps that you think are contained within, how about quoting me and responding. Just a suggestion.

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution is equivocation then everything is equivocation. Because that's about as direct and clear a basis as one can have. It's certainly much more clear than any position the political left holds. Care to perhaps explain why starting with the defined powers of the federal government is too vague?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#230 Sep 13 2012 at 8:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Samira wrote:
Okay, so I believe the government should be just the right size. *Poof* I'm a conservative!



How do you decide what is the "right size" though. If it's "whatever size I think is right", then your position is pretty arbitrary (and is basically how the left decides this). If it's "whatever size best matches the minimum required to exercise the powers defined within the constitution", then your position is *not* arbitrary (well, except to the point that you believe the constitution is, but it's not arbitrary from your perspective), and is basically how the right decides this.

Seems pretty clear to me. Anyone really confused by this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#231 Sep 13 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
How do you decide what is the "right size" though. If it's "whatever size I think is right", then your position is pretty arbitrary (and is basically how the left decides this).

[...]

Seems pretty clear to me. Anyone really confused by this?
You have no idea. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#232 Sep 13 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How do you decide what is the "right size" though.

I'm figuring I'll keep a list of things that the government absolutely should not be involved in... or maybe they can, but only as much as I say is okay.

Now I'm a conservative, too! Samira, we should get matching power rings!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#233 Sep 13 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,894 posts
So the Constitution consists of "collect taxes, bomb brown people, deny abortions and **** marriages"?

Edited, Sep 13th 2012 11:06pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#234 Sep 13 2012 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira, we should get matching power rings!
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#235 Sep 13 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,284 posts
I think it says you always have to mention God, too.
#236 Sep 13 2012 at 9:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Samira, we should get matching power rings!
Screenshot


Shape of...an Eagle! Form of...a cracker!
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#237 Sep 14 2012 at 5:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution


Damn, the government does things outside of the set of those required of it by the Constitution? **** we should stop arguing about this and pot together some sort of panel to determine when this happens. Also maybe a bench for them to sit one. They could look at laws, then the Constitution and overturn those that don't meet the standard. Would that make sense to conservatives?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#238 Sep 14 2012 at 5:41 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution


So, just to be clear your unequivocal statement was "do what this document says", then you judge every action and determine if it meets the criteria? No sir, no equivocation there. Just make a broad list. How hard can it be, you clearly have a distinct vision of what government should do and aren't deriving your philosophy day by day from a cynical group of opinion makers profiting from your ignorance and desperate need to feel a sense of belonging.

I can do this for my political philosophy in about five seconds:

Government should provide to all people within it's geographic national borders:

Food
Housing
Access to the best healthcare possible
Education
Transportation
Heat/Water/Electricity
Law enforcement/National Defense
Access to communication networks
Any other items or services determined to be basic human needs.

Government should require of all people withing it's national borders:

Government service
Taxes

Done. Not that hard.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#239 Sep 14 2012 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
Shaowstrike wrote:
Shape of...an Eagle! Form of...a cracker!


Joph is gonna make me be the cracker twin, I just know it.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#240 Sep 14 2012 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
Are Cracker Jacks really crackers?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#242 Sep 14 2012 at 6:35 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

Should people be responsible for anything?


People? Yes, people are responsible for providing all of these to one another. Do you mean should each person have to struggle to meet their basic needs so that some miniscule fraction of them can have a 5th vacation home? No, they shouldn't.


Do society a favor and put a bullet in your brain.


Other people have tried, more than once. My brain is fairly adept at not being filled with projectiles. Other parts of me less so.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#243 Sep 14 2012 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution


So, just to be clear your unequivocal statement was "do what this document says", then you judge every action and determine if it meets the criteria? No sir, no equivocation there. Just make a broad list. How hard can it be, you clearly have a distinct vision of what government should do and aren't deriving your philosophy day by day from a cynical group of opinion makers profiting from your ignorance and desperate need to feel a sense of belonging.

I can do this for my political philosophy in about five seconds:

Government should provide to all people within it's geographic national borders:

Food
Housing
Access to the best healthcare possible
Education
Transportation
Heat/Water/Electricity
Law enforcement/National Defense
Access to communication networks
Any other items or services determined to be basic human needs.

Government should require of all people withing it's national borders:

Government service:
Taxes

Done. Not that hard.


Wow should the govn be required to wipe your **** as well?


When Smash shows up to wipe his **** all over my neighborhood I'm gonna be dam happy the government is there to end the horror.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#244 Sep 14 2012 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Wow should the govn be required to wipe your **** as well?
Look at it this way: You'd finally have a well paid job with your skillset if they did.

Edited, Sep 14th 2012 9:13am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#245 Sep 14 2012 at 11:00 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,894 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution


So, just to be clear your unequivocal statement was "do what this document says", then you judge every action and determine if it meets the criteria? No sir, no equivocation there. Just make a broad list. How hard can it be, you clearly have a distinct vision of what government should do and aren't deriving your philosophy day by day from a cynical group of opinion makers profiting from your ignorance and desperate need to feel a sense of belonging.

I can do this for my political philosophy in about five seconds:

Government should provide to all people within it's geographic national borders:

Food
Housing
Access to the best healthcare possible
Education
Transportation
Heat/Water/Electricity
Law enforcement/National Defense
Access to communication networks
Any other items or services determined to be basic human needs.

Government should require of all people withing it's national borders:

Government service
Taxes

Done. Not that hard.

Hey, I'm all for conscription. Two years service between high school and college.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#246 Sep 14 2012 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,929 posts
Debalic wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution


So, just to be clear your unequivocal statement was "do what this document says", then you judge every action and determine if it meets the criteria? No sir, no equivocation there. Just make a broad list. How hard can it be, you clearly have a distinct vision of what government should do and aren't deriving your philosophy day by day from a cynical group of opinion makers profiting from your ignorance and desperate need to feel a sense of belonging.

I can do this for my political philosophy in about five seconds:

Government should provide to all people within it's geographic national borders:

Food
Housing
Access to the best healthcare possible
Education
Transportation
Heat/Water/Electricity
Law enforcement/National Defense
Access to communication networks
Any other items or services determined to be basic human needs.

Government should require of all people withing it's national borders:

Government service
Taxes

Done. Not that hard.

Hey, I'm all for conscription. Two years service between high school and college.


I assume you're joking?
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#247 Sep 14 2012 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,841 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution


So, just to be clear your unequivocal statement was "do what this document says", then you judge every action and determine if it meets the criteria? No sir, no equivocation there. Just make a broad list. How hard can it be, you clearly have a distinct vision of what government should do and aren't deriving your philosophy day by day from a cynical group of opinion makers profiting from your ignorance and desperate need to feel a sense of belonging.

I can do this for my political philosophy in about five seconds:

Government should provide to all people within it's geographic national borders:

Food
Housing
Access to the best healthcare possible
Education
Transportation
Heat/Water/Electricity
Law enforcement/National Defense
Access to communication networks
Any other items or services determined to be basic human needs.

Government should require of all people withing it's national borders:

Government service
Taxes

Done. Not that hard.

Hey, I'm all for conscription. Two years service between high school and college.


I assume you're joking?


For me the answer would be "No" Just give them a choice of either serving in such groups as the Peace Core or America Core or whatever other service there is out there, that will teach them the Values of American Citizenship.

I know I got the names wrong, but I reach my limit in trying to make sense posting for the day.
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#248 Sep 14 2012 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
Samira wrote:
Shaowstrike wrote:
Shape of...an Eagle! Form of...a cracker!


Joph is gonna make me be the cracker twin, I just know it.


Unless Joph wants to be the female half of the team, you're in luck.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#249 Sep 14 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,894 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

If my saying that big government is based on whether the particular thing that the (federal) government is doing falls in or outside the set of those required of it by the constitution


So, just to be clear your unequivocal statement was "do what this document says", then you judge every action and determine if it meets the criteria? No sir, no equivocation there. Just make a broad list. How hard can it be, you clearly have a distinct vision of what government should do and aren't deriving your philosophy day by day from a cynical group of opinion makers profiting from your ignorance and desperate need to feel a sense of belonging.

I can do this for my political philosophy in about five seconds:

Government should provide to all people within it's geographic national borders:

Food
Housing
Access to the best healthcare possible
Education
Transportation
Heat/Water/Electricity
Law enforcement/National Defense
Access to communication networks
Any other items or services determined to be basic human needs.

Government should require of all people withing it's national borders:

Government service
Taxes

Done. Not that hard.

Hey, I'm all for conscription. Two years service between high school and college.


I assume you're joking?

Not entirely. One of the most common complaints these days is that each new generation that comes up is increasingly sheltered and coddled. The nanny state coming to fruition. So now we get new generations of overweight, underexposed hipster douchebags who think they are entitled the world. Put em through basic training and maybe a stint somewhere like the National Guard. I know that I probably would have turned out a **** of a lot better with that kind of training and discipline at that age.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#250 Sep 14 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Government should provide to all people within it's geographic national borders:

Food
Housing
Access to the best healthcare possible
Education
Transportation
Heat/Water/Electricity
Law enforcement/National Defense
Access to communication networks
Any other items or services determined to be basic human needs.



No one's arguing that *you* don't think the government should do these things. But you are an advocate of "big government", right? Aside from law enforcement and national defense, can you find where in the constitution it says that the government must provide those things?

It doesn't. Thus, all of those other things are aspects of "big government". We may decide to do them anyway, but as I've said before, conservatives tend to oppose them, especially when the costs become significant.

Quote:
Government should require of all people withing it's national borders:

Government service
Taxes

Done. Not that hard.


No one was asking what you think government should do, but what conservatives think it should do. A conservative's answer to that question is to list of only those things required in the constitution. Everything outside of those things is a "can do", not a "must do" and conservatives will tend to oppose them.


That's not hard to understand either, is it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#251 Sep 14 2012 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Should people be responsible for anything?


People? Yes, people are responsible for providing all of these to one another. Do you mean should each person have to struggle to meet their basic needs so that some miniscule fraction of them can have a 5th vacation home? No, they shouldn't.


A. You have a very different view of "basic needs" than most people.

B. There's no correlation between rich people being rich (or richer even!) and poor people struggling more to meet their basic needs. In fact, we can make a strong case that the opposite is true. As the rich have become richer over the last century or so, the quality of life for the working class (and even the poor) has increased dramatically. Along the way, the ability of more people to become middle class and enjoy a fair amount of luxuries has increased.

You're presenting a false dilemma. We can both have rich people getting richer *and* improve the standard of living of everyone else. It's just easier to dangle free stuff in front of the masses, convince them that it's the rich in the way of them getting them, and then use that to gain political power.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Anonymous Guests (33)