things i have learned from republicans this week

[Canna Sylvan]

You know Buck is correct with the maths thing... Right?

Unless the pot fucked me over again...

He's fucked the English portion of the test. He still fails to grasp there's a an English word for: per 100, per 1,000 and per 10,000. But anything else is the same as per 100. If you can't label your work, it doesn't matter how well you can cipher.

 

[Harrekin]

He's fucked the English portion of the test. He still fails to grasp there's a an English word for: per 100, per 1,000 and per 10,000. But anything else is the same as per 100. If you can't label your work, it doesn't matter how well you can cipher.

Ok, so I'll do it an easy way then.

(531/100000)=(.531/100)

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Ok, so I'll do it an easy way then.

(531/100000)=(.531/100)

You didn't label your work. Seriously. I don't think Buck understands labels. That's why he keeps posting shitty graphs with no labels. As long as he can cipher it, then it's good to go. Ciphering is only half the battle.

 

[Harrekin]

You didn't label your work. Seriously. I don't think Buck understands labels. That's why he keeps posting shitty graphs with no labels. As long as he can cipher it, then it's good to go. Ciphering is only half the battle.

You don't need to label that, it's how you'd type it into a calculator.

Edited

 

[burgertime2010]

Take for example roads. In California, CalTrans takes forever. The 22 Freeway won't get finished until sometime in 2014, maybe. Even when the road is finally finished, it's not that great.

In a free market, the people would contract a private firm, who will do it for the least amount of money. Those who are local would pay, especially business. If a road is on the way to a business district, those businesses would help pay for the roads too. How else do businesses get money if no one shops there? Those from the outside would pay road fees, especially those who do commerce. Whereas those only traveling, would pay little to nothing. Those who shop, would get transportation vouchers.

Those who abuse the road by loitering or doing criminal activity would have the locals kick you out. The locals, travelers, and businesses would pay enforcers. Private roads would result in less crime, since those who would cause trouble aren't given transport vouchers.

The current system doesn't allow you to stop criminals from using the roads. Transportation is subsidized for large corporations who abuse roads by only delivering.

A private system would encourage local business, since travel costs money. What those like you forget, volunteerism would increase under a total free market system. The only reason so few do now is because Big Daddy Government is supposed to provide for us. Back when government was much smaller, neighbors would help pick your fields if you became deathly ill or some other reason prevented you from harvesting your field. People don't do that these days because if the shit hits the fan, you beg Obama to send medical students to jack off Africans in Africa itself!

This here is what makes you a liberal. You cannot think for yourself and outside of the box. Unless someone else knows, you're fucked. I find it hilarious many liberals laugh at the christian right because they don't think unless they pray to God and he tells them. Yet liberals can't think, unless they can pray to government and some magical leprechaun gives them a pot of gold.

All I did was ask questions. If that makes me a liberal than so be it. I am hoping to see things from another perspective and actually pursuing out of the box thought. I do not understand why hostility becomes necessary every time? You shouldn't take offense to me nor assume that I disagree with everything you say. Time and time again you water down your point by getting defensive and rude almost as if it is beyond your control. Privatization is the solution? and volunteerism is to replace social welfare? I am not so sure that people like you would volunteer to help those who need it, no offense, but humanitarian issues don't seem high on your list. A society ruled by unregulated capitalism is certainly tricky to see functioning as smoothly as you do. Taxes nor government are liberal inventions. The fact is that no matter how the facts spell out our best interests and the current reality you will be unable to process them with objectivity. You are in the box.

 

[burgertime2010]

I'm just saying that central leadership hasn't worked that well. Brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein force different groups to coexist, but only by by being a brutal dictator. What's the solution? I don't know. I don't think its in the nature of humans, to be honest.

You are completely misinterpreting central leadership. A representative democracy is central leadership. A lawmaking body, an executive or executive body, a system of government, dictatorship, basically anything except lawlessness. The solution to the rich differs from that of the poor. I don't know what it is, I never claimed to. A utopian society is not a lot of things......I would start by looking at those.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

All I did was ask questions. If that makes me a liberal than so be it. I am hoping to see things from another perspective and actually pursuing out of the box thought. I do not understand why hostility becomes necessary every time? You shouldn't take offense to me nor assume that I disagree with everything you say. Time and time again you water down your point by getting defensive and rude almost as if it is beyond your control. Privatization is the solution? and volunteerism is to replace social welfare? I am not so sure that people like you would volunteer to help those who need it, no offense, but humanitarian issues don't seem high on your list. A society ruled by unregulated capitalism is certainly tricky to see functioning as smoothly as you do. Taxes nor government are liberal inventions. The fact is that no matter how the facts spell out our best interests and the current reality you will be unable to process them with objectivity. You are in the box.

It gets really depressing there's only two people who really understand political theory on a politics forum, Rob Roy and Dr. Kynes. There's a few others who are intelligent, who know who they are, but aren't uber political geeks. Then there's those like Buck who are a real downer to your high and make you hostile.

 

[ChesusRice]

In a free market, the people would contract a private firm, who will do it for the least amount of money. Those who are local would pay, especially business. If a road is on the way to a business district, those businesses would help pay for the roads too. How else do businesses get money if no one shops there? Those from the outside would pay road fees, especially those who do commerce. Whereas those only traveling, would pay little to nothing. Those who shop, would get transportation vouchers.

Those who abuse the road by loitering or doing criminal activity would have the locals kick you out. The locals, travelers, and businesses would pay enforcers. Private roads would result in less crime, since those who would cause trouble aren't given transport vouchers.

The current system doesn't allow you to stop criminals from using the roads. Transportation is subsidized for large corporations who abuse roads by only delivering.

A private system would encourage local business, since travel costs money. What those like you forget, volunteerism would increase under a total free market system. The only reason so few do now is because Big Daddy Government is supposed to provide for us. Back when government was much smaller, neighbors would help pick your fields if you became deathly ill or some other reason prevented you from harvesting your field. People don't do that these days because if the shit hits the fan, you beg Obama to send medical students to jack off Africans in Africa itself!

This here is what makes you a liberal. You cannot think for yourself and outside of the box. Unless someone else knows, you're fucked. I find it hilarious many liberals laugh at the christian right because they don't think unless they pray to God and he tells them. Yet liberals can't think, unless they can pray to government and some magical leprechaun gives them a pot of gold.

Such an incredibly stupid Idea on so many levels it is beyond words.
We already had our experiment in Toll Roads at the beginning of this countries founding, and it was a stellar failure.

Exactly what do you think this country would look like without roads paid for by the goverment?

 

[FreedomWorks]

Such an incredibly stupid Idea on so many levels it is beyond words.
We already had our experiment in Toll Roads at the beginning of this countries founding, and it was a stellar failure.

Exactly what do you think this country would look like without roads paid for by the goverment?

What road has the government ever paid for? Do you mean taxpayers? The government doesn't create wealth, so how can it pay for something without confiscating from others? At least give credit where credit is due...

 

[Rob Roy]

All I did was ask questions. If that makes me a liberal than so be it. I am hoping to see things from another perspective and actually pursuing out of the box thought. I do not understand why hostility becomes necessary every time? You shouldn't take offense to me nor assume that I disagree with everything you say. Time and time again you water down your point by getting defensive and rude almost as if it is beyond your control. Privatization is the solution? and volunteerism is to replace social welfare? I am not so sure that people like you would volunteer to help those who need it, no offense, but humanitarian issues don't seem high on your list. A society ruled by unregulated capitalism is certainly tricky to see functioning as smoothly as you do. Taxes nor government are liberal inventions. The fact is that no matter how the facts spell out our best interests and the current reality you will be unable to process them with objectivity. You are in the box.

Humanitarian efforts should not start with force or the threat of it, or they cease to be humanitarian and merely become forced redistribution.

 

[burgertime2010]

It gets really depressing there's only two people who really understand political theory on a politics forum, Rob Roy and Dr. Kynes. There's a few others who are intelligent, who know who they are, but aren't uber political geeks. Then there's those like Buck who are a real downer to your high and make you hostile.

