Republicans, at some point, you are going to wake up.....

What we need are leaders who do not see the world through the eyes of a STRAWMAN, as you do.

 

Which was diminished by what followed, this:

Which is why I replied as I did. No, he is NOT 'at least' trying to do anything of the sort. He's conning a very gullible evangelical population that he's some kind of pious man when he most certainly is nothing of the kind.

 

Whatever, it was accidental, at the very least. I think in the last 20 years of my being on debate forums of one kind or another, that might have been the second time I've done it. Thanks for not giving me the benefit of the doubt.

From now on, I'll expect nothing less than perfection from you. I'll be watching you. No mistakes, not from you, not ever!

 

So, some sociopath narcissist real estate huckster from NYC who fornicated with a porn star on the eve of his newlwed wife's giving birth is the answer?

Right.

You've been Trumped !

 

So you have spammed before? Do you fart and blame the dog?

 

If you honestly believe a sociopathic narcissist huckster who fornicated with a porn star on on the eve of his newlywed wife giving birth, the same guy who believes that because he's a star he can get away with committing sexual assualt, and is accused by 22 women of same, is the answer for America, and is no better or worse than prior presidents, sorry, you are grossly mistaken.

 

Love it or hate it, he absolutely supports the Christian faith and has received overwhelming support for it. His personal spirituality is between him and his "God".

Never once saw a Muslim Imam calling out Obama for using their church, holy book, or prayer as propaganda and he was a professed Christian.

Are Muslims just that "gullible"?

 

Much of what you just said is just opinion backed by no facts. The only facts in your post is that he screwed a porn star...big whoop, and that he was accused by 22 women who funnily enough haven't heard a peep about since after he was elected.

But nice job in not addressing a single thing that I said.

 

Well, facts are not easily observed when your head is in the proverbial sand.

 

~ You should remember this ...

 

I accept his support for evangelicals, but it's pandering for votes. And why them? Why not Baptists? I'll tell you why, they don't buy it. Evangelicals, full of themselves, are more easily conned.

That's a character issue. Obama's religiosity is real. Trump's is phony, just listen to how he responds to religious questions.



What kind of Christian hasn't asked God for forgiveness? To explain why, Trump goes off into some tap dance that he doesn't need to because 'he has never sinned'. Such words are NOT the words of a pious man. They are the words of a con man.
And listen to this


No way in hell you or anyone can convince me this man's religiosity is real. For him, it's just a means to get votes.

And, you'll need to back up the allegation highlighted. Though I'm not sure which incident you are referring to, you are no doubt misinterpreting paying respect and bridge building as 'propaganda'.

 

~ Some people want a Saint for president. Politics is the exact opposite.
No Garden of Eden ...

 

No technological breakthroughs private industry will not take a chance on? No delivering mail to rural areas which would be too costly for private enterprize? No development of the internet? No airport & transportation management, no air traffic controllers? No management of national parks, just let private companies do their thing with them? No forest management, animal/game management? No animal control in local cities? No social services? No care for the mentally ill? No food for poor children? No health care for the elderly and needy? No organ player every sunday morning at the organ pavillion in San Diego? No courts of any kind? No trash pick up in the city, no waste water management? No hydroelectric power and electrical management? No science of any kind, the astronomical departments? No aquatic and marine research and management?

 

:shrug: Then pull your head out of the proverbial sand. Easy. :shrug:

 

Ask Obama, he has been reading all of our email/mail. Except for Hillary's. She deleted hers. lol

 

She eschewed government assistance throughout her life. When she got cancer toward the end of her life, he accepted medicare and social services.
Now then, if you toss up the 'restitution' argument, understand that that is a cop out. Either you have a conviction, and you are not a hypocrite, you stick to it or you are a hypocrite and rationalize going against your principle. There is no middle ground. In other words, your conviction has two sides to the equation, and you must be true on both sides, the providing side, and the accepting side. If you rail against providers of government assistance, you don't get to say you can accept it because all of the sudden you find yourself in a position that you must accept it or not be able to afford operations ( that IS the entire reason for it's existence, to help people who cannot afford health care). She decided it was better to be an alive hypocrite than a dead purist. Fine, but she's a hypocrite nevertheless. If she would have admitted it, I would have had more respect for her.

