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.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?
What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow
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 *****. 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.
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 *****. 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
[...]
Seems pretty clear to me. Anyone really confused by this?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
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.
So the Constitution consists of "collect taxes, bomb brown people, deny abortions and gay marriages"?
Edited, Sep 13th 2012 11:06pm by Debalic
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.
Jophiel wrote:
Samira, we should get matching power rings!
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I think it says you always have to mention God, too.
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Samira, we should get matching power rings!
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
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
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 *****. 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.
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 *****. 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.
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 *****. 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.
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 *****. 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.
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.
Are Cracker Jacks really crackers?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
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 *****. 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.
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 *****. 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.
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:
I lost my post
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Wow should the govn be required to wipe your *** as well?
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.
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.
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?
Just as Planned.
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.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
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
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
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 hell 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.
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.
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.
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
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
Recent Visitors: 356
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (356)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC