Gore for President

[Pains Requiem]

Colbert will put the world in a constant state of euphoria. I'd vote for him.

 

[Forged]

I was going to ask you to explain why until I saw this.

Fair enough CB, but it seems like all you guys do is poke holes in his case. The only person who actually said what they disagree with him about is Tipsy, and the rest of you just stated what you dislike about him.

Just because we live in texas doesn't make us backwards hillbillies...

Why do I disagree with Gore?
Several reasons, he is a Mainstream candidate, he is chocked full of rhetoric and little else. Honestly, I don't even like his rhetoric, I find my self falling much more on the libertarian side.

Why should my pay check be taken away to help the less fortunate? There problems are not mine, so why am I paying for it?
I'm also a huge fan of civil liberty, so that pretty much throws out Gore, he is a huge fan of the war on drugs. His wife attempted to ban Rock and Rap music and violent video games.

 

[N[U]TS]

He is more of a man then you will EVER be.

Taking it in the butt from Mr. Gore does not make you a man LB.

I was going to ask you to explain why until I saw this.

Yea, as forged said -- just because we are from texas does not make us hillbillies. I also agree with the points made by forged but ill add one more reason why I dislike Gore. He is a major hypocrite. He talks of global warming and how we should be doing stuff to prevent it yet, he flys his personal jet air plane drives SUVs -- all of which contribute to this so called "global warming". If your trying to educate the american people on "global warming" dont you think you should be living a life style that would go along with what he is preaching.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Just because we live in texas doesn't make us backwards hillbillies...

Why do I disagree with Gore?
Several reasons, he is a Mainstream candidate, he is chocked full of rhetoric and little else. Honestly, I don't even like his rhetoric, I find my self falling much more on the libertarian side.

Why should my pay check be taken away to help the less fortunate? There problems are not mine, so why am I paying for it?
I'm also a huge fan of civil liberty, so that pretty much throws out Gore, he is a huge fan of the war on drugs. His wife attempted to ban Rock and Rap music and violent video games.

Actually those problems do pertain to you. If that person doesn't get a welfare check or gets a government grant to improve society he most likely will turn to criminal activity. To me even though there is alot waste in the government programs like welfare, social security, and Medicaid/medical, are things that are a necessary evil. It sucks that it gets taken out of our pockets, but I appreciate it when I don't have to worry about that extra car theif, regular thief etc. on the street.

As for the Gore driving a jet thing. How else is he supposed to get across the country in times for his HUNDREDS OF INTERVIEWS? You tell me? I don't necessary agree with the SUV thing but in all honesty planes are still the most cost effective mode of transportation. Also since he is a popular/sometimes unpopular previous vice president. Planes and bulletproof SUV's are some things that he needs.

 

[Forged]

Actually those problems do pertain to you. If that person doesn't get a welfare check or gets a government grant to improve society he most likely will turn to criminal activity. To me even though there is alot waste in the government programs like welfare, social security, and Medicaid/medical, are things that are a necessary evil. It sucks that it gets taken out of our pockets, but I appreciate it when I don't have to worry about that extra car theif, regular thief etc. on the street.

On what are you basing this on?

 

[Tipsy]

Actually those problems do pertain to you. If that person doesn't get a welfare check or gets a government grant to improve society he most likely will turn to criminal activity. To me even though there is alot waste in the government programs like welfare, social security, and Medicaid/medical, are things that are a necessary evil. It sucks that it gets taken out of our pockets, but I appreciate it when I don't have to worry about that extra car theif, regular thief etc. on the street.

Also, why do you think that these programs are a necessary evil and shouldn't be replaced with a better system (say, a single comprehensive system rather than a overly bureaucratic system full waste). The waste is no means a necessary evil because a good deal of it is avoidable.

The solution to the problem, be it with poverty or the environment, is not more government, it is less government.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Also, why do you think that these programs are a necessary evil and shouldn't be replaced with a better system (say, a single comprehensive system rather than a overly bureaucratic system full waste). The waste is no means a necessary evil because a good deal of it is avoidable.

The solution to the problem, be it with poverty or the environment, is not more government, it is less government.

That would NOT work because of the fact that the government is more of a social control mechanism. Less government = less people following the laws.

 

[Forged]

Less government = less people following the laws.

Less Laws = Less people breaking laws.

For instance, if someone breaks into my house it is legal for me to shoot them. No one has ever broken into my house, in other states however, the criminal has more rights than the home owner.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Less Laws = Less people breaking laws.

For instance, if someone breaks into my house it is legal for me to shoot them. No one has ever broken into my house, in other states however, the criminal has more rights than the home owner.

So you prefer a society with no laws = chaos over a society with law = peace (for the most part). Wow.

