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 737
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1363 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2013 at 2:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-22 01:39:09 PM
This is an interesting question and one that I think about frequently enough.

I grew up in rural Wisconsin, miles away from our nearest neighbor. We raised and grew all of our food (with few exceptions) and my siblings and I ran the farm while my dad practiced law. He was and is a pretty fierce libertarian and I grew up very much the same way. Not hurting anyone? Then how about we stay out of each other's business, mmkay.

I ended up moving to Milwaukee to go to a better high school because our school district was garbage. Though it was a catholic school, it was very liberal and most of the priests were leftist in their beliefs (like Jesus was, I guess).

This expanded my political affiliation in quite a few surprising ways and while I have always been liberal about social issues, I remained right of center on most fiscal policy.

Then I went to college at a fancy and very liberal university in the biggest city in the country. Most of my classmates were so unbelievably knee-jerk bleeding heart (with some of the goofiest and derpiest ideas i have ever heard) that it made me more of a libertarian. My life experience  (going from midwestern rural, to midwestern city, to northeastern megalopolis) gave me insight into how different communities are best served under different ideologies and most of these kids lived their lives in one place and all believed strongly in a one-world central government where no leaders are ever corrupt and everyone lives in harmony.

As I've lived in this big city now for well over a decade I have moved further left on the political spectrum but still consider myself mostly a fiscal conservative.

My views have definitely evolved. I even just registered as a Democrat! (though to be honest I did it so I could have a meaningful vote in the primaries around here. Only democrats have any shot of winning the general).

it's almost like as people grow and change, so do their beliefs!
 
2013-07-22 01:39:48 PM

Serious Black: 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?


Useless non-sequitor. People are not born in country clubs. A non trivial portion of the earths surface is country club free.

Also, expulsion is not a common penalty for non payment of taxes. Quite the opposite, you'll be put in a jail and prevented from leaving.
 
2013-07-22 01:42:46 PM
I used to be a proud liberal, because I thought conservatives were myopic and closed minded.

The idiocy of farklibs and OWS made me realize that liberals are just as farking stupid, so now I'm a disgusted centrist. Actually very liberating. I no longer have to knee jerk defend stupid leftward ideas just because they are my team, which is always a tendency. I can look at each issue independently without being loyal to one party or candidate.

Still a registered Dem, though.
 
2013-07-22 01:43:58 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I used to be a proud liberal, because I thought conservatives were myopic and closed minded.

The idiocy of farklibs and OWS made me realize that liberals are just as farking stupid, so now I'm a disgusted centrist. Actually very liberating. I no longer have to knee jerk defend stupid leftward ideas just because they are my team, which is always a tendency. I can look at each issue independently without being loyal to one party or candidate.

Still a registered Dem, though.


Do you know how I know you're full of BS?
 
2013-07-22 01:47:33 PM

hubiestubert: 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...


Well, eh, except for the christians (And jews) that DON'T take it literally. I grew up in the UCC, so.. I'm familliar with VERY liberal churches. In fact, the pastor at the church I grew up in is one of the folks who has been arrested for having the audacity to silently protest the insanity that is the current North Carolina legislature (The republicans have gone off the friggen rails there).

I could also have fun arguing (because I *like* arguing!) that being cast out from paradise isn't necessarily a 'punishment' for having eaten from the tree, but more of a... well, really, an allegory? If you have free will, if you can *choose* now, but every choice leads to the same thing (YAAAAY! GOOD THINGS HAPPEN!) through no action of your own, but just the forces of the universe itself-does your choice have meaning? If there isn't even the *potential* for any sort of negative consequence-I dunno, 's a fun idea to toy with.

Of course, I also like to toy with the idea that we were *supposed* to gain knoweldge of Good and Evil-or, rather, God/whatever wanted us to (Good Omens is *partly* to blame for this idea, but not soley). I also like to toy with the idea of the fact that.. well, if humanity is the 'children' of god-Children must grow up someday.

/I think about weird things way too much.
 
2013-07-22 01:49:50 PM
No. But after hitting peak socialist toward the end of high school, beginning of college, I've slowly swung back towards center. I've had people change my mind on a few specific subjects, guns being the big one (still for gun control, but not nearly as restrictive as I was), but over all I've always been pretty liberal.
 
2013-07-22 01:52:06 PM

Rwa2play: Debeo Summa Credo: I used to be a proud liberal, because I thought conservatives were myopic and closed minded.

The idiocy of farklibs and OWS made me realize that liberals are just as farking stupid, so now I'm a disgusted centrist. Actually very liberating. I no longer have to knee jerk defend stupid leftward ideas just because they are my team, which is always a tendency. I can look at each issue independently without being loyal to one party or candidate.

Still a registered Dem, though.

Do you know how I know you're full of BS?


If you think that I'm full of bs with that post, I'm afraid you are wrong, again.
 
2013-07-22 01:52:35 PM

Serious Black: 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.


"Stealing" means the wrongful and illegal theft of private property. Confiscation inherently means the lawful seizure of property by an authority.

So no. That word swap is not valid, and you are doubling down on using an inaccurate word with inherent bias. Taxes are not theft. But they are confiscation.

Serious Black: 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?


You really don't understand the difference between a right and a law, do you? I thank you for illustrating the common ignorance on this topic. You have perfectly demonstrated why people get incensed when they confuse something the government can opt to do with something they are forbidden from ever denying.
 
2013-07-22 01:54:30 PM

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

The right to an attorney?

Not to mention that ER doctors are already required to treat anybody and everybody that shows up there, regardless of their ability to pay


Only if the hospital wants to continue to receive federal funding through medicare.
 
2013-07-22 01:55:33 PM
Personally, I have moved more towards the center (less liberal) the older I get, however the republican party has moved further right than I have moved towards the center. So, while I have certainly become more conservative as I get older, I am further away now from the republican party than I ever was in my lifetime.
 
2013-07-22 02:01:23 PM

Ned Stark: Serious Black: 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?

Useless non-sequitor. People are not born in country clubs. A non trivial portion of the earths surface is country club free.

Also, expulsion is not a common penalty for non payment of taxes. Quite the opposite, you'll be put in a jail and prevented from leaving.


True, but the metaphor of taxation as membership fees has been used in the past. Hell, it's currently being used over and over again by Republicans in the debate over what immigrants without legal clearance to be in the country must do to get citizenship; virtually every path discussed has included a requirement that they pay back taxes (i.e. membership fees) for the right to stay in the country and become a citizen.
 
2013-07-22 02:02:09 PM
I grew up in a liberal household and voted Democratic through my twenties. In my thirties, I found some conservative/libertarian ideas compelling - I felt that the government was overreaching and that it should interfere less both in the boardroom and bedroom. I wanted to believe that self-reliance and accountability was the key to success, and that the US had progressed to the point where most Americans had to tools to succeed (if they applied themselves). I felt that the Government should provide a safety net, but that it should be the solution of last resort. I was even a registered Republican for a time.

In retrospect, I was incredibly naive about how power, privilege and success actually works here in the US. I also realized I was being lied to by both parties, but that the Republican lies were far more corrosive to the well-being of the nation than Democratic lies. Now, in my 50's, I'm probably more liberal than I've ever been in my life. I would have no problem with the US morphing into a Western European social democracy (like that would ever happen).
 
2013-07-22 02:02:35 PM

hubiestubert: 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 ...


True, it was a simplification on my part, and I also don't agree with the hijacking of the term conservative, just as I don't agree with the use of the term liberal to mean anyone who isn't a republican
 
2013-07-22 02:03:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: 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?

You really don't understand the difference between a right and a law, do you? I thank you for illustrating the common ignorance on this topic. You have perfectly demonstrated why people get incensed when they confuse something the government can opt to do with something they are forbidden from ever denying.


Tell me what a right is. Example: what is the right to free speech? I see it as a legal obligation placed upon the government by itself (and upon subordinate governments by the supreme government as well) to avoid interfering with how people express themselves.
 
2013-07-22 02:05:51 PM

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

The right to an attorney?

Not to mention that ER doctors are already required to treat anybody and everybody that shows up there, regardless of their ability to pay

Only if the hospital wants to continue to receive federal funding through medicare.


And?
 
2013-07-22 02:06:36 PM
Felgraf:  Well, eh, except for the christians (And jews) that DON'T take it literally. I grew up in the UCC, so.. I'm familliar with VERY liberal churches. In fact, the pastor at the church I grew up in is one of the folks who has been arrested for having the audacity to silently protest the insanity that is the current North Carolina legislature (The republicans have gone off the friggen rails there).

I could also have fun arguing (because I *like* arguing!) that being cast out from paradise isn't necessarily a 'punishment' for having eaten from the tree, but more of a... well, really, an allegory? If you have free will, if you can *choose* now, but every choice leads to the same thing (YAAAAY! GOOD THINGS HAPPEN!) through no action of your own, but just the forces of the universe itself-does your choice have meaning? If there isn't even the *potential* for any sort of negative consequence-I dunno, 's a fun idea to toy with.

Of course, I also like to toy with the idea that we were *supposed* to gain knoweldge of Good and Evil-or, rather, God/whatever wanted us to (Good Omens is *partly* to blame for this idea, but not soley). I also like to toy with the idea of the fact that.. well, if humanity is the 'children' of god-Children must grow up someday.

/I think about weird things way too much.


That's the thing about an omniscient deity: said deity KNOWS what you will choose. Putting the apple there, leaving the Garden alone so that the Fallen One can roll in, knowing full well that a crippling naive and barely sentient new creation will be hanging around, it's not so much that the Fall was even really a choice, but a lesson to teach humanity, and give them the Tree of Knowledge, and to have them accept their own responsibility. What gets screwy, are the folks who supposedly study the Bible, who still blame women and Eve for the whole shebang. It's a nice dodge, and it keeps the rubes who REALLY want their wives to STFU and get them dinner, but then again, Biblical scholarship has often been about studying passages to find justification, as opposed to finding meaning.

