I Miss This Guy!

[MVP444300]

Lets say total GDP of US is $15.5 Trillion in 2012 with total federal, state, and local spending at $6.3 trillion you have govt at roughly 40% of the GDP.  You can't stop there though, you have to count in the total cost of regulation which I believe is at 2 trillion for the 3 layers of govt.  That brings the cost of govt to 53.5% of GDP. 

 

When govt accounts for that much of our nation we are not a free people. 

 

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total

 

Total Government Spending--Federal, State, and Local

 

in the United States

 

Federal Gross Spending  $3.8 trillion  

Intergovernmental    $-0.6 trillion  

State Direct Spending    $1.4 trillion  

Local Direct Spending    $1.7 trillion  

Total Spending    $6.3 trillion  

[ERICOPOLY]

 

 

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

 

So forcing someone who is against say abortion or birthcontrol to pay for it for someone else, is not using the state to enforce their morals upon others.

 

No, I don't believe it is.

 

That argument is more in the category of wanting to repeal taxation based on the argument that a portion of the taxes financed the killing in Iraq. 

 

 

[Parsad]

I can't remember who it was but one comedian a few months ago described it best when Romney pretty much wrapped up the GOP nomination he said "And there you have it, it looks like it's going to be Mitt Romney, a man who has pursued this nomination with the single minded viciousness of an autistic Rottweiler"

 

That's pretty damn funny!

 

But at the end of the day I have to side with Ericopoly on this, the GOP will get my attention when they stop espousing agendas that openly discriminate against people. My conscience wouldn't allow it, basic civil and human rights like equality are not something I can compromise on.

 

You would think they would have grasped this by now.  So many who are conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues would easily switch their allegiances if the Republicans stopped alienating and building walls.  But this is the "forget you" party...literally, they tell you to f**k off and then forget about you.  Cheers!

[Tim Eriksen]

The side I am on wants, for example, to allow everyone the right to marry no matter what their morals are.

 

The other side wants to use their morality to keep from people the right to marry.

 

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

The Democrats haven't gone far enough on this issue, but they're further along than the Republicans.  That's an example of why I would vote Democrat over Republican.

My reply is general to all who think this way.

Interesting.  You call it tyranny when you disagree with them, but I bet that when you agree (in cases such as murder, rape, incest, theft, etc.) you apparently don't consider it tyranny.  Would I be correct in presuming that is because you believe there is an innocent victim, in the above examples, which there is?  So are you pro-life?  Why not?  What about partial birth abortions?  If not, can a mother kill her one day old?  How about a week old?  I'm just wanting to see if your logic is consistent.

 

The consenting adult argument basically says it is okay for consenting adults to do whatever they want and none of the government's (society's) business.  That logic would support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc.  It would also logically be more in line with limited government and a head tax (same amount per person).  How you can you compel another to pay for someone else's healthcare, education, etc.    That logically would be using the power of the state to enforce your morals.

 

Are you Ron Paul?  :)

[Parsad]

Ohhh, I hope this turns into a religion thread!  ;)

 

As for my own quest, I've slowly have moved from agnosticism to theism.

 

How does one determine good from evil if there is not something higher to distinguish them for us? For instance, how was Nazi Germany any better or worse than Mother Teresa?

 

When you are hiding your children under the floorboards, something probably isn't right.  I don't need God, Hitler or Mother Theresa to tell me that.  Cheers!

[ERICOPOLY]

The consenting adult argument basically says it is okay for consenting adults to do whatever they want and none of the government's (society's) business.  That logic would support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. 

 

 

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense.  Very clever!

 

Let me ask you this.

 

How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons?  For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc.  

 

 

Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact.  We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path.

 

Eh?

[Parsad]

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

Yes Eric, you would think that rational people would grasp this!  One is restricting the other from civil rights already available to one of them.  Yet, somehow granting those rights to people whose sexual preferences differ is infringing on their rights. 

 

No one in my immediate family is openly gay that I know of, but I do have several friends who are gay and in my extended family.  I can't see how they can make any more of a mess of marriage than everyone else out there.  Over fifty percent of marriages already end in divorce, and I would say 1 in 4 have a hard time making it to even 7 years, where apparently plenty of itching begins...and apparently alot of conservatives do a lot of itching too! 

 

Denying one individual their freedom of rights is an affront to the constitution, yet here we are denying probably 1 in 10 people.  Go figure!  Cheers!

 

[Parsad]

 

 

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

 

So forcing someone who is against say abortion or birthcontrol to pay for it for someone else, is not using the state to enforce their morals upon others.

 

There are plenty of people who disagree with social security, the military and even the utility of public education...should we stop paying for these things if a minority within a party (rhymes with pea) force the majority to cowtow the party line and they win the election? 

 

There are plenty of things we all pay for in a shared manner that we may not fully agree with...that's why we live in the countries and society that we live in...where people can speak their minds, have choices, and are given the opportunity to succeed.  Cheers!

[MVP444300]

It has never made sense to me why the govt is involved in the issue of marriage unless its a way to divide and conquer.  To make an issue out of something that otherwise should be left to the individuals joining in a union.

[Parsad]

The consenting adult argument basically says it is okay for consenting adults to do whatever they want and none of the government's (society's) business.  That logic would support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. 

 

 

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense.  Very clever!

 

Let me ask you this.

 

How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons?  For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc.  

 

 

Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact.  We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path.

 

Eh?

 

That was brilliant Eric...be careful, you may be asked to a duel now!  ;D  Cheers!

[MVP444300]

 

 

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

 

So forcing someone who is against say abortion or birthcontrol to pay for it for someone else, is not using the state to enforce their morals upon others.

 

There are plenty of people who disagree with social security, the military and even the utility of public education...should we stop paying for these things if a minority within a party (rhymes with pea) force the majority to cowtow the party line and they win the election? 

 

There are plenty of things we all pay for in a shared manner that we may not fully agree with...that's why we live in the countries and society that we live in...where people can speak their minds, have choices, and are given the opportunity to succeed.  Cheers!

 

Sir just let me opt-out of these programs like social security, medicare, food stamps, education and all the others  lol    No I'm not anarchist so I would pay for a small military to protect America, courts to settle disputes, and police but thats about it.  If whoever choose remain in these programs I'd say let them.     

[AZ_Value]

The side I am on wants, for example, to allow everyone the right to marry no matter what their morals are.

 

The other side wants to use their morality to keep from people the right to marry.

 

It's not simply a mere disagreement over morals as you portray it to be.  Those people are all about using the power of the state to enforce their own morals upon others!  That's tyranny.

 

The Democrats haven't gone far enough on this issue, but they're further along than the Republicans.  That's an example of why I would vote Democrat over Republican.

My reply is general to all who think this way.

Interesting.  You call it tyranny when you disagree with them, but I bet that when you agree (in cases such as murder, rape, incest, theft, etc.) you apparently don't consider it tyranny.  Would I be correct in presuming that is because you believe there is an innocent victim, in the above examples, which there is?  So are you pro-life?  Why not?  What about partial birth abortions?  If not, can a mother kill her one day old?  How about a week old?  I'm just wanting to see if your logic is consistent.

 

The consenting adult argument basically says it is okay for consenting adults to do whatever they want and none of the government's (society's) business.  That logic would support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc.  It would also logically be more in line with limited government and a head tax (same amount per person).  How you can you compel another to pay for someone else's healthcare, education, etc.    That logically would be using the power of the state to enforce your morals.

 

Are you Ron Paul?  :)

 

Tim,

You're really dancing around the discrimination issue here and not offering a rebuttal to Eric. And this is why I find these arguments so hard to carry on in a meaningful way.

To use one example, society in general decided that drunk driving is dangerous for everybody because we can tell it kills people so nobody, again nobody, is allowed to drive drunk.

 

That is worlds away, and frankly a different argument, from some people telling other people we are allowed to do this but those of your kind are not allowed to do it because my bible says so. That's when discrimination happens.

 

Instead we're left discussing strawmen arguments like paying for contraception. I don't smoke myself, but I can guarantee you that some of my tax dollars are paying for someone's lung cancer treatment because they smoked their entire life. But that is not the issue, if you want to talk about that then the issue is whether or not we should provide healthcare to that person, not whether I smoke myself. But again this is all just a diversion.

[meiroy]

 

 

This discussion can go all day, bottom line it is about perception of reality, the difference between a religious view and a non religious view.  Mentioning morals in the context of religion is nonsense, it should be read instead "because my god said so".

 

 

Hopefully the USA will not slip [back] too much into religious territory. Plenty of such countries around.  I'm not a US citizen, never been there, yet I feel quite lucky to be alive in an era which is under the indirect rule of our American Overlords even with all their shortcomings (e.g. starbucks coffee).

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Romney actually could quite possibly be guilty of a sex crime.

 

Massachusetts' anti-sodomy law wasn't repealed until 2002. 

 

Under that law, even oral sex between married couples was a criminal violation.

 

[Tim Eriksen]

The consenting adult argument basically says it is okay for consenting adults to do whatever they want and none of the government's (society's) business.  That logic would support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. 

 

 

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense.  Very clever!

 

Let me ask you this.

 

How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons?  For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc.  

 

Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact.  We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path.

 

Eh?

 

My comments are not a slippery slope at all.  A slippery slope is typically an argument where one argument leads to another and then another (A to B  to C, etc.). 

 

What I am saying is that it seems to me that your logic that "one should not enforce our morals on others" should result in you holding those other (libertarian) positions if it is consistent.  If you don't hold to those positions, then you probably don't actually believe the argument you made. Or I am missing something? 

 

Aren't laws based on morals?  Must all laws be in 100% agreement?  If it is supported by 99%, isn't that enforcing our morals on the 1%?  I guess I don't understand your logic.

 

 

 

 

       

[Tim Eriksen]

 

Tim,

You're really dancing around the discrimination issue here and not offering a rebuttal to Eric. And this is why I find these arguments so hard to carry on in a meaningful way.

To use one example, society in general decided that drunk driving is dangerous for everybody because we can tell it kills people so nobody, again nobody, is allowed to drive drunk.

 

That is worlds away, and frankly a different argument, from some people telling other people we are allowed to do this but those of your kind are not allowed to do it because my bible says so. That's when discrimination happens.

 

Instead we're left discussing strawmen arguments like paying for contraception. I don't smoke myself, but I can guarantee you that some of my tax dollars are paying for someone's lung cancer treatment because they smoked their entire life. But that is not the issue, if you want to talk about that then the issue is whether or not we should provide healthcare to that person, not whether I smoke myself. But again this is all just a diversion.

 

Eric believes that we should not enforce our morals on others.  That it is tyranny.

To me, not enforcing our morals would result in no laws and therefore anarchy.

 

We have to enforce some morals.  All I am saying is that his argument is flawed. 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

The consenting adult argument basically says it is okay for consenting adults to do whatever they want and none of the government's (society's) business.  That logic would support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc. 

 

 

Ahhh... the slippery slope defense.  Very clever!

 

Let me ask you this.

 

How can we justify the legality of marriage between two consenting heterosexual persons?  For that logic would... support the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, euthanasia, gambling, drug use, drug sales, drunk driving (as long as no one gets hurt), public drunkenness, indecent exposure (or public nudity), the right to bear arms, duels, elimination of all zoning laws, speeding (as long as no non-consenting adult or his/her property is impacted), etc.  

 

Yet how can you reconcile this basic fact.  We have in fact legalized heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults and yet we haven't fallen down that slippery path.

 

Eh?

 

My comments are not a slippery slope at all.  A slippery slope is typically an argument where one argument leads to another and then another (A to B  to C, etc.). 

 

What I am saying is that it seems to me that your logic that "one should not enforce our morals on others" should result in you holding those other (libertarian) positions if it is consistent.  If you don't hold to those positions, then you probably don't actually believe the argument you made. Or I am missing something? 

 

Aren't laws based on morals?  Must all laws be in 100% agreement?  If it is supported by 99%, isn't that enforcing our morals on the 1%?  I guess I don't understand your logic.

 

 

I believe prostitution should be legal for all decent folks -- except for bible thumpers.

I believe gambling should be legal for all decent folks -- except for bible thumpers.

 

...

...

 

There are two messages here.

 

1)  libertarian positions

2)  discrimination

 

Prostitution can either be legal or illegal, but not legal for some like me and illegal for others (those damn faggots). 

 

That would be a libertarian bigot.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric believes that we should not enforce our morals on others.  That it is tyranny.

To me, not enforcing our morals would result in no laws and therefore anarchy.

 

We have to enforce some morals.  All I am saying is that his argument is flawed.

 

How about we use our morals to take away the right of Christians to practice religion, but allow all other religions in our country?

 

I say that would be tyranny.

 

You would disagree.  It's not tyranny, you'd say, because in your language it would be simply "We have to enforce some morals."

 

[Tim Eriksen]

Eric believes that we should not enforce our morals on others.  That it is tyranny.

To me, not enforcing our morals would result in no laws and therefore anarchy.

 

We have to enforce some morals.  All I am saying is that his argument is flawed.

 

How about we use our morals to take away the right of Christians to practice religion, but allow all other religions in our country?

 

I say that would be tyranny.

 

You would disagree.  It's not tyranny, you'd say, because in your language it would be simply "We have to enforce some morals."

 

I'm sorry I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion.  Clearly I was mistaken. 

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric believes that we should not enforce our morals on others.  That it is tyranny.

To me, not enforcing our morals would result in no laws and therefore anarchy.

 

We have to enforce some morals.  All I am saying is that his argument is flawed.

 

How about we use our morals to take away the right of Christians to practice religion, but allow all other religions in our country?

 

I say that would be tyranny.

 

You would disagree.  It's not tyranny, you'd say, because in your language it would be simply "We have to enforce some morals."

 

I'm sorry I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion.  Clearly I was mistaken.

 

It entered The Twilight Zone stage hours ago when you argued that discrimination was merely a moral viewpoint.

[Tim Eriksen]

Eric believes that we should not enforce our morals on others.  That it is tyranny.

To me, not enforcing our morals would result in no laws and therefore anarchy.

 

We have to enforce some morals.  All I am saying is that his argument is flawed.

 

How about we use our morals to take away the right of Christians to practice religion, but allow all other religions in our country?

 

I say that would be tyranny.

 

You would disagree.  It's not tyranny, you'd say, because in your language it would be simply "We have to enforce some morals."

 

I'm sorry I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion.  Clearly I was mistaken.

 

It entered The Twilight Zone stage hours ago when you argued that discrimination was merely a moral viewpoint.

 

I argued no such thing, sorry you got confused.  We were discussing Simpson Bowles and then you went into some anti christian thing.  Your logic did not make sense so i pursued it.  My mistake.   

[twacowfca]

IMO Romney gets you closer to Simpson - Bowles than Obama will.

 

I can't vote for Republicans because they advance the agenda of the religious conservatives.

 

Which leaves me with only Obama to vote for.

 

I knew we would get to religion.  :)

 

Seriously.  Clinton and Obama I were against gay marriage.  Not that anyone with a brain believed Obama when he said that (it was clearly a lick your finger and see which direction the wind is blowing flip flop like Romney on abortion).  Clinton had "don't ask don't tell" and even signed DOMA.  Hard to believe that is the deal breaker.

 

Does that mean abortion is the issue that prevents you from voting Republican?  Even if the Supreme Court changed its opinion, which is unlikely, it would become a state issue, and remain legal in the first trimester in most states. 

 

Or am I missing something?

 

The Bible thumping religious extremists support the Democrats because...  hmm, I can't quite finish that statement, can you help me out?

 

Interestingly,  Obama states in Dreams From My Father (if it hasn't been expurgated from later printings) that he is conscientiously opposed to abortion as a matter of personal belief.  Same with Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor.  If I'm not mistaken, Wright's infamous,"god damn America" sermon rant was triggered by the notion of liberation theology that abortion is a plot by the wealthy white neocolonial oppressors to euthanize poor colored people in the name of eugenics.

 

 

I can't say I entirely disagree with Wright.

 

 

[SouthernYankee]

INTERESTING DISCUSSION.    :'(

 

Great speech last night, by the way. I am a bit surprised he used the same one from Friday, March 23rd, 2012. Or was it the one from September 9, 2010? Or was it the one he gave in Germany in the summer of 2008?    ;D

 

 

[SouthernYankee]

And once again, thanks to the person who found it informative to begin this thread dedicated to a man who was stripped of his law license because HE LIED UNDER OATH, NOT because he got a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office!

 

[stahleyp]

Ohhh, I hope this turns into a religion thread!  ;)

 

As for my own quest, I've slowly have moved from agnosticism to theism.

 

How does one determine good from evil if there is not something higher to distinguish them for us? For instance, how was Nazi Germany any better or worse than Mother Teresa?

 

When you are hiding your children under the floorboards, something probably isn't right.  I don't need God, Hitler or Mother Theresa to tell me that.  Cheers!

 

Sanj,

 

Why do you say that isn't right (or wrong)? In fact, if we are all just random molecules that happened to be together due to sheer change, there is nothing inherently wrong or right about it. It just is.