Republicans Try to Cut Food Stamps as 15% of U.S. Households Face Hunger

[Futuristic Eskimo]

That said, I don't agree with the redistribution of wealth... Especially since it wasn't "distributed" to begin with, and morally wrong IMHO.

Not going to wait for another answer. This right here is an objective moral claim which you're basing your worldview on

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

How is he being a mindless contrarian? I'm not afraid, it's really just not worth it. Easier just to stick to sports....I enjoy the argument, not when its 100 on 1 though.

His whole view point is just a regurgitation of right wing talking points... any time I press him he folds, he doesnt put any thought behind the shyt he says here. Hes a troll, and a bad one

 

[DEAD7]

Not going to wait for another answer. This right here is an objective moral claim which you're basing your worldview on

IMHO = In my honest OPINION

 

[DEAD7]

His whole view point is just a regurgitation of right wing talking points... any time I press him he folds, he doesnt put any thought behind the shyt he says here. Hes a troll, and a bad one

Ending corporatism, cutting military spending, and ending all subsidies are right wing talking points?

Being against the initiation of force is Republican?

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

IMHO = In my honest OPINION

having trouble with something i said? of course its your fukking opinion. your defense here makes no sense

 

[Brown_Pride]

I want taxes to be as low as possible, and obviously the less Gov. does, and the smaller our military is, the less they "have" to tax.

That said, I wouldnt see anything morally wrong with an increase in a flat consumption tax. I would just b*tch that taxes are too high like everyone else.

I understand the concept, no government=no taxes. What then is the purpose of government? Is it to facilitate the economy? Or to facilitate the survival of it's members (the people)?

Slavery pre dates any government/economy so we leave that out. Its a silly argument.

wasn't it you who injected it into the conversation? Regardless, you can still answer the question. Based on your responses if you lived during the time of slavery, you'd be ok with a partial reduction in slavery correct?

I personally would love to see teenagers working now, as oppose to what we currently have, with a record number of murders in the inner city.

and you blame the murders on a lack of work? Most cities are safer now than ever before, save Chicago. Not sure how this relates to what we're discussing.

If business worked the way you envision, why isnt everyone making minimum wage now???

They are, the are making at least the minimum, if they are not someone is breaking the law.

If a board feels that a specific person is worth X amount of their $$$$, I dont anyone not directly involved in that transaction should have any say. If he fails and the go belly up, does anyone else pay their bills? no.

sure people do. Lost taxes, bailouts, workers with the inability to feed themselves, etc, etc.

So why should we decide who, what, and they run things.
CEO pay is subject to the same supply and demand elements the lowly fry cooks pay is.

you can't really believe that. If you do then you have know functional knowledge on the games CEO's play. The idea of CEO is to get in, make a few moves and get out as soon as possible taking stockshare and bonuses with you.

But to answer you directly, I would like reactionary action, not preventive.

that is quite literally contrary to common sense. Usually reactionary measure are more costly and never really address an issue. It's like watching your kid play with the stove, not saying stop but planning on going to the ER for burns later on in the evening

If people are poisoned by some one, go after that person. Adding regulation(to prevent) makes it harder for those not poisoning people(the vast majority), and is unfair. These regulation also create barriers to entry.

i asked earlier what is the purpose of government? TO protect the people or facilitate commerce. Particularly in America, considering that we are of, by and for THE PEOPLE i'm going to say the economy plays second fiddle to the welfare of THE PEOPLE. There in rests the heart of your logic. Somehow, somewhere in your mind you've mixed the economy/commerce with governance. They are two distinct things broham.

Let me repeat.
It is NOT the job of the government to protect corporations.
It IS the job of the government to protect THE PEOPLE.

Run that against your beliefs then get back to me.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

SPEAKING OF AYN RAND, THE MAKERS OF "ATLAS SHRUGGED PART 3" ARE BEGGING FOR FUNDING ON KICKSTARTER, BROTHER!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producers-turn-to-kickstarter-for-h,103253/

In an effort to further Ayn Rand’s message critiquing altruism and promoting the virtue of selfishness, rejecting all moochers who would dare claim your money by tears, the producers of the third Atlas Shrugged movie have launched a Kickstarter campaign asking for donations, predicated on reminding supporters of the critics who have hurt it. As reported earlier this year, despite the free market repeatedly determining it would rather not have any Atlas Shrugged movies, producers Harmon Kaslow and John Aglialoro boldly refused to relinquish their rational self-interests to a world that would dare take their ideas from them, chiefly by not paying to see them. And because of their indefatigable commitment to film Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? by the fall—and thus propagate its titular character’s manifesto to “never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine”—Kaslow and Aglialoro have turned to asking other men to give them $250,000.

 

[Brown_Pride]

SPEAKING OF AYN RAND, THE MAKERS OF "ATLAS SHRUGGED PART 3" ARE BEGGING FOR FUNDING ON KICKSTARTER, BROTHER!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/atlas-shrugged-producers-turn-to-kickstarter-for-h,103253/

Do they even know what irony means?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Ending corporatism, cutting military spending, and ending all subsidies are right wing talking points?

Being against the initiation of force is Republican?