 

[Krovvy]

That's not what he said, this is getting ****ing ridiculous.

 

[Forged]

So you prefer a society with no laws = chaos over a society with law = peace (for the most part). Wow.

I am going to let you interpret that however you want. I suggest not posting what you think I mean, though. It makes it look like you have the reading comprehension of a third grader.

 

[Lizardbreath]

That's not what he said, this is getting ****ing ridiculous.

I'm sorry but maybe you should read his argument and come back a little more.

Less Laws = Less people breaking laws

He said that less laws = less people breaking laws. Which in a sense is true but it doesn't work in society because less laws = less control over the masses which equals to an unjust & chaotic society. So please get a little bit more educated before you come in here trolling me again kk thx bye.

 

[Krovvy]

We get it, you want a Police State, but what you aren't getting is he doesn't want anarchy.

 

[Lizardbreath]

No I like the way our society is right now actually. We have a mixture of acceptable freedoms and laws that keep the masses somewhat under control.

 

[Krovvy]

Less government = less people following the laws

So you're for more government hand outs, intervention, control? Even though our current government is failing, and you want more?

 

[Lizardbreath]

So you're for more government hand outs, intervention, control? Even though our current government is failing, and you want more?

No I don't. Can you read?

We have a mixture of acceptable freedoms and laws that keep the masses somewhat under control.

Our government is only failing based on our poor financial/foreign relations. Hypothetically our government would be just fine if we didn't go to war for no reason and spend money that we don't have.

Look at it this way. If we let business flow as it was back in the industrial age. We would still be polluting rivers/lakes/the sky and we would most likely have destroyed everything on the earth. However since LAWS were passed to stop us from doing that, we have a better society.

So unless you like pollution/monopolies/no stable roads/no electricity/no running water/and no protection then you need a government regulate such things. And with a government comes laws/ social programs that help to keep people out of poverty and into criminal activity.

 

[Krovvy]

No I don't. Can you read?

Less government = less people following the laws

Maybe we're just still waiting for you to prove the government = less crime argument, the one you dodged earlier.

Our government is only failing based on our poor financial/foreign relations. Hypothetically our government would be just fine if we didn't go to war for no reason and spend money that we don't have.

So you're in favor of more government expansion, handouts, and control when we have the money for it?

Look at it this way. If we let business flow as it was back in the industrial age. We would still be polluting rivers/lakes/the sky and we would most likely have destroyed everything on the earth. However since LAWS were passed to stop us from doing that, we have a better society.

Which are just basic human rights, which should enforced, but there's no reason for large bureaucracy.

So unless you like pollution/monopolies/no stable roads/no electricity/no running water/and no protection then you need a government regulate such things. And with a government comes laws/ social programs that help to keep people out of poverty and into criminal activity.

Wait so our current problems of crime, pollution, infrastructure is solved with more government? Meaning:

So you're for more government hand outs, intervention, control? Even though our current government is failing, and you want more?

Either you're for more government problem solving or you're denying the current problems with the exception of the wars.

 

[Tipsy]

He said that less laws = less people breaking laws. Which in a sense is true but it doesn't work in society because less laws = less control over the masses which equals to an unjust & chaotic society. So please get a little bit more educated before you come in here trolling me again kk thx bye.

Actually, more government intervention leads to an undemocratic and less free society.

He said that less laws = less people breaking laws. Which in a sense is true but it doesn't work in society because less laws = less control over the masses which equals to an unjust & chaotic society.

I believe he is stating something more along the lines of if we leave the government in a position to protect the rights of individuals, individuals will be able to protect them more efficiently and exercise their rights in the most efficient manner allowing the greatest net benefit to society in both protection of rights and allocation of resources.

 

[Lizardbreath]

I'm done with you two. All i'm going to say is it's a DAMN good thing that your ideologies aren't the way the current system worked.
We tried a system with little government power b4 the constitution was made. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? We failed. GG.

 

[Tipsy]

I'm done with you two. All i'm going to say is it's a DAMN good thing that your ideologies aren't the way the current system worked.
We tried a system with little government power b4 the constitution was made. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? We failed. GG.

I don't think we've ever had a period when the government was strong enough to do the general position of what I'm arguing for (as a generalization of the field, I'm just going to go with Adam Smith's definition), in that the government is 1) protecting society from outside violence and invasion, 2) protecting every member of society from from injustice/oppression from another member, and 3) to deal with neighborhood effects. I'm not saying we should 'go back' to this, but rather that it has never really been tried. The Articles of Confederation was a complete disaster, but that's not what I'm advocating.

And please, do continue to debate us because I really want to understand where your opinion is coming from because I feel either we are missing something massive in what you're saying or that you're not looking at the realistic alternatives to the society you're suggesting.