Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable

[CBWx2]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

 Do you even know which issues are commonly referred to as social issues ?

Figure it out, dimwit.

Considering your original point on libertarians and social issues was the same as mine , maybe you're trying a little too hard on this one , dimwit.

Since when is the budget for government entitlement spending considered a "social" issue ?? Durango just proved his complete ignorance , and should go bury his head in the sand..

If you are talking about the budget for entitlement spending, that's a fiscal issue. If you are talking about the existence of entitlement programs, that is a social issue. The whole concept of entitlements like Medicare/aid, SNAP, etc. is to provide a social safety net. They are social programs, so arguing about whether or not they should exist is a social issue.

[Durango 95]

Why do these things need to be explained. Aren't these concepts so basic that everyone should understand. Honestly I just don't have the patience.

[Dolorous Jason]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

 Do you even know which issues are commonly referred to as social issues ?

Figure it out, dimwit.

Considering your original point on libertarians and social issues was the same as mine , maybe you're trying a little too hard on this one , dimwit.

Since when is the budget for government entitlement spending considered a "social" issue ?? Durango just proved his complete ignorance , and should go bury his head in the sand..

If you are talking about the budget for entitlement spending, that's a fiscal issue. If you are talking about the existence of entitlement programs, that is a social issue. The whole concept of entitlements like Medicare/aid, SNAP, etc. is to provide a social safety net. They are social programs, so arguing about whether or not they should exist is a social issue.

So you are officially changing your stance ( and commonly accepted knowledge ) that Libertarians actually favor the left on social issues , and are not socially conservative at all ?  You really will go to ridiculous lengths to try and win an argument against me ....even reversing a prior point you made. LOL

Sorry , matters that involve taxation and the running of government programs is never included in the subject of "social issues". That is usually reserved for civil rights,  laws that dictate what actions are acceptable in society , direct interactions of people in society ,  etc..

Now beat it , dumb ass.

[Dolorous Jason]

  Honestly I just don't have the intelligence.

Fixed it for you.

Keep walking around in public saying libertarians are too "socially conservative" so people can laugh at you.

[CBWx2]

Hey asshat, point to me the post where I said that either of those things are extreme? Balancing budgets is not extreme. The manor in which you and your ilk wish to approach balancing the budget is extreme.

You mean byactually balancing it  ?? LOL . Yes that is extreme , better to just talk about maybe doing it 50 years from now if we feel like it and find a magic money tree.

So only by adopting libertarian fiscal and social principles can we balance the budget? Your way, or we are all doomed as a society? Yeah, you're right. Nothing at all extreme about taking that position. 

The manor of which you and your ilk wish to uphold or promote individual liberty is extreme.

You mean by actually allowing people to enjoy individual liberties , instead of just using the words as empty rhetoric ?? Yes , that is extreme also.

I believe in individual liberty. I just don't believe in protecting the liberty to discriminate against others due to race or sexual orientation. I don't believe in protecting the liberty to be a misogynist, or to exploit workers, or dump harmful materials into rivers and oceans. Those are liberties that I don't believe in or wish to protect, and that you do, because I am a centre-leftist and you are a right-wing extremist.

[CBWx2]

So you are officially changing your stance ( and commonly accepted knowledge ) that Libertarians actually favor the left on social issues , and are not socially conservative at all ?  You really will go to ridiculous lengths to try and win an argument against me ....even reversing a prior point you made. LOL

Sorry , matters that involve taxation and the running of government programs is never included in the subject of "social issues". That is usually reserved for civil rights,  laws that dictate what actions are acceptable in society , direct interactions of people in society ,  etc..

Now beat it , dumb ass.

Good lord, my freaking head is starting to hurt from constantly having to argue against your never-ending idiocy. Look here, dipwad, a social issue is anything that relates to people's personal lives. Civil rights are a type of social issue, hence the fact that they have their own separate distinction. Things like poverty, hunger, and access to healthcare are also social issues, which is why programs implemented to combat them are called SOCIAL PROGRAMS! Here's a clue, you imbecile, if it has the word social in it, then it's probably a social issue. As far as me changing my position, I haven't changed anything, and certainly don't need to to win an argument against you. I've done that plenty already. You're just too stupid to realize it.

You are correct in your comment that my characterization of social conservatism deals mainly with civil issues. However, where I took issue with your statement was where you took the position that supporting or opposing entitlements was not a social issue. It is both a social and a fiscal issue. No one supports a plan like Medicare without believing it to be part of the social contract, and you can't both support Medicare and be opposed to the idea of paying for it.

[tripblood]

[CBWx2]

However there is much more to the social aspect of this discussion you did not reference. There are many social programs that R Paul Libertarians would like to fiddle with and eliminate. I would absolutely be against threats to not provide assistance for those in need which come down from the Federal level. Be it Food Stamps or unemployment benefits these social services are often essential for survival. I am not convinced Libertarians are prepared to effectively deal w/ these issues.

Good point but I would consider those more akin to fiscal policy than social policy.  It's splitting hairs I suppose but I just think of social conservatisim as being more in line with telling others how to live.

Also, many of the "moderate" arm don't consider social assistance an evil.  On principle I think most I'm aware of would prefer things like that be handled at the state level and would like to eliminate or at least limit monlopoly of such programs by the federal government. 

...and don't forgot charities . This suggestion that anyone fallen on hard times would be left to die without the federal government is simply shallow thinking. We've raised 528 million in donations for Haiti ...a donation , not a tax . How is that even possible !!! People are too selfish to give without being compelled by force !! Nonsense. Imagine what we could do for our own if need be . Imagine if the money raised here locally went straight to those who need it , instead of filtering through a gigantic bureaucracy 2,000 miles away and coming out the other side only pennies on the original dollar.

Translation: The libertarian plan to deal with these issues is to not deal with them.

[BucNY]

Both sides try to push the other to the far extreme. I honestly believe most people are willing to pay a reasonable amount of tax to pay for government programs ranging from road maintanence, to welfare, to medicaid. I have no issue with these programs. I think they are all designed to help people while they try to help themselves.

I have issue, many do, and get labeled because I see more and more people using the system but more and more people abusing it. I can pick up my local newspaper and see people getting caught with welfare fraud on a weekly basis. I can go into grocery stores and watch people cash out with a food stamp card while the husband AND wife both play on cell phones. To re-iterate I want to help people get back on their feet. I do think people will ride the system as long as they can. At some point you have to force people to want to do better for themselves. That means taking away some of the safety net. For a large percentage of people, finiacial security is the gateway to laziness. We see it in perfessional sports, we see it in the manager who's been a manager for multiple years.

I want to move things back to what they were intended for. Help. Help to get back on your feet, help to feed your family when you lost your job, help to make sure you don't die of a curable infection because you can't afford a $30 medication. However this help cannot be a blank check with no end date. Some people will take advantage and the end result is the people who are so graciously giving a chunk of their hard earned paycheck every week start to feel taken advantage of and start to resent those who can't hold a job for whatever reason.

Romney's failure was obvious to me. Obama did a good job of making the rich people seem greedy for wanting to keep the money their earned while making the poor people feel entitled to money they DID NOT earn. Again things in moderation.

I'm lucky enough to own my home and the property it's on. In my county the average overall tax rate is 62% once you figured in town tax, village tax. school tax, income tax, sales tax etc.... 62%!!! Am I greedy for wanting to keep more than 48% of the money I make? I don't think so, others do.

[GameTime]

good post BucNY

[Dolorous Jason]

Good lord, my freaking head is starting to hurt from constantly having to argue against your never-ending idiocy. Look here, dipwad, a social issue is anything that relates to people's personal lives.

You are correct in your comment that my characterization of social conservatism deals mainly with civil issues. However, where I took issue with your statement was where you took the position that supporting or opposing entitlements was not a social issue. It is both a social and a fiscal issue.

Oh no ..... here comes Captain Parse again !!  Run away ! Run away !! Before he drowns another thread in about 20 pages of minutia !




I think any one with half a brain knows that Durango claiming Libertarians are "socially conservative" was an ignorant thing to say. Next topic.

[Dolorous Jason]

Hey asshat, point to me the post where I said that either of those things are extreme? Balancing budgets is not extreme. The manor in which you and your ilk wish to approach balancing the budget is extreme.

You mean byactually balancing it  ?? LOL . Yes that is extreme , better to just talk about maybe doing it 50 years from now if we feel like it and find a magic money tree.

So only by adopting libertarian fiscal and social principles can we balance the budget? Your way, or we are all doomed as a society? Yeah, you're right. Nothing at all extreme about taking that position. 

The manor of which you and your ilk wish to uphold or promote individual liberty is extreme.

You mean by actually allowing people to enjoy individual liberties , instead of just using the words as empty rhetoric ?? Yes , that is extreme also.

I believe in individual liberty. I just don't believe in protecting the liberty to discriminate against others due to race or sexual orientation. I don't believe in protecting the liberty to be a misogynist, or to exploit workers, or dump harmful materials into rivers and oceans. Those are liberties that I don't believe in or wish to protect, and that you do, because I am a centre-leftist and you are a right-wing extremist.