Again, the 'restitution of taxes paid' argument is a cop out. If you accept what someone provides, you are guilty of promoting it as the provider is whether your paid taxes or not. You can holler 'restitution' all you want, but she is a hypocrite, forever.

Her philosophy is popular with conservatives, which resulted in the rise of neoliberalism/libertarianism in the conservative spectrum( unregulated free markets, basically, the belief that whatever the government can do, private enterprize can do better. It's a half truth ).

Urban areas vote for democrats. Urban areas are easier to surive in for a homeless person than a rural area, or that is their perception. Your suggesting that it's caused by 'dems' is a failure to understand the problem.

Reagan boosted the homeless population when he deinstitutionalize mentally ill patients both as Governor of CA and as president
https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler...tion-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/
Homelessness has risen with the rise of neoliberalism, a doctrine inspired by Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, embraced by conservative politicians since Reagan, including moderate dems Bill Clinton ( who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 both of which are neoliberal policies which, which Bush didn't repeal [ both were bipartisan ],it was these two acts which have been purported to be responsible for the mortgage crisis / derivative crisis of 2008 )

Apparently you never got the memo than there is no greater stench than self-righteous indignation. You're emotion ranting, I'm giving you factual evidence.

Question has a neoliberal/Ayn Rand influenced premise, which is false. I cannot answer a question with a false premise, only a fool would do that.

I hate to disabuse you of your sentiment, but the state has legitimate claim on a portion of your income, this is irrefutable per 16th Amendment.

That is not at debate, what is debated is how much, and what for, and on that point, everyone has a complaint. Tax policy cannot please everyone.

So one man's 'looting' is another man's policy objective. It's really up to legislature to make tax policy, created by elected officials.

Bottom line, it's up to voters, and your position is an emotional one, not a rational one.

More emotion ranting.
Republicans are criminals, and the evidence, the hard, irrefutable evidence is recorded history. Let's compare democratic administrations to republican adminstrations:

 

It is moral under objectivist ethics to accept government assistance if an individual is forced to pay in that system. As we all are. So she has not abused her ethics. There is no gray area there.

On what moral grounds do you think the government has a right to my income?

I would argue that the self righteous indignation is coming from you. You stand on a soap box claiming to be the champion of the oppressed trying to appease the mob in order to earn your good guy badge.

How moral is it to steal the earnings of others? On what ethical grounds do you loot the efforts of others and use the force of a gun to take it. That is thuggery. So when you run out of people to rob and your unwashed minions turn on you what will you do?

So despite your straw men, links, videos and quotes at the end of it all you have no ethical grounds to stand on.

 

It's part of the Social Contract, which is to say part of the Enlightenment philosophy that guided the Founding Fathers.

But... no one is forcing you to pay. You can leave, give up your citizenship.

Try Somalia.

 

Republicans, at some point, you are going to wake up.....Already did, November 2016, Thanks.

 

Objectivism is an artificial construct. It is the opinion of Ayn Rand. That she asserts it is 'objective' doesn't mean that it is, in actual fact, it is only her opinion that it is, and, as I will demonstrate, is not objective whatsoever, and is, in point of fact, driven by emotion, her reaction from the world she escaped, and her desire to remove anything and everyting that reminds her of her communist past, so much so, it caused her to be irrational.

Therefore, It doesn't change my argument. She is a hypocrite, no rule she can manufacture for the convenience of it's adherents changes nor refutes the fact that she is a hypocrite.

Question answered, see previous post. But, for your convenience, I'll reiterate and I will expand upon it:
...the state has a legitimate claim on a portion of your income, this is irrefutable per 16th Amendment.
That is not at debate, what is debated is how much, and what for, and on that point, everyone has a complaint. Tax policy cannot please everyone.
So one man's 'looting' is another man's policy objective. It's really up to legislature to make tax policy, created by elected officials.
Bottom line, it's up to voters...

Therefore, the question of 'morality' of the 16th Amendment should directed to the drafters and ratifiers of that amendment.

But, though I'm not the framer of that amendment, I could venture a guess and say that the reason is obvious, that all of us, you, me, others, live in a civilized society which costs money, and we all, as citizens and participants, must contribute, emphasis on the 'must' part. If you were to argue that taxes should be voluntary, that would invite theft.

No, not the government doing the thieving, it could be you who might do the thieving if you decided not to pay your taxes. See, if you benefit from civilization by living here, and you opt out paying taxes, it is YOU who are the thief, not the government. This is precisely why I, and many progressives, believe that no institution should be tax exempt. Tax exempt religion is, therefore, unconstitutional as it means that portion of taxes they do not pay is made up by the balance of the citizenry, which amounts to a subsidy. If you refuse to pay taxes, you are being subsidized by others who do pay taxes because you are recieving the benefit of civilization without paying your fair share.

Religion, given that it has been awarded tax exempt status, in essence, is subsidized by the citizenry, and is therefore a violation of the 1st amendment. I would make an exception if an organization, per defined parameters, is unable to pay taxes, just as poor people are not required to pay taxes, for the following reason:

Under the concept of progressivism, the government decides that taxes should be levied according ot ability to pay, and that it would be cruel to levy an income tax on poverty. However, poverty still pays taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, various taxes that the government collects outside of income taxes. Therefore, everyone contributes, and the moral burden, as tax policy has been done for a long time, that those who benefit from society the most, should rightfully shoulder the greater proportion of the burden.

Taxes are collected by the government to fund the government because in order to have an orderly civilization, the government must exist.

Therefore, you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is: "What is the moral basis for government?" That is the correct question. But, per the 16th amendment, and per the constitution, a government must exist for America as the Constitution wills it.

End of argument.

The debate, therefore, is not whether or not taxes are moral, the debate is on how much taxes, and on for what should they be spent.

That can only be settled by a democratic method, whoever wins elections sets tax policies. The bottom line is that it's ultimately up to voters. You don't like how your taxes are allocated, then you vote for someone who does it the way you think they should be done.

Your question begs for qualification: Do you mean ALL taxes are theft? Or, just a portion of taxes are theft?

As already stated, the first question is addressed by the 16th amendment, that taxes, per se, are legitimate per the 16th amendment; that government must exist because the constitution wills it. Therefore, your question apparently is the second one. That's flawed as well because you are essentially saying that portion of taxes you do not approve is is considered by you as 'theft'. That is a flaw because everyone can make the same argument for themselves, and if we allow the mob to make laws we have chaos.

So, the flaw in that argument is everyone has a beef about taxes. Tax policy cannot please everyone, and you are not special, nor am I, we all have a complaint about how tax policy goes. You don't like it that a portion of taxes pays for X, and I don't like it that a portion of taxes pays for Y, yet another person doesn't like it that a portion of her taxes goes for Z, but the government, whose position is that X, Y, and Z, must be funded under the concept 'for the greater good'. You and I do not get to decide what taxes should be spent on. All you and I can do is vote for people in government who sees eye to eye with ourselves, and the winner of the election sets the policy.

Bottom line, it's up to voters. Your position is rooted in emotion, not reason.

No, the opposite is true. You are looking at the universe with an Randian lens. It's not reality, it's emotion. In fact, Rand's 'objectivism' is not objective in the slightest. Rand emerged from a communist world where the state owned everything, and objectivism is Rand going the opposite direction, to the other extreme, which, she has not objectively noticed that all extremes are equally bad.

Communism, state ownership and totalitarian control is bad, and her reaction is to eschew ALL state control, and thus we are left with a veritable anarchy. Now, as I understand the Randian universe, she would assert that the government has a right to exist, but, As I understand her philosophy, the government's only legitimate function is to protect it's citizenry against enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately for Randians, the Constitution does not say this (that the only legitimate function of government is limited solely to protect citizens against enemies foreign and domestic). The Constitution is vague on many points, which is why the constitution created the supreme court, which is designed to settle matters of what is, and what is not, constitutional, plus the allowance of amendments.

The framers understood that civilizations evolve, and that a constitution MUST NOT be an inflexible document, lest a civilization get stuck. A rigid body is corpse. A nation is an organism, it's alive, it breathes, it's blood flows, there must be constant motion, individual cells, everything is flowing in a constant motion, and a static body equals death, and to reflect a live civilization, a document must be fluid as well ( but no so much the it has no force or effect, so, metaphorically speaking, the constitution is like comfortable fitting clothes to protect the nation against the dangers of the wild [anarchy] but is not rigid like a metal suit of armor, which would eventually suffocate us ).

