[quote]magick wrote:
though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[/quote]
Please explain what “trickle down” you are talking about, how it is accomplished and how the Republicans are the only party who do what you explain.
[/quote]
The basic premise that giving tax-cuts to the rich will stimulate the economy.[/quote]
Okay, please point out, with facts, when “the rich” were given tax cuts the “non-rich” were not.
Again, with factual representation please. Not a Pitttttbull-esk “da Buzh cutz was da debil” response. [/quote]
Be fair, Beans. Pitt would just post the dictionary definitions of “trickle” and “down” and “economics” and call it good. [/quote]
This “jurisdiction” you speak of confuses me since these are private agencies. Your agency could tell mine to buzz off, but that would make anyone in your agency highly suspect.[/quote]
Or it could make them a hell of an attractive agency…
So everywhere you go is private. And apparently most if not all private places will have facial recognition software. Doesn’t sound like much of an upgrade from the prying eyes of the state.
Theoretically we have a private company that could purchase all land around me, claim that I stole from one of their customers, and subsequently deny me travel off my property in order to starve me to death. Doesn’t sound any better to me.
[/quote]
If I have understood, it’s even worse than that
They wouldn’t even have to bear false witness - they shouldn’t need to lie in order to buy land (aka surround you)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I wanted to highlight this passage.
However, Tocqueville’s analysis presents a discomfiting fact–that the basic inclinations toward progressivism were there at the creation. As Nisbet recognized, “the real conflict in modern political history has not been, as is so often stated, between the State and individual, [u]but between the State and social group.” Conservatives should eschew the ‘false antipathy’ in their assertion that salvation is to be found in individualism; rather, what is needed is a renewed defense of the institutions and memberships aside from, and distinctly placed, to that of the State–family, community, local markets, Church. [/u]
[/quote]
In terms of governmental systems I would think that “institutions and memberships” would fall under the banner of “rights of the individual”
…we as Christians should honor him even if we do not agree with him."
[/quote]
I strongly disagree.
Honor the office? Yes. To a degree.
Honor a dishonorable man? NO.
[/quote]
We are called to pray for our leaders. Have you prayed for Obama lately?
[/quote]
We are called to condemn evil. Have you condemned it in Obama lately?[/quote]
Other than Abortion what has he done that is evil?
[/quote]
I doubt he’s aborted anyone but he has lied, cheated and stolen not to mention facilitated murder.[/quote]
My point is this Push. God calls us to pray. If my people will turn to me and pray, I will hear them and heal their land. This country needs prayer. This country is getting more and more divided. IMO God is the only one that can heal us. How can we heal, either our leaders change their way of thinking, which will take God to do, or the people will need to vote in new politicians, which will take God changing the hearts of the people. Either way it will take an act of God to change the direction of this country. We must turn to God and Pray, and He has promised to heal our land.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not baiting you in order to be like “AH HA, I got you!!! Uz iz dumb.”
I’m trying to get you to make your argument in a way that shows you where the holes in your assertion are.
Look, tax cuts will benefit high wage earners, no doubt. They benefit low wage earners as well. Let’s also not forget that just because someone is a high wage earner in year X doesn’t mean they are in years Y or Z.
The whole point of my response to you is your disdain for the party based on a talking point. A talking point that only has some of its roots in reality.
I’m trying to get you to think here, nothing more, nothing less.
You look up JFK’s stance on taxation yet? (Another hint: Regan and Bush43 followed suit.)[/quote]
Sorry if I sounded a bit annoyed.
I will read up on those.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not sure I follow your point.[/quote]
From what I’ve read and understand, there are two big reasons why the some people favor state rights over federal.
The state is smaller and more responsive, like you’ve stated.
It is more homogeneous than the federal gov. As such, it is more likely to cater to what the majority within the state wants.
But there’s a contradiction in #2. If the state-right folks want to weaken federal powers and strengthen state powers so that their majority within the state gets more say, then all you’re doing is moving a step down.
Say X party holds the majority within a state, but they are a minority within the greater federal scheme of things. So somehow X party forces the federal gov. to weaken its hold over their state.
Now, obviously there are minorities within the state, but those minorities may be the majority within certain counties or cities or w.e. Within those counties, they are the majority. Let’s call them Y. Does Y get to do the exact same thing X did?
Look at the condition of our very own state as to the effects of massive taxation.
The schools are a wreck, the roads are fucked, crime is on the rise, the unfunded pension liabilities are unbelievably high, the welfare and poverty rates are the highest in the nation.
Makes you wonder where all that tax revenue is going.
The issue of “raise taxes” is somewhat incomplete, as the next issue to follow should be “what will government do with the extra revenue?”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not baiting you in order to be like “AH HA, I got you!!! Uz iz dumb.”
I’m trying to get you to make your argument in a way that shows you where the holes in your assertion are.
Look, tax cuts will benefit high wage earners, no doubt. They benefit low wage earners as well. Let’s also not forget that just because someone is a high wage earner in year X doesn’t mean they are in years Y or Z.
The whole point of my response to you is your disdain for the party based on a talking point. A talking point that only has some of its roots in reality.
I’m trying to get you to think here, nothing more, nothing less.
You look up JFK’s stance on taxation yet? (Another hint: Regan and Bush43 followed suit.)[/quote]
Sorry if I sounded a bit annoyed.
I will read up on those.[/quote]
No worries. You come across well in the forums, as at least a thinker. So I can see where my post had an “attack” tone.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Funny deal. Some here love to poke fun at the theists as living in fantasy
(Quote broke on my mobile and I’m not fixing)
[/quote]
In what way has it not been anarchy all along?
All a govt is is just the biggest/strongest group “setting policy”, no?
Unless and until the citizens/subjects/enemies “revolt” or somesuch.
But I faked that - “unless/until” cannot apply - its success means that a bigger/stronger group has emerged, and become the new govt
So then I don’t see the difference, it’s just a contention between various groups, with various labels depending on the circumstances. Anarchy seems to more or less recognize that, embrace it, and demolish all of the cognitive dissonance involved
I’m not done pondering the kookiest shit just yet - deleting this cognitive dissonance may or may not be good. It at least puts more responsibility on good people to step up, I think
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Oh yea, dunno how I forgot to work this in. The one really funny thing I’ve found about anarchists is that they act like they’ve got something better
That’s where the selling points sound funny
Instead just point out that if you think you need guns to protect yourself from tyranny, you already are an anarchist
THEN, if that’s true - how does this understanding change the way ‘we’ think we should do stuff[/quote
If I understand your post, I thought that way about anarchy until recently. How about these:
If you believe you own your life, you might be an anarchist.
If you believe all goods should compete against each other on equal ground, you might be an anarchist.
If you believe you own your property, you might be an anarchist.
If you can’t imagine being stranded, Gilligan-style, somewhere that may be inhabited by dangerous people and animals, and handing your weapons to another to protect you, you might be an anarchist.
If you believe a smaller, more local government is better than a massive national state, you might be an anarchist.(If not, how small is too small?)
If you don’t think you need to be told how to live, you might be an anarchist.
If you neither believe that you can judge values for others, nor others for you, you might be an anarchist.
If you don’t think you have to be forced to purchase that which you value, you might be an anarchist.
If you don’t believe you have rights which others do not, you might be an anarchist.
If you believe one funny thing about statists is that they believe they have something better(After all, it’s obvious that allowing everyone equal rights could never work. We HAVE to give others the power to make decisions for us. I mean, just think about the terrible things that could possibly happen in a free society! People could even be imprisoned or killed for their ethnicity, or something.), you might be an anarchist.
