Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Has anyone ever convinced you to change from being conservative to being liberal (or vice versa)?   (fark.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1373 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2013 at 2:49 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



737 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-07-22 12:19:15 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Skyrmion: A common thread here seems to be that people who change are more likely to feel pushed away from one side than drawn to the other. I think I'm the same way. It could explain why a lot of politics is so negative, though.

I used to consider myself "liberal" and still do, but I've changed issue-by-issue. I've gone even further left on foreign policy and economic issues, and more libertarian on social issues.

I also have a consistent anti-authority streak that has me leaning a little more left under Republicans (GW Bush was a big one) and more right under Democratic ones.

See, I guess I don't understand how an anti-authoritarian streak pushes one right. Everything rightists push is based in authoritarianism, from social policies to ultra-capitalist economics.


Yeah, maybe I should correct that. It's not so much pushing me "right" as it is the parties themselves adjusting and pushing me to to agree more with the words that come out of Republicans mouths more and Democrats mouths less. This kind of thing drives me nuts, for example:

www.motherjones.com

Somehow I've become closer to Republicans than Democrats on the subject of government surveillance. Never saw that coming.
 
2013-07-22 12:19:17 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dusk-You-n-Me: The right to an attorney?

You have no "right to an attorney" outside of the state bringing you into the criminal justice system, which is a specific situation for which the state is responsible, and is therefore constitutionally required to equip you with an attorney if you are unable to get one of your own. But the key thing here is that no attorney can be compelled to provide counsel. They volunteer and are paid for their services. The STATE has the obligation to provide one for you when charging you with a crime. And, of course, you are free to get your own.

But outside of that specific circumstance where the legal system is required to provide one for you? No right at all. You have no "RIGHT" to an attorney to sue for you in civil court, for instance. And you have no "RIGHT" to an attorney if someone sues you.


You must be pretty incensed about the already threadbare public defender system getting gutted by sequestration.
 
2013-07-22 12:20:02 PM  

Serious Black: Hurray for terrible metaphors involving taxation!


That's not a metaphor. That is a description.

Serious Black: why must we specify for all eternity an exact percentage of money that we think should go to the government in the form of taxes?


Only when someone says the current amount is "not too much". Begs the question. What, then, IS too much?

Serious Black: Have you read Gideon v. Wainwright? Or going back further, have you read the text of the Sixth Amendment?


Have you? Can you point me to the provision that requires an attorney to provide criminal defense council against their will? The STATE has a requirement to provide counsel, but they must find volunteers and pay them to do so.

jchuffyman: ER doctors are already required to treat anybody and everybody that shows up there, regardless of their ability to pay


ER Doctors choose to work the ER. And they ARE paid by the hospital for doing so. They get paid whether their patient pays or not.
 
2013-07-22 12:21:19 PM  

SunsetLament: TuteTibiImperes: The answer to the health care dilemma is pretty simple:

National single payer system - Medicare for everyone

Premiums paid out of taxes at a progressive rate like income taxes (which I'd argue should be higher at the upper income levels as well)

A panel of doctors and experts sets the reimbursement costs at a fair level that lets medical facilities keep the doors open but still minimize costs, adjustments are made every couple years, maybe with a codified COLA adjustment in-between

All medical facilities are required by law to accept the government insurance

All doctors and medical facilities are required by law to perform any treatment to preserve life and quality of life for any patient who comes through the doors.  Appropriate exceptions can be made for the elderly for whom extreme measures would just slightly postpone death by natural causes.

Birth control, vasectomies, and other treatments that serve to save money in the long run would be covered.

Reconstructive plastic surgery (after burns, traumatic injuries, or to address defects such as hare lips) would be covered.

Vanity treatments like breast implants, calf implants, penis enlargements, etc, would have to come out of the patient's pocket

There's one flaw in your plan (well, there's tons of flaws in your plan, but there's one overarching flaw in your plan) ... the rest of the country overwhelming disagrees with you.


No, they don't.
 
2013-07-22 12:25:37 PM  

Serious Black: You must be pretty incensed about the already threadbare public defender system getting gutted by sequestration.


That has nothing to do with anything I posted. But I appreciate your attempt at deflection.
 
2013-07-22 12:25:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Hurray for terrible metaphors involving taxation!

That's not a metaphor. That is a description.

Serious Black: why must we specify for all eternity an exact percentage of money that we think should go to the government in the form of taxes?

Only when someone says the current amount is "not too much". Begs the question. What, then, IS too much?

Serious Black: Have you read Gideon v. Wainwright? Or going back further, have you read the text of the Sixth Amendment?

Have you? Can you point me to the provision that requires an attorney to provide criminal defense council against their will? The STATE has a requirement to provide counsel, but they must find volunteers and pay them to do so.

jchuffyman: ER doctors are already required to treat anybody and everybody that shows up there, regardless of their ability to pay

ER Doctors choose to work the ER. And they ARE paid by the hospital for doing so. They get paid whether their patient pays or not.