These are not the points you were making in this thread. This whole exchange took off with your "liberal plantation" goofiness, now you are trying to change your narrative after I called you out on falsely pegging me as a mindless liberal.

Plus from jump street in here you have been on some "get rid of welfare and people will find work" garbage... a classic right wing talking point that completely dismisses the dismal state of the economy.

I would bet if the green board were still up your pre-2008 posts were not about cutting military spending. Plus you are nowhere to be found in threads on right friendly subsidies and corporatism. Come on dog

 

[DEAD7]

If you weren't so dense, you'd realize I was criticizing you on this before you made that silly post. You've been arguing the last several pages that redistributing wealth from one unconsenting party to another is morally wrong. Now you're backing off that?

Did you just define your morality objectively, then, in the next line, ask if I'm suggesting that morality is objective?

The deadmanny says it all. Your bullshyt philosophy is just selfishness re-branded as something its not.

The red is where it happened. It can't be objective if its just my morality. Remove the "your" and the sentence makes sense... I did ask if you think morality is objective, but I never defined morality itself, I just stated mine.

I'm gonna wave the white flag here, cause the whole argument is stupid, and i'm probably being slow and missing something...
Your right. I'm wrong.


Now going forward, let the record show I am standing by my belief that 'the initiation of force is morally wrong', and I welcome any compelling argument as to why it isnt.

 

[DEAD7]

These are not the points you were making in this thread. This whole exchange took off with your "liberal plantation" goofiness, now you are trying to change your narrative after I called you out on falsely pegging me as a mindless liberal.

Plus from jump street in here you have been on some "get rid of welfare and people will find work" garbage... a classic right wing talking point that completely dismisses the dismal state of the economy.

I would bet if the green board were still up your pre-2008 posts were not about cutting military spending. Plus you are nowhere to be found in threads on right friendly subsidies and corporatism. Come on dog

I apologized, That was my bad.


I'm against all subsidies and welfare, and this false left right dichotomy you have been fed is a big part of the confusion.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Now going forward, let the record show I am standing by my belief that 'the initiation of force is morally wrong', and I welcome any compelling argument as to why it isnt.

When doing so results in less suffering. Money < human suffering.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

The red is where it happened. It can't be objective if its just my morality. Remove the "your" and the sentence makes sense... I did ask if you think morality is objective, but I never defined morality itself, I just stated mine.

I'm gonna wave the white flag here, cause the whole argument is stupid, and i'm probably being slow and missing something...
Your right. I'm wrong.

Now going forward, let the record show I am standing by my belief that 'the initiation of force is morally wrong', and I welcome any compelling argument as to why it isnt.

This whole argument speaks to the core of your ideology. Back to my previous post, I'm gonna have to go with the 1st possibility...

 

[DEAD7]

I understand the concept, no government=no taxes. What then is the purpose of government? Is it to facilitate the economy? Or to facilitate the survival of it's members (the people)?

I said low as possible, not "no taxes". The protection of property rights is best handled by the state.

wasn't it you who injected it into the conversation? Regardless, you can still answer the question. Based on your responses if you lived during the time of slavery, you'd be ok with a partial reduction in slavery correct?

No the initiation of force is morally wrong. I'd be against it wholly... @ where this is going.

and you blame the murders on a lack of work? Most cities are safer now than ever before, save Chicago. Not sure how this relates to what we're discussing.

Blame? no. But I think it would do a lot for our community to have these youngster working learning a trade, instead of hanging out on the street corner together.

as for your second point, "safe" for whom?

They are, the are making at least the minimum, if they are not someone is breaking the law.
sure people do. Lost taxes, bailouts, workers with the inability to feed themselves, etc, etc.
you can't really believe that. If you do then you have know functional knowledge on the games CEO's play. The idea of CEO is to get in, make a few moves and get out as soon as possible taking stockshare and bonuses with you.

You still didnt answer my ?, and its relevant again. Why is what one free man pays another free man your business?

I know its because you believe we are sharing this pie, and in order to get more of it, some one else has to get less. But that just isnt true at all. Economics is not a zero sum game.

that is quite literally contrary to common sense. Usually reactionary measure are more costly and never really address an issue. It's like watching your kid play with the stove, not saying stop but planning on going to the ER for burns later on in the evening

@ the example
The economic cost isnt worth the benefit.IMHO.

i asked earlier what is the purpose of government? TO protect the people or facilitate commerce. Particularly in America, considering that we are of, by and for THE PEOPLE i'm going to say the economy plays second fiddle to the welfare of THE PEOPLE. There in rests the heart of your logic. Somehow, somewhere in your mind you've mixed the economy/commerce with governance. They are two distinct things broham.

Let me repeat.
It is NOT the job of the government to protect corporations.
It IS the job of the government to protect THE PEOPLE.

Run that against your beliefs then get back to me.

I don't believe our current social programs are whats "best" for "the people"

Economics is what sustains "the people" and government keeps getting in the way. They are all tied together at this point

 

[DEAD7]

This whole argument speaks to the core of your ideology. Back to my previous post, I'm gonna have to go with the 1st possibility...

Your losing me quickly. Probably cause i'm retarded.

Can you sum up what you are trying to say in one sentence?

are you saying the core of my ideology is objective morality?