LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

doublem, I understand your belief that everyone that is suffering in the world should be provided food, shelter, clothing etc. While it is certainly a wonderful concept, it is impossible to implement without instituting a form of Marxist-fascism on a worldwide scale.

For starters, I am assuming you believe every person's "basic needs" should be supplied for. But where do we stop? Should a car be considered a basic need? What about each person's own apartment/house? Who defines what "basic needs" are?

Dependency on government redistribution of wealth for one's living is a dangerous, dangerous trap. Once you become entrapped in that system, it is extremely difficult to get out. Oh, and do you think that the Dems in Congress want these people to work their way out of the system? NOT A CHANCE. Each one of these people represents another person that is (voluntarily or not) forced to rely on Uncle Sam for all of their basic needs. As such, they can be bent and formed to vote/think whichever way the party in power wants them to. I am tired of hearing about how generous the Dems in Congress are. They love passing "social justice" bills because they recognize that the more people they can coerce into relying on government handouts, the more people will vote to keep the hand that feeds them in power. It is essentially buying votes through subsidies.

I'm saying that as a human being, forget being an American for a second everyone should have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter and if for whatever reason something happens that they can't, sure some people are lazy but others aren't you should have the basic qualities to have some type of job to keep this up and supply your family. I find its funny that the right the big supporter of "rights" in this country sees no hypocrisy when they want to remove government from telling people what to do but have no problem with saying things like food is a good. Who defines what rights are? It's the same thing.

[Guinness]

How? How is it inherent to tax someone or theft as you say?

What?

Explain to me where the inherent part comes in or where it is inherent you own a gun?

I haven't mentioned gun ownership in this discussion.

As portrayed in the video, Life, liberty, and property are inherent through logical reasoning.

The point I was making is how can someone claim it's a right to travel but not have a right to have food or shelter. How do you determine how many we have or who has them besides the big ones, murder, theft, slavery etc.

Food and shelter are goods. Restricting a person's movement is slavery. Rights are determined through logic, as previously posted.

I don't becasue I don't think it's a right. I see nothing inherent about that. When you explain when the inherent part of paying a higher tax comes in then we can talk.

You claim the authority to steal, but claim it is not a right?

When you explain yourself coherently, then we can talk.

Let's say for whatever reason someone can't get food, shelter, clothing which happens in the world and no one offers to help. Should this person die becasue of this? or should "force" be applied? What happens to this person if no one steps up?

There's no limit to need, is there?

But who determines what is a right then, besides slavery, murder etc, and how many we have and when we can have them or not? I mean how for a long time in this country and many others some people has no rights and some people had unlimited rights, I agree in the abstract we all should have the same rights but these are ideas we are talking about.

Previously explained.

[Guinness]

Yes, and all people have that right. All people have the right to eat, shelter, clothing so if it means someone has to be taxed to do that okay.

Then EPP has the right to have his bills paid. There's no difference.

[Guinness]

everyone should have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter and if for whatever reason something happens that they can't, sure some people are lazy but others aren't you should have the basic qualities to have some type of job to keep this up and supply your family.

Who determines what is basic?

You have no idea how a market works.

[thehockeyguru]

Governments role is rather simple, the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Rights are God given, If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.

[shafnutz05]

I'm saying that as a human being, forget being an American for a second everyone should have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter and if for whatever reason something happens that they can't, sure some people are lazy but others aren't you should have the basic qualities to have some type of job to keep this up and supply your family. I find its funny that the right the big supporter of "rights" in this country sees no hypocrisy when they want to remove government from telling people what to do but have no problem with saying things like food is a good. Who defines what rights are? It's the same thing.

Food is a good....I am not seeing where the issue is there. Between my wife and I this year, we have donated around $1,000 to charity. I can tell you right now, our combined income is respectable, but ain't anything to write home about. I do everything I can to help out those that are less fortunate. But why do you think one of the first things Obama and the Dems did was remove much of the perks involved with donating to charities? Because to them, private contributions to charities represents a source of power that is unavailable to them. Instead, they want to confiscate my wealth, take it into their back room, and decide amongst themselves who is most "deserving" of it. And as we have seen with the outright corruption involved in garnering the 60 votes for this abominable healthcare bill, the confiscated wealth goes to the states that have senators which are on board with the president's agenda. To you, this is "social justice". To me, this is inexcusable corruption. To trust the government to provide for everyone's basic needs while resisting the draw of absolute power and control is completely naive.

[doublem]

Food and shelter are goods. Restricting a person's movement is slavery. Rights are determined through logic, as previously posted.