And why would health care being a right change the fact that doctors get paid either way?
 
2013-07-22 12:28:12 PM  
I used to be the libbiest lib who ever libbed but then came Obama and my inability to use a tapemeasure.... thanks Obama.
 
2013-07-22 12:28:58 PM  

Skyrmion: A Dark Evil Omen: Skyrmion: A common thread here seems to be that people who change are more likely to feel pushed away from one side than drawn to the other. I think I'm the same way. It could explain why a lot of politics is so negative, though.

I used to consider myself "liberal" and still do, but I've changed issue-by-issue. I've gone even further left on foreign policy and economic issues, and more libertarian on social issues.

I also have a consistent anti-authority streak that has me leaning a little more left under Republicans (GW Bush was a big one) and more right under Democratic ones.

See, I guess I don't understand how an anti-authoritarian streak pushes one right. Everything rightists push is based in authoritarianism, from social policies to ultra-capitalist economics.

Yeah, maybe I should correct that. It's not so much pushing me "right" as it is the parties themselves adjusting and pushing me to to agree more with the words that come out of Republicans mouths more and Democrats mouths less. This kind of thing drives me nuts, for example:

[www.motherjones.com image 425x278]

Somehow I've become closer to Republicans than Democrats on the subject of government surveillance. Never saw that coming.


Meh. I was against it under Bush, I'm against it now. When you get away from a few core issues the Ds and Rs don't have a lot of strong policy positions, either partywide or among their voter base, and one place that both parties vacillate strongly is policing and militarism; everyone is against strengthening the police state when their opponents are in power, but for it when their party is. Even that chart, however, is instructive; notice that even out of power, a narrow majority of R supporters still support those programs, while in the reverse situation D opposition is rigorous. I am closer to the Republicans' present ostensible position on pervasive surveillance, but I still don't think they want an anarcho-socialist around, particularly since I'll still be against it when President Santorum or whatever is in power.
 
2013-07-22 12:29:33 PM  
A lot of people posting in here about their conversion from Republican to non-Republican seem to have very religious upbringings and seem to have found a way "out" of conservatism as they discovered their atheism. The conflation of religion and conservatism has done more damage to the Republican party than party leaders will ever admit. There is no inherent religiosity in conservatism, but by courting the Religious Right, the Republicans have essentially created a party in which non-religious people are made to feel unwelcome.

It has acted as a double punch to the GOP. In the first case, those who feel unwelcome slowly realign themselves as conservative or moderate Democrats (or Libertarians or Independents). In the second, it creates the environment in which religious clarity can lead to an almost joyous flight into the arms of the Democrat party. Either way, the core Republican constituency has become shifted completely to the Religious Right. Where the Republicans used to only pay lip service, now they are full on fellating these morans.
 
2013-07-22 12:33:30 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: A lot of people posting in here about their conversion from Republican to non-Republican seem to have very religious upbringings and seem to have found a way "out" of conservatism as they discovered their atheism. The conflation of religion and conservatism has done more damage to the Republican party than party leaders will ever admit. There is no inherent religiosity in conservatism, but by courting the Religious Right, the Republicans have essentially created a party in which non-religious people are made to feel unwelcome.

It has acted as a double punch to the GOP. In the first case, those who feel unwelcome slowly realign themselves as conservative or moderate Democrats (or Libertarians or Independents). In the second, it creates the environment in which religious clarity can lead to an almost joyous flight into the arms of the Democrat party. Either way, the core Republican constituency has become shifted completely to the Religious Right. Where the Republicans used to only pay lip service, now they are full on fellating these morans.


Yup, the Reagan/Conservative revolution succeeded by giving a larger voice and power to the religious right block of voters, and it seems to be slowly but surely biting them in the ass. For a party so firmly for free market capitalism, they sure don't know how to diversify
 
2013-07-22 12:34:14 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Hurray for terrible metaphors involving taxation!

That's not a metaphor. That is a description.


Saying taxation is stealing is a descriptive metaphor. More than that, it's a metaphor that has been memetically selected because you're trying to impart onto people a specific view of taxes. You want people to believe that a government collecting taxes is behaving exactly like a criminal who just stole your wallet or jacked your car. You want people to believe collecting taxes is immoral.

Serious Black: why must we specify for all eternity an exact percentage of money that we think should go to the government in the form of taxes?

Only when someone says the current amount is "not too much". Begs the question. What, then, IS too much?


I'd say 100% taxation is too much. And hey, guess what? Nobody in America actually supports 100% taxation! Or if somebody does, I have yet to meet them.

Serious Black: Have you read Gideon v. Wainwright? Or going back further, have you read the text of the Sixth Amendment?

Have you? Can you point me to the provision that requires an attorney to provide criminal defense council against their will? The STATE has a requirement to provide counsel, but they must find volunteers and pay them to do so.


A declaration that health care is a right would similarly result in the government finding volunteers to provide people health care and paying them to do so. That's what happens with the VA, and it's also what happens with prisons now that the Supreme Court has declared prisoners to be the one class of Americans who actually have a right to health care.
 
2013-07-22 12:34:35 PM  

Tyee: The My Little Pony Killer: You don't pay THAT much in taxes.

You really, really have no idea what I pay.

And if taxes weren't automatically taken out of your paycheck ( I'm assuming you get one) and you had to write out a check to the government(s) periodically you wouldn't be happy when you realize how much you do pay.  Pull out a few months of stubs and add up how much you earned but you didn't get.


I understand what you're saying.   All my previous jobs had been as employees where taxes were taken out automatically.  I worked as an independent contractor for a year and had to write a GIANT check to the state and feds to pay taxes.  At that point, it made me understand just a little what all the rich Republicans had been whining about.  It farking hurt to write those checks.  I think that was the first time I felt real powerfully emotional greed.  I got over it quickly.  I happen to love this country and I'm proud to do my share.
 
2013-07-22 12:35:29 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: MadHatter500: Healthcare isn't a optional luxury.

Nor is it a right.

Nothing that requires the labor of another person can be a right. You have a right not to be poisoned, you have a right to exercise, you have a right to clean air and water, you have a right to take whatever steps for yourself you deem fit to stay healthy. But you do not have a RIGHT to have a doctor tend to your health. No human right can ever require the unwilling participation of another person.

Once you realize this we'll stop calling you a naïve child.


You contradicted yourself pretty severely. Clean air and clean water both require other peoples work.
 
2013-07-22 12:36:15 PM  
I was raised thinking I was conservative.

Turns out I wasn't conservative at all.

Although, I might be considered a conservative from the 70's or 80's, before the take over of the GOP by the Religious Right.
 
2013-07-22 12:36:39 PM  
feckingmorons:I worked in a big city ER (several cities I even worked at St. Johns in St. Louis for 13 weeks on a contract) and I've seen it myself. Sure it is not everyone, but one out of 100 unfunded patients quite easily.

So you saw one percent of unfunded patients scamming the system (a deduction based on your observations of the purse they were carrying or the car they were put in, natch), so you're willing to tell the other 99 percent to go fark themselves as a result.

I don't know a real Gucci bag from a fake one, but still they had them.

And yet you'd deny 99 people healthcare because of the one person carrying the bag that you can't even tell is real or not.

I don't particularly like being called an asshole.

Then you should avoid conversations about healthcare. Or reconsider your opinion on it
 
2013-07-22 12:40:04 PM  

jchuffyman: And why would health care being a right change the fact that doctors get paid either way?


Dunno,. But that doesn't make it a right. Health care is not a right. You do not have RIGHT to anything that requires the unwilling participation of another person. You cannot have healthcare in the sense that people think of it without the participation of willing participants to provide that healthcare.

Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime. What about a "right" to sex? Only insomuch as you can find a willing partner. You have absolutely no right to have sex with anyone unwilling. Doing so is a crime. Whether or not a person is paid to get them to be willing is not the determining factor. A doctor can willingly treat you for free if they so choose. Or they may require that they be paid. But that has no bearing on your fictitious "right" to healthcare.

There can never be a "right" to healthcare, because it is dependent on the willing participation of a person providing goods or services.
 
2013-07-22 12:43:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jchuffyman: And why would health care being a right change the fact that doctors get paid either way?

Dunno,. But that doesn't make it a right. Health care is not a right. You do not have RIGHT to anything that requires the unwilling participation of another person. You cannot have healthcare in the sense that people think of it without the participation of willing participants to provide that healthcare.

Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime. What about a "right" to sex? Only insomuch as you can find a willing partner. You have absolutely no right to have sex with anyone unwilling. Doing so is a crime. Whether or not a person is paid to get them to be willing is not the determining factor. A doctor can willingly treat you for free if they so choose. Or they may require that they be paid. But that has no bearing on your fictitious "right" to healthcare.

There can never be a "right" to healthcare, because it is dependent on the willing participation of a person providing goods or services.


And you apparently think that if the Supreme Court declared health care to be a right, or if the Constitution were amended to say health care is a right, that we would immediately enslave millions of people and force them to work in the health care industry. Why is it completely impossible for a government to pay willing volunteers to be a doctor or a nurse in order to guarantee the right to health care for its constituents?
 
2013-07-22 12:43:43 PM  
The Founding Fathers passed a bill that forced some people to buy health insurance.
 
2013-07-22 12:44:39 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jchuffyman: And why would health care being a right change the fact that doctors get paid either way?

Dunno,. But that doesn't make it a right. Health care is not a right. You do not have RIGHT to anything that requires the unwilling participation of another person. You cannot have healthcare in the sense that people think of it without the participation of willing participants to provide that healthcare.

Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime. What about a "right" to sex? Only insomuch as you can find a willing partner. You have absolutely no right to have sex with anyone unwilling. Doing so is a crime. Whether or not a person is paid to get them to be willing is not the determining factor. A doctor can willingly treat you for free if they so choose. Or they may require that they be paid. But that has no bearing on your fictitious "right" to healthcare.

