• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

@Trajan

The Real McCoy said:
Sorry.. I thought I might be able to squeeze it in before anyone responded.

Anyway, I watch FOX because I side with the conservatives on Iraq but I'll be the first to admit that their "War on Christmas" tyrade is way out of hand.

I bought that book by John Gibson.... let me tell you...
He sounds like a whiny little bitch, making a big deal out of every little instance where Christianity isn't put in the spotlight, as if any other religious holiday is even mentioned in some parts of the Country.
He should come down here to a non metropolitan southern town, other religious holidays don't even get a mention.
 
Kelzie said:
No worries. I was just trying to get a dig in at Trajan. You know, bringing the thread back on track. :mrgreen:

Yea.. I mean I agree with him on plenty of things but sometimes I have to check twice to make sure it isn't Navy Pride posting.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Yea.. I mean I agree with him on plenty of things but sometimes I have to check twice to make sure it isn't Navy Pride posting.

Closeted Republican. It's really very sad.
 
Kelzie said:
Closeted Republican. It's really very sad.

Im still wondering why he doesn't just put up his Republican Elephants on his profile or something.

Ive yet to see him act like anything less, kinda like Navy Pride, I haven't seen either one of them NOT defending thier Republican Brethren.
 
His profile says "Very Conservative" and "Libertarian." How does that work? I mean, I'm pretty much totally Libertarian except when it comes to national security and the war in Iraq/war on terror. I've yet to see him defend socially liberal views.
 
The Real McCoy said:
His profile says "Very Conservative" and "Libertarian." How does that work? I mean, I'm pretty much totally Libertarian except when it comes to national security and the war in Iraq/war on terror. I've yet to see him defend socially liberal views.

That would be because he's a social conservative. I've called him out before. The only thing I can think of is that he thinks it's "cooler" to be a libertarian.
 
galenrox said:
(but, you're a republican, I guess you've never had that problem).

:rofl
Seriously, have you seen some of the threads out there?
I get the vibe that......

Social Security should be privatized, **** the poor man who doesn't know jack about the economy and markets.

Public Schools should be abolished..... **** the poor man who can't afford thousands of dollars per year per child for private schools.

Welfare Should Be Abolished........There are people abusing it, so lets get rid of it all, **** the thousands and thousands of Poor men who actually use it for its true purpose, or the battered women who are recieiving government help to get them and thier children out on thier own.

Tax Cuts........Give the highest percent back to the Rich mother ****er who can already afford to buy private islands, while giving the poor man 50 bucks, **** him, Fifty bucks is like 1 million to the poor man... Right?

I think im missing something here......
 
Caine said:
:rofl
Seriously, have you seen some of the threads out there?
I get the vibe that......

Social Security should be privatized, **** the poor man who doesn't know jack about the economy and markets.

Social Security is one of the few social safety nets I support but it shouldn't be the only one people rely on. Educating one's self on the workings and benefits of the markets and taking responsibility for one's own retirement would be both individually beneficial and would further economic growth.

Caine said:
Public Schools should be abolished..... **** the poor man who can't afford thousands of dollars per year per child for private schools.

Personally, I don't think they should be abolished but they deffinitely need some reform.

Caine said:
Welfare Should Be Abolished........There are people abusing it, so lets get rid of it all, **** the thousands and thousands of Poor men who actually use it for its true purpose, or the battered women who are recieiving government help to get them and thier children out on thier own.

The idea is to shift welfare-like programs to the private sector and avoid meaningless government red-tape and bureaucracy that lifts the heavy weight off taxpayers' shoulders.


Caine said:
Tax Cuts........Give the highest percent back to the Rich mother ****er who can already afford to buy private islands, while giving the poor man 50 bucks, **** him, Fifty bucks is like 1 million to the poor man... Right?

Actually the tax cuts mainly benefitted businesses, particularly smaller ones burdened by unnecessary taxes. My uncle owns a small computer repair business and because of the tax cuts he could afford to hire more people and provide his employees with better health coverage.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Social Security is one of the few social safety nets I support but it shouldn't be the only one people rely on. Educating one's self on the workings and benefits of the markets and taking responsibility for one's own retirement would be both individually beneficial and would further economic growth.
You think the man who works for under 10 bucks an hour and many hours of overtime his entire life has the time and money to learn about the market while trying to raise a family on low wages?
Too many people forget the poor man and think of the lower-middle class people instead. There are some people who don't have the time to learn about this stuff, nor the money to pay someone to assist them (ie. Broker), and, the market is not always a sure bet, Stocks are risky, Mutual Funds, while less risky, also have a risk of loss instead of profit.

The Real McCoy said:
Personally, I don't think they should be abolished but they deffinitely need some reform.
Nobody has stated they are perfect, and there will always be room for reform, as the needs of a changing society change too, but Ive actually seen people on this site who believe they should be done away with, Republicans of course, who probably don't understand that the same man I mentioned above can hardly afford his children's lunch money. Did you know there are "free lunch" programs out there for children who attend public school who's parents are too poor to pay the whole 2 bucks for a public school lunch?


The Real McCoy said:
The idea is to shift welfare-like programs to the private sector and avoid meaningless government red-tape and bureaucracy that lifts the heavy weight off taxpayers' shoulders.
Im sorry, I trust the private sector less than I trust the Government. This program would never work, as the private sector would have to depend on donations and excess government funds. This type of program would only seperate the boundaries between the Poor and the Rich, and quite possibly increase crime rates with it. Yes, there is need for Reform to protect from those who abuse the system, but turning it over to a private sector would not be the answer.

The Real McCoy said:
Actually the tax cuts mainly benefitted businesses, particularly smaller ones burdened by unnecessary taxes. My uncle owns a small computer repair business and because of the tax cuts he could afford to hire more people and provide his employees with better health coverage.
But, if the money were to be re distributed as to give it to the poor man who paid into the system, maybe that would help to relieve the povery level in our society. The guy who can already buy a private island with his wealth I think could afford to get less money returned than the guy who can barely provide food for his children. This could also help relieve some some of the people who are dependent on welfare, although not very likely, it could help.

As you can tell, Im all about the poor guy. The rich guy can stand to give up the higher tax cut that gives him his 3rd Mercedes in order for the poor man to stop trying to Car-Jack his 1st and 2nd Mercedes in order to feed his kids.
 
Caine said:
You think the man who works for under 10 bucks an hour and many hours of overtime his entire life has the time and money to learn about the market while trying to raise a family on low wages?
Too many people forget the poor man and think of the lower-middle class people instead. There are some people who don't have the time to learn about this stuff, nor the money to pay someone to assist them (ie. Broker), and, the market is not always a sure bet, Stocks are risky, Mutual Funds, while less risky, also have a risk of loss instead of profit.

So a poor, working man does nothing but work, eat and sleep and has no free time for his enitre 40+ year working career? There's a wealth of information on the market and investing... knowledge is power. Anybody can participate in the market and be extremely successful if they make smart decisions. It's not like gambling where it's all luck, even though it's never a guarantee, the wise man prevails while the fool fails.


Caine said:
Im sorry, I trust the private sector less than I trust the Government. This program would never work, as the private sector would have to depend on donations and excess government funds. This type of program would only seperate the boundaries between the Poor and the Rich, and quite possibly increase crime rates with it. Yes, there is need for Reform to protect from those who abuse the system, but turning it over to a private sector would not be the answer.

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/432


Caine said:
But, if the money were to be re distributed as to give it to the poor man who paid into the system, maybe that would help to relieve the povery level in our society. The guy who can already buy a private island with his wealth I think could afford to get less money returned than the guy who can barely provide food for his children. This could also help relieve some some of the people who are dependent on welfare, although not very likely, it could help.

So families would get a couple thousand each and that's it? Bad idea. It's a common liberal myth that the tax cuts went solely to fat cats and it appears you completely ignored what I said about how the tax cuts stimulate job growth.

Caine said:
As you can tell, Im all about the poor guy. The rich guy can stand to give up the higher tax cut that gives him his 3rd Mercedes in order for the poor man to stop trying to Car-Jack his 1st and 2nd Mercedes in order to feed his kids.

Or the poor man can now get a job because of new oppurtunities provided by businesses who are no longer burdened by extra taxes and can afford to hire more people.
 
The Real McCoy said:
So families would get a couple thousand each and that's it? Bad idea. It's a common liberal myth that the tax cuts went solely to fat cats and it appears you completely ignored what I said about how the tax cuts stimulate job growth.
In Theory


Or the poor man can now get a job because of new oppurtunities provided by businesses who are no longer burdened by extra taxes and can afford to hire more people.
In Theory
 
Caine said:
In Theory



In Theory

No, in reality. You seem oblivious to my example of my uncle's computer repair business. He hired 5 or 6 new employees and was able to provide them all with full health coverage because of the tax cuts. You also seem oblivious to our current economy which is booming.
 
The Real McCoy said:
No, in reality. You seem oblivious to my example of my uncle's computer repair business. He hired 5 or 6 new employees and was able to provide them all with full health coverage because of the tax cuts. You also seem oblivious to our current economy which is booming.

No more booming than the economy we had under Clinton.

And, your Uncle's business is just one example.
With businesses still sending jobs overseas, and a record deficit building, I don't find it necessary to continue to give away these tax cuts, which the money could be used to keep us out of debt.
 