Oh, then we have to throw out the U.S., say for example becasue that entire all men are created equal was a bunch of crap for about 200 years. Not very logical.

You claim the authority to steal, but claim it is not a right?

When you explain yourself coherently, then we can talk.

Only by how you define it is it stealing, so yes it's not a right. These are ideas nothing more.

There's no limit to need, is there?

Yes. When you don't have food you no longer live.

[Guinness]

Oh, then we have to throw out the U.S., say for example becasue that entire all men are created equal was a bunch of crap for about 200 years. Not very logical.

What?

Only by how you define it is it stealing, so yes it's not a right. These are ideas nothing more.

What?

Yes. When you don't have food you no longer live.

What?

[doublem]

I'm saying that as a human being, forget being an American for a second everyone should have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter and if for whatever reason something happens that they can't, sure some people are lazy but others aren't you should have the basic qualities to have some type of job to keep this up and supply your family. I find its funny that the right the big supporter of "rights" in this country sees no hypocrisy when they want to remove government from telling people what to do but have no problem with saying things like food is a good. Who defines what rights are? It's the same thing.

Food is a good....I am not seeing where the issue is there. Between my wife and I this year, we have donated around $1,000 to charity. I can tell you right now, our combined income is respectable, but ain't anything to write home about. I do everything I can to help out those that are less fortunate. But why do you think one of the first things Obama and the Dems did was remove much of the perks involved with donating to charities? Because to them, private contributions to charities represents a source of power that is unavailable to them. Instead, they want to confiscate my wealth, take it into their back room, and decide amongst themselves who is most "deserving" of it. And as we have seen with the outright corruption involved in garnering the 60 votes for this abominable healthcare bill, the confiscated wealth goes to the states that have senators which are on board with the president's agenda. To you, this is "social justice". To me, this is inexcusable corruption. To trust the government to provide for everyone's basic needs while resisting the draw of absolute power and control is completely naive.

No, food belongs to all of us. What happens when one group of people wouldn't let another have this "good"? I'm not really applying what government does with tax money and what they don't do. As humans all over the world we have the right to food, water, shelter and clothing. Government or no government.

[shafnutz05]

And for the record, the president and his minions in both houses of Congress have been trying to ignite class warfare since Election Day 2008. You had Obama out there literally inciting riots and naming the names of executives of many major companies involved in the bailouts. As a result of this irresponsible behavior, there were countless death threats, vandalism on property, and these people and their families feared for their lives. Many of them did not do anything wrong, but merely got caught up in the maelstrom that the president ginned up.

[slappybrown]

And for the record, the president and his minions in both houses of Congress have been trying to ignite class warfare since Election Day 2008. You had Obama out there literally inciting riots and naming the names of executives of many major companies involved in the bailouts. As a result of this irresponsible behavior, there were countless death threats, vandalism on property, and these people and their families feared for their lives. Many of them did not do anything wrong, but merely got caught up in the maelstrom that the president ginned up.

LITERALLY

Rush talking points, June 6, 2007, right?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200706070003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[doublem]

Oh, then we have to throw out the U.S., say for example becasue that entire all men are created equal was a bunch of crap for about 200 years. Not very logical.

What?

Only by how you define it is it stealing, so yes it's not a right. These are ideas nothing more.

What?

Yes. When you don't have food you no longer live.

What?

The U.S. was founded by slave owners that said that all men are created equal but enslaved groups of people. How is that logical when you claim rights come from this?

Taxs to you = theft=immoral. These are different ideas how to operate a government not rights.

Basic human needs food, water, shelter, clothing, some type of job to continue this one. I would say those are needs.

I'm not thinking in terms of government becasue what the government does and doesn't do doesn't mean a thing.

[slappybrown]

Oh, then we have to throw out the U.S., say for example becasue that entire all men are created equal was a bunch of crap for about 200 years. Not very logical.

What?

Only by how you define it is it stealing, so yes it's not a right. These are ideas nothing more.

What?

Yes. When you don't have food you no longer live.

What?

The U.S. was founded by slave owners that said that all men are created equal but enslaved groups of people. How is that logical when you claim rights come from this?

Taxs to you = theft=immoral. These are different ideas how to operate a government not rights.

Basic human needs food, water, shelter, clothing, some type of job to continue this one. I would say those are needs.

I'm not thinking in terms of government becasue what the government does and doesn't do doesn't mean a thing.

This is not going well for you.

