466 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Sam Slade, on 31 August 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Not true; Marxism and Socialism are NOT the same thing... you may as well contend that Democracy and Market Capitalism are the same thing.

Marxism is a form of socialism; is the point. Socialism is the larger group, of which marxism is a sub-set.

Quote

Marxism requires a revolutionary process that is wholly absent from the tenants of Socialism and Socialist ethics.

This process is not there as a replacement of any part of socialism.

Quote

Also, please don't use a dictionary definition as a referance;

No. I won't stop referring to the processes culture uses to define what they mean by the words they use.

Quote

cultural relativism much?

If someone means something different than the normal usage of a word AND they expect everyone to understand what they mean they should give their defintions for the words they are using.

process, on 31 August 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Good of you to ignore the rest of my post.

I was literally having to step away from the computer for the night when I replied to your post.

Quote

And when voter registration fraud occurs, of course that should be dealt with. Voter ID has nothing to do with that.

Voter ID laws have everything to do with vote fraud. Having to present an ID to vote makes it harder to engage in vote fraud.

process, on 31 August 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

The ACA effectively means that Americans have to pay for their own healthcare. If you're not paying, you're mooching off someone else, or screwing yourself with enormous medical bills, which when unpaid, hurts your service provider and the rest of our healthcare costs.

The ACA does not mean everyone is paying for their own health care. It means that everyone has to pay for everyone else, with no or very poor regard for ability to pay.

As far as "mooching off of someone else" under the current system; this is only possible because of the laws forcing hospitals and such to fix people up, regardless of their ability to pay.

Skinflowers, on 01 September 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

@Pht

You still havn't explained your statement,

I did explain it:

Pht, on 31 August 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Anarchy = every man does "what is right in his own eyes." This always devolves society, human nature being what it is, into "he with the biggest stick rules."

Because of Human nature anarchy (every man doing what he thinks is right) always devolves into terror and a nearly complete lack of any security for any social institution (property, contract, etc).

Quote

From: http://www.strike-th...s/weebies4.html

More stuff: http://www.spartacus...SAanarchist.htm

Educate yourself and decide. Happy reading.

I already knew that anarchism equates to the removal of the state/government. I do not agree with the idea that doing so leads to freedom; it leads to every man doing what is right in his own eyes; and this ALWAYS leads to terror and social insecurity; without fail. Take away the outer constraints on man, and he will always manifest theivery, wrongful killing, and virtually every other form of evil.

There is absolutely nothing in anarchism that constrains evil behavior.

Edited by Pht, 04 September 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Pht]

process, on 31 August 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

You're absolutely right. Coercion-free voting is protected under Section 11(b ) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which I should mention the Texas Republican Party wants to repeal (page 5).

Yep, they do, and here's why: http://www.texasgopv...learance-003876

The DOJ, under article 5, has control over the state election institutions. This is, quite frankly, wrong, goes against checks and balances, and is being used as nothing more than a political tool by whoever is in control of the DOJ at the time.

Quote

However, you are citing a single, isolated incident at a single polling location that the justice department examined.

So, voter intimidation "counts less" if it only happens in one place? Of course the DOJ looked at it.... and didn't do squat about it, even though it was an obvious case of voter intimidation.

Quote

Somewhat ironically, it's also worth mentions that many states, under Republican legislatures, have enacted voter ID laws which have the effect of disenfranchising poor people, seniors, and minorities, in the name of "voter fraud".

Tell me, are these people "disenfranchised" from banking, buying liquor, driving, getting a mail box, proving where you are to put your kids in school, doctors office and hosptial visits... and virtually every time a citizen interacts with his government?

If not, than you are applying this standard of "disenfranchisement" hypocritically.

Quote

Impersonation fraud, statistically does not happen.

Which is not a good reason to NOT put safegaurds in place to stop it from happening.

Quote

As a result, hundreds of thousand voters could be rejected at the polls. More, http://www.brennance...ut_voter_fraud/

Are "hundreds of thousands" of people being rejected at all the other places that require the same, if not higher, levels of ID?

[process]

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Voter ID laws have everything to do with vote fraud. Having to present an ID to vote makes it harder to engage in vote fraud.

The vast majority of vote fraud is conducted through means that possessing an ID is irrelevant. Again,

http://si.wsj.net/pu...20831165103.jpg

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

The ACA does not mean everyone is paying for their own health care. It means that everyone has to pay for everyone else, with no or very poor regard for ability to pay.

That's how insurance works.

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

As far as "mooching off of someone else" under the current system; this is only possible because of the laws forcing hospitals and such to fix people up, regardless of their ability to pay.

