D.T.W.A.

[natty dread]

Universal prosperity was NOT something fought for at the founding of this nation. They fought for universal FREEDOM. Universal prosperity is a) impossible to achieve as forced equal wages means no incentive to work and b) the complete antithesis of universal freedom as the only way to achieve it is through forcing people to turn over their wealth to give to those who have less.

I see. Basically, there needs to be people to take from in order for others to be wealthy. How do you figure the wealthy ones (the ones who "win" in your system) deserve to have so much more than the less fortunate ones? Do they work harder? Do they contribute more to society? Are they worth more as human beings?

Also, still waiting for your explanation on "evolutionary lies" you were taught.

[GreecePwns]

Except that there is no evidence that trickle down policies failed.

Exhibit A


Exhibit B
Ever heard of stagflation? Okay.

Exhibit C
"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."
-Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004

[PLAYER57832]

And what's even worse is that some people even now believe it's the government's job to take from some to redistribute to others.

Yes, we know, Reagan was happy to give the wealthy money on the false idea of "trickle down". He knew it was false, even at the time, but he saw it as a way to boost political power. He foresaw the boom in business that was coming and felt he should give the bigwigs a nice thank you present. In his defense, he did see the decreases in taxes, etc as temporary measures.

Except that there is no evidence that trickle down policies failed.

There is, if you ever study economics. Some economists still try to claim otherwise, but they are using the trick I mentioned above of ignoring costs passed onto the future as "unimportant" or "not to be counted".

There WAS a boom in the 80's that a lot of you "trickle down" folks like to attribute to low taxes, but what it really did was build up our deficit at a time when new technology could have been helping to keep our country on the top regarding education and health. Instead, we went to the top in income disparity. (well, Saudi Arabia may be worse, but I believe most of their poor are just not considered citizens).

[Neoteny]

I imagine Nightstrike's broken evolutionary understanding is well documented somewhere...

[Night Strike]

And what's even worse is that some people even now believe it's the government's job to take from some to redistribute to others.

Yes, we know, Reagan was happy to give the wealthy money on the false idea of "trickle down". He knew it was false, even at the time, but he saw it as a way to boost political power. He foresaw the boom in business that was coming and felt he should give the bigwigs a nice thank you present. In his defense, he did see the decreases in taxes, etc as temporary measures.

Except that there is no evidence that trickle down policies failed.

There is, if you ever study economics. Some economists still try to claim otherwise, but they are using the trick I mentioned above of ignoring costs passed onto the future as "unimportant" or "not to be counted".

There WAS a boom in the 80's that a lot of you "trickle down" folks like to attribute to low taxes, but what it really did was build up our deficit at a time when new technology could have been helping to keep our country on the top regarding education and health. Instead, we went to the top in income disparity. (well, Saudi Arabia may be worse, but I believe most of their poor are just not considered citizens).

That's because Reagan did fall into the political trap of failing to cut expenses. Granted, some of those expenses were used to finally end the Cold War, but many could have been cut. And it's not the federal government's responsibility to educate and provide health care, so I'm glad he didn't use policies to expand those expenses.

[john9blue]

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

^ the debating skills of the average stewart/colbert viewer

in science, opposing views are examined with evidence. in a liberal's mind, opposing views are funny.

[Woodruff]

You have your wonderful home-school creationist science education that teaches you none of what I says is real or matters and of course, why should you even bother to question why so many decided that what was taught in the 1800's might not be entirely accurate.

I wasn't homeschooled. I learned the same evolutionary lies everyone else learned.

Sometimes, you say the funniest things.

It's fiction that progressives are using our current government to redistribute wealth?

I would suggest to you that first of all, there is absolutely nothing at all that is "progressive" about our current government. Secondly, I would suggest that our government is redistributing wealthy, yes...but they are doing so to corporations more than they are to ANYONE else.

God has nothing at all to do with any of our freedoms.

Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

Sure...it's irrelevant to the point, but I've read it.

It's because we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights that we stood up to the tyrannical king and choose to chart a new path not only for ourselves, but ultimately for the entire course of the world.

1. Prove that our rights come from God.
2. Do you actually believe that without a belief in God, we would not have stood up to tyranny?

About 15 years later while trying to pass the Constitution, the question being asked was "Is man capable of ruling himself?" The answer: "Only a moral one who relies on God."

Whose answer? I would suggest the only apt answer would be "Only a moral one", finding the rest of your sentence above to be unnecessary.

