By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Santorum to ban pornography if elected!

Tagged games:

Runa216 on 18 March 2012
sperrico87 said:

Nah, that's not liberal.  That's Libertarian.  Big difference.  And Libertarianism was the basis of the Republican Party until it was taken over in the 1960's by the so-called "conservatives".  Myself and others, such as Ron Paul, represent the Old Right, the party of Robert Taft.

Liberals believe in FORCING people to give others what they think they are deserved.  They believe in big, over-reaching government.  Much the way modern conservatives do, just in different areas.  Conservatives believe in a big overseas military empire.  Liberals believe in providing "free" health insurance to everyone, and taxing people without any limit.

Libertarians are quite the opposite.  The smallest government possible is the best government.  No government interference in any markets, for any reason.  Little or no taxation.  Truly free trade.  No aggressive war or military force unless we are under immenent threat and we have no alternative.  Absolutely no regulations on a person's personal behavior or habits, so long at that person isn't harming someone else.

So, I think you're right in that liberals agree with libertarians on a small number of issues such as legalizing drugs, but we are polar opposites on economic or social issues.  We agree typically with Republicans on economics or taxation, but are polar opposites on foreign policy and drug laws.

It might be better if I labeled myself and other pro-life libertarians as "Minarchists".  Not sure if you're familiar with that term or not.  Because, technically speaking, someone who is 100% absolute Libertarian would be pro-abortion.

I do find philosophy fascinating though, so feel free to disagree or agree.  I'll reply.

No that's not true at all.  You're resorting to a strawman fallacy.  Liberals don't want to FORCE you to give up your hard earned money, they believe in wealth distribution and a more level playing field (people who make more pay more taxes).  That's a pretty ignorant way of looking at it and a downright fascist view of a political party.  

You could chose to look at it like FORCINg, becuase it is law, but with the capitals and bold and the assertion they want BIG GOVERNMENT makes it sound like they're bond villains.  so yeah, try to not do that. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
sperrico87 on 18 March 2012

Well, one of the few things a government should do is enforce contracts. You're right.  It is minarchy, not anarchy.  And what exactly is so terrible about getting what you want out of life?



 

sperrico87 on 18 March 2012
Runa216 said:
sperrico87 said:

Nah, that's not liberal.  That's Libertarian.  Big difference.  And Libertarianism was the basis of the Republican Party until it was taken over in the 1960's by the so-called "conservatives".  Myself and others, such as Ron Paul, represent the Old Right, the party of Robert Taft.

Liberals believe in FORCING people to give others what they think they are deserved.  They believe in big, over-reaching government.  Much the way modern conservatives do, just in different areas.  Conservatives believe in a big overseas military empire.  Liberals believe in providing "free" health insurance to everyone, and taxing people without any limit.

Libertarians are quite the opposite.  The smallest government possible is the best government.  No government interference in any markets, for any reason.  Little or no taxation.  Truly free trade.  No aggressive war or military force unless we are under immenent threat and we have no alternative.  Absolutely no regulations on a person's personal behavior or habits, so long at that person isn't harming someone else.

So, I think you're right in that liberals agree with libertarians on a small number of issues such as legalizing drugs, but we are polar opposites on economic or social issues.  We agree typically with Republicans on economics or taxation, but are polar opposites on foreign policy and drug laws.

It might be better if I labeled myself and other pro-life libertarians as "Minarchists".  Not sure if you're familiar with that term or not.  Because, technically speaking, someone who is 100% absolute Libertarian would be pro-abortion.

I do find philosophy fascinating though, so feel free to disagree or agree.  I'll reply.

No that's not true at all.  You're resorting to a strawman fallacy.  Liberals don't want to FORCE you to give up your hard earned money, they believe in wealth distribution and a more level playing field (people who make more pay more taxes).  That's a pretty ignorant way of looking at it and a downright fascist view of a political party.  

You could chose to look at it like FORCINg, becuase it is law, but with the capitals and bold and the assertion they want BIG GOVERNMENT makes it sound like they're bond villains.  so yeah, try to not do that. 

If it's not force then what is it exactly? It certainly isn't voluntary.  Liberals and conservatives both use force to take money from people and use it for their own purposes.  Liberals like to take a portion of it and make promises to people so that they can make people dependent on them, get themselves re-elected, and thus create a vicious cycle.  Conservative use force to take money from people and use it to re-shape the world into oppresive pseudo-Christian puppet governments.  Either way, it is force. 