Who needs death panels when we can just let people die?

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Yep, they do, and here's why: http://www.texasgopv...learance-003876

I like the part where they claim there's no institutionalized racism, while they push for voter ID laws, which have a disproportionate affect on minorities. A nice example of the concept that "the real racists are the ones calling out our racism".

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

The DOJ, under article 5, has control over the state election institutions. This is, quite frankly, wrong, goes against checks and balances, and is being used as nothing more than a political tool by whoever is in control of the DOJ at the time.

Which begs an interesting question: when states historically fail to ensure their citizen's constitutional rights, who does? It's worth mention that's objections to preclearance rarely happen and are on the decline.

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

So, voter intimidation "counts less" if it only happens in one place? Of course the DOJ looked at it.... and didn't do squat about it, even though it was an obvious case of voter intimidation.

Did I say it counted less? It was a single instance; the person who posted that suggested that this was somehow routine and condoned by Obama. Absolutely absurd.

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Tell me, are these people "disenfranchised" from banking, buying liquor, driving, getting a mail box, proving where you are to put your kids in school, doctors office and hosptial visits... and virtually every time a citizen interacts with his government?

We do not have a constitutional guarantee to those things, unlike voting. I can't claim to know how these people live and operate because I am not one of them. However, this report puts forth that up to 21 million United States citizens do not have a government issued photo ID.

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

If not, than you are applying this standard of "disenfranchisement" hypocritically.

Please don't strawman me.

Pht, on 04 September 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Which is not a good reason to NOT put safegaurds in place to stop it from happening.

There's no reason why we shouldn't buy alien invasion insurance, since that could happen even though it statistically never does.



Meanwhile, the GOP has an old man yelling at a chair while they continue to parrot the "you didn't build that" lie.

Edited by process, 04 September 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[Pht]

process, on 04 September 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

The vast majority of vote fraud is conducted through means that possessing an ID is irrelevant. Again,

http://si.wsj.net/pu...20831165103.jpg

Than if your house has never been broken into since you moved in, you shouldn't put locks on your doors either. If your car hasn't been ransacked, you shouldn't lock the doors on it, even if it's happened to your neighbors; as a matter of record.

Quote

That's how insurance works.

Which in no way justifies obamacare, which *forces* everyone to participate.

Quote

Who needs death panels when we can just let people die?

Who needs an argument that's actually against what's really been posted? Why not just assume someone means something they haven't posted?

Quote

I like the part where they claim there's no institutionalized racism, while they push for voter ID laws, which have a disproportionate affect on minorities. A nice example of the concept that "the real racists are the ones calling out our racism".

Calling for voter ID is not racist.

---

OED:
Definition of racism
noun

[mass noun]

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism

---

well, it's not racism, unless this word is a wax nose that means nothing. If you call a thing something specific... do so validly.

Quote

Which begs an interesting question: when states historically fail to ensure their citizen's constitutional rights, who does? It's worth mention that's objections to preclearance rarely happen and are on the decline.

Just because some ***** did something wrong in the past does not justify doing something wrong to "fix" it.

Quote

Did I say it counted less? It was a single instance; the person who posted that suggested that this was somehow routine and condoned by Obama. Absolutely absurd.

We do not have a constitutional guarantee to those things, unlike voting. I can't claim to know how these people live and operate because I am not one of them. However, this report puts forth that up to 21 million United States citizens do not have a government issued photo ID.

If you weren't alluding to it being of less importance, than why did you mention it's singularity?

----

So, these other things aren't expressly garuanteed in the constituion ... what, it's ok to "disenfranchise" people from them? Is that what you're alluding to?

Again, why the complaint when id is asked for to vote, but not all these other things?

Quote

Please don't strawman me.

The question does not in any way misrepresent your posts. If you cannot equally complain about the request of ID in these other situations, than you cannot complain about it for voting.

What you've been putting forth is that to ask for ID is to "disenfranchise." If you're going to use that line of reasoning, you should apply it equally.

Quote

There's no reason why we shouldn't buy alien invasion insurance, since that could happen even though it statistically never does.

There's a far greater chance of voter impersonation fraud happening than of alien invasions.

[process]

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Than if your house has never been broken into since you moved in, you shouldn't put locks on your doors either. If your car hasn't been ransacked, you shouldn't lock the doors on it, even if it's happened to your neighbors; as a matter of record.

It's not a black and white issue. There is the reasonable safety precaution of locking your doors, then there are absurd precautions. There are, on average, 31 firearm-related homicides every day. That's far less than the number of burglaries, but far more than the amount of impersonation vote fraud; do you always wear body armor?