There can never be a "right" to healthcare, because it is dependent on the willing participation of a person providing goods or services.


You listed the right to not be poisoned as an existing right. Well, that right depends on the participation of other people. Mainly, food production companies are regulated to make sure that they provide food that is safe to serve and eat. And as history has shown, a lot of those companies bowed to regulation quite unwillingly. I don't see your point. Many rights are enforced on people unwillingly.
 
2013-07-22 12:45:08 PM  
I turned 18 just a few days before 9/11 (the real one, not Benghazi), so that's when I really started paying attention to politics.  On that day it was comforting to see Dubya address the nation and I kinda respected him as our leader.
But I caught on soon thereafter.  I registered as a Democrat and haven't looked back.
The presence of libertarians attending the same state university as me while receiving financial aid only strengthened my position.
 
2013-07-22 12:45:45 PM  

Satan's Chocolate Starfish: an intelligent guy like you who appears to have real compassion for others


ahh hahaha
 
2013-07-22 12:49:12 PM  

jchuffyman: BojanglesPaladin: jchuffyman: And why would health care being a right change the fact that doctors get paid either way?

Dunno,. But that doesn't make it a right. Health care is not a right. You do not have RIGHT to anything that requires the unwilling participation of another person. You cannot have healthcare in the sense that people think of it without the participation of willing participants to provide that healthcare.

Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime. What about a "right" to sex? Only insomuch as you can find a willing partner. You have absolutely no right to have sex with anyone unwilling. Doing so is a crime. Whether or not a person is paid to get them to be willing is not the determining factor. A doctor can willingly treat you for free if they so choose. Or they may require that they be paid. But that has no bearing on your fictitious "right" to healthcare.

There can never be a "right" to healthcare, because it is dependent on the willing participation of a person providing goods or services.

You listed the right to not be poisoned as an existing right. Well, that right depends on the participation of other people. Mainly, food production companies are regulated to make sure that they provide food that is safe to serve and eat. And as history has shown, a lot of those companies bowed to regulation quite unwillingly. I don't see your point. Many rights are enforced on people unwillingly.


Another example that involves something SCOTUS has clearly defined as a right being forced onto people unwillingly is the right to marry. Not forcing people to get married mind you, but forcing others to recognize a couple as legitimately married.
 
2013-07-22 12:51:31 PM  

GoldSpider: Serious Black: Yeah, us liberals are all about jealously pillaging the rich.

If you think "your side" has overcome any of humanity's base instincts, you're not helping.


You're proof of that.
 
2013-07-22 12:54:51 PM  
University changed me.  I became an atheist when I started reading philosophy as an undergrad.

Grad school demolished any notions I had of what passes for conservative Economics.

I consider myself an Independent and a Moderate, and I hope I support the party that is trying to do right by the American people.   (If such a thing even exists, and I have my doubts.  The game seems too rigged and too nasty.  Seems like decent people steer clear of it, and that's a shame.)
 
2013-07-22 12:55:06 PM  

keylock71: If anything, I've become more liberal as I've grown older and learn more... I never would have been considered "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination, to be honest.

Funnily enough, it's the words and actions of conservatives and Republicans that have made me more liberal in the last decade or so.

There was a time, though, when I would have voted for moderate Republicans at the local and state level here in MA, but that time has long since disappeared...


I was certainly conservative when I was a selfish shiathead teenager. I actually thought Atlas Shrugged was a realistic portrayal of the obstacles to American business owners in high school.

Thank god I actually experienced reality since then. Seeing the utter contempt conservatism as a whole has for objective observable reality these days, it makes me sick to remember the things I used to think back then.
 
2013-07-22 12:57:05 PM  

jchuffyman: AverageAmericanGuy: A lot of people posting in here about their conversion from Republican to non-Republican seem to have very religious upbringings and seem to have found a way "out" of conservatism as they discovered their atheism. The conflation of religion and conservatism has done more damage to the Republican party than party leaders will ever admit. There is no inherent religiosity in conservatism, but by courting the Religious Right, the Republicans have essentially created a party in which non-religious people are made to feel unwelcome.

It has acted as a double punch to the GOP. In the first case, those who feel unwelcome slowly realign themselves as conservative or moderate Democrats (or Libertarians or Independents). In the second, it creates the environment in which religious clarity can lead to an almost joyous flight into the arms of the Democrat party. Either way, the core Republican constituency has become shifted completely to the Religious Right. Where the Republicans used to only pay lip service, now they are full on fellating these morans.

Yup, the Reagan/Conservative revolution succeeded by giving a larger voice and power to the religious right block of voters, and it seems to be slowly but surely biting them in the ass. For a party so firmly for free market capitalism, they sure don't know how to diversify


The issue has been not just the rise of the Religious Right, but the marrying of the NeoCons--who had been sort of marginalized, and often even mocked, before Reagan brought them into the fold--with them. It has bred an odd Prosperity Gospel that dovetails into the Ivory Tower complex that prefers to think of economics and foreign policy as Games Theory, and they've been willing to try their grand experiment, and as it has failed, the response has been NOT to adjust the sails to come up with better economic policy, but instead, seize the dissemination of the message, to spin results to a positive light, no matter how terrible the crash and results. Which is what folks warned the party would happen if the radical fringe got their way.