I did a LOT of Bible study as a child--I was raised in the South after all, and my Dad's third wife was a tent revival loving Baptist. My Grandmother was a Catholic, who made her way to a Methodist church, because it was easier than finding Papists in the middle of Whitmire, SC.

I have a lot of respect for Christianity as a whole. There are valuable lessons in the Bible, and a ton of good people out there, who live those lessons, and take them to heart. The literalists, who use the Bible as both a history, a religious text, as well as their science and ethics and basis for law, those folks tend to only read the passages that justify what they already believe though. I'll break out this handy list, to illustrate how folks seem to forget some stuff, because...well, it's inconvenient...

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
Not a huge problem nowadays.

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
Again, not a huge deal to most Christian churches.

3.       Eating fat (3:17)
Southern cuisine is in trouble

4.       Eating blood (3:17)
German cuisine is in trouble.

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've witnessed (5:1)
Congress is in trouble.

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you've been told about (5:1)
Congress is REALLY in trouble

7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
Hope you don't like pork...

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
Again, Congress is REALLY in trouble

9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
HOAs are against God...

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
Much of America is DOOMED...

11.   Bringing unauthorized fire before God (10:1)
The candle trade for saints is apparently DOOOOOOM!

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
Hipsters, teens, and much of Hollywood is DOOOOOMED!

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)
Wrasslin' is the work of the Debbil

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)
Catholics, we're looking right at you....

15.   Eating an animal which doesn't both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
Rib joints are the work of the Debbil...

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)
Hope you aren't a fan of football...

17.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
Red Lobster is the work of the Debbil...

18.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
In fairness, this means that Newage folks are DOOOOOMED!

19.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
Cicadas may be out.

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)
Roof rabbit may have doomed the entire Greatest Generation...

21.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
Hope you haven't had gator bites...

22.   Eating - or touching the carcass of - any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
Rattlesnake BBQ is RIGHT out...

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
Hope you aren't having that Christening too early, you naughty folks...

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
See the above, but double time for the girlchil'run...

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)
Which is not a bad rule to have, but let's face it, this rule pretty much takes out a good section of 90s day time TV

26.   Having sex with your father's wife (18:8)
Not a bad rule either, but see the above section on reality TV...

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)
This one is going to have Kentucky and good sections of the South, and Maine in trouble...

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
Not a bad rule at all, and...ewwwhttp://www....%3cbr%3e%3cbr%3e29/" target="_blank">

29.  Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
See the earlier section on day time TV...

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
Again, see the section on day time TV...

31.   Having sex with your uncle's wife (18:14)
Man, Maury would be screwed if we damn everyone for this...

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
Maury may have sent a brazillion folks to Hell for this...

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
Congress may be in trouble here too...

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)
Alan Clarke and Maury are soooo screwed on this.

35.   Marrying your wife's sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
Man, day time TV is just rife with sinfulness. Should we let children watch this smut?

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
Redwings. Apparently, always a bad idea...

37.   Having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20)
Congress, and a fair amount of middle America is sooooo boned...

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
In fairness, I'm all for religious freedom, but this seems like a good, commonsense rule.

39.   Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)
There it is. THIS apparently is THE important one.

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)
The Scots apparently have generations of sending kindling to Hell...

41.   Making idols or "metal gods" (19:4)
Catholics, you may be in some trouble here...

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
Yup. We're supposed to leave stuff for the poor and destitute to glean from the fields...

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
Factory farming is the work of the Debbil...

44.   Stealing (19:11)
Congress and much of the legal system is so screwed...

45.   Lying (19:11)
Is there anything Congress CAN do then?

46.   Swearing falsely on God's name (19:12)
Pat Robertson and Congress apparently makes Jehovah wroth...

47.   Defrauding your neighbor (19:13)
Real estate and much of America is boned. You'll note how wroth folks are about this one, while being ghey is just the work of the Debbil...

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13)
Paychecks are the work of the Debbil...

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
God is hard on douchebags...

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
Congress in both houses are boned...

51.   Spreading slander (19:16)
As are the tabloids...

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour's life (19:16)
Most of America and the "here, hold my beer" crowd is screwed...

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
Congress...you are sooooooooo going ALL of you to Hell...

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
Walmart, Sears, and Target. Agents of Satan...

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
God IS against GMO husbandry...

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
Put down the basil and the tomatoes. I don't care if they DO complement one another's growth, it's BAD!

57.   Sleeping with another man's slave (19:20)
Seriously. Bad form folks. Bad form.

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
The apple industry is the work of the Debbil...

59.   Practicing divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
Miss Cleo is the work of the Debbil, and here we have this sin IN OUR PAPERS!

60.   Trimming your beard (19:27)
Look at all the dirty bastiches who do this. LOOK AT THEM!

61.   Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
The Marines are the work of the Debbil...

62.   Getting tattoos (19:28)
Tramp stamps and memorial tattoos are the work of the Debbil...

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
Daytime TV is SUCH a sinful place...

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
Miss Cleo. Leading a nation into sin and depravity...

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
Welp, this one seems right out today...

66.   Mistreating foreigners - "the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born"  (19:33-34)
Guess that means we can stop those Oathkeepers and Sheriff Joe from being mean to the immigrants then, right? Border fences are the Debbil's chopsticks I guess...

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
My industry is boned as a whole, as is pretty much most of the oil industry as well...

68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
Maury and the rest could have made a few bucks by televising the stonings though...

69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
Odd, that you don't see more folks incensed by this...

70.   Entering a place where there's a dead body as a priest (21:11)
Which pretty much means that all our chaplains are boned.

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
And in fairness, it's rude too. Eating mama and her babies is just greedy...

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
Sadly, this means no liquor stores open on Saturday or Sunday...

73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
Man, we are going to need a LOT of stones. Just in the State legislatures, and let's not even get onto Congress...

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else's animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
This WOULD end cockfighting and dogfighting quick though...

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)
Odd, you don't see more protests and signs around real estate agencies...

76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)
So, I guess we should be OK with slaves again?

And that's just Leviticus alone, which is apparently super important to some folks, who seem bent upon ignoring all the stuff that their Savior said. It isn't the text at fault, or the faith itself, anymore than a gun or a knife is at fault, but how folks use it.
 
2013-07-22 02:08:16 PM

Kid the Universe: As I've lived in this big city now for well over a decade I have moved further left on the political spectrum but still consider myself mostly a fiscal conservative.


I find that interesting. I've often suspected that the degree to which a person is oriented toward "statism" i.e. the worldview that the collective allocation of common resources and systems by government is preferable to independent self-governing individual actors is tied to a person's environment.

Meaning that if you grow up in an environment like an urban center with heavy police, regular garbage collection, parking spaces being controlled, higher taxes and more public services and all that, you will naturally be pre-disposed toward a political view that the government is beneficial and benevolent, and see a direct application of your tax dollars in public services, schools, welfare support, etc.

Conversely, if you live outside an urban center, the police are smaller and more local, the city and county services are less pervasive, there is less governmental interaction in your day-to-day activities, and when there is, it is more likely to be a negative one, and you are less likely to see a direct application of you tax dollars.

I think this, more than many factors, is why "redteam/blueteam" demographics split far more decisively along rural/urban lines than on other lines.
 
2013-07-22 02:13:12 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Kid the Universe: As I've lived in this big city now for well over a decade I have moved further left on the political spectrum but still consider myself mostly a fiscal conservative.

I find that interesting. I've often suspected that the degree to which a person is oriented toward "statism" i.e. the worldview that the collective allocation of common resources and systems by government is preferable to independent self-governing individual actors is tied to a person's environment.

Meaning that if you grow up in an environment like an urban center with heavy police, regular garbage collection, parking spaces being controlled, higher taxes and more public services and all that, you will naturally be pre-disposed toward a political view that the government is beneficial and benevolent, and see a direct application of your tax dollars in public services, schools, welfare support, etc.

Conversely, if you live outside an urban center, the police are smaller and more local, the city and county services are less pervasive, there is less governmental interaction in your day-to-day activities, and when there is, it is more likely to be a negative one, and you are less likely to see a direct application of you tax dollars.

I think this, more than many factors, is why "redteam/blueteam" demographics split far more decisively along rural/urban lines than on other lines.


That is perhaps the brightest thing you've said so far.
 
2013-07-22 02:17:21 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.


Look how stupid you are

I can't believe I still haven't ignored your lame-ass trolling yet, but Imma rectify that right now
 
2013-07-22 02:19:07 PM

doglover: And this goes green? Freakin' trollmins.


Actually, I've been voting for moving some discussion threads to the politics tab\whatever tab. They just fit the crowd better. This thread is win.
 
2013-07-22 02:19:55 PM

hubiestubert: That is perhaps the brightest thing you've said so far.


Perhaps it is simply the thing you have most understood so far.
 
2013-07-22 02:20:24 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: I can't believe I still haven't ignored your lame-ass trolling yet, but Imma rectify that right now


Sunset is a time of day, so is Afternoon. Lament is an emotion, much like Delight.
 
2013-07-22 02:22:05 PM

Serious Black: Ned Stark: Serious Black: 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?

Useless non-sequitor. People are not born in country clubs. A non trivial portion of the earths surface is country club free.

Also, expulsion is not a common penalty for non payment of taxes. Quite the opposite, you'll be put in a jail and prevented from leaving.