Caine said:
No more booming than the economy we had under Clinton.

And, your Uncle's business is just one example.
With businesses still sending jobs overseas, and a record deficit building, I don't find it necessary to continue to give away these tax cuts, which the money could be used to keep us out of debt.

The economic boom we had under Clinton was because of the Internet/PC revolution. I'll admit he was good about strict budget spending but he really didn't have much direct responsibility with the market in the 90s.

So if we didn't give away tax cuts to businesses, they wouldn't send more jobs overseas because they'd have less money? :confused:

As for the defecit, who do you think we owe this money to? Mostly private investors. And do you think they'd be loaning billions of dollars to the government if they didn't think they'd be getting a return on their investment? People with that kind of money aren't stupid. The defecit isn't as life-threatening an issue as a lot of people make it out to be.
 
Caine said:
No more booming than the economy we had under Clinton.

The economic boom we had under Clinton was because of the Internet/PC revolution. I'll admit he was good about strict budget spending but he really didn't have much direct responsibility with the market in the 90s.


Caine said:
And, your Uncle's business is just one example.
With businesses still sending jobs overseas, and a record deficit building, I don't find it necessary to continue to give away these tax cuts, which the money could be used to keep us out of debt.



So if we didn't give away tax cuts to businesses, they wouldn't send more jobs overseas because they'd have less money? :confused:

As for the defecit, who do you think we owe this money to? Mostly private investors. And do you think they'd be loaning billions of dollars to the government if they didn't think they'd be getting a return on their investment? People with that kind of money aren't stupid. The defecit isn't as life-threatening an issue as a lot of people make it out to be.
 
Caine said:
Im still wondering why he doesn't just put up his Republican Elephants on his profile or something.

Ive yet to see him act like anything less, kinda like Navy Pride, I haven't seen either one of them NOT defending thier Republican Brethren.

fuq you! . . . . .
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
fuq you! . . . .

Hey man, I'm just callin em like I see em... and I'm not the only one here who feels this way.
 
galenrox said:
Yeah, after twelve hours of bullshit. It was an open and shut thing that could've been a nonpoint if you hadn't wasted my ****ing time with all of your partisan bullshit. And by the way, although you may have won the battle, if you read the whole debate, you lost the war man. That debate is nothing but you saying something stupid, me pointing out you said something stupid and asking you to say something not stupid, followed by you posting something stupid, and so on and so forth until after twelve hourrs you posted A legitimate source.

fuq you, I'm out
 
The Real McCoy said:
His profile says "Very Conservative" and "Libertarian." How does that work? I mean, I'm pretty much totally Libertarian except when it comes to national security and the war in Iraq/war on terror. I've yet to see him defend socially liberal views.

How does that work??? UMM let me think . . . probably because libertarians who claim to be liberal are fake ass libertarians in the Bill Mayr sense, they have no idea that true libertarians are reactionaries along the lines of far right politicians like Pat Buchanan. Libertarians ARE very conservative ie a reactionary party.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How does that work??? UMM let me think . . . probably because libertarians who claim to be liberal are fake ass libertarians in the Bill Mayr sense, they have no idea that true libertarians are reactionaries along the lines of far right politicians like Pat Buchanan. Libertarians ARE very conservative ie a reactionary party.

Pat Buchanan represents one sect of libertarianism.


Here's a few questions:

Where do you stand on capital punishment?

Where do you stand on drug legalization?

Where do you stand on abortion?

Where do you stand on euthanasia?

Where do you stand on legalized gambling?
 
The Real McCoy said:
Pat Buchanan represents one sect of libertarianism.


Here's a few questions:

Where do you stand on capital punishment? For it it's constitutional as per due process of the 4th and 14th amendments.

Where do you stand on drug legalization? For it.

Where do you stand on abortion? Against it.

Where do you stand on euthanasia? Against it.

Where do you stand on legalized gambling? For it.


I'm pretty much for anything if it doesn't hurt anyone else if it hurts yourself I really don't give a ****.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm pretty much for anything if it doesn't hurt anyone else if it hurts yourself I really don't give a ****.

So, regarding Euthanasia, who do you think should be responsible for footing the bill of a patient living off life support: the government or the family?
 
The Real McCoy said:
So, regarding Euthanasia, who do you think should be responsible for footing the bill of a patient living off life support: the government or the family?

I just think that Euthenasia has the potential to open up a pandoras box when you start giving the Doctors the power to kill people what's to stop them from recommending that as a treatment to the cure especially when coupled with a national health care system that would make them less likely to actually treat the patient and instead just decide that the cheapest way to treat them is to kill them.
 
Back
Top Bottom