This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 265266267 268269 ... 502
7981
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:39:46 AM »
There has almost never been a time conservatism has caused progress for humanity or created a stable economy.
Just to deal with this claim: - Reagan deserves some credit for the disinflation that occurred in the early 1980s. - Ford's deregulation helped to spur economic growth. - Clinton's fiscal discipline is what created the budget surpluses. - We owe the stability of 1987-2006 to a Republican. And that's just in the states.
7982
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:19:25 AM »
Government should get out of marriage period
Government should work to protect their citizens from blatant discrimination.
If that means they have to give out marriage licenses to couples a church won't wed, or to the non religious, so fucking be it.
Discrimination is being beaten up and called a faggot. A church refusing to perform a service for you is a non-issue when it comes to discrimination.
7984
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:10:13 AM »
I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.
I like you too, but you're incredibly partisan, at least when it's against Republicans. Republicans, quite clearly, don't want to run the U.S. into the ground, and whether you think their policies will do that is an interesting discussion. But let's be honest here, the Democrats who've 'endowed' the country with good economic growth have done so largely by adopting centrist/conservative policies; Kennedy's tax-cuts (ruined by the Great Society and LBJ), Clinton's appointment of Robert Rubin as head of the CEA and the maintenance of PAYGO rules. And when Republicans have fucked the economy, it's been because of profligacy a la Bush, which I have a hard time categorising as conservative. I didn't even come out for the Republicans in my post, anyway, I just said Rubio was better than Hillary.
7985
« on: January 28, 2015, 03:20:27 PM »
Johnson is based as fuck, and I expect to vote for him more as a symbolic gesture than anything else.
The man probably would've stagnated the economy had he any influence over the Federal Reserve at the time. I don't trust him.
7986
« on: January 28, 2015, 03:09:14 PM »
Marco Rubio never met an opportunity he couldn't botch.
I've seen him perform better than most other politicians when it comes to interviews and conversations. The only one I know of which really was botched was the 2013 SotU response.
7987
« on: January 28, 2015, 03:07:45 PM »
I'd resurrect and murder Ronald Reagan while fucking Margaret Thatcher's corpse if it meant Ted Cruz didn't get the Republican nomination over Rubio.
7988
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:52:15 PM »
7989
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:41:44 PM »
Obligatory water break post:
7990
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:39:07 PM »
. . .
The only thing I really care to pull you up on is the flag-burning. It's not a non-issue.
Making it illegal is tantamount to making burning the Qur'an, the Bible or a poppy illegal.
Thing is, as a President, Clinton would have no legal ability to make it illegal
- Any EO on the issue would be thrown out in the courts, or if brought to the Supreme Court, thrown out there (thanks to the First Amendment)
- Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, won't be taking the issue up - it's a nonissue to them, something that might be brought up but never will have a floor vote.
It's a shitty personal belief that Clinton has, but nothing will come of it through either legislation or executive order.
That's fair enough, I'd just have a hard time voting for somebody to be head of state when I knew they had a belief like that.
7991
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:36:26 PM »
Hillary Clinton: The Good - Supported Israel in their response to Gaza in 2014.
- Considers Iran a problem for NATO, and has criticised them for state-sponsored terrorism.
- Supports the HRC and gay marriage.
- Has criticised standardised testing for killing creativity and individuality.
- Supports Obama's E.O. on immigrants.
- Open to repealing the 2.4pc excise tax on medical devices.
- Believes in the scientific consensus on Global Warming. The Bad - Supportive of fiscal stimulus; voted for a $60bn package in 2008.
- Advocates repealing the Bush tax cuts, and wants to raise income tax on those earning over $1mn.
- Supports raising minimum wage.
- Supports making flag-burning illegal.
- Wants a federal ban on assault weapons.
- Criticises Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
- Supports the death penalty.
- Is against education vouchers.
- Supports universal healthcare.
- Supports government investment in green infrastructure. Marco Rubio: The Good - Opposed Obama's fiscal stimulus, and calls for a balanced budget.
- Supports federal R&D and space exploration spending.
- Is against raising any taxes during a Recession.
- Opposes capital gains tax and the estate tax.
- Supports reforming social security to combat funding problems.
- Wants to replace the EITC with a single, federal wage subsidy as opposed to raising the minimum wage.
- Considers radical Islamists the most immediate security threat.
- Supports bombing campaigns against ISIS.
- Voted yes for extending the 'roving wiretaps' provision of the PATRIOT Act.
- Pro-life.
- Supports a school voucher system.
- Supports the DREAM Act.
- Wants healthcare to be properly marketised. The Bad - Wants to limit federal spending to the rate of inflation (this is really fucking stupid).
- Has called for 'moderate' Syrian rebels to be armed.
- Opposes Roe v. Wade.
- Is a climate change denier. Gary Johnson: The Good - Opposed Obama's fiscal stimulus.
- Favours replacing income and corporation tax with a national consumption tax.
- Supports devolving social security to the states.
- Opposes gun control initiatives.
- Is against the death penalty.
- Against the War on Drugs.
- Wants a school voucher system.
- Wants to simplify legal immigration.
- Wants healthcare properly marketised.
- Supports nuclear energy.
- Believes in climate change. The Bad - Opposed quantitative easing.
- Supports a 43pc cut to the defence budget.
- Has stated the U.S. has no right to be involved in Ukraine.
- Is a strict constructionist in regards to the Constitution.
- Believes military action should only ever be used with congressional assent. Obviously these are subjective.
7992
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:27:00 PM »
. . .
The only thing I really care to pull you up on is the flag-burning. It's not a non-issue. Making it illegal is tantamount to making burning the Qur'an, the Bible or a poppy illegal.