True, but the metaphor of taxation as membership fees has been used in the past. Hell, it's currently being used over and over again by Republicans in the debate over what immigrants without legal clearance to be in the country must do to get citizenship; virtually every path discussed has included a requirement that they pay back taxes (i.e. membership fees) for the right to stay in the country and become a citizen.


Republicans are, on the whole, crazy, stupid, evil, or a combination of the above. Avoid borrowing from them when you can.

Illegal immigrants pay taxes already. Sales taxes at the very least. Those working with stolen social security numbers are paying payroll tax too. The ones wholly under the table don't make enough to owe anything of note anyway.
 
2013-07-22 02:23:41 PM
I haven't met too many conservatives who weren't selfish, arrogant, a-holes.  They literally make my skin crawl.  Most of them are barbarians who want to push the world backwards instead of forwards.  They make the world as hostile a place to live as possible and when people lash out they say "see I told you the world was a dangerous place!"
All of human progress has been done by social deviants. People who were repelled by the status quo and struggled against it.  Jesus is a famous example.
Conservatives are the ball and chain that hold the world back from the promise of enlightenment.
Libertarians, on the other hand, are sociopaths.
 
2013-07-22 02:24:28 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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.

Look how stupid you are

I can't believe I still haven't ignored your lame-ass trolling yet, but Imma rectify that right now


Before you start yelling "stupid" and talking about "trolling", perhaps you should check to make sure your feet aren't so close to your mouth.

Tel us: Which attorneys are compelled to provide legal counsel to defendants without being paid or against their will?

The case you cite affirms that if 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. But money is still being paid for that legal counsel.
 
2013-07-22 02:24:45 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.


It isn't theft because you have consented, willingly, to pay taxes. If you are no longer willing to pay them, you're free to leave at any time. If you don't want to pay the price for membership, you don't get to be in the club.

I hear Somalia has very low taxes
 
2013-07-22 02:28:49 PM

BojanglesPaladin: hubiestubert: That is perhaps the brightest thing you've said so far.

Perhaps it is simply the thing you have most understood so far.


No, you've been spouting some odd things, and while I understand the concepts, and where they come from, I also don't agree with a fair amount of them, but likewise I realize it's useless to really discuss them with you. Therein lies the rub, innit it?
 
2013-07-22 02:31:35 PM

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

The right to an attorney?

Not to mention that ER doctors are already required to treat anybody and everybody that shows up there, regardless of their ability to pay

Only if the hospital wants to continue to receive federal funding through medicare.

And?


And that means it's not a "right".  You don't have a right to healthcare or to receive medical treatment from a particular doctor.  You can be an ER doctor in a hospital in the country and deny medical treatment within the law; you just can't be in a hospital that has elected to contract with the government to receive medicare funding.
 
2013-07-22 02:33:41 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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.

It isn't theft because you have consented, willingly, to pay taxes. If you are no longer willing to pay them, you're free to leave at any time. If you don't want to pay the price for membership, you don't get to be in the club.

I hear Somalia has very low taxes


Not really, it just has very poor enforcement. At any time some combination of forces could reassert the governments control of its territories and it would all come due. The only actual options for statelessness are several piles of bare rock out in the oceans or Antarctica. Nowhere remotely habitable.

Not that abandoning everyone and everything you've ever known to live in exile is actually a "choice" anyway.
 
2013-07-22 02:36:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Kid the Universe: As I've lived in this big city now for well over a decade I have moved further left on the political spectrum but still consider myself mostly a fiscal conservative.

I find that interesting. I've often suspected that the degree to which a person is oriented toward "statism" i.e. the worldview that the collective allocation of common resources and systems by government is preferable to independent self-governing individual actors is tied to a person's environment.

Meaning that if you grow up in an environment like an urban center with heavy police, regular garbage collection, parking spaces being controlled, higher taxes and more public services and all that, you will naturally be pre-disposed toward a political view that the government is beneficial and benevolent, and see a direct application of your tax dollars in public services, schools, welfare support, etc.

Conversely, if you live outside an urban center, the police are smaller and more local, the city and county services are less pervasive, there is less governmental interaction in your day-to-day activities, and when there is, it is more likely to be a negative one, and you are less likely to see a direct application of you tax dollars.

I think this, more than many factors, is why "redteam/blueteam" demographics split far more decisively along rural/urban lines than on other lines.


exactly.

i would talk with my east-coast classmates about the way my local government worked back home in Wisconsin and they just could not compute. Same with my relatives and friends from home when i explained how things worked in the big city. The city could not function if it were governed like my small river town and the river town would have no need for most all that the big city provided.

different strokes, different folks

which is why one centralized government would be a disaster, IMO. Rural Americans think everything should run the way it does in Podunk and Urban Americans think everything should run the way it does in a big city. Most (almost all) people are too self-righteous and small-minded to understand that different circumstances call for different solutions.

the Feds should be big enough to make sure people's fundamental rights aren't being trampled and then let the locals work out the details
 
2013-07-22 02:39:01 PM

Ned Stark: Republicans are, on the whole, crazy, stupid, evil, or a combination of the above. Avoid borrowing from them when you can.

Illegal immigrants pay taxes already. Sales taxes at the very least. Those working with stolen social security numbers are paying payroll tax too. The ones wholly under the table don't make enough to owe anything of note anyway.


I agree with you on all of these points, but my point by and large is that metaphorical thought is incredibly common and has a ton of power to shape how we think about things in various scenarios.
 
2013-07-22 02:39:43 PM
When I was in college, I took a class that went over "Reaganomics".  The professor was quite convincing, and I registered as a republican.  During the 80's, I noticed it wasn't quite working out the way I had been taught.  All it seemed to do was make a lot of "yuppies".  So, I did some research, and figured out that basically (not always, but mostly) if a Republican was in office, we had a good, strong foreign policy.  If a Democrat was in office, we had a good, strong domestic policy.  I was slowly becoming more and more liberal, but I didn't get upset if one side or the other lost an electron.  Both had strong points, they were just different.

Then the 90's, and White Water happened.  Millions of dollars and years of investigation for a BJ.  I switched to a Democrat and never looked back.  Republicans became more and more extreme - I kept waiting for the Republican party to correct itself, but it never happened.  Now they've just gone completely over the edge and seem to be controlled by the lunatic fringe.  There are still some good republicans out there, but their voices are completely drowned out by the fanatics.

These days I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  I think people should have safety nets.  I don't think we should waste huge amounts of money providing those safety nets.
 
2013-07-22 02:42:30 PM

feckingmorons: make me some tea: feckingmorons: make me some tea: feckingmorons: I'd settle for the common mediocre.

What does that even mean?

I have no idea, this is a political discussion that started on TF.

Nice copout.

It is nonsense. What do you want it to mean.

This is why I don't like 'serious' political threads in TFD. Everyone says conservatives are terrible, complete arseholes, hate poor people, yet I'm a conservative and I don't think I'm terrible, I don't think I hate poor people. I don't think I'm an arsehole. I'm kind and helpful whenever I can be. I try to be patient and understanding of other's views and opinions, yet I'm unjustly vilified simply because of my political views and who I vote for. They don't let me run the Republican party, if they did it would be different, but I let my elected officials know my thoughts and I help others and my community as best I can.


well in ameican politics your whats called a communist.
 
2013-07-22 02:43:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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.

Look how stupid you are

I can't believe I still haven't ignored your lame-ass trolling yet, but Imma rectify that right now

Before you start yelling "stupid" and talking about "trolling", perhaps you should check to make sure your feet aren't so close to your mouth.

Tel us: Which attorneys are compelled to provide legal counsel to defendants without being paid or against their will?


On September 14, 2012, the New York State Court of Appeals adopted a new rule requiring applicants for admission to the New York State bar to perform 50 hours of pro bono services.

Apparently the New York State Court of Appeals thinks it's just fine to force lawyers to provide  legal counsel to defendants without being paid
 
2013-07-22 02:47:09 PM

Dave0422: Then the 90's, and White Water happened. Millions of dollars and years of investigation for a BJ.


You do know that WhiteWater investigation had nothing to do with the blowjob, right? That THAT had to do with yet another investigation into abuse of authority and sexual harassment?

Not to dissuade you from the correct notion that it was a witch hunt and a waste of taxpayer money, but don't conflate the two.
 
2013-07-22 02:50:29 PM

Kid the Universe: BojanglesPaladin: Kid the Universe: As I've lived in this big city now for well over a decade I have moved further left on the political spectrum but still consider myself mostly a fiscal conservative.

I find that interesting. I've often suspected that the degree to which a person is oriented toward "statism" i.e. the worldview that the collective allocation of common resources and systems by government is preferable to independent self-governing individual actors is tied to a person's environment.

Meaning that if you grow up in an environment like an urban center with heavy police, regular garbage collection, parking spaces being controlled, higher taxes and more public services and all that, you will naturally be pre-disposed toward a political view that the government is beneficial and benevolent, and see a direct application of your tax dollars in public services, schools, welfare support, etc.

Conversely, if you live outside an urban center, the police are smaller and more local, the city and county services are less pervasive, there is less governmental interaction in your day-to-day activities, and when there is, it is more likely to be a negative one, and you are less likely to see a direct application of you tax dollars.

I think this, more than many factors, is why "redteam/blueteam" demographics split far more decisively along rural/urban lines than on other lines.

exactly.

i would talk with my east-coast classmates about the way my local government worked back home in Wisconsin and they just could not compute. Same with my relatives and friends from home when i explained how things worked in the big city. The city could not function if it were governed like my small river town and the river town would have no need for most all that the big city provided.

different strokes, different folks

which is why one centralized government would be a disaster, IMO. Rural Americans think everything should run the way it does in Podunk and Urban Americans think ...