Contrary to the constant barrage of revisionism over the past 50 years (coincidentally when the federal government started taking over our education system), this country WAS founded through moral and upright people who trusted God with the actions necessary to create the country.

I have never disputed that many of our founders were religious. None of this in any way counters my statement that God has nothing to do with any of our freedoms. Our freedoms do not come from God. Our freedoms come from our government, and ONLY at the whim of our Government. In fact, it's frankly painfully clear that this is the case, since our government has been encroaching on those very freedoms quite a bit in the last fifteen years or so. Why hasn't God stopped them?

[Woodruff]

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

^ the debating skills of the average stewart/colbert viewer
in science, opposing views are examined with evidence. in a liberal's mind, opposing views are funny.

Sometimes, the only polite response one can have to statements is to laugh at them as if they were meant to be humorous. Your last sentence there is one that seems to fall in that category, as well.

[PLAYER57832]

And what's even worse is that some people even now believe it's the government's job to take from some to redistribute to others.

Yes, we know, Reagan was happy to give the wealthy money on the false idea of "trickle down". He knew it was false, even at the time, but he saw it as a way to boost political power. He foresaw the boom in business that was coming and felt he should give the bigwigs a nice thank you present. In his defense, he did see the decreases in taxes, etc as temporary measures.

Except that there is no evidence that trickle down policies failed.

There is, if you ever study economics. Some economists still try to claim otherwise, but they are using the trick I mentioned above of ignoring costs passed onto the future as "unimportant" or "not to be counted".

There WAS a boom in the 80's that a lot of you "trickle down" folks like to attribute to low taxes, but what it really did was build up our deficit at a time when new technology could have been helping to keep our country on the top regarding education and health. Instead, we went to the top in income disparity. (well, Saudi Arabia may be worse, but I believe most of their poor are just not considered citizens).

That's because Reagan did fall into the political trap of failing to cut expenses. Granted, some of those expenses were used to finally end the Cold War, but many could have been cut. And it's not the federal government's responsibility to educate and provide health care, so I'm glad he didn't use policies to expand those expenses.

Nope... I will leave it to someone else to dig up the stats, though. You have been presented with the data before and ignored it.

I stand by what I said. Reagan knew his policies should be short term.

[PLAYER57832]

What I find incredible (OK, not really, given your mentality ) is that you believe the old rhetoric about it being the fault of the poor that the economy is in the tank. Except, you can't even make up your mind about that. You blame welfare recipients, are in favor of testing that will cost money for taxpayers... then turn around and talk about people paying no tax being a problem but also declare that any tax increase is a no go because you are already paying enough! Don't you get that if big businesses have to pay more of their true responsibilities, your liability becomes less. Not just your direct tax liability, but the generals costs you incur go down... everything from treating the water you drink (even if you are on a well.. that will only last until some corporation destroys your well.. as they have for many around here) to the roads you drive (NOT being maintained... estimates are it will take 2 TRILLION just to bring roads and bridges up to basic specifications again!) to breathing clean air. (how many people do you know who use air filters today? .. or who would if they did not have air conditioners!)

Taxes on companies go up yet costs go down?? How the hell does that happen?? Every single tax you place on a business gets passed onto its customers (or even worse, its employees through layoffs, lower wages, or fewer hours). You think your massive taxes on companies exist in a vacuum, but they don't.

Read again. I never said costs for goods would go down. I said right now, they are being pushed onto you in the form of TAXES and other costs that you don't bother to count (things like individuals having to clean up company messes -- anything from lead removal to air cleaners to expensive health bills). If companies are forced to pay their full responsibilities, then taxes might well go down. Other costs certainly will. Right now, though that might take time because so many costs have already been encurred unpaid. Sort of like when you take over a house with a ton of liens on it. Keeping your mortgage paid, paying for legitimate upkeep will mean you have a low cost residence down the road, but in the short term, you have to pay a lot.

Nope, you won't see that.. you just want to blame people on welfare and illegal immigrants. Why not? They can hardly fight back. Yep, you are doing the dirty work of the very people who are increasing your tax bill.. and you won't even admit it, because you just want to believe the garbage THEY tell you instead of thinking about and questioning. Frankly, in many cases, your own data doesn't support your claims! You just don't bother reading it and skip straight to the rhetoric.

Welfare recipients and illegal immigrants have plenty of political defenders in the current system. It's why we can't get anything fixed regarding those situations.