But in the mean time, folks are going to make a pretty penny as Rome burns, as they sell buckets and maps to shelters and rope ladders that they SWEAR will get folks over the burning walls. And that is sort of where we find the party now. It's not about Conservatism, it is about opportunists who haven't real grounding, and look at the populace as pieces of chessboard, and even if they KNOW that they're going to lose eventually, it's about moving those pieces back and forth in a perpetual stalemate, because the game continues, and so long as it continues, they're going to get paid.

Calling the rhetoric "Conservative" to mask the radicalism is branding, and nothing more.
 
2013-07-22 12:57:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime. What about a "right" to sex? Only insomuch as you can find a willing partner.


They're not intrinsic rights, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't do what it can to make it's citizens happy, like having food stamp programs for the poor and hungry or subsidized escort services for the poor with no game.

[Hint, hint, Obama.]
 
2013-07-22 01:01:03 PM  

Serious Black: Saying taxation is stealing is a descriptive metaphor.

 More than that, it's a metaphor that has been memetically selected because you're trying to impart onto people a specific view of taxes. 

YOU said stealing, I said confiscation. YOU are trying to insert connotations here, not me. Confiscation is precisely the correct word.

What does confiscation mean, exactly? Let's see what the top five definitions on the googles are...

confiscation: seizure by the government
Confiscate: to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate, by way of penalty, for public use.
Confiscate: 1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury. 2. To seize by or as if by authority.
Confiscate: 1: appropriated by the government : forfeited 2: deprived of property by confiscation
Confiscate: to officially take private property away from someone, usually by legal authority.


So, yeah. Confiscation is the correct and accurate word. If you want to use a different term, feel free, but don't pretend that by doing so, you aren't yourself trying to "bias" the conversation by distracting from the objective reality of what taxes are.

Ned Stark: Clean air and clean water both require other peoples work.


No they don't. They require other people NOT to pollute or damage resources held in the public commons. With no interference, air and water would be as clean as nature allows, and nature is bound by no legal authority. Humans, however are.Just as you do not have a right to cause injury to another person, you do not have a right to cause injury to water, air and other natural resources shared in the public commons. (See also public airwaves).

Serious Black: A declaration that health care is a right would similarly result in the government finding volunteers to provide people health care and paying them to do so. That's what happens with the VA, and it's also what happens with prisons now that the Supreme Court has declared prisoners to be the one class of Americans who actually have a right to health care.

Again, as with public defenders, you are confusing the legal duty of the STATE to provide services to people for whom it has a legal obligation with an inherent individual right. This is illustrated by the fact, that the State's obligation to provide health care to prisoners ends the moment they are no longer in custody.

Yes, the State has a legal obligation to provide counsel and healthcare (and food and shelter and safety, etc.) to individuals who have been incarcerated against their will for the duration of time that the State has them in custody and under its safekeeping. But a prisoner's fictional 'right' to counsel or healthcare evaporates the moment they are released, because they never had a 'right' that extended beyond their legal recourse to demand services required under the state's legal obligation to provide them.

But that is in no way an illustration of a basic human "right" to healthcare.
 
2013-07-22 01:03:09 PM  

hubiestubert: It has bred an odd Prosperity Gospel


I am not normally a very angry person, but the Prosperity Gospel just makes me see red.

I think it's because how *completely at odds* it is with the book they claim is the nigh-literal word of god.

I mean, the only people Jesus gets angry at IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE are the moneychangers in the temple. The folks that are making money off religion. The folks coming to take him off to be killed? He heals one. SATAN? Jesus tells him off, but isn't terribly angry. Using religion/religious grounds as a moneymaking scheme? JESUS IS PISSED.
 
2013-07-22 01:04:05 PM  

o5iiawah: Rincewind53: But you do have to have health care (literally everyone will incur a hospital bill in their lifetime). And someone has to pay for it. So it's either going to be the government and therefore your fellow taxpayers, or it's going to be you.

Thing is when you budget, save and plan your life around certain events, doing the responsible thing and you get rewarded by having to pay for the healthcare of people who chose not to.

I was a raving, gas on fire liberal through college and a few years afterward.  After I started actually working 65 hrs a week to get out of college debt, I started to ask myself why the fark do I work when others sloth and enjoy the same life?  I lived in a shiatty apartment, drove a beater and worked a horrible job.  i once had to loan $500 from a family member to pay some bills and they didn't have much money themselves but they were willing to do it because family.

The thought of my needs imposing a debt on someone else struck a chord.  To this day, I cant understand why it is greedy to keep what you've put your blood, sweat and most preciously, time into earning but it is not greedy to sloth and expect a cut from someone who does.


You could have saved all the rest - the highlighted sentence tells us all we needed to know.

\did the family member that lent you $500 chap your ass like you do everyone else that needs a hand once in awhile?
\\cause according to you, you sure deserved it
 
2013-07-22 01:04:22 PM  
I admit that I did register as a Republican around 91.

Then I heard Pat Buchanan's speech at the '92 RNC, switched to Democrat and voted for Clinton that fall.
 
2013-07-22 01:06:42 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BojanglesPaladin: Nothing that requires the labor of another person can be a right.

The right to an attorney?


The "right to an attorney" is the concept that the government cannot deny you legal representation and advice.  It is not a right to conscript any attorney into your service.  The Constitution does not guarantee legal representation absent money to pay for it.
 
2013-07-22 01:08:09 PM  

Serious Black: Why is it completely impossible for a government to pay willing volunteers to be a doctor or a nurse in order to guarantee the right to health care for its constituents?


It's perfectly possible for the government to hire people to hand out healthcare for "free".

But THAT is not a "right". THAT is the government creating a legal obligation for itself.

You have no RIGHT to the mail, though the government funds readily available post Offices all over the country without 'enslaving' postal workers to do so.

Skyrmion: They're not intrinsic rights, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't do what it can to make it's citizens happy,


Yep. Government can choose to hand out whatever it wants from the public coffers. Government can choose to take tax dollars and pay for peoples food, or their healthcare, or their phones, or their homes, or whatever.

But we agree that those things are not a "right".
 
2013-07-22 01:08:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Saying taxation is stealing is a descriptive metaphor.  More than that, it's a metaphor that has been memetically selected because you're trying to impart onto people a specific view of taxes. 

YOU said stealing, I said confiscation. YOU are trying to insert connotations here, not me. Confiscation is precisely the correct word.

What does confiscation mean, exactly? Let's see what the top five definitions on the googles are...

confiscation: seizure by the government
Confiscate: to seize as forfeited to the public domain; appropriate, by way of penalty, for public use.
Confiscate: 1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury. 2. To seize by or as if by authority.
Confiscate: 1: appropriated by the government : forfeited 2: deprived of property by confiscation
Confiscate: to officially take private property away from someone, usually by legal authority.

So, yeah. Confiscation is the correct and accurate word. If you want to use a different term, feel free, but don't pretend that by doing so, you aren't yourself trying to "bias" the conversation by distracting from the objective reality of what taxes are.

Ned Stark: Clean air and clean water both require other peoples work.

No they don't. They require other people NOT to pollute or damage resources held in the public commons. With no interference, air and water would be as clean as nature allows, and nature is bound by no legal authority. Humans, however are.Just as you do not have a right to cause injury to another person, you do not have a right to cause injury to water, air and other natural resources shared in the public commons. (See also public airwaves).Serious Black: A declaration that health care is a right would similarly result in the government finding volunteers to provide people health care and paying them to do so. That's what happens with the VA, and it's also what happens with prisons now that the Supreme Court has declared prisoners to be the one class of Americans who actually have a right to health care.
Again, as with public defenders, you are confusing the legal duty of the STATE to provide services to people for whom it has a legal obligation with an inherent individual right. This is illustrated by the fact, that the State's obligation to provide health care to prisoners ends the moment they are no longer in custody.

Yes, the State has a legal obligation to provide counsel and healthcare (and food and shelter and safety, etc.) to individuals who have been incarcerated against their will for the duration of time that the State has them in custody and under its safekeeping. But a prisoner's fictional 'right' to counsel or healthcare evaporates the moment they are released, because they never had a 'right' that extended beyond their legal recourse to demand services required under the state's legal obligation to provide them.

But that is in no way an illustration of a basic human "right" to healthcare.


There are not enough clean lakes and rivers for 6 billion people to drink their fill without having soiled or drained all of them by the end of day one. They simply don't exist. And what relativly few DO exist are not neatly mapped to places where human populations actually are.

A right to water implies a right to drills, treatment plants, and pipes. All things that must be built.
 
2013-07-22 01:10:48 PM  

Tyee: The My Little Pony Killer: You don't pay THAT much in taxes.

You really, really have no idea what I pay.

And if taxes weren't automatically taken out of your paycheck ( I'm assuming you get one) and you had to write out a check to the government(s) periodically you wouldn't be happy when you realize how much you do pay.  Pull out a few months of stubs and add up how much you earned but you didn't get.


And my taxes on the state level are paid to employ tea-party morons to steal from me.

You think you have issues?
 
2013-07-22 01:16:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Saying taxation is stealing is a descriptive metaphor.  More than that, it's a metaphor that has been memetically selected because you're trying to impart onto people a specific view of taxes. 

YOU said stealing, I said confiscation. YOU are trying to insert connotations here, not me. Confiscation is precisely the correct word

.

Just for funsies, I went ahead and looked up the word confiscate on thesaurus.com. What did it use as the definition for confiscate? "steal; seize." (emphasis mine) I'd say that my word swap of steal for confiscate was well above ground.

And beyond that, the metaphor of taxation as stealing/confiscation/theft/whatever-the-fark-word-you-want-to-use is pretty damn old and has been used for decades to argue for not just lower taxes, but the abolition of all taxes. It dates back to at least the early 1960's, and it was popularized during Reagan's first term by Murray Rothbard in his seminal book The Ethics of Liberty.

/in case you want to double-check my thesaurus reading, here's the link.
 
2013-07-22 01:17:15 PM  

Skyrmion: BojanglesPaladin: Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime. What about a "right" to sex? Only insomuch as you can find a willing partner.

They're not intrinsic rights, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't do what it can to make it's citizens happy, like having food stamp programs for the poor and hungry or subsidized escort services for the poor with no game.

[Hint, hint, Obama.]


We could always try and measure gross domestic happiness...
 
2013-07-22 01:17:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Why is it completely impossible for a government to pay willing volunteers to be a doctor or a nurse in order to guarantee the right to health care for its constituents?

It's perfectly possible for the government to hire people to hand out healthcare for "free".

But THAT is not a "right". THAT is the government creating a legal obligation for itself.

You have no RIGHT to the mail, though the government funds readily available post Offices all over the country without 'enslaving' postal workers to do so.


What is a right if not a legal obligation placed onto various entities, including the entity that created the legal obligation in the first place?
 
2013-07-22 01:17:58 PM  

Skyrmion: Yeah, maybe I should correct that. It's not so much pushing me "right" as it is the parties themselves adjusting and pushing me to to agree more with the words that come out of Republicans mouths more and Democrats mouths less. This kind of thing drives me nuts, for example:

www.motherjones.com

Somehow I've become closer to Republicans than Democrats on the subject of government surveillance. Never saw that coming.


The only thing those survey results demonstrate to me is that (sadly) both Democrats and Republicans suffer from "it's OK when we do it" syndrome.
 
2013-07-22 01:18:27 PM  
I smelled like a Church Organ growing up so people thought I was conservative
 
2013-07-22 01:20:30 PM  

SunsetLament: The "right to an attorney" is the concept that the government cannot deny you legal representation and advice. It is not a right to conscript any attorney into your service. The Constitution does not guarantee legal representation absent money to pay for it.


Precisely. Although it is important to clarify that in the event a citizen does not have the ability to pay for counsel, the government that is pressing charges has the obligation to pay on behalf of the defendant.
 
2013-07-22 01:20:58 PM  

Felgraf: hubiestubert: It has bred an odd Prosperity Gospel

I am not normally a very angry person, but the Prosperity Gospel just makes me see red.

I think it's because how *completely at odds* it is with the book they claim is the nigh-literal word of god.

I mean, the only people Jesus gets angry at IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE are the moneychangers in the temple. The folks that are making money off religion. The folks coming to take him off to be killed? He heals one. SATAN? Jesus tells him off, but isn't terribly angry. Using religion/religious grounds as a moneymaking scheme? JESUS IS PISSED.


In fairness, the Debbil is just doing what he's supposed to be doing. Jehovah knows all, sees all, and Lucifer's rebellion was part of the plan. What screws you up, is that free will and the Tree of Knowledge, that was a plant. God KNOWS that they will Fall, punishes them for the sin of choice, even if that choice was made without any concept of the consequences, and then consigns those who choose poorly to wander Hell with the Fallen angels, who were pretty pissed that God chose humans to be his favorites, and that was part of the plan too. The People of the Book subscribe to a God who has the game rigged from the moment it starts, and they love him for it...
 
2013-07-22 01:23:29 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Skyrmion: Yeah, maybe I should correct that. It's not so much pushing me "right" as it is the parties themselves adjusting and pushing me to to agree more with the words that come out of Republicans mouths more and Democrats mouths less. This kind of thing drives me nuts, for example:

www.motherjones.com

Somehow I've become closer to Republicans than Democrats on the subject of government surveillance. Never saw that coming.

The only thing those survey results demonstrate to me is that (sadly) both Democrats and Republicans suffer from "it's OK when we do it" syndrome.


Yeah, eventually the Republicans will take the White House again, and it will be time for Republicans to forget they care about deficits and for Democrats to remember that they care about government spying, indefinite detention, and blowing up children overseas.
 
2013-07-22 01:25:05 PM  
No ONE did, no, my increasing moderation (spent most of highschool a hardline liberal) came from watching a failure of the left-wing to organize around any kind of centralized message. I'm not saying I expect the part to mark lockstep, but if you're going to an anti-war rally, maybe leave the LEGALIZE MARIJUANA sign at home. And if your at a legalization rally, maybe your NO BLOOD FOR OIL sign would be better served at that anti-war rally (even if it IS disingenuous), but I also realized there's JUST as much stupidity on the left-wing (though thankfully not as much of it gets elected) in attempts to "convert" you to a certain way of life. It's not the word of Christ, it's the word of Raw Food-ism or Anti-Vaccination (which has about as much science behind it as the Book of Revelations).

Ultimately there are a lot of right-wing and left-wing tenants I believe in, so I've chosen moderation. It's a pity we're not more well represented, but as Jon Stewart once said "Extremists control everything because moderates have shiat to do."
 
2013-07-22 01:25:23 PM  

Ned Stark: A right to water implies a right to drills, treatment plants, and pipes. All things that must be built.


Which is why you PAY for the labor and resources needed to bring the water to places where it would not otherwise exist.

Again, you have no RIGHT to someone else's labor or products. You can put in your own well, or dig your own channel on your own property (within the regulatory confines that protect the interests of other citizens and protect the use of resources held "in public commons") but at no time are you entitled to the product of someone else's efforts without compensation to them.

/I am really starting to see that many people's poor understanding of the difference between a "right" and "governmental largesse" is at the root of much of the disputes here.
 
2013-07-22 01:26:52 PM  

Serious Black: BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Saying taxation is stealing is a descriptive metaphor.  More than that, it's a metaphor that has been memetically selected because you're trying to impart onto people a specific view of taxes. 

YOU said stealing, I said confiscation. YOU are trying to insert connotations here, not me. Confiscation is precisely the correct word.

Just for funsies, I went ahead and looked up the word confiscate on thesaurus.com. What did it use as the definition for confiscate? "steal; seize." (emphasis mine) I'd say that my word swap of steal for confiscate was well above ground.

And beyond that, the metaphor of taxation as stealing/confiscation/theft/whatever-the-fark-word-you-want-to-use is pretty damn old and has been used for decades to argue for not just lower taxes, but the abolition of all taxes. It dates back to at least the early 1960's, and it was popularized during Reagan's first term by Murray Rothbard in his seminal book The Ethics of Liberty.

/in case you want to double-check my thesaurus reading, here's the link.


And its incorrect because....?

The state is taking the money and if you don't cough up you will be imprisoned or killed.

Well, theft or stealing imply a breach of law and levying taxes is certainly legal, so those two could be out on those grounds.
 
2013-07-22 01:28:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Ned Stark: A right to water implies a right to drills, treatment plants, and pipes. All things that must be built.

Which is why you PAY for the labor and resources needed to bring the water to places where it would not otherwise exist.

Again, you have no RIGHT to someone else's labor or products. You can put in your own well, or dig your own channel on your own property (within the regulatory confines that protect the interests of other citizens and protect the use of resources held "in public commons") but at no time are you entitled to the product of someone else's efforts without compensation to them.

/I am really starting to see that many people's poor understanding of the difference between a "right" and "governmental largesse" is at the root of much of the disputes here.


So there is no right to water then.
 
2013-07-22 01:32:58 PM  

Ned Stark: Serious Black: BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Saying taxation is stealing is a descriptive metaphor.  More than that, it's a metaphor that has been memetically selected because you're trying to impart onto people a specific view of taxes. 

YOU said stealing, I said confiscation. YOU are trying to insert connotations here, not me. Confiscation is precisely the correct word.

Just for funsies, I went ahead and looked up the word confiscate on thesaurus.com. What did it use as the definition for confiscate? "steal; seize." (emphasis mine) I'd say that my word swap of steal for confiscate was well above ground.

And beyond that, the metaphor of taxation as stealing/confiscation/theft/whatever-the-fark-word-you-want-to-use is pretty damn old and has been used for decades to argue for not just lower taxes, but the abolition of all taxes. It dates back to at least the early 1960's, and it was popularized during Reagan's first term by Murray Rothbard in his seminal book The Ethics of Liberty.

/in case you want to double-check my thesaurus reading, here's the link.

And its incorrect because....?

The state is taking the money and if you don't cough up you will be imprisoned or killed.

Well, theft or stealing imply a breach of law and levying taxes is certainly legal, so those two could be out on those grounds.


Would you expect a country club to let you onto its grounds if you failed to pay your dues to the country club?
 
2013-07-22 01:34:18 PM  

Tyee: I was a liberal and voted that way (Carter) through the 70s.  I'm sorry about that I really am.
Once we started having children and employees things started to change.  We had other lives and livelihoods we were responsible for.  Good hard working people really do better when they can take care of themselves than they do when they have to give so much of the money they earned instead to the government(s) first, and then wait for it to come to them, the people who earned it in the first place.


Yeah, about that. My taxes has done a lot more good than any employer has done for me. You want loyal and dedicated workers, don't treat them like they are another part of the company you can cut willy nilly to keep stockholders happy.
 
2013-07-22 01:37:31 PM  

bbfreak: Yeah, about that. My taxes has done a lot more good than any employer has done for me. You want loyal and dedicated workers, don't treat them like they are another part of the company you can cut willy nilly to keep stockholders happy.


This x infinity.  See Circuit City as Exhibit A.
 
Displayed 50 of 737 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report