Try living in a city that has a majority of older (and therefore more engaged in local politics than the younger) residents still thinking they're living in a small farm and lumber town (a fact that hasn't been true since the post WWII boom, and are downright refusing to acknowledge they live in a growing city of 150,000 people.  Not only do they refuse to acknowledge that fact, they are purposely preventing and sabotaging any and all efforts to address the challenges associated with a managing and providing services for a city of 150,000+ people.
 
2013-07-22 02:54:02 PM

Rincewind53: Growing up, I read a lot of military sci-fi and fantasy, and things with a fairly libertarian bent. But the older I got, the more I realized how absurd some of the stuff was, and the more liberal I got. In the last few years, I've drifted even farther from the center and towards the left.


Much the same. However, I'll add that a major factor was when I noticed how many libertarians also seemed to verge on sociopathy.

Reading Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" with a critical eye (around the time I was in the habit, from a spate of arguing with creationists) and finding more than a hundred points I considered the reasoning to be seriously sloppy was also something of a factor.
 
2013-07-22 02:55:44 PM

meat0918: Kid the Universe: BojanglesPaladin: Kid the Universe: As I've lived in this big city now for well over a decade I have moved further left on the political spectrum but still consider myself mostly a fiscal conservative.

I find that interesting. I've often suspected that the degree to which a person is oriented toward "statism" i.e. the worldview that the collective allocation of common resources and systems by government is preferable to independent self-governing individual actors is tied to a person's environment.

Meaning that if you grow up in an environment like an urban center with heavy police, regular garbage collection, parking spaces being controlled, higher taxes and more public services and all that, you will naturally be pre-disposed toward a political view that the government is beneficial and benevolent, and see a direct application of your tax dollars in public services, schools, welfare support, etc.

Conversely, if you live outside an urban center, the police are smaller and more local, the city and county services are less pervasive, there is less governmental interaction in your day-to-day activities, and when there is, it is more likely to be a negative one, and you are less likely to see a direct application of you tax dollars.

I think this, more than many factors, is why "redteam/blueteam" demographics split far more decisively along rural/urban lines than on other lines.

exactly.

i would talk with my east-coast classmates about the way my local government worked back home in Wisconsin and they just could not compute. Same with my relatives and friends from home when i explained how things worked in the big city. The city could not function if it were governed like my small river town and the river town would have no need for most all that the big city provided.

different strokes, different folks

which is why one centralized government would be a disaster, IMO. Rural Americans think everything should run the way it does in Podunk and Urb ...


well, those idiots will learn their lesson when the property they've owned all of their lives loses most of its value because the city has devolved into a crime-ridden, poorly educated backwater.

old people like the kind you describe exist everywhere and are getting in the way of a lot of progress

what we should do, as the generation about to take over, is mobilize our peers and encourage involvement in all aspects of governement
 
2013-07-22 02:55:47 PM

meat0918: Try living in a city that has a majority of older (and therefore more engaged in local politics than the younger) residents still thinking they're living in a small farm and lumber town (a fact that hasn't been true since the post WWII boom, and are downright refusing to acknowledge they live in a growing city of 150,000 people. Not only do they refuse to acknowledge that fact, they are purposely preventing and sabotaging any and all efforts to address the challenges associated with a managing and providing services for a city of 150,000+ people.


I know that feel, bro.
 
2013-07-22 02:55:51 PM
I'm pretty convinced that both sides are nothing more than puppet shows for the elite to try and control the masses.
 
2013-07-22 02:58:12 PM

Rincewind53: Growing up, I read a lot of military sci-fi and fantasy, and things with a fairly libertarian bent. But the older I got, the more I realized how absurd some of the stuff was, and the more liberal I got. In the last few years, I've drifted even farther from the center and towards the left.

When I was in High SChool, you could probably describe me as a centrist Democrat. Now I'm much more progressive and leftist in a wide variety of ways, mostly due to the influence of my girlfriend, who is practically a communist.


I read a lot of Pratchett during my more impressionable years (I think I started mid highschool?)

... That probably explains quite a lot of my worldviews, actually.

/Though I haven't drifted away from much of it.
//He's still given one of the best descriptions of 'sin'/evil I've ever seen.
 
2013-07-22 02:59:34 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Apparently the New York State Court of Appeals thinks it's just fine to force lawyers to provide legal counsel to defendants without being paid


You know how I know you googled for a point, but didn't actually read it? Did you not notice that is a requirement BEFORE someone becomes a licensed attorney? Or that under no circumstances could a person being required to do pro-bono work under this licensing requirement be compelled to provide legal services to a criminal defendant against their will? Especially since they would not be licensed to do so ?

And just so you know, this is designed to ensure that would be attorneys actually get some exposure to actual legal clients and issues in the real world. Examples of the acceptable pro-bono work include: Law-school sponsored clinics that provide legal assistance to those who cannot afford representation, Externships or internship placements with a not-for-profit provider of legal services, etc. They can choose from a wide variety of things to complete the modest 50 hours.