Except, the main defenders of illegal immigrants are your favorite benefactor.. Big Business interests. They don't care who they hire, just so they will work for cheap. AND.. they are also behind the latest attack on welfare. Welfare is a pittance in the budget, but without it.. people will be forced to take jobs that are truly unsafe and that truly do not pay even minimum wage.

It took many more steps before we got anything close to the near universal prosperity and access to opportunities we have enjoyed for a couple of generations now. Those steps include many of the things you now disdain.. ranging from government give-aways of land to free universal education, open access to the media, minimum wages, safety rules, and yes, even basic healthcare and food needs.

Universal prosperity was NOT something fought for at the founding of this nation. They fought for universal FREEDOM. Universal prosperity is a) impossible to achieve as forced equal wages means no incentive to work and b) the complete antithesis of universal freedom as the only way to achieve it is through forcing people to turn over their wealth to give to those who have less.

Try again.... fight strawmen on your own.

For most people, freedom means opportunity.

[natty dread]

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

^ the debating skills of the average stewart/colbert viewer

in science, opposing views are examined with evidence. in a liberal's mind, opposing views are funny.

Where's your evidence of this?

[spurgistan]

If we're going to drug test every American who benefits from federal, state, or local spending, we would need to drug test about 350 million people. The perfect limited government solution - mandatory drug tests for all! Or risk losing your access to subsidized food, or gasoline, or police protection. This is friggin brilliant.

[Night Strike]

I have never disputed that many of our founders were religious. None of this in any way counters my statement that God has nothing to do with any of our freedoms. Our freedoms do not come from God. Our freedoms come from our government, and ONLY at the whim of our Government. In fact, it's frankly painfully clear that this is the case, since our government has been encroaching on those very freedoms quite a bit in the last fifteen years or so. Why hasn't God stopped them?

So we have no innate freedoms? And there are no such things as human rights. And the atrocities committed by dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are perfectly justified because the government deemed that those victims did not have rights. And God hasn't stopped atrocities due to free will, not because rights come from the governments.

[Woodruff]

I have never disputed that many of our founders were religious. None of this in any way counters my statement that God has nothing to do with any of our freedoms. Our freedoms do not come from God. Our freedoms come from our government, and ONLY at the whim of our Government. In fact, it's frankly painfully clear that this is the case, since our government has been encroaching on those very freedoms quite a bit in the last fifteen years or so. Why hasn't God stopped them?

So we have no innate freedoms? And there are no such things as human rights.

You said it right there, Night Strike..."human rights". HUMAN rights. But even those are not guaranteed if a government does not want to guarantee them.

And the atrocities committed by dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are perfectly justified because the government deemed that those victims did not have rights.

Huh? Why do you even try to make statements like this? It only makes you appear unreasonable and, dare I say it, stupid.

And God hasn't stopped atrocities due to free will, not because rights come from the governments.

Well...isn't that handy! In that case, the Great Spaghetti God hasn't stopped those atrocities due to free will, not because rights come from God. See how silly that sounds?

[john9blue]

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

^ the debating skills of the average stewart/colbert viewer

in science, opposing views are examined with evidence. in a liberal's mind, opposing views are funny.

Where's your evidence of this?

laughing implies you think they are funny, and cannot think of a more articulate or reasonable response.

[Night Strike]

I have never disputed that many of our founders were religious. None of this in any way counters my statement that God has nothing to do with any of our freedoms. Our freedoms do not come from God. Our freedoms come from our government, and ONLY at the whim of our Government. In fact, it's frankly painfully clear that this is the case, since our government has been encroaching on those very freedoms quite a bit in the last fifteen years or so. Why hasn't God stopped them?

So we have no innate freedoms? And there are no such things as human rights.

You said it right there, Night Strike..."human rights". HUMAN rights. But even those are not guaranteed if a government does not want to guarantee them.

The other term for "human rights" is "natural rights", both of which come from the Creator (as explicitly pointed out in the Declaration of Independence). If the government does not guarantee the rights, that means the government is in the wrong and should be overthrown. But if the government is the sole provider (and definer) of rights, then every act they do is justified.

And the atrocities committed by dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are perfectly justified because the government deemed that those victims did not have rights.

Huh? Why do you even try to make statements like this? It only makes you appear unreasonable and, dare I say it, stupid.