7993
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:15:46 PM »
Let me ask - what is so bad about Clinton? She has some fairly shit opinions. I don't have the sheet on me at the moment that I made comparing Clinton, Rubio and Gary Johnson but Clinton was by far and away the worst there.
I'd be curious to see.
See my above shit-list.
7994
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:14:03 PM »
Hillary Clinton shit-list:
- Supportive of fiscal stimulus; voted for a $60bn package in 2008.
- Advocates repealing the Bush tax cuts, and wants to raise income tax on those earning over $1mn.
- Supports raising minimum wage.
- Supports making flag-burning illegal.
- Wants a federal ban on assault weapons.
- Criticises Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
- Supports the death penalty.
- Is against education vouchers.
- Supports universal healthcare.
- Supports government investment in green infrastructure.
7995
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:06:19 PM »
Let me ask - what is so bad about Clinton? She has some fairly shit opinions. I don't have the sheet on me at the moment that I made comparing Clinton, Rubio and Gary Johnson but Clinton was by far and away the worst there.
7996
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:05:13 PM »
I honestly forsee (depending on who else enters the race) Paul vs. Clinton.
Be interesting to see who they choose as running mates. I think Clinton would probably end up choosing an old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberal in the image of Ted Kennedy or John Kerry.
7997
« on: January 28, 2015, 02:03:10 PM »
Cuba, at this point, just seems like a jumping point for Rubio. Other than that, does anybody have any legitimate criticisms to level?
>Pro-life (anti-abortion)
>Pro-Patriot Act
>Supports flat tax rate
>pro-social security reform >pro-federal R&D funding >opposes capital gains tax >understands the Islamist threat >wants to expand EITC over raising minimum wage It really does just turn into a balancing act depending on your own priorities.
7998
« on: January 28, 2015, 01:59:46 PM »
Clinton is a moderate and still too left-of-centre for me.
The New Democrats could do with being more like the Blue Dogs. Although the latter are practically dead right now, so that'd probably be suicide.
OT: if she pulls off the primaries, I'd be surprised if she does it without shifting leftwards though.
7999
« on: January 28, 2015, 01:48:13 PM »
Cuba, at this point, just seems like a jumping point for Rubio. Other than that, does anybody have any legitimate criticisms to level?
8000
« on: January 28, 2015, 12:34:49 PM »
He's currently making a fool of himself on the Cuba issue.
How exactly? He's spoken reasonably enough about it from what I've seen.
8001
« on: January 28, 2015, 12:19:32 PM »
I'm actually fairly confident in asserting that he's one of the most direct politicians I've ever seen talk. Shame he won't win the primaries.
8002
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:46:25 AM »
lolno
Good argument, bro. Tell me more. Please continue demonstrating your brilliant and lucid grasp on this topic.
8003
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:40:30 AM »
Fuck you.
The only side which matters is the one demonstrably correct.
8004
« on: January 27, 2015, 07:51:36 PM »
So in your opinion, is healthcare a problem that needs to be solved by a change in policy or by waiting for technology to make healthcare more accessible?
For America? Policy. The market is heavily restricted.
8005
« on: January 27, 2015, 07:50:19 PM »
Is it bad if people only cared about themselves?
Not completely.
This sort of 'bias of immediacy' towards our selves is pretty foundational to the stability of society. If you're a murderous psychopath, however, like Ted Bundy then you probably are acting in an immoral way--even if it largely isn't your fault.
'Morality exists because it ultimately benefits everyone's conscious.' Is that a good way of seeing why morality ought to exist?
I wouldn't categorise it as why morality exists, it's just that any rational conception of morality must relate to benefiting conscious creatures. It's the same with medicine and health; health isn't why medicine exists, but any rational conception of medicine simply has to relate to a notion of health.
8006
« on: January 27, 2015, 07:45:39 PM »
This is less broken.
Yet more broken than it really ought to be.
Yes, but fewer people are getting fucked over than before, so that's a good thing.
At the price of proper reform. It's, fundamentally, a step in the wrong direction when it comes to healthcare reform. It may be good in the short- to medium-term, but all you're doing is kicking the problem down the line.
8007
« on: January 27, 2015, 07:43:57 PM »
Is it bad if people only cared about themselves?
Not completely. This sort of 'bias of immediacy' towards our selves is pretty foundational to the stability of society. If you're a murderous psychopath, however, like Ted Bundy then you probably are acting in an immoral way--even if it largely isn't your fault.
8008
« on: January 27, 2015, 07:39:18 PM »
My support of the ACA has nothing to do with economic factors.
I'm curious as to on what basis healthcare initiatives enjoy your support then. Economics is the main determining factor of the success of a policy.
8009
« on: January 27, 2015, 07:37:30 PM »
This is less broken.
Yet more broken than it really ought to be.
8010
« on: January 27, 2015, 07:36:17 PM »
What exactly happens if we encounter another intelligent species? Would morality then change to account how humans should behave towards them? Or will it always be about humans rather than consciousness?
It would depend on the experiential capacity of those aliens. They could have less, equal or more moral worth than us based on their capacity as conscious agents to experience and interact with reality.
So if they have less consciousness than us, they're irrelevant. But if they have more, does that mean humans are irrelevant? That wouldn't make any sense if morality is supposed to tell us how we should act.
It wouldn't make us irrelevant, per se, just secondary on the order of moral considerations. It isn't a nice fact, and I know I certainly wouldn't act in such a moral way when confronted with such a situation because all of my intuitions and instincts would be against it. But it seems factually sound to say that a system of morality necessarily based around conscious experience creates magnitudes of moral operation for different beings, and that higher magnitudes in comparison to humans can be occupied by aliens. It's much the same way in that we consider cows more important than ants.
Pages: 1 ... 265266267 268269 ... 502
|
Show Posts