 

Rath on 18 March 2012

I think it's worth pointing out that social democracy (ie. liberalism) has been very succesful in co-existing with capitalism in several western european and oceanian countries. It can be argued that these countries are different situations than America but it goes to show that social democracy isn't the fundamentally flawed idea it is sometimes made out to be.



sperrico87 on 18 March 2012
Rath said:
I think it's worth pointing out that social democracy (ie. liberalism) has been very succesful in co-existing with capitalism in several western european and oceanian countries. It can be argued that these countries are different situations than America but it goes to show that social democracy isn't the fundamentally flawed idea it is sometimes made out to be.


The other side to the Europe argument is that it's a dying continent with a declining birth rate, high unemployment, wildly excessive debt, and that their labor force is even less educated and more expensive than America's.  With the possible exception of Germany, at least recently.

I mean, Europe is bankrupt. Look at Greece. All of those EU countries owe trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates that they're never going to be able to meet.  They are the future problems of the United States magnified by 10.  The difference being, they rely on us for our dollar standard, so they will be left with nothing after our currency inevitably fails.



 

Around the Network
Runa216 on 18 March 2012
sperrico87 said:
It would be funny if it weren't so incredibly harmful... but Rick Santorum is NOT a conservative. He is a big-government Evangelical. He's literally running to be Pastor-in-Chief. He all but comes out and says it. Actions speak louder than words.

See, I'm a very conservative person. Pro-life, anti gun control, pro traditional marriage, etc. And being of that conservative philosophy is something that about half of all Americans share, possibly more. But the DIFFERENCE between Santorum and myself is that I don't believe in pushing my beliefs and values onto other people through force and intimidation...which is all a government can do. Government has nothing, and so it can give nothing. All it can do is take from some something from someone else through force and give it others.

Is gay marriage acceptable? No, not in my judgement. So, what does that mean for government? Well, the answer is in the question. Government should have nothing to do with marriage except to enforce legal contracts between two people in a court. Should gays be able to marry? Well, I don't think so, but they should be allowed to anyway, because I nor anyone else has a right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do in their personal lives.

The Golden Rule: Don't do to others what you would not want them to do to you. It is literally amazing how much that rule applies to nearly every issue/ debate.

Well thanks!  now I know you can be one person I can dismiss as a fanatical extremist!  

Pro Life?  cool, women don't get to have choices of what they do with their bodies.  AWESOME 
Anti Gun control?  Awesome, not long before america is as bad as Somalia...what with all the child armies and whatnot!  GUNS FOR EVERYONE! 
Gays can't marry?  AWESOME!  you're a bigot.  End of discussion. 

Just becuase someone't is tradition doesn't make it right. This post here (and people who agree with it) are what make the political right look like a bunch of extremist rednecks.  Keep up the good work!  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Signalstar on 18 March 2012

This is the least sexy thread involving porn we've ever had. Unless you count Badgenome, Kitler, and Amp's avatars.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Rath on 18 March 2012
sperrico87 said:
Rath said:
I think it's worth pointing out that social democracy (ie. liberalism) has been very succesful in co-existing with capitalism in several western european and oceanian countries. It can be argued that these countries are different situations than America but it goes to show that social democracy isn't the fundamentally flawed idea it is sometimes made out to be.


The other side to the Europe argument is that it's a dying continent with a declining birth rate, high unemployment, wildly excessive debt, and that their labor force is even less educated and more expensive than America's.  With the possible exception of Germany, at least recently.

I mean, Europe is bankrupt. Look at Greece. All of those EU countries owe trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates that they're never going to be able to meet.  They are the future problems of the United States magnified by 10.  The difference being, they rely on us for our dollar standard, so they will be left with nothing after our currency inevitably fails.

We are talking about different countries in Europe. The examples of succesful social democracy are mostly the countries in Scandinavia - high taxes, high employement, high levels of education, great healthcare and relatively low sovereign debt.

The failure of Greece wasn't particularly down to political idealogy - it was down to continuous and ridiculous deficits.

 

@Runa. No need to be rude, while you may not agree with his views (I sure don't) but his post was perfectly polite.



Runa216 on 18 March 2012
Signalstar said:
This is the least sexy thread involving porn we've ever had. Unless you count Badgenome, Kitler, and Amp's avatars.

should I porn it up with links to some of my favorite porn sites? 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Kangi on 18 March 2012
Signalstar said:
This is the least sexy thread involving porn we've ever had. Unless you count Badgenome, Kitler, and Amp's avatars.

Rick Santorum takes down the sexiness quotient by a substantial amount. Thankfully, I am now here to help raise it.



 In memory of Topless Avatars Pertaining to Hotness and Titilation (TAPTHAT).

3DS friend code: 5155 - 2983 - 3034