In this case, the laws do far more harm than good. As I stated in my last post, upwards of 21 million people could be negatively affected. The better analogy is, "locking your doors, but some of your family members don't have a key".

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Which in no way justifies obamacare, which *forces* everyone to participate.

Better than forcing the rest of us to pay for someone else's costs. The alternative, obviously, is to deny care to people who can't pay, and that's barbaric.

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Who needs an argument that's actually against what's really been posted? Why not just assume someone means something they haven't posted?

What's the alternative to "forcing hospitals and such to fix people up"?

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Calling for voter ID is not racist.

---

OED:
Definition of racism
noun

[mass noun]

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism

---

well, it's not racism, unless this word is a wax nose that means nothing. If you call a thing something specific... do so validly.

It disproportionately affects minorities, with zero net benefit. The intent is clear: prevent these people from voting, and Mitt Romney wins.

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Just because some ***** did something wrong in the past does not justify doing something wrong to "fix" it.

Things like voter ID laws and restricting women's healthcare choices are evidence that these things are still happening.

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

If you weren't alluding to it being of less importance, than why did you mention it's singularity?

Because that is a fact. It was a point sample in the spectrum of voting rights violations, and far less damaging than what the voter ID laws do.

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

So, these other things aren't expressly garuanteed in the constituion ... what, it's ok to "disenfranchise" people from them? Is that what you're alluding to?

Again, why the complaint when id is asked for to vote, but not all these other things?

The question does not in any way misrepresent your posts. If you cannot equally complain about the request of ID in these other situations, than you cannot complain about it for voting.

What you've been putting forth is that to ask for ID is to "disenfranchise." If you're going to use that line of reasoning, you should apply it equally.

The context has everything to do with the Fifteenth Amendment. There are a myriad of things we are not entitled to. The fact is, millions of people don't have photo ID, and how they function without it is not my concern; they still have the right to vote.

Quote

There's a far greater chance of voter impersonation fraud happening than of alien invasions.

I guess I can use the money I'm saving to purchase some Kevlar.

Edited by process, 05 September 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Catamount, on 04 September 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Only the ignorant have notions of the United States being the "leading nation" of the world these days. Don't get me wrong, we're a great country and we hold our own in many respects, but these days we don't actually lead the world in much beyond incarceration rates and extraneous military spending.

I know it's a drama series, but man, I started watching this show because of this:

[Rorik Thrumsalr]

So Pht, are you missing Buzz yet?

[Catamount]

Pht, on 05 September 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Than if your house has never been broken into since you moved in, you shouldn't put locks on your doors either. If your car hasn't been ransacked, you shouldn't lock the doors on it, even if it's happened to your neighbors; as a matter of record.

Quote

Again, why the complaint when id is asked for to vote, but not all these other things?

I'm sorry, but the logic here is just so deeply flawed, that I can't resist.

You seem to be desperately trying to divert the topic with a textbook red herring. You want to talk about whether requiring IDs for driving or liquor purchases is warranted, fine, we can discuss those topics. Process should have called you on this ******** the moment you uttered it. But here's the thing: it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Maybe those things are warranted, and maybe they aren't, and those are topics that are never so immutable as to be beyond debate, but the thing is that regardless of whether they are, or they aren't, what you advocate is not, because there is zero demonstrable reason, of any kind, to institute what you're advocating. There is zero reason because you can't even demonstrate that there's a significant problem occurring that needs to be solved in the first place.

I see nothing inconsistent in Process's reasoning. He can think having a license required to drive is justified because youth driving statistics show what damage inexperienced drivers inflict, to say nothing for allowing people to drive without even making sure they know as much as the average licensed young person, just as he could think it justified for alcohol purchases (which is not required for everyone, merely the young, and yes, I've worked selling alcohol before), because it inhibits purchase by the young, who have been medically shown to be severely adversely affected due to alterations in brain chemistry that are harmful during development (at least one might make such arguments, for example; whether it's true is a discussion for another time). Or maybe he doesn't think they're justified at all, and has some other reasoning to back that.

That, however, has nothing to do with whether it's justified for voting. There is no demonstrable problem that is tangibly affecting the nation that warrants a voter ID law, and unlike "locking your doors", there is a tangible downside to doing it, namely that the effect will be a mass loss of ability to vote. This is not some absurd dichotomy where either licenses are justified for everything, or they're justified for nothing; there are cases where they may be, and cases where there is no reason to believe they are, and this is the latter, based on the arguments presented so far.

And contrary to your response, Process's alien invasion analogy is perfect, because your reasoning is that while there is no tangibly significant problem to warrant such a law, there might be some kind of problem that occurs somewhere, at some point, in some form, to some extent, with an indeterminate probability of said thing occurring, therefore a sweeping law is needed to proactively prevent that. That is the exact same logic one would use to buy insurance against alien invasion.


So Process's logic makes perfect sense. Your logic I can't make heads or tails of. Maybe it makes perfect sense, but I, for one, don't understand it. Not that that's anything new; when you claim that showing that an article can't be bothered to cite sources isn't an argument (as though the onus wasn't on that article to make its case, but rather was on me to disprove it), that doesn't make any sense either.

GaussDragon, on 05 September 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

I know it's a drama series, but man, I started watching this show because of this:

It's not entirely accurate, but minutiae aside the point being made is an important one. I've never seen the show, but I've always enjoyed that particular clip.

Edited by Catamount, 05 September 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Insidious Johnson]

Gary Johnson FTW!

[SakuranoSenshi]

GaussDragon, on 05 September 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

I know it's a drama series, but man, I started watching this show because of this:

Aye, me too. It all happens to be perfectly true and very well known to most people not in the USA and even plenty who are in the USA. Just not the people who watch Fox, I suspect.

[GaussDragon]

http://www.economist.com/node/21561909

[Palerider777]

I'm probably going to be voting for Romney. Obama has done very little of what he said he would do and he only does what's politically popular and good for his career. Basically I don't think he's done a very good job, and if all it takes to remain president is to simply make the other candidate look worse then you. Well then we have a duty as Americans to fight that because it means our executive branch has become a political sham. So to be honest I couldn't vote for Obama it would go against every value I ever learned in American history. To quote Thomas Paine “That government is best which governs least.”

If only people spent more time reading old books rather then watching new tv and reading huff post.

Tldr: I've seen an Obama presidency and I wasn't impressed so IMHO it's time for some one else to take a shot.

Edited by Palerider777, 09 September 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Blackfire1]

Here is the thing.
The economy as it stands was not created in 8 years. It was start WAY before bush. Easily 40-50 years in the making.
So anything and everything Obama could have done to make it better, won't show up till years down the road. The more horrible statement has been (are you better not then you were 4 years ago.) you can NOT limit where we are to the last 4 years. However yes, he's done some things that simply shouldn't have been done, but in the end He's still done more then Romney.

From a Libritarian aspect. They are both horrible for our country. Romney more then Obama simply because we've seen how Romney does things with Bane and his Governorship.

If it came down to one or the other. Obama is the lesser of the two evils. Unlike Romney he has done some good in this world. Unlike romney when he lies he does it with a background. Theres reason behind it. Romney simply will lie just to get your vote. He cares less then even obama. (which isn't alot on either part)


In the end however I'm going to vote for the libritarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Edited by Blackfire1, 09 September 2012 - 10:10 PM.

[Palerider777]

Blackfire1, on 09 September 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Here is the thing.
The economy as it stands was not created in 8 years. It was start WAY before bush. Easily 40-50 years in the making.
So anything and everything Obama could have done to make it better, won't show up till years down the road. The more horrible statement has been (are you better not then you were 4 years ago.) you can NOT limit where we are to the last 4 years. However yes, he's done some things that simply shouldn't have been done, but in the end He's still done more then Romney.

From a Libritarian aspect. They are both horrible for our country. Romney more then Obama simply because we've seen how Romney does things with Bane and his Governorship.

If it came down to one or the other. Obama is the lesser of the two evils. Unlike Romney he has done some good in this world. Unlike romney when he lies he does it with a background. Theres reason behind it. Romney simply will lie just to get your vote. He cares less then even obama. (which isn't alot on either part)


In the end however I'm going to vote for the libritarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Ok firstly do you even know what a presidents job is? Literally your everything that is wrong with politics. The president is not the balancer of the economy lol. Nor is he the head of the legislative branch. Obama does not do his job well and by that I mean his role as the head of the executive branch (please look up what that entails). Also I'm not bothered by a single long term issue with Obama what bothers me about him are the things he has done during his administration. For example the Armenian massacre, Obama promised to call turkey out on that swore to it, but when he went to turkey he said nothing at all. That was not because of the bush administration or the Clinton administration it was because he is a bad and weak president. As for the lesser of two evils you do realize if you think like that you are nothing more then a tool? Settling for the leader of the executive branch of this nation because he convinced you he was a little bit less evil of president then the guy who has never been president, why on earth would that ever seem like a good idea to you? There is only one acceptable reason in all of the world that a man or women should ever serve a second term, and that is if they did right by their office. If you vote for anything less then that then you've already forsaken anything that office once stood for.

[Blackfire1]

[Redacted]

I'm not voting for either. I'm looking at their back ground and pro's & cons of what they have done in the past compared to what they say they want to do. Here is the catch. NO ONE who was voted in after Bush would have done a good job. Not even Ron Paul in all his libritarian views.

This **** we're in was started back in the early 70's. Obama and Romney as I said are the same person politically. Aside from which party they are in. Obama in his personal ability since before taking office has done a bit more then romeny. He is the lesser of the two evils.

and I going to say this again. I'm voting for the Libritarian Candidate Gary Johnson.

Edited by Chris K, 10 September 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[pursang]

Palerider777, on 09 September 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

Ok firstly do you even know what a presidents job is? Literally your everything that is wrong with politics. The president is not the balancer of the economy lol. Nor is he the head of the legislative branch. Obama does not do his job well and by that I mean his role as the head of the executive branch (please look up what that entails). Also I'm not bothered by a single long term issue with Obama what bothers me about him are the things he has done during his administration. For example the Armenian massacre, Obama promised to call turkey out on that swore to it, but when he went to turkey he said nothing at all. That was not because of the bush administration or the Clinton administration it was because he is a bad and weak president. As for the lesser of two evils you do realize if you think like that you are nothing more then a tool? Settling for the leader of the executive branch of this nation because he convinced you he was a little bit less evil of president then the guy who has never been president, why on earth would that ever seem like a good idea to you? There is only one acceptable reason in all of the world that a man or women should ever serve a second term, and that is if they did right by their office. If you vote for anything less then that then you've already forsaken anything that office once stood for.

Ad hominem attacks huh? I can see why you'd vote for Romney, you two seem to think a like.

Popcorn anyone?

[Palerider777]

Blackfire1, on 10 September 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

[Redacted]

I'm not voting for either. I'm looking at their back ground and pro's & cons of what they have done in the past compared to what they say they want to do. Here is the catch. NO ONE who was voted in after Bush would have done a good job. Not even Ron Paul in all his libritarian views.

This **** we're in was started back in the early 70's. Obama and Romney as I said are the same person politically. Aside from which party they are in. Obama in his personal ability since before taking office has done a bit more then romeny. He is the lesser of the two evils.

and I going to say this again. I'm voting for the Libritarian Candidate Gary Johnson.

Firstly I did read your post however it seems you only skimmed mine. My major criticism was of your lesser of two evils argument which is a ridiculous and destructive way to weigh a state official, hence my quote of Thomas Paine. If you had ever read common sense then you would know that we would be better off with no president at all then a lesser of two evils. Secondly I never said you supported Romney or Obama, i simply said that thinking like yours is what makes people in this country settle for dysfunctional politicians. Thirdly you do not seem to understand the role a president plays in government. Your primary subject of the two was the economy, which is something the president has little influence over, you completely skipped past the most important aspects of the office of president such as commander in chief for one and the function of the executive branch for another. Hence my example of the Armenian massacre. Perhaps you could read my post next time before you turn to generic insults? Lastly I'm not going to be sucked into a petty argument, I am aware of Gary Johnson and I do agree with many of his stances however I believe he lacks the means to run for office beyond a cult following. Also if you have misunderstood something I have said then just ask about it? Elaboration goes further to understanding then profanity. Also underwhelming presidents have existed long before the 70's look at William Harding

Edited by Chris K, 10 September 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[Palerider777]

pursang, on 10 September 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Ad hominem attacks huh? I can see why you'd vote for Romney, you two seem to think a like.

Popcorn anyone?

Honestly I wouldn't respond to this if it wasn't a pet peeve. Ad hominid Literally means to the man it's a personal attack, for example If I had said: "Blackfires is ridiculous what does he know about good politicians he cheats on his wife."

That would be an example of ad hominem now here is the down right hilarious part. There is a type of ad hominem called Guilt by association. For example attacking a source by associating him to another. Such as: "Ad hominem attacks huh? I can see why you'd vote for Romney, you two seem to think a like."

My English professor had a word for people who bring up fallacies in informal conversation or on the Internet.

I don't think I can repeat it here so I will just say: Your post is very Ironic

Edited by Palerider777, 10 September 2012 - 03:40 AM.

[Pht]

rorik jorgensson, on 05 September 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

So Pht, are you missing Buzz yet?

Nah.

[Randall Flagg]

Bobcat Goldthwait for President. Problem solved!