The problem with Rand's philosophy is that it is simplistic. The word simplistic, in my view, is a beautiful one. It does not mean 'simple', it means attempting to simplify something far beyond a point which it can be simplified, i.e., it means 'oversimplification'. But, to assert that simplistic simply means 'oversimplification' is, itself, lacking the magnitude of it. One can be simplistic to varying degrees, modestly, or egregiously. In Rand's case, it is the latter, and to an extreme degree. She lived in the extreme left, escaped, hated it so much then she reacted by going to the other extreme which is about as far as one could go without living in a fascist country. The mistake she makes is she failed to grasp that either extreme is bad, she assumed that if one extreme is bad, it's opposite must be good. That is not objective at all, it's, in point of fact, quite irrational.

My argument is this: What is the point farthest from extreme left, and extreme right? In other words: Where does the pendulum rest?

The two questions are essentially the same, the farthest point away from extreme right and left is the point which is equidistant from those extremes.

So, where does the pendulum rest? It rests solely upon arrival at the center.

The center, capiche?

This is why a mixed economy is superior to one of either extreme. Communism is the extreme left, Randism is the extreme right.

This is why the happiest countries tend to be those countries, such as the netherlands, which have a better understanding of this concept of equilibruim of left and right forces.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurab...nked-20-happiest-countries-2020/#1220058b7850

Socialism, left to it's own devices, will collapse. Capitalism, left to it's own devices, will devour itself.

But, a mixed economy is better. Socialism cannot exist without capitalism, and capitalism cannot exist without socialism. And, by 'socialism' ( when mixed with capitalism ) I mean essentially 'government sponsored endeavors'.

The debate, therfefore, is where is the sweet spot? Like a pendulum, the sweet spot, is the center, the equidistant point where there is an equalibrium of these two forces.

So, when republicans argue "We eschew socialism, America will not be a socialist country', they are creating a strawman.

The strawman is that they are saying that progressives want the extreme left, that they want AMerica to be like Venezuela, to be like the Soviet Union.

No, they don't. We want the government to do those things that it does bet, and we want capitalism to do those things that it does best. We want a mixed economy, we want to put the pendulum to rest at the equidistant point, where it will achieve the equilibrium of both forces.

Answered above. Your position is emotion, not reason, not objective in the slightest. Your position is irrational. Please reread the above.

The REASON a gun is pointed at you if you do not pay taxes is because if you do not pay taxes, you are receiving the benefit of civilization without paying your fair share, so the reason a gun is pointed at you is because YOU ARE THE THIEF ( if you evade paying taxes).

Therefore, 'objectivism' is no objective, in fact, it's criminal.

This is why Republicans, who are driven by Rand's philosophy, commit far more crimes than any other party.

 

Impressive. See you at the polls.

 

Addendum: I stated Rand believes the only legitimate role of government is to protect citizens against enemies foreign and domestic ( police and military, and 'fire' ) and I should have added, 'to settle disputes between men' ( and she's using the female gender inclusive form of 'men', which is the traditional use of it ). So, basically, she sees, as I understand her philosophy, the only legit government is Police, Fire, Military, and Courts ( plus elected officials to oversee and legislate, where laws are written aligned with this minimalist philosophy she espouses ). I realize she has gone into depths the above, but, as I understand her, all of the ramifications and complexities of the above are to be aligned with this minimalist government she espouses.

 

My position is not emotional in the slightest. You didn’t answer my question. How does another’s existence justify a right to another’s belongings? Or efforts?
Pointing to a law is not an ethical argument.

You are pointing to several points of the result or conclusion of objectivist ethics without understanding objectivist epistemology. It doesn’t sound like you understand it at all, yet you’re calling her a hypocrite. She was not a hypocrite- in the slightest.

I don’t think you understand the purpose of philosophy in general either, let alone objectivism. You take bits and pieces out of context, make a judgement and go on your way.

The thief is anyone one who takes something they didn’t earn, which by the way is fueled by greed. Plain and simple. Those that demand food money and housing as if entitled are by definition greedy.

You’re making large leaps and bad judgements in your beliefs bud.

I challenge you to take one single principle belief you hold and back it up with out using force as prime mover. In other words name one basic principle of progressive beliefs that do not cause another to forfeit a right of some kind.

 

I'm not partisan.