It does not take an expert political savvy to interpret some of the very basic behavior going down here and likewise I get depressed. Politics is a manifestation of ones values and is important to understand others perceptions. I live my politics every day and take it seriously when you call me a freeloader. I do have a fairly unique set of needs that the government has filled and I see the importance of that. I see a lot of simplistic and dismissive rhetoric to any view outside your own. I don't aim to win a battle here, I just want to grasp what the process of those who I cannot relate. I don't see a lot of others with that agenda so I fill a role in that sense. This is a debate and not many respect that.

 

[burgertime2010]

Humanitarian efforts should not start with force or the threat of it, or they cease to be humanitarian and merely become forced redistribution.

A majority elects a representative government who makes laws on their behalf. Taxes go to many things and are decided by a democratic process albeit not a direct one. This is not forced....it is the result of a democratic process.

 

[FreedomWorks]

Humanitarian efforts should not start with force or the threat of it, or they cease to be humanitarian and merely become forced redistribution.

Its a lot easier to call somebody a racist if they don't volunteer for "humanitarian efforts." Democrats have been changing the words around for years now to try and conceal their evil as good intentions. Obama's latest full blown political correctness assault came last week when he released his obamacare pamphlet regarding the individual mandate. It is not called a tax at the end of the year for people who don't buy health insurance. taxes, fees, and fines are now called "shared responsibility payments."

The Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) final rule on Obamacare’s individual mandate, released this week, uses the term “Shared Responsibility Payment” more than 50 times to describe the mandate’s non-compliance penalty, which the Supreme Court in 2012 defined as a tax.
The IRS also used the term “shared responsibility penalty” in the rule, which does not identify the individual mandate as a tax.
The 75-page rule published by the IRS, which is tasked with enforcing Obamacare as the law is fully implemented in 2014, is entitled “Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage.”
​

 

[burgertime2010]

What road has the government ever paid for? Do you mean taxpayers? The government doesn't create wealth, so how can it pay for something without confiscating from others? At least give credit where credit is due...

Confiscating and taxation are not the same concept...

 

[FreedomWorks]

Confiscating and taxation are not the same concept...

Thats where you're wrong. A tax implies that voters decided it was best for their communities. Confiscation is what we see today when powerful union bosses get together with their lobbyists and back pocket politicians to impose their will in a post constitutional republic.

 

[Rob Roy]

A majority elects a representative government who makes laws on their behalf. Taxes go to many things and are decided by a democratic process albeit not a direct one. This is not forced....it is the result of a democratic process.

Please explain how a majority can make it okay to initiate aggression against a minority. I understand that the "democratic process" presumes to do this, but I'm not asking about the mechanism, I'm asking about the moral authority.

If a majority can make things that are wrong, ie, stealing, acceptable, then what is to prevent a majority from saying things like murder(war), or theft (forced taxation to support war) are okay?

 

[burgertime2010]

Thats where you're wrong. A tax implies that voters decided it was best for their communities. Confiscation is what we see today when powerful union bosses get together with their lobbyists and back pocket politicians to impose their will in a post constitutional republic.

Nonetheless they are not the same concept. In most arguments I am seeing taxation as the forced element. Voters decided which corrupt politician to represent them. The rest is bullshit but hasn't changed much at the core in my perception.

 

[Rob Roy]

A majority elects a representative government who makes laws on their behalf. Taxes go to many things and are decided by a democratic process albeit not a direct one. This is not forced....it is the result of a democratic process.

Are you sure that a majority actually elects "representatives" ? What about the alleged minority that doesn't want to participate and simply wants to be left alone to pursue peaceful interests? Are they bound to uphold the "laws" that others have imposed on them, even when those same laws involve killing people that haven't harmed them?

 

[ProfessorPotSnob]

Anybody else want a breakfast burrito now ?

 

[burgertime2010]

Please explain how a majority can make it okay to initiate aggression against a minority. I understand that the "democratic process" presumes to do this, but I'm not asking about the mechanism, I'm asking about the moral authority.

If a majority can make things that are wrong, ie, stealing, acceptable, then what is to prevent a majority from saying things like murder(war), or theft (forced taxation to support war) are okay?

That is a good question. The majority rules paradigm is what defines right and wrong in that sense to the masses. It seems like not much would get done otherwise if forced was out of the equation. I personally don't trust the majority and that makes this system difficult but there is a functional aspect to it.