1. Do you have a way to magically balance the budget without major cuts ?? I have news for you , there aren't enough rich people to pay for it all , even if you tax them at 100% ?? Let's hear your alternative CBW . This should be amusing.

2. Your statements that libertarians support discrimination and pollution,  and are right-wing extremists ( or anarchists like you've suggested before...funny you can't even keep your story straight ) , is ignorant and ridiculous , and further proof that you really have no clue how anyone else thinks outside your little sphere of government sheeple.  There really is no reason to continue this discussion until you educate yourself on what libertarianism even is.

3. You do not support individual liberty . As I said , for people like you it's nothing but empty rhetoric.  You put the collective in front of the individual at every turn . The concept of liberty in general frightens you , which is why you label anyone who believes in it a radical. But feel free to keep telling yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. 

[Durango 95]

Both sides try to push the other to the far extreme. I honestly believe most people are willing to pay a reasonable amount of tax to pay for government programs ranging from road maintanence, to welfare, to medicaid. I have no issue with these programs. I think they are all designed to help people while they try to help themselves.

I have issue, many do, and get labeled because I see more and more people using the system but more and more people abusing it. I can pick up my local newspaper and see people getting caught with welfare fraud on a weekly basis. I can go into grocery stores and watch people cash out with a food stamp card while the husband AND wife both play on cell phones. To re-iterate I want to help people get back on their feet. I do think people will ride the system as long as they can. At some point you have to force people to want to do better for themselves. That means taking away some of the safety net. For a large percentage of people, finiacial security is the gateway to laziness. We see it in perfessional sports, we see it in the manager who's been a manager for multiple years.

I want to move things back to what they were intended for. Help. Help to get back on your feet, help to feed your family when you lost your job, help to make sure you don't die of a curable infection because you can't afford a $30 medication. However this help cannot be a blank check with no end date. Some people will take advantage and the end result is the people who are so graciously giving a chunk of their hard earned paycheck every week start to feel taken advantage of and start to resent those who can't hold a job for whatever reason.

Romney's failure was obvious to me. Obama did a good job of making the rich people seem greedy for wanting to keep the money their earned while making the poor people feel entitled to money they DID NOT earn. Again things in moderation.

I'm lucky enough to own my home and the property it's on. In my county the average overall tax rate is 62% once you figured in town tax, village tax. school tax, income tax, sales tax etc.... 62%!!! Am I greedy for wanting to keep more than 48% of the money I make? I don't think so, others do.

You support tax dollars going to help those in need but resent when people defraud the government. Sounds reasonable. I don't think many people support the idea of people defrauding the system. Any estimates on the level of fraud taking place or possible ideas to reduce it?

[CBWx2]

1. Do you have a way to magically balance the budget without major cuts ?? I have news for you , there aren't enough rich people to pay for it all , even if you tax them at 100% ?? Let's hear your alternative CBW . This should be amusing.

I realize that you have that talking point loaded and ready to go when any discussion arises about balancing the budget, but who said anything about not cutting spending? There are two ways to balance a budget, by cutting spending and by increasing revenue, and guess what? They aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both, and you don't even need magic for it.

2. Your statements that libertarians support discrimination and pollution,  and are right-wing extremists ( or anarchists like you've suggested before...funny you can't even keep your story straight ) , is ignorant and ridiculous , and further proof that you really have no clue how anyone else thinks outside your little sphere of government sheeple.  There really is no reason to continue this discussion until you educate yourself on what libertarianism even is.

I said that they support the allowance of discrimination and pollution, skippy. I am more than aware of what Libertarianism is. You may very well be opposed to those things, but by eliminating all federal mandates aimed at combating them, you are in essence allowing them to happen without recourse. I realize that in your utopia, libertarian fairy dust will render these things non-existent, but in the real world, the reason these mandates exist is because the people called for them to be created to address a societal need.

3. You do not support individual liberty . As I said , for people like you it's nothing but empty rhetoric.  You put the collective in front of the individual at every turn .

Actually, I only put the group in front of the individual at some turns, and at others I do not. But for an ideologically rigid fundamentalist such as yourself, that's simply not good enough. Extremists tend to view the world through a black and white lens.

The concept of liberty in general frightens you , which is why you label anyone who believes in it a radical. But feel free to keep telling yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. 

The concept of liberty in general escapes you, which is why you are myopically focused on one aspect of it, and label those that don't share your ideological rigidness as beneath you. That is what makes you a radical. Liberty isn't just something someone gains when they are left alone. Liberty is also something that often requires a structured approach to be preserved among those who live in a society.

[spartan]

because I am a centre-leftist

I'm sorry, did you really just stay that?