The only unreasonable one is the one who refuses to acknowledge what their positions lead to. If every government can define their own rights, then what Hitler did to every single Jew (and other) within Germany was completely justified and should not have been stopped by the other countries. Every single slaughter by Stalin or Mao is justified because those governments decided that those people did not have rights. And no other country has the power to stop that because every government defines what rights their people receive.

And God hasn't stopped atrocities due to free will, not because rights come from the governments.

Well...isn't that handy! In that case, the Great Spaghetti God hasn't stopped those atrocities due to free will, not because rights come from God. See how silly that sounds?

Happens when you live in a fallen and sinful world. People choose to commit atrocities, but it's the moral ones who will rise up and combat those because they know that their freedoms are provided by God.

[Woodruff]

I have never disputed that many of our founders were religious. None of this in any way counters my statement that God has nothing to do with any of our freedoms. Our freedoms do not come from God. Our freedoms come from our government, and ONLY at the whim of our Government. In fact, it's frankly painfully clear that this is the case, since our government has been encroaching on those very freedoms quite a bit in the last fifteen years or so. Why hasn't God stopped them?

So we have no innate freedoms? And there are no such things as human rights.

You said it right there, Night Strike..."human rights". HUMAN rights. But even those are not guaranteed if a government does not want to guarantee them.

The other term for "human rights" is "natural rights", both of which come from the Creator (as explicitly pointed out in the Declaration of Independence).

I believe in "natural rights" but I do not believe in God. "Natural rights" are those rights which I believe men SHOULD HAVE. God is not a part of that. Government is not a part of that. However, government LITERALLY does control whether "natural rights" are enabled or not. Period. No one else controls them. Only government.

If the government does not guarantee the rights, that means the government is in the wrong and should be overthrown.

Certainly I agree with this.

But if the government is the sole provider (and definer) of rights, then every act they do is justified.

That doesn't even make basic sense. Are the actions of the KKK justified simply because everyone involved in the KKK agreed with those actions? Of course not, and I know you don't think that they are. But the same logic applies...just because everyone in Germany went along with Hitler's movement doesn't make Hitler's movement justified at all, when viewed from outside (or even from within in many cases) Germany. It's not justification at all...it simply "is what it is".

And the atrocities committed by dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are perfectly justified because the government deemed that those victims did not have rights.

Huh? Why do you even try to make statements like this? It only makes you appear unreasonable and, dare I say it, stupid.

The only unreasonable one is the one who refuses to acknowledge what their positions lead to. If every government can define their own rights

Stop right there. Every government DOES define their own rights. This is fact, and incontestible. Why are the rights in Soviet Russia different from the rights in the United States, Night Strike? What is the difference? Did nobody in Soviet Russia believe in God?

then what Hitler did to every single Jew (and other) within Germany was completely justified and should not have been stopped by the other countries.

Your logic is poor. The support of the majority of a populace doesn't create rights. The ability to use rights is what creates rights.

Every single slaughter by Stalin or Mao is justified because those governments decided that those people did not have rights.

You're saying that the fact that Stalin's people didn't have rights is justification for Stalin not giving those people rights. That's poor logic.

And no other country has the power to stop that because every government defines what rights their people receive.

Why would you say such a thing, since "outside of the purview of that government", other views of "human rights" exist.

And God hasn't stopped atrocities due to free will, not because rights come from the governments.

Well...isn't that handy! In that case, the Great Spaghetti God hasn't stopped those atrocities due to free will, not because rights come from God. See how silly that sounds?

Happens when you live in a fallen and sinful world. People choose to commit atrocities, but it's the moral ones who will rise up and combat those because they know that their freedoms are provided by God.

So basically, you're trying to simultaneously claim that "God won't do anything because he wants us to have free will" and "God provides our rights". God isn't providing ANYTHING, because he's letting us live with free will...and free will absolutely can lead to FEWER RIGHTS. So either God is allowing us to have free will (which means he is NOT providing any rights at all) or he is providing rights (which means he is not allowing us to have free will). Which is it, Night Strike?

[BigBallinStalin]

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

^ the debating skills of the average stewart/colbert viewer

in science, opposing views are examined with evidence. in a liberal's mind, opposing views are funny.

Where's your evidence of this?

laughing implies you think they are funny, and cannot think of a more articulate or reasonable response.

C'mon, john9blue. Stop acting like an ass. Some comments are worth a proper response, because the costs don't exceed the benefits. We could argue all day with NS and Phatscotty on things they don't clearly understand, but ultimately it's a waste of time because they won't concede on certain points when clearly they are in the wrong, and they willingly ignore strong points that counter their own beliefs.