It's a good idea to expose potential lawyers to actual legal work BEFORE they get licensed, not unlike Doctors doing residency as part of their training.

But no. No it is not compelling a practicing attorney to provide criminal defense against their will
 
2013-07-22 03:00:42 PM

flynn80: I'm pretty convinced that both sides are nothing more than puppet shows for the elite to try and control the masses.


Yes, but given a choice I'd still rather throw my lot in with trial attorneys and public employee unions than oil companies and defense contractors.
 
2013-07-22 03:01:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Apparently the New York State Court of Appeals thinks it's just fine to force lawyers to provide legal counsel to defendants without being paid

You know how I know you googled for a point, but didn't actually read it? Did you not notice that is a requirement BEFORE someone becomes a licensed attorney? Or that under no circumstances could a person being required to do pro-bono work under this licensing requirement be compelled to provide legal services to a criminal defendant against their will? Especially since they would not be licensed to do so ?

And just so you know, this is designed to ensure that would be attorneys actually get some exposure to actual legal clients and issues in the real world. Examples of the acceptable pro-bono work include: Law-school sponsored clinics that provide legal assistance to those who cannot afford representation, Externships or internship placements with a not-for-profit provider of legal services, etc. They can choose from a wide variety of things to complete the modest 50 hours.

It's a good idea to expose potential lawyers to actual legal work BEFORE they get licensed, not unlike Doctors doing residency as part of their training.

But no. No it is not compelling a practicing attorney to provide criminal defense against their will


Wow, you split hairs impressively.

So then, if we made healthcare a right, but also made a mandate that "To maintain/get a medical license, you must provide free healthcare and volunteer in low income areas for X ammount of time", that would be alright in your eyes, and not making them do anything 'against their will'?
 
2013-07-22 03:01:59 PM
When I was younger I was right of center.  Then I got personally burned by a republican governor (that I voted for) when he gut funding for my university and blew up my tuition making it even more difficult to complete my education.  Plus then I read a lot, traveled etc. Now I'm a solid left of center, with frequent splashes of super leftism and the occasional far right blotch.

Never again righties.
 
2013-07-22 03:07:11 PM

EatenTheSun: Life experiences have pushed me to become more libertarian.


You sound like a victim, Bill.
 
2013-07-22 03:08:30 PM

flynn80: I'm pretty convinced that both sides are nothing more than puppet shows for the elite to try and control the masses.


I agree that this happens some of the time, but I can't really believe that it is happening all of the time.  I think.
 
2013-07-22 03:10:40 PM

feckingmorons: SuperTramp: feckingmorons

I actually think I might be a liberal who doesn't like to pay taxes.

From henceforth, I shall call you Jeremiah Johnson. A rugged individualist, making his way through the wilderness with his horse and a herd of goats.

And bacon and tea and good TP.

Other than that I am set.


Then there was the Earl Butz Happiness Program: Loose shoes, tight pussy and a warm place to shiat.
 
2013-07-22 03:16:18 PM
I was raised a military brat and Catholic, so I was very conservative at first.  I remember my first semester at college ('04), when conservatism still had a hold on me, I got into a heated argument with a guy about the presidential election.  I voted red, he voted blue.

Now I'm a super-liberal, bisexual, atheist scientist.  I swing very blue.  That guy I argued with, almost 10 years ago now?  He now works on Wall Street and parrots right-wing talking points.  We still argue.

/oddly (?)  I gave up religion before I gave up conservatism.
 
2013-07-22 03:29:09 PM

Felgraf: So then, if we made healthcare a right, but also made a mandate that "To maintain/get a medical license, you must provide free healthcare and volunteer in low income areas for X ammount of time", that would be alright in your eyes, and not making them do anything 'against their will'?


As I have said above, the government is free to provide and pay for services out of the public coffers as they see fit, but that does not make those services a "RIGHT". You do not have a RIGHT to postal service, even if postal service was provided for "free" through tax dollars. Anything that the government can simply elect to begin doing or to stop doing is not a "right". It may be a good idea, it may be for the benefit of society at large, but that has nothing inherently to do with "rights".

Health services are not a RIGHT. That is not splitting a hair, that is a fundamental. Whether or not something is a right, the government can, if it so chooses, make it available to everyone. And state and local licensure boards can (and often do) require a certain amount of pro bono work as a condition of licensure, just as they can require that licensees maintain ongoing education. If you don't like the requirements, you don't have to participate. Obviously, there is a great deal of flexibility and discretion for each person regarding how, when, and in what way they fulfill this requirement. However, I can see no way in which it would be constitutional for the Federal Government to compel a doctor or a lawyer to perform specific services without compensation.

And frankly, who would WANT to be defended by an attorney doing so against their will, or be treated by a doctor against their will?
 
Displayed 50 of 737 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report