What Is Wrong With America ?

[Indeependent]

You are too ignorant to even understand what I'm talking about. Reaganism - it's a disease, and I am your doctor, and you could be made well if only you would take your medicine.

I don't go to snake oils salesman for medical advice.

No you just wallow in Reaganism, and assume it's incurable.

Don't dare touch a Republican's cheap labor!

 

[protectionist]

Liberals, that's what's wrong with this country

Yes, partially. And also Reaganists (like those in this thread - whose policies promote the policies of liberals, whether they know it or not)

You realize he was talking about people like you, right?

Actually, YOU are more like the liberals. It is YOUR low tax, low spend policies that have given us 12 million illegal aliens (ie. 12 million Democrat VOTES), a reduction in military power, a lessening of legal power to fight affirmative action, and less capability to fund local law enforcement, FBI, CIA, DEA, and other counterterrorist agencies, build prisons, etc. So he was really talking about you (whether he knew it or not - )

 

[protectionist]

I don't go to snake oils salesman for medical advice.

No you just wallow in Reaganism, and assume it's incurable.

Don't dare touch a Republican's cheap labor!

Which is part of the reason why they don't want to fund ICE, CBP, create more immigration courts & jails, and build the Mexican border double fence (in addition to their looney protect-the rich attitude)

 

[protectionist]

I don't go to snake oils salesman for medical advice.

No you just wallow in Reaganism, and assume it's incurable.

I don't think liberty is a disease.

All depends on what kind of "liberty" one is talking about.

Liberty to steal, rape, defraud, molest kids, exceed speed limits, deal addicting drugs, start forest fires, yell fire in a crowded theater, commit slander/libel, etc etc. Lots of kinds of liberties, and lots of people would like to have them.

 

[dblack]

No you just wallow in Reaganism, and assume it's incurable.

I don't think liberty is a disease.

All depends on what kind of "liberty" one is talking about.

Liberty to steal, rape, defraud, molest kids, exceed speed limits, deal addicting drugs, start forest fires, yell fire in a crowded theater, commit slander/libel, etc etc. Lots of kinds of liberties, and lots of people would like to have them.

Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't think liberty is a disease.

All depends on what kind of "liberty" one is talking about.

Liberty to steal, rape, defraud, molest kids, exceed speed limits, deal addicting drugs, start forest fires, yell fire in a crowded theater, commit slander/libel, etc etc. Lots of kinds of liberties, and lots of people would like to have them.

Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience.

Are you referring to foreign wars or no civil services period?

 

[dblack]

All depends on what kind of "liberty" one is talking about.

Liberty to steal, rape, defraud, molest kids, exceed speed limits, deal addicting drugs, start forest fires, yell fire in a crowded theater, commit slander/libel, etc etc. Lots of kinds of liberties, and lots of people would like to have them.

Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience.

Are you referring to foreign wars or no civil services period?

Uh ... No? Not sure I understand the question.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What's to debate guys? I answered the thread TWICE

 

[Indeependent]

Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience.

Are you referring to foreign wars or no civil services period?

Uh ... No? Not sure I understand the question.

"Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience."

Explain...

 

[House]

There are two major problems with this country (aside from the people in office)

The PATRIOT Act
The "Affordable Care" Act

Get rid of those two pieces of unconstitutional b/s and I'll be a thousand times happier.

 

[dblack]

Are you referring to foreign wars or no civil services period?

Uh ... No? Not sure I understand the question.

"Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience."

Explain...

The idea is that government should maximally protect our freedom to live as we wish, yet still enjoy the fruits of civilized society. One approach to that is to start with the maxim that one should be free to do whatever one wills that doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom to do likewise.

 

[House]

I don't think liberty is a disease.

In today's government it is, and the current administration is well on its way to a cure.

 

[Indeependent]

Uh ... No? Not sure I understand the question.

"Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience."

Explain...

The idea is that government should maximally protect our freedom to live as we wish, yet still enjoy the fruits of civilized society. One approach to that is to start with the maxim that one should be free to do whatever one wills that doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom to do likewise.

Sounds nice.
Please provide an example.

 

[dblack]

"Let's start with the kind of liberty where you're not violating anyone else's liberty. The law should protect your freedom from those who would violate it - not force your will on others for your convenience."

Explain...

The idea is that government should maximally protect our freedom to live as we wish, yet still enjoy the fruits of civilized society. One approach to that is to start with the maxim that one should be free to do whatever one wills that doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom to do likewise.

Sounds nice.
Please provide an example.

Nah. I gotta get some sleep. I'm sure you can work it out.

If not, maybe someone else will be interested in spelling it out for you.

 

[House]

The idea is that government should maximally protect our freedom to live as we wish, yet still enjoy the fruits of civilized society. One approach to that is to start with the maxim that one should be free to do whatever one wills that doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom to do likewise.

Sounds nice.
Please provide an example.

Nah. I gotta get some sleep. I'm sure you can work it out.

If not, maybe someone else will be interested in spelling it out for you.

Anybody can paint a vague concept. They're meaningless without definition & structure.

 

[Indeependent]

Sounds nice.
Please provide an example.

Nah. I gotta get some sleep. I'm sure you can work it out.

If not, maybe someone else will be interested in spelling it out for you.

Anybody can paint a vague concept. They're meaningless without definition & structure.

Exactly where I was headed.
Perhaps Libertarianism is the antithesis of "definition & structure"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FALSE! I agree with dcraelin. Generally, sales taxes tend to be regressive. They hit the poor hardest when they are pulling themselves up by their bootstrings and just starting to gain some momentum. This is when they finally are able to buy some new furniture, a TV set, a computer, a guitar, etc. The rich already have all these things. If I was the owner of a home electronics store, who would I rather see get a big tax break ? The rich or the (working) poor ? I'd rather see the working poor get it. They are the ones most likely to come into my store and buy (and pay sales tax)

Also, for what ever spending the rich do engage in, they tend to do a relatively high % of it OUTSIDE THE USA (mostly Europe & the Caribbean). The Poorer class does their spending inside their own local community. In fact, many poor and working class people have never been outside the USA, in their whole lives.

I have never been rich, but I have visited 4 of the 7 continents, and most of the poor people I grew up around spent their money in a foreign country.

Are you tuned in ? Did those poor people spend their money in a country which was foreign TO THEM ? (or in their own country)

The lived in this country and rarely spoke the language of the country they shopped in, so you tell me.

 

[House]

Nah. I gotta get some sleep. I'm sure you can work it out.

If not, maybe someone else will be interested in spelling it out for you.

Anybody can paint a vague concept. They're meaningless without definition & structure.

Exactly where I was headed.
Perhaps Libertarianism is the antithesis of "definition & structure"?

Not at all, take care not to fall into the logical fallacy of biased sample.

Just because you're arguing with somebody that can't provide definition or structure doesn't mean they're representative of the group as a whole, especially on an anonymous message board.

He could be Bill Clinton for all we know.

 

[Indeependent]

Anybody can paint a vague concept. They're meaningless without definition & structure.

Exactly where I was headed.
Perhaps Libertarianism is the antithesis of "definition & structure"?

Not at all, take care not to fall into the logical fallacy of biased sample.

Just because you're arguing with somebody that can't provide definition or structure doesn't mean they're representative of the group as a whole, especially on an anonymous message board.

He could be Bill Clinton for all we know.

You're right.
Many years ago I worked at Banker's Trust, the Land of the Liquid Lunch.
My manager would always come back from work completely smashed and incoherent.
I would somehow have to coerce a concrete example of what he wanted me to accomplish.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

To answer your question...
Instead of Statesmen, we have a government run by politicians.