[Troy Loney]

And for the record, the president and his minions in both houses of Congress have been trying to ignite class warfare since Election Day 2008. You had Obama out there literally inciting riots and naming the names of executives of many major companies involved in the bailouts. As a result of this irresponsible behavior, there were countless death threats, vandalism on property, and these people and their families feared for their lives. Many of them did not do anything wrong, but merely got caught up in the maelstrom that the president ginned up.

LITERALLY

Rush talking points, June 6, 2007, right?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200706070003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rush Limbaugh talking points (shakes head)....how can people take you seriously if those are your arguments..

[Kicksave]

I'm not thinking in terms of government becasue what the government does and doesn't do doesn't mean a thing.

wut?

[doublem]

everyone should have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter and if for whatever reason something happens that they can't, sure some people are lazy but others aren't you should have the basic qualities to have some type of job to keep this up and supply your family.

Who determines what is basic?

You have no idea how a market works.

I don't care how a market works. The market screws some people over and lets others get away with murder.

[doublem]

I'm not thinking in terms of government becasue what the government does and doesn't do doesn't mean a thing.

wut?

Governments for centuries have taken people's rights away. Slavery, murder, war. etc. What governments claim to be "rights" is strictly relative to culture, history, and circumstances.

[shafnutz05]

slappy and Troy..........what? Obama hammered the "fat cats" over and over and over again. All you had to do was watch his rhetoric as he was cracking down on corporate America. That's not a talking point, that is what I heard in early 2009. And save the media matters links, please.........they lean about as far left as it gets.

[slappybrown]

I'm not thinking in terms of government becasue what the government does and doesn't do doesn't mean a thing.

wut?

Governments for centuries have taken people's rights away. Slavery, murder, war. etc. What governments claim to be "rights" is strictly relative to culture, history, and circumstances.

Do you understand that this comment completely undercuts your entire argument about what constitutes a right?

[shafnutz05]

I have always said that Democrats have a vested interest in a divided country........that is nothing new, nor is it a talking point.

[slappybrown]

slappy and Troy..........what? Obama hammered the "fat cats" over and over and over again. All you had to do was watch his rhetoric as he was cracking down on corporate America. That's not a talking point, that is what I heard in early 2009. And save the media matters links, please.........they lean about as far left as it gets.

You accused him of inciting riots which led to death threats, vandalism,and that families feared for their lives. This is just made up.

Attacking the source of the news/report rather than the substance is weaksauce.

[Guinness]

The U.S. was founded by slave owners that said that all men are created equal but enslaved groups of people. How is that logical when you claim rights come from this?

I've never claimed that our rights were given to us by the founders of this country.

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make with this...

Taxs to you = theft=immoral. These are different ideas how to operate a government not rights.

There is concept other than theft that describes the forced confiscation of a person's property?

I understand that philosophers, politicians, and thinkers have tried to redefine this concept, but that's what it is. 2+2 is 4.

Basic human needs food, water, shelter, clothing, some type of job to continue this one. I would say those are needs.

I'm not thinking in terms of government becasue what the government does and doesn't do doesn't mean a thing.

Yes, of course these are needs. But you cannot declare these to be rights without establishing government - force, by definition - to provide them. In order for government to provide them, government must initiate force.

[Guinness]

everyone should have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter and if for whatever reason something happens that they can't, sure some people are lazy but others aren't you should have the basic qualities to have some type of job to keep this up and supply your family.

Who determines what is basic?

You have no idea how a market works.

I don't care how a market works.

That much - if you believe that a person has a "right" to a job - is obvious.

The market screws some people over and lets others get away with murder.

Government screws people, and does not allow them to get out of the screwing. Governments get away with murder all the time.

[shafnutz05]

Just because Rush Limbaugh said this doesn't mean I am just copying and pasting from his website. Maybe inciting riots was a strong phrase to use, but at the very least he was inciting a hatred of the wealthy. And I believe these actions were rooted in his own disdain and bitterness towards people of success in America.

I truly believe that Obama, and other people that think similarly to him, believe by instinct that for someone to be successful, they had to have cheated or immorally scrapped their way to the top. This reflects the distrust of corporations, businesses, and the wealthy that seem to form the roots of Obama's political philosophy. That is not a Rush talking point, that is the way I feel because of his actions and words.

[doublem]

No, I generally think we as humans have near unlimited rights but the idea that someone can go around like the Judge and say things like a food is a good and travel comes from your humanity or god given is no sense. You don't need to travel but you need food. How can you claim one is but the other isn't? They either both are or none of them are.