• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teddy Roosevelt tried to reform campaign finance, but also lined his own pockets!

samsmart said:
You have given me 4. That is hardly all of society's ills. And you didn't give any details about how those would be better served without government intervention than with.

Actually, I should count those as 3 1/2, since the body that most advocacy groups try to mobilize people to get involved in is the government for their particular stance on an issue.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read your original question and stick with it. It does no good in a debate to keep changing the question to suit your argument. You didn't ask me to provide a non-governmental answer to ALL of society's ills, and your original question had nothing to do with which solution would be better served with or without government intervention. It was merely a request asking for ANY non-governmental solution to ANY societal problem, which I have clearly given you more than one viable example.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Perhaps you should read your original question and stick with it. It does no good in a debate to keep changing the question to suit your argument. You didn't ask me to provide a non-governmental answer to ALL of society's ills, and your original question had nothing to do with which solution would be better served with or without government intervention. It was merely a request asking for ANY non-governmental solution to ANY societal problem, which I have clearly given you more than one viable example.
Click to expand...

Okay then. I now ask you to present to us detailed solutions to all of society's ills that do not require government intervention.
 
samsmart said:
Okay then. I now ask you to present to us detailed solutions to all of society's ills that do not require government intervention.
Click to expand...

Here we go! I guess you're not interested in a real debate.

Come back when you're ready.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Here we go! I guess you're not interested in a real debate.

Come back when you're ready.
Click to expand...

I was being serious. I would really like to know how all of society's ills can be cured without any interference from the government.
 
samsmart said:
I was being serious. I would really like to know how all of society's ills can be cured without any interference from the government.
Click to expand...

You really expect me to answer that question? First of all, when did I ever argue that all society's ills must be cured without any interference from government? I've supported no such thing. The only thing I've pointed out is that the general progressive movement has championed the idea that no solution may arise without government intervention.
 
Why in the hell are we talking about someone who died almost 100 years ago? The man can't defend himself so WTF?

Note to DP: not all libertarians are like the OP.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
Why in the hell are we talking about someone who died almost 100 years ago? The man can't defend himself so WTF?
Click to expand...

Why discuss anyone of historical significance with a critical tone? They're all dead.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Why discuss anyone of historical significance with a critical tone? They're all dead.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.

We have so much going on in our country right now, record debt, 1.5 wars, a deadbeat president, and we're going to worry about what this man did 100 years ago? How about we worry about now? :roll:

I say if he's not alive to defend himself, knocking him in a thread is kinda, I don't know, ****ty, IMHO.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
My point exactly.

We have so much going on in our country right now, record debt, 1.5 wars, a deadbeat president, and we're going to worry about what this man did 100 years ago? How about we worry about now? :roll:

I say if he's not alive to defend himself, knocking him in a thread is kinda, I don't know, ****ty, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Gotta learn from history. Soooo…. when talking about history dead people come into play.:2wave:
 
dontworrybehappy said:
My point exactly.

We have so much going on in our country right now, record debt, 1.5 wars, a deadbeat president, and we're going to worry about what this man did 100 years ago? How about we worry about now? :roll:

I say if he's not alive to defend himself, knocking him in a thread is kinda, I don't know, ****ty, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I was actually being sarcastic. To not talk negatively about dead people when history is such a pertinent part of society is a ridiculous request. Should we not talk bad about dictators because they're all dead and they can't be here to defend themselves?

I'm not trying to liken Teddy to a dictator, but he should not be shielded from criticism just because he's dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom