This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Milk wrote on 2012-03-05 22:26
You guys say it isn't our fault reminds me of a video TLC posted were Ron argued the same thing. Of course all the other people disagreed with him and stated that "no this is america & when one of us makes a mistake we are all to blame because we stick together" which is pretty much bull crap.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-05 22:26
Quote from RebeccaBlack;796959:
Anarchy might seem like an alright idea as a concept, but realistically it would just be a disaster. Think about how bad things get already when we do have the police and all these wonderful services. Without all of that, it would just spiral out of control and people would be forced to go out for revenge if they wanted anything done. It would essentially end up in a bunch of gangs forming and fighting each other constantly. This actually already happens in some places, even with the police. It would just happen on a much larger scale with anarchy and it would be near impossible to not be pulled in in an attempt to live a safer life.
If there's zero regulation for how people can hurt each other, people are going to hurt each other. It's simply unavoidable. Hoping people will clean up their communities and keep everything relatively decent is an unrealistic expectation.
While a few police officers and firefighters are bad and detrimental to society, they are incredibly beneficial overall. In any large group of people, a couple bad ones are unavoidable... but things tend to get blown out of proportion. The bad ones are few and far between.
I realize that emergency numbers cost money, and I'm willing to pay for that. I must've had to call 911 at least 5-10 times now in my life and I can guarantee that two of those times, someone would've been dead if I didn't. It's very nice that a number can be called anywhere in the US to prevent disaster and someone is guaranteed to be there within several minutes. I'd say it's absolutely worth the money. It's pretty inexpensive when you consider that its primary purpose is to prevent serious injury, death, and take care of other important emergencies.
In a capitalistic anarchistic society, social services like police and firefighters will be privatized. Of course then money become the leader so it's not truely free anyway.
Quote from Cynic;796956:
Or the Cat actually knows what's going on and doesn't blindly follow Paul's ideals like a lost puppy.
I mean seriously. If you go around saying everyone who doesn't agree with you is doing it out of spite, then I suppose the whole world has no opinions of their own and just disagrees because we all hate eachother.
Read this please:
Some people don't understand, freedom is a trade off, we trade part of our freedom in exchange for the benefit of society. For example, we promise not to steal from others or not to harm another, in exchange we can use services society provides such as market variety and security of our own property. With that understood, you have to ask yourself this: How much freedom are you willing to give up in exchange for the benefit because that is the true nature of the issue regarding individual liberty. People like Ron Paul and I prefer less regulation from government and more freedom for ourselves, but the trade off is of course if we had our way government will also provide less benefit. That means when something bad happens to you, government won't help you as much.
Now you can also trade more freedom for more benefit, what's happening in US right now is people are trading their freedom for security, for protection from terrorist attacks, for policies that gives them stuffs because they are a memeber of the society, in exchange however, government becomes bigger, and have more power, and more of your freedom is lost. The reason why I don't want this is because if you look ahead along this road, you will eventually reach communism. Because that's what communism is, communism is a society where you recieve absolute benefit from society but you are also slave to it, nothing is yours, everything belong to everyone.
Now having read all that, look back at Ron Paul's stand on hurricane, do you see why I am not upset with him? Yes it is immoral not to help these people, but Ron Paul doesn't want to do it because the price for such help is more government. Which is why he has no problem with private sectors or non-governmental organizations helping these people. It's not because he is dingy or mean, he wants to help those people too, I want to help those people as well, but I don't want government to help them, that's all.
Quote from Elena;796980:
What does he mean there is no federal money. What the hell is the federal income tax, then? People who live in areas hit by disasters pay them too. :/
If they're "stealing" my money already then why not use it to help.
Ron Paul want to remove income tax or reduce it to 1%, and if you think it's crazy, US haven't had income tax until a while back and government worked perfectly fine without it. Government is not very efficient in term of financial management, lots of money are wasted. Ron Paul thinks by giving the tax money to government, government will just pass some stupid bills or sen foreign aid to US's enemies, and they are doing exactly that I mean "planned parenthood?" come on. Ron Paul thinks if instead of paying tax, people keep the money, they become wealthier and thus more willing to spend and that's how we get back on track of our domestic economy.
-
Scarlet wrote on 2012-03-05 22:55
[FONT="Times New Roman"]Ron Paul is Republican, which mostly means he supports less government involvement, so what do you expect from his speech? Because politics is politics, you can't say what you actually believe in. You say what your supporters want to hear, and then do whatever you want when you're elected, that's the common drill for presidents.[/FONT]
Quote from Cynic;796996:
Seeing as neither my Mom nor I have ever been able to vote.. it's fair to say that it isn't really my fault. Regardless, if you want to tax people in order to pay of a debt that isn't going to be taken care of anytime soon either way, then tax people who can actually significantly contribute to paying off the debt, like rich people or churches.
Taking our money and then saying "oh well lul ur american so ur obligated to pay off our debts" is a very poor excuse. Setting aside the fact that they're taxing the wrong people, we still deserve the right to financial help in situations that we have no control over. Using our tax money to pay for it shouldn't be a problem since it was our money to begin with.
[FONT="Times New Roman"]Republicans aren't supposed to care about poor people, they mainly just want less tax for their substantial incomes. Understand that government aid helps poor people at the expense of people who actually have money, and this is what Democrats support.[/FONT]
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-03-06 03:20
A better way for government to help tornado victims is by cutting taxes and allowing people to keep enough of their own money to be able to help themselves. Lower taxes would also make it easier to start up private charities since people would actually have the extra money needed to give to the poor.
It's not that libertarians and fiscal conservatives don't care about the poor, it's just that they have a different approach to helping the poor than the fiscal liberals.
-
George Costanza wrote on 2012-03-06 03:22
Ron Paul is still for 2012
We don't want no Obama
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-03-06 03:23
Quote from George Costanza;797247:
Ron Paul is still for 2012
We don't want no Obama
[Image: http://static.infowars.com/2012/03/i/general/justundo.png]
-
Meikeru wrote on 2012-03-06 04:18
Quote from TLCBonaparte;797017:
Some people don't understand, freedom is a trade off, we trade part of our freedom in exchange for the benefit of society. For example, we promise not to steal from others or not to harm another, in exchange we can use services society provides such as market variety and security of our own property. With that understood, you have to ask yourself this: How much freedom are you willing to give up in exchange for the benefit because that is the true nature of the issue regarding individual liberty. People like Ron Paul and I prefer less regulation from government and more freedom for ourselves, but the trade off is of course if we had our way government will also provide less benefit. That means when something bad happens to you, government won't help you as much.
Now you can also trade more freedom for more benefit, what's happening in US right now is people are trading their freedom for security, for protection from terrorist attacks, for policies that gives them stuffs because they are a member of the society, in exchange however, government becomes bigger, and have more power, and more of your freedom is lost. [S]The reason why I don't want this is because if you look ahead along this road, you will eventually reach communism. Because that's what communism is, communism is a society where you receive absolute benefit from society but you are also slave to it, nothing is yours, everything belong to everyone. [/S]
Now having read all that, look back at Ron Paul's stand on hurricane, do you see why I am not upset with him? Yes it is immoral not to help these people, but Ron Paul doesn't want to do it because the price for such help is more government. Which is why he has no problem with private sectors or non-governmental organizations helping these people. It's not because he is dingy or mean, he wants to help those people too, I want to help those people as well, but I don't want government to help them, that's all.
Ron Paul want to remove income tax or reduce it to 1%, and if you think it's crazy, US haven't had income tax until a while back and government worked perfectly fine without it. Government is not very efficient in term of financial management, lots of money are wasted. Ron Paul thinks by giving the tax money to government, government will just pass some stupid bills or sen foreign aid to US's enemies, and they are doing exactly that I mean "planned parenthood?" come on. Ron Paul thinks if instead of paying tax, people keep the money, they become wealthier and thus more willing to spend and that's how we get back on track of our domestic economy.
The definition of a social contract is nice and all and you bring up a good question, which also brings up the question, what freedoms are Americans missing as of now that is absolutely of the most vital importance? Legalized marijuana? You might say that SOPA or PIPA threaten American freedom, but our founding fathers intentionally made Congress into a bicameral legislature for a reason. The radical idiots. The process for a bill to become law is specifically designed to weed out the poorly thought out bills and bring out the best. There has been poorly thought out ones like the patriot act, but you also must keep in mind that our representatives are people too, and these bills do get amended sooner or later.
Government is made for the people. They provide services and help the people. While income tax is most likely a problem for some, radically removing it completely is a bad idea. The top 1% don't feel a thing from it. There has been super uber rich people, who's names escape me at the moment, who even admit that there needs to be an increase in the tax rate for the wealthy. And since you'll most likely will disregard my claim, the most prosperous periods in US history (1950s and 1960s) have come during periods of super-high marginal income tax rates. And some of the most disastrous periods in US history (1930s, 2010s) have come after periods of super-low income tax rates. And during the worst periods the top 1% held a lot of the income. Whereas during the worst periods the inequality was smaller. And planned parenthood is also not foreign nor an enemy.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-06 04:27
Quote from Cynic;796956:
Or the Cat actually knows what's going on and doesn't blindly follow Paul's ideals like a lost puppy.
I mean seriously. If you go around saying everyone who doesn't agree with you is doing it out of spite, then I suppose the whole world has no opinions of their own and just disagrees because we all hate eachother.
Quote from Elena;796980:
What does he mean there is no federal money. What the hell is the federal income tax, then? People who live in areas hit by disasters pay them too. :/
If they're "stealing" my money already then why not use it to help.