If you cover this up with an disingenuous "lol, i was just kiddin guise!," then here's a picture depicting your response:

[PLAYER57832]

The other term for "human rights" is "natural rights", both of which come from the Creator (as explicitly pointed out in the Declaration of Independence). If the government does not guarantee the rights, that means the government is in the wrong and should be overthrown. But if the government is the sole provider (and definer) of rights, then every act they do is justified.

I see, you weren't making inroads on the drug testing issue, so now its about God?

Anyway, the other name for "human rights" is "natural rights".. BUT only some define them as coming from our creator. Specifically, those who believe in God. Are you suggesting that only those who believe in God have any rights here? Because it sure seems that way....
See, that is the problem with theocracy and why our constitution specifically forbids it. Someone, somewhere is always coming up and saying "but GOD WANTS THIS!".. and there the debate is supposed to end. With power, it does end there.. at least in public.

But we are NOT a theocracy, not in any form.. and as much as I, too believe in Christianity, the greatest harm that can come is to combine government with faith. Even Christ said.. "give to Caesar that which is Ceasar's" he did not tell his followers then.. or now to overthrow their governments to bring on his new world order. That is what decieved followers..and they are always decieved attempt to claim. Are you among them?

Finally, government is nothing but an artificial construct of people. People come first. THAT is why we have the right to overthrow a government when it oppresses us. We do not have the right to overthrow our church ( -- wellll.. some "church ladies" might disagree... could not resist, tongue firmly in my cheek, though )

Anyway, God is God and all powerful, but you can worship God in many countries under many forms of government.

[john9blue]

We could argue all day with NS and Phatscotty on things they don't clearly understand, but ultimately it's a waste of time because they won't concede on certain points when clearly they are in the wrong, and they willingly ignore strong points that counter their own beliefs.

clearly they are wrong! i mean, it's so obvious. every liberal on the forum agrees that they're wrong. what more proof do i need? the debate is over, isn't it?

[PLAYER57832]

We could argue all day with NS and Phatscotty on things they don't clearly understand, but ultimately it's a waste of time because they won't concede on certain points when clearly they are in the wrong, and they willingly ignore strong points that counter their own beliefs.

clearly they are wrong! i mean, it's so obvious. every liberal on the forum agrees that they're wrong. what more proof do i need? the debate is over, isn't it?

Not sure there are too many liberals in this forum, but plenty of non liberals disagree with them.

Anyway, what does it matter if those who disagree are liberal, conservative or "raxian photo observers". What matters is are their arguments sound and why do so many disagree. Those two far too often simply ignore any real and credible challenges to their beliefs. Most people might do that on occasion.. by mistake if for no other reason (you get asked a question, but get busy and the thread moves on or disappears). They make a habit of it.

[Woodruff]

We could argue all day with NS and Phatscotty on things they don't clearly understand, but ultimately it's a waste of time because they won't concede on certain points when clearly they are in the wrong, and they willingly ignore strong points that counter their own beliefs.

clearly they are wrong! i mean, it's so obvious. every liberal on the forum agrees that they're wrong. what more proof do i need? the debate is over, isn't it?

Why is it that you appear to believe that it is only the liberals on these fora that think Night Strike and Phatscotty tend to ignore strong arguments against their positions? In fact, it's not even a tendency...it's occurrence is frequent enough from a percentage standpoint as to equate to static. And you wonder why you're so often "mistaken" for a conservative here, John?

[BigBallinStalin]

^^^

That's been a recent shtick of john9blue's. Perhaps, he's just angry at something in the RL, so he comes here to give us shit for it in a somewhat-funny-but-really-disconcerting-manner.

[john9blue]

of course they ignore strong arguments against their positions. everyone does. i do, from time to time. cognitive dissonance feels bad. but at least they make an effort to respond to people in a serious manner. many people don't even give others enough respect to do that, which just proves that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. this is why i'm relatively tolerant of player... even though she's flat-out wrong sometimes and i think some of the things she says are ridiculous, she at least tries to debate (mostly) civilly.

[Woodruff]

of course they ignore strong arguments against their positions. everyone does.

Everyone does OCCASIONALLY, of course. Everyone does NOT do so CONSISTENTLY. Everyone certainly does NOT do so WITHOUT DEVIATION. That last one is where Phatscotty and Night Strike appear to live.