Barack Obama

1234568

Comments

  • Posts: 11
    Im still here wrote:
    so far he's placed 2nd in Nevada and he won Louisiana

    bet you didn't see that on your idiot box did you?

    everytime you turn it on your IQ slips another 10 points

    so now its around 50, if that

    idiot

    Hi didn't win Louisiana
  • Posts: 826
    mongoloid wrote:
    Hi didn't win Louisiana

    keep tellin yourself that, maybe you'll start believing it
    PEARL JAM~Lubbock, TX. 10~18~00
    PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
    INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
    INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
    Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
    INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
    Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
  • Posts: 1,350
    mongoloid wrote:
    Hi didn't win Louisiana

    Many of his supporters claim to be forward thinking. I didn't realize that meant seeing the future.
  • Posts: 826
    floyd1975 wrote:
    Many of his supporters claim to be forward thinking. I didn't realize that meant seeing the future.

    Ron Paul is sueing the Louisiana GOP

    We won that State, not McCain.......
    PEARL JAM~Lubbock, TX. 10~18~00
    PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
    INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
    INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
    Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
    INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
    Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
  • Posts: 11
    Im still here wrote:
    keep tellin yourself that, maybe you'll start believing it

    So, because he says he won it - then he won it. I see. Who needs official results?
  • Posts: 4,695
    floyd1975 wrote:
    What would your threshold be?

    I come from a country, Italy, where taxes are much higher than here in the US to begin with, and I would be fine with that.

    Before moving to New York City I would have told you that 100,000+ per year was wealthy, but now I know better :)
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • Posts: 1,350
    mongoloid wrote:
    Who needs official results?


    On top of that, who needs votes to be cast?
  • Posts: 1,350
    meme wrote:
    I come from a country, Italy, where taxes are much higher than here in the US to begin with, and I would be fine with that.

    Before moving to New York City I would have told you that 100,000+ per year was wealthy, but now I know better :)

    That's good. I agree with you that $100,000 is too low. Even saying that though puts you miles ahead of any candidate for office who promises to raise taxes on the "wealthy."
  • Posts: 4,695
    farfromglorified wrote:
    We don't disagree.

    Yes, yes we do :)

    I believe in social programs that make life possible for people who can't make it on their own. I believe those social programs guarantee rights rather than infringing upon them.

    I believe that sustanance for the many is more important than luxury for the few.
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • Posts: 11
    floyd1975 wrote:
    On top of that, who needs votes to be cast?

    Yes, since this is the way things work - I proclaim myself the winner of the Republican primary in CA! Yea for me!
  • Posts: 1,350
    mongoloid wrote:
    Yes, since this is the way things work - I proclaim myself the winner of the Republican primary in CA! Yea for me!

    Congratulations! You do have an issue there though. Ron Paul's more vocal backers are suing the CA Republican Party since they claimed that he won that state in August of 2005.
  • Posts: 5,700
    meme wrote:
    I believe in social programs that make life possible for people who can't make it on their own.

    Me too! I just don't believe in backing those programs with violence.
    I believe those social programs guarantee rights rather than infringing upon them.

    They don't "guarantee rights". They provide services. The very fact that you're advocating forcibly taking something from someone and giving it to someone else demostrates that what you're providing is obviously not a right. You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.
    I believe that sustanance for the many is more important than luxury for the few.

    I believe that neither you nor I has a right to determine "importance" for other people. I certainly agree that helping others meet basic levels of sustanence is more important to me than indulging in frivolous luxuries. But I'm not about to advocate the use of violence on either those in need or those with excess in order to shirk the responsibilities of living out my own values.
  • Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.
    .

    I wish the folks who demand healthcare or advocate higher taxes for everyone would understand this.
  • Posts: 4,695
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Me too! I just don't believe in backing those programs with violence.



    They don't "guarantee rights". They provide services. The very fact that you're advocating forcibly taking something from someone and giving it to someone else demostrates that what you're providing is obviously not a right. You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.



    I believe that neither you nor I has a right to determine "importance" for other people. I certainly agree that helping others meet basic levels of sustanence is more important to me than indulging in frivolous luxuries. But I'm not about to advocate the use of violence on either those in need or those with excess in order to shirk the responsibilities of living out my own values.


    More things we disagree on.
    If we want to work on extremes, taxes are as much an exercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay.

    What justifies private property in your view? Who decides which jobs are more lucrative?

    Also, do you really think that a right cannot be guaranteed by taking something forcibly from someone else? How is not even our sheer survival a zero sum game?

    Everyone has the right to basic necessities: food, health shelter, and I believe it is the job of the government to guarantee that those rights are guaranteed.

    I don't believe I have the right to decide what is important for other people, but I know what is important for me and I have the right to make my voice heard in politics and to vote for people who share my views.
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • Posts: 4,695
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.



    I genuinely don't understand this.
    Do you not think the employer has a right to make money off of the worker's work? Doesn't the worker provide that work for the employer?
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • Posts: 4,695
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.



    Or just life, liberty, and property... doesn't the government have to provide this for me?
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • Posts: 5,700
    meme wrote:
    More things we disagree on.
    If we want to work on extremes, taxes are as much an exercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay.

    Taxes are certainly as much as an excercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay! We don't disagree at all there.
    What justifies private property in your view?

    As it stands today, nothing.
    Who decides which jobs are more lucrative?

    Whoever is willing to pay for those jobs, of course.
    Also, do you really think that a right cannot be guaranteed by taking something forcibly from someone else?

    Absolutely. If you have to forcibly take it from someone else, how could it be a right?
    How is not even our sheer survival a zero sum game?

    Our sheer survival is not a zero sum game. Our sheer survival is simply the result of the correct answer to the questions posed to us by nature.
    Everyone has the right to basic necessities: food, health shelter

    Huh? That's ridiculous. Food must be hunted or produced. Health must be achieved through good choices and knowledge. Shelter must be constructed. None of those things are "rights".
    and I believe it is the job of the government to guarantee that those rights are guaranteed.

    No, you believe that is it the job of government to use violence to extract food, health, and shelter from those who are able to acquire it and give it to those who are not.
    I don't believe I have the right to decide what is important for other people, but I know what is important for me and I have the right to make my voice heard in politics and to vote for people who share my views.

    Huh? You obviously believe that you have a right to decide what is important for other people as you're advocating taking things from some people, regardless of what they value, and doing with it what you wish, based on your values.

    By all means, "make your voice heard". But I'm not really going to respect that sentiment when you'll be taking property from people even in the event that they disagree with what's coming out of your mouth.
  • Posts: 16,827
    meme wrote:
    Or just life, liberty, and property... doesn't the government have to provide this for me?


    No. How does the gov't provide life? and property? AS far as liberty they should get out of the way not provide it.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Posts: 5,700
    meme wrote:
    I genuinely don't understand this.
    Do you not think the employer has a right to make money off of the worker's work?

    Not against a worker's will, no.
    Doesn't the worker provide that work for the employer?

    Absolutely! That's why the worker deserves payment.
  • Posts: 5,700
    meme wrote:
    Or just life, liberty, and property... doesn't the government have to provide this for me?

    Absolutely not. You're born with life and you're born with liberty. The government only acts to take those things from you. In terms of property, the government does not need to provide you with property. If anything, governments tend to provide property through force and violence. All one needs to have a right to property is for his or her neighbors to respect the delineation between the products of the labor of each.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories