darkSpyro

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

Um....except this immigration that me and my fellow conservatives show disdain for is illegal immigration. If you're going to blatantly disregard and disrespect our laws for your own selfish needs, then we don't want you here. And who says that all of these lower class people are poor victims of society who got screwed by Capitalism? Maybe some of them are lazy folks who don't want to get their asses spoiled on welfare, like this typical liberal:

Yes illegal immigration is bad. But the problem is that the laws to getting into the country are pathetically strict. And if somebody does get in the country through illegal means, but is contributing to society and the economy through working hard, why should we kick them out rather than help them through the process of getting legal citizenship? Not every illegal immigrant is a criminal.

No, not every person on welfare or food stamps got screwed by the economy and the job market. But the majority have. And what you guys propose isn't to stop providing benefits to the lazy, but to stop providing benefits to everyone that actually needs it. If you have a plan to help those who work or can't work and need the money while blocking out the lazy, I'm all ears and fully support your cause. But right now the plan conservatives have is to cut benefits out entirely and simply tell people "get a job" even if they have one that doesn't pay enough.

It's got to be all or nothing, as of now. I see what you're getting at, but we can't have the government taking from one person and giving it to another. We can't. The government does not have the power to do that. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that. Not just that, but it's even more unfair to have lazy citizens living off the hard working middle class citizens.

What about when that one person has so much to provide for themselves that it's ridiculous? Even despite the existence of lazy people, there are still others out there that struggle to get by with a job, sometimes even two. There's no doubt that there are people who exploit the system and it's terrible. But they need help and the upper class and 1% can afford to donate some of that money towards helping them.

And sad to say, but that 1% wouldn't otherwise be charitable if the government didn't in some way tell them they had to do their part. Even now you often have the rich getting arrested for things like tax evasion.

Quick question... without looking/googling, who can tell me the names of the candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election?

Quote: CAV

What about when that one person has so much to provide for themselves that it's ridiculous? Even despite the existence of lazy people, there are still others out there that struggle to get by with a job, sometimes even two. There's no doubt that there are people who exploit the system and it's terrible. But they need help and the upper class and 1% can afford to donate some of that money towards helping them.

And sad to say, but that 1% wouldn't otherwise be charitable if the government didn't in some way tell them they had to do their part. Even now you often have the rich getting arrested for things like tax evasion.

There ARE donations via charity, and those are the right way to go, rather than the government doing all of this out of our own free will.

Better yet, answer me this, if America's capitalist system is screwing it up so badly, how come there are so many immigrants that are willing to break the law to get here? It must really be good if so many people dream of getting here and working here. How come those "better" socialist countries don't get as many immigrants as us?

I'm an Immigrant :I

Quote: Iceclaw

Quote: Mrmorrises

how come there are so many immigrants that are willing to break the law to get here? It must really be good if so many people dream of getting here and working here. How come those "better" socialist countries don't get as many immigrants as us?

i can't say anything for people of other countries but in mexico you have so much talk of america being such a free and great country where you don't have to work hard to get a good life and everything is so easy and everyone is treated with equality
that work is easy to find and easy to do that will easily make up lots of money so you can temporarily move to the u.s and send money home to support your family or just keep it for yourself
that and several parts of mexico is a really really ****ty and dangerous hellhole to live in
the u.s sounds so perfect and it's right next to mexico so why not of course!!

Yes, and that's a very good thing to tell to the liberals. Interesting that America is desirable for being "free" and "great" when liberals want to make it less free, especially economically (advocating socialism) and do not consider it to be great. It's also worth noting that Mexico is significantly closer to what would be considered socialism than America is.

im so confused how do you guys know all this stuff while im just sitting here procrastinating

Quote: UncleBob

Quick question... without looking/googling, who can tell me the names of the candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election?

Obama, Romney, Roseanne, and several other third party candidates that never got the light of day because of the flaws of the voting system inevitably leading to a two party election.

What is your point?

Quote: Mrmorrises

There ARE donations via charity, and those are the right way to go, rather than the government doing all of this out of our own free will.

Better yet, answer me this, if America's capitalist system is screwing it up so badly, how come there are so many immigrants that are willing to break the law to get here? It must really be good if so many people dream of getting here and working here. How come those "better" socialist countries don't get as many immigrants as us?

Not enough donations via charity. Many donations tend to go to shady corporations as well who take a cut of the donations as profit, rather than going directly to the people that actually need the help.

Because they were told that America is a land of freedom and economic prosperity. And considering the economic status of Mexico, they'll willingly move if it means the idea that they and their family could live a better life. Except when they get here they get ****ed over and sent back home as a criminal, even if they were doing hard work and making a living while staying out of trouble.

If they could get to Canada they probably would.

Quote: Pixilism

Quote: UncleBob

Quick question... without looking/googling, who can tell me the names of the candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election?

i dont know all of them but i remember obama, romney, and some gary guy

never forget ron

Michelle Obama ****ed up my lunch! Who wants to be healthy?

Quote: CAV

Quote: UncleBob

Quick question... without looking/googling, who can tell me the names of the candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election?

Obama, Romney, Roseanne, and several other third party candidates that never got the light of day because of the flaws of the voting system inevitably leading to a two party election.

What is your point?

Quote: Mrmorrises

There ARE donations via charity, and those are the right way to go, rather than the government doing all of this out of our own free will.

Better yet, answer me this, if America's capitalist system is screwing it up so badly, how come there are so many immigrants that are willing to break the law to get here? It must really be good if so many people dream of getting here and working here. How come those "better" socialist countries don't get as many immigrants as us?

Not enough donations via charity. Many donations tend to go to shady corporations as well who take a cut of the donations as profit, rather than going directly to the people that actually need the help.

Because they were told that America is a land of freedom and economic prosperity. And considering the economic status of Mexico, they'll willingly move if it means the idea that they and their family could live a better life. Except when they get here they get ****ed over and sent back home as a criminal, even if they were doing hard work and making a living while staying out of trouble.

If they could get to Canada they probably would.

Well, if one man spends many somewhere, that will help the next guy get a job. Then trickle-down does its magic. It worked in 1984, incredibly well.

So if Mexico's economy is so poor, and, as I mentioned earlier, they are closer to socialism than us, how come socialism is suddenly going to help us? Europe's economy is also not doing too well under socialism either, nor are the areas of India that are socialist. Poverty in America is so mild compared to other countries, including those with socialist economies.

Yeah and not long after that "trickle-down" eventually messed with the economy. It won't work today.

Just because it's failing for Mexico doesn't mean it's a guarantee to fail for us. Socalism isn't perfect but it's a damn fine improvement over Reaganomics and trickle-down ideals.
What about a capitalist/socialist hybrid that the Nordic countries have adopted and benefited from, if you're so finicky about dropping capitalism?

Quote: CAV

Quote: UncleBob

Quick question... without looking/googling, who can tell me the names of the candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election?

Obama, Romney, Roseanne, and several other third party candidates that never got the light of day because of the flaws of the voting system inevitably leading to a two party election.

What is your point?

You ask how people are supposed to be able to vote for someone who won't break their promises and will work to limit the powers held by the government, yet you can't even be bothered to research all of the candidates beyond "other"? Then wonder why everyone continues to elect the same ol' politicians who do the same ol' tricks...

When the people select the government, they get the government they deserve.

Quote: UncleBob

You ask how people are supposed to be able to vote for someone who won't break their promises and will work to limit the powers held by the government, yet you can't even be bothered to research all of the candidates beyond "other"? Then wonder why everyone continues to elect the same ol' politicians who do the same ol' tricks...

When the people select the government, they get the government they deserve.

1. You told me to name candidates without looking them up.
2. In 2012 I was not legally old enough to vote, therefore what or who I knew made no difference.
3. Do you at all read my posts or watch the video that I linked? It explains how the problem is with the voting system in place, not the people.

If you're not even going to bother reading through my posts or even consider what they have to say, while expecting me to read through yours and come to some grand epiphany about how right you were all along, I see no reason in continuing any discussion with you.

1. I "told you" (i.e.: generally asked anyone who could) to name candidates without looking them up because I wanted to prove the point that folks don't research candidates beyond what the TV ads say, what their friends say, and that letter behind the candidate's name. You're interested in the political system and can't name candidates from the largest election held in this country that's less than three years old... why act surprised that others don't know what's going on?

2. I paid attention to the presidential elections when I was in Jr. High. Even then, I knew that I had no interest in Clinton or Bush (the first one). Perot had my attention though.

3. I've seen all excuses you posted before - but doesn't change the fact that the system that is in place is in place because of THE PEOPLE. Period. Don't like the system? Be an agent of change.

4. I don't care if you do or don't read my posts. I won't lose any sleep tonight. You're welcome to read my posts and reply if you wish - just don't get upset if I don't have a grand epiphany about how *you* were right all along.

Quote: UncleBob

1. I "told you" (i.e.: generally asked anyone who could) to name candidates without looking them up because I wanted to prove the point that folks don't research candidates beyond what the TV ads say, what their friends say, and that letter behind the candidate's name. You're interested in the political system and can't name candidates from the largest election held in this country that's less than three years old... why act surprised that others don't know what's going on?

2. I paid attention to the presidential elections when I was in Jr. High. Even then, I knew that I had no interest in Clinton or Bush (the first one). Perot had my attention though.

3. I've seen all excuses you posted before - but doesn't change the fact that the system that is in place is in place because of THE PEOPLE. Period. Don't like the system? Be an agent of change.

4. I don't care if you do or don't read my posts. I won't lose any sleep tonight. You're welcome to read my posts and reply if you wish - just don't get upset if I don't have a grand epiphany about how *you* were right all along.

1. Watch the video I linked. It explains how something like that isn't wise for the people to do because of the two party system we've been forced into.

2. I paid attention as well, while also keeping in mind of the flaws of the voting system and how, inevitably, my vote wouldn't matter even if I could vote.

3. The people didn't write the Constitution or put in the First Past the Post voting system. Stop blaming the people for things out of their control.

And keep in mind that because of the flawed voting system, I can't actually be an agent of change. Even if I vote for someone who I agree with more than the Democratic option and get others to do the same, all it does is take away votes from the person I agree with slightly, while offering an advantage to the person I disagree with most. As a result I'm wedged into choosing someone I don't actually want simply because they are the lesser of two evils (which is what my family did when they voted for Obama). That's not the people being lazy. It's the people being psychologically manipulated and forced into these decisions because of the screwed voting system in place that forced it this way.

4. I'm not trying to give anybody a grand epiphany about anything. My interest lies in offering the other side of the coin and letting you and others do what they will with it. But if you aren't going to give me the light of day while expecting me to give you such, it becomes clear that I'm wasting my time.

"My vote wouldn't matter".

That sums up why nearly half the people don't vote, why the system will never change, and why the people are at fault.

Sit down and take the time to watch it. There's a reason why people feel their vote doesn't matter, and it's not their fault.

*yawn*. Heard it before. Don't disagree with (most) of it.

Here's the thing - you said yourself, politicians aren't going to take their power away. So who should that responsibility fall on?

Sit back and continue voting for the "lesser of two evils" (i.e.: support an individual that you admit to be evil) and wait for someone else to come along and do all the work for you? (woah... that sounds familiar...)

Do whatever you can to be an agent of change yourself?

Your choice.

Doing what you can to be an agent of change in this context means making a huge risk of allowing someone you oppose winning the election, making decisions that you highly disagree with.

The only way I'd see real change happening is if we dismantle the current voting system and put in place a new one.

Quote: UncleBob

Sit back and continue voting for the "lesser of two evils" (i.e.: support an individual that you admit to be evil) and wait for someone else to come along and do all the work for you? (woah... that sounds familiar...)

Cheeky. Don't bring up irrelevant subjects.

When Candidate A is virtually the same as Candidate B, it doesn't really matter who you vote for when you're voting for one or the other.

Here's a video for you. It requires actually listening to what the candidates themselves say, so I fully understand if it's hard to listen to for more than a minute - but, really, this idea that voting for one because you disagree with the other... ugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZLqsRqKFyI

It's like someone gives you the option to eat horse poo or dog poo, and you won't consider any other options.

Quote: UncleBob

Here's a video for you. It requires actually listening to what the candidates themselves say, so I fully understand if it's hard to listen to for more than a minute - but, really, this idea that voting for one because you disagree with the other... ugh.

You question and insult my ability to listen while blatantly ignoring nearly every post I've made while spouting out the same points as if they still hold ground and not understanding why things are this way.

You are beyond reasoning with and I'm wasting my time attempting a rational discussion with you. Have a nice day.

Quote: CAV

You question and insult my ability to listen while blatantly ignoring nearly every post I've made while spouting out the same points as if they still hold ground and not understanding why things are this way.

A.) That wasn't a jab at your ability to listen, it was a jab at having to listen to RObamny blabber on.
B.) Speaking of "spouting the same points as if they still hold ground..."

Quote: CAV

[...]I see no reason in continuing any discussion with you.

Quote: CAV

[...]it becomes clear that I'm wasting my time.

Quote: CAV

[...]I'm wasting my time attempting a rational discussion with you.

Quote: CAV

Yeah and not long after that "trickle-down" eventually messed with the economy. It won't work today.

Just because it's failing for Mexico doesn't mean it's a guarantee to fail for us. Socalism isn't perfect but it's a damn fine improvement over Reaganomics and trickle-down ideals.
What about a capitalist/socialist hybrid that the Nordic countries have adopted and benefited from, if you're so finicky about dropping capitalism?

And how do you know? Either way, it's better than screwing with the constitution that we've used for a long time and still respect today. If we can change one thing so drastically, more and more things will change in a domino effect, and then it'll be madness.

I don't know much about the Nordic countries use of Socialism and Capitalism together (nor do I see how it's quite possible), but we have our own constitution, while they may have been changing 24/7. This is the way our country has been run since it was created. It is one of the reasons that we are "The land of the free". To become socialist is a much bigger move than people expect.

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

Yeah and not long after that "trickle-down" eventually messed with the economy. It won't work today.

Just because it's failing for Mexico doesn't mean it's a guarantee to fail for us. Socalism isn't perfect but it's a damn fine improvement over Reaganomics and trickle-down ideals.
What about a capitalist/socialist hybrid that the Nordic countries have adopted and benefited from, if you're so finicky about dropping capitalism?

And how do you know? Either way, it's better than screwing with the constitution that we've used for a long time and still respect today. If we can change one thing so drastically, more and more things will change in a domino effect, and then it'll be madness.

I don't know much about the Nordic countries use of Socialism and Capitalism together (nor do I see how it's quite possible), but we have our own constitution, while they may have been changing 24/7. This is the way our country has been run since it was created. It is one of the reasons that we are "The land of the free". To become socialist is a much bigger move than people expect.

It wouldn't be as radical of a change as you imply, since the House and Senate tend to drag their feet on making a decision. If they or Obama were to propose something like this now, it would probably be another 2 years before it's finally approved or denied.

Besides, we regularly make changes to the Constitution. Amendments and edits to certain laws. And the PATRIOT Act outright opposes the Constitution. Though I'm sure you and I can agree that it's awful and should be abolished.

I'm above the government, I live in the sky.

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

Yeah and not long after that "trickle-down" eventually messed with the economy. It won't work today.

Just because it's failing for Mexico doesn't mean it's a guarantee to fail for us. Socalism isn't perfect but it's a damn fine improvement over Reaganomics and trickle-down ideals.
What about a capitalist/socialist hybrid that the Nordic countries have adopted and benefited from, if you're so finicky about dropping capitalism?

And how do you know? Either way, it's better than screwing with the constitution that we've used for a long time and still respect today. If we can change one thing so drastically, more and more things will change in a domino effect, and then it'll be madness.

I don't know much about the Nordic countries use of Socialism and Capitalism together (nor do I see how it's quite possible), but we have our own constitution, while they may have been changing 24/7. This is the way our country has been run since it was created. It is one of the reasons that we are "The land of the free". To become socialist is a much bigger move than people expect.

Wow you both are impressive you are able to have a political argument with out getting all pissed at each other. I am conservative so I'm on mrmorrises' side but if I had no political views at all and I was looking for some I would switch sides with every reply.

Quote: CAV

Quote: Mrmorrises

Quote: CAV

Yeah and not long after that "trickle-down" eventually messed with the economy. It won't work today.

Just because it's failing for Mexico doesn't mean it's a guarantee to fail for us. Socalism isn't perfect but it's a damn fine improvement over Reaganomics and trickle-down ideals.
What about a capitalist/socialist hybrid that the Nordic countries have adopted and benefited from, if you're so finicky about dropping capitalism?

And how do you know? Either way, it's better than screwing with the constitution that we've used for a long time and still respect today. If we can change one thing so drastically, more and more things will change in a domino effect, and then it'll be madness.

I don't know much about the Nordic countries use of Socialism and Capitalism together (nor do I see how it's quite possible), but we have our own constitution, while they may have been changing 24/7. This is the way our country has been run since it was created. It is one of the reasons that we are "The land of the free". To become socialist is a much bigger move than people expect.

It wouldn't be as radical of a change as you imply, since the House and Senate tend to drag their feet on making a decision. If they or Obama were to propose something like this now, it would probably be another 2 years before it's finally approved or denied.

Besides, we regularly make changes to the Constitution. Amendments and edits to certain laws. And the PATRIOT Act outright opposes the Constitution. Though I'm sure you and I can agree that it's awful and should be abolished.

2 Years still is a very quick amount of time to make such a change as turning around the whole economic system that we've been using for centuries. It would be bigger than any amendment thus far. And yes, I do disapprove of the PATRIOT Act.