Quote from Meikeru;797329:
The definition of a social contract is nice and all and you bring up a good question, which also brings up the question, what freedoms are Americans missing as of now that is absolutely of the most vital importance? Legalized marijuana? You might say that SOPA or PIPA threaten American freedom, but our founding fathers intentionally made Congress into a bicameral legislature for a reason. The radical idiots. The process for a bill to become law is specifically designed to weed out the poorly thought out bills and bring out the best. There has been poorly thought out ones like the patriot act, but you also must keep in mind that our representatives are people too, and these bills do get amended sooner or later.
Government is made for the people. They provide services and help the people. While income tax is most likely a problem for some, radically removing it completely is a bad idea. The top 1% don't feel a thing from it. There has been super uber rich people, who's names escape me at the moment, who even admit that there needs to be an increase in the tax rate for the wealthy. And since you'll most likely will disregard my claim, the most prosperous periods in US history (1950s and 1960s) have come during periods of super-high marginal income tax rates. And some of the most disastrous periods in US history (1930s, 2010s) have come after periods of super-low income tax rates. And during the worst periods the top 1% held a lot of the income. Whereas during the worst periods the inequality was smaller. And planned parenthood is also not foreign nor an enemy.
I will check your data on income tax. And by planned parenthood I mean bad policies, not foreign policies.
-
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-03-06 04:41
Quote from Milk;796961:
It's obvious that he does know what he is talking about but you don't seem to realise that the Cat even refuses to acknowledge that Dr. Paul has some Ideas that his some of his polices are actually really good ideas.
The cat is kind of the opposite of TLC.
The cat goes out of his way just to bash ron paul and tlc refuses to admit that ron paul is not the perfect president.
facepaws*
wow
the cat knows Ron Paul has some excellent ideas
but everything ELSE is asking for trouble/not fit for American culture
You can't tell the difference from constructive criticism and opinions
the next time you post something like that again, it's definitely going to the moderators.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2012-03-06 05:20
If I'm paying taxes, you better believe that I'm gonna request the government to help me if I'm in dire need.
Come on now.
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-03-06 05:26
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we all suck as a community!
People forcing their political opinions down our throats is so much fun.
I'm sorry, but TLC, i'm kinda sick and tired of reading all of your pro-Ron Paul stuff.
I'm not even mad right now, but i've had it up to here because you try really really hard to force your political ideas on err'body else. Not a lot of people agreed with you when you first told us about him and not a lot of people agree now.
inb4infraction, but i'm tired of having to powerscroll through long-winded posts about some other guy's opinion.
I hate all the arguing, yo. I don't even feel like putting my $.02 is worth being attacked by a pro-Paul diatribe.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2012-03-06 05:28
I'd love to see Ron Paul win the Republican nomination though...
just to get his ass handed back to him by Obama this upcoming November.
[Image: http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obama_idiot.jpg]
I don't think any of the Republicans stand a chance this election year. Incumbents are pretty popular among voters.
Look at Bush.
-
Claudia wrote on 2012-03-06 05:32
Quote from Phunkie;797436:
I'd love to see Ron Paul win the Republican nomination though...
just to get his ass handed back to him by Obama this upcoming November.
[Image: http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obama_idiot.jpg]
I don't think any of the Republicans stand a chance this election year. Incumbents are pretty popular among voters.
Look at Bush.
I agree. If I could vote in the primary, i'd vote Romney, but probably vote Obama come November. :v
Also, back on topic, but I think not giving federal help is stupid. Even though yes, people should have insurance, at the very least it's going to cost money to clear out the wreckage of the storm. And if you've ever been in a situation like that, whether it's a tornado or a hurricane or a bad snowstorm, it takes a LOT of work to get things back to normal.
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-03-06 05:58
Quote from Claudia;797429:
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we all suck as a community!
People forcing their political opinions down our throats is so much fun.
I'm sorry, but TLC, i'm kinda sick and tired of reading all of your pro-Ron Paul stuff.
I'm not even mad right now, but i've had it up to here because you try really really hard to force your political ideas on err'body else. Not a lot of people agreed with you when you first told us about him and not a lot of people agree now.
inb4infraction, but i'm tired of having to powerscroll through long-winded posts about some other guy's opinion.
I hate all the arguing, yo. I don't even feel like putting my $.02 is worth being attacked by a pro-Paul diatribe.
WATCH OUT GUYS, TLC IS TALKING ABOUT RON PAUL IN A THREAD ABOUT RON PAUL!!!!!
But in all seriousness, if you think about it, no one is
forcing anything on anyone here. It's really annoying how people think that
spreading or expressing beliefs is the same as
forcing. Believe it or not, there is a difference.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-06 07:16
Quote from Phunkie;797436:
I'd love to see Ron Paul win the Republican nomination though...
just to get his ass handed back to him by Obama this upcoming November.
[Image: http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obama_idiot.jpg]
I don't think any of the Republicans stand a chance this election year. Incumbents are pretty popular among voters.
Look at Bush.
Obama will have a hard time against Ron Paul if Paul won the primary because lots of people who use to support Obama are not supporting Paul, Paul may not appeal to republican voter base but he is very popular with party free voters and democrative voters.