Rick Santorum: "Hey! I'm a racist just like Ron Paul!"

[natty dread]

Be careful with that. Such large percentages can go to your head.

[pimpdave]

If one would like to call him- or herself a conservative, I believe one should be against all government transactions other than those specifically granted by the constitution.

So you're demanding an instant reinstatement of slavery, right? Also, women are no longer allowed to vote, according to you. That wasn't specifically granted by the constitution.

[pimpdave]

Oh hey, also, Santorum, while accusing people of taking handouts, has been stealing for years:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/sa ... 1/07/32863

[PLAYER57832]

it's threads like these that make me think dave is just trying to parody the racist liberals. there's literally no way someone can be stupid enough to think that santorum was being racist in that clip.

I am absolutely no fan of Santorum, but one thing he is not is a racist. He advocates oppression of people who disagree with his ideals, regardless of their race.

[thegreekdog]

If one would like to call him- or herself a conservative, I believe one should be against all government transactions other than those specifically granted by the constitution.

So you're demanding an instant reinstatement of slavery, right? Also, women are no longer allowed to vote, according to you. That wasn't specifically granted by the constitution.

Oh look! An intellectually dishonest argument! What a shocker!

[pimpdave]

Maybe I should start a thread about all of the things American government should do according to you. Such as: no more FDA! Anyone can put shit in a pill and call it medicine! Yeah!

[thegreekdog]

Maybe I should start a thread about all of the things American government should do according to you. Such as: no more FDA! Anyone can put shit in a pill and call it medicine! Yeah!

Look! Another one! Can PD go for a third?

[pimpdave]

According to thegreekdog, cannibalism should be legal if it's part of someone's religion and the person who gets eaten wanted to get eaten.

I like the direction this thread is taking. Thank you for sharing with us what all conservatives believe.

[john9blue]

According to thegreekdog, cannibalism should be legal if it's part of someone's religion and the person who gets eaten wanted to get eaten.

is there actually a law against being voluntarily eaten?

[thegreekdog]

According to thegreekdog, cannibalism should be legal if it's part of someone's religion and the person who gets eaten wanted to get eaten.

I like the direction this thread is taking. Thank you for sharing with us what all conservatives believe.

Three! Nice!

Sometimes, when I want to have a discussion with someone who is a liberal or socialist, I like to point to similar arguments, like:

- You want the government to control industry and labor; or
- You want the government to install cameras in everyone's house.

You know, things like that.

[barackattack]

To be fair: if someone is happy to be eaten and someone wants to eat them, what's the issue? They should be prevented because you have declared it distasteful?

Be careful with the word socialist there, greekdog. I've heard Americans use the term 'socialist' in such a trigger happy manner that it even ends up being applied to things such as Obamacare.

The USSR was socialist. Left wing politics in the US aren't; not even slightly.

[Aradhus]

According to thegreekdog, cannibalism should be legal if it's part of someone's religion and the person who gets eaten wanted to get eaten.

is there actually a law against being voluntarily eaten?

Like you don't know! You can't pull the wool over our eyes, cannibal. What's in your freezer, Johnny?! What's in your freezer?!!

[jonesthecurl]

Pony.

[john9blue]

According to thegreekdog, cannibalism should be legal if it's part of someone's religion and the person who gets eaten wanted to get eaten.

is there actually a law against being voluntarily eaten?

Like you don't know! You can't pull the wool over our eyes, cannibal. What's in your freezer, Johnny?! What's in your freezer?!!

rainbow cupcakes.

[AAFitz]

Turns out Sanatorum thinks its too ridiculous not to call his statement not racist.

Instead hes chosen to go with the more reasonable explanation that he didn't actually say or mean black.

In the end, while a probable lie, it is more reasonable than the first argument.

[AAFitz]

i told you what i think stealing is: taking something from someone without their consent. and what do you mean by "money you don't own"?

the guy at the tax office is following orders from others. he is "complicit" in the thievery, and therefore guilty, but not as guilty as the ones who coordinate the actions of government. furthermore, intentions play a part in guilt for a crime, so if the IRS agent (or british equivalent) believed that he was doing a good service for his countrymen, then he is not as guilty. again, think of him as an unwitting accomplice in a large corporate scandal or mob scheme.

It is not stealing, when it is done through due process of law, unless of course that law is unconstitutional. That is how taxes work. Laws are made to determine where the money is spent. The lawmakers are elected and given that duty. The President is elected and given that power, and the judges are appointed, to insure the acts are legal.

At no time, can a welfare check be called stealing, unless a law was broken along the way. Stealing is the unlawful removal of property.

I do agree, that government can virtually be guilty of stealing however, when they are paid by the most profitable corporations on the planet, to insure they get tax write offs, and government hand outs, but until we are smart enough, to actually vote in people that refuse to give into this corruption, which is now simply commonplace, we are nearly no less guilty than they are. But if tax money is used, within the limits of the laws, it really cant be labeled as stealing. Fleecing, absolutely, but stealing is just the wrong word.

so you believe that morality is dependent on the laws of a country? what if the due process of law is something completely unfair?

No, and since I made statements in this very thread suggesting that many good people do good things and fight wrong, even when the government may punishment.

Also, I mention nothing about the morality of the situation, and only suggest that stealing is the wrong word. I say nothing about it being right or wrong.

Again, your question is just stupid, based on what you've quoted. In any case, if you use the word stealing for any tax for something you disagree with, than you simply believe every tax and every expenditure is stealing, which is fine, but given the country that has been very much built and made safe by our tax monies, its also ridiculous.

[PLAYER57832]

i told you what i think stealing is: taking something from someone without their consent. and what do you mean by "money you don't own"?

the guy at the tax office is following orders from others. he is "complicit" in the thievery, and therefore guilty, but not as guilty as the ones who coordinate the actions of government. furthermore, intentions play a part in guilt for a crime, so if the IRS agent (or british equivalent) believed that he was doing a good service for his countrymen, then he is not as guilty. again, think of him as an unwitting accomplice in a large corporate scandal or mob scheme.

It is not stealing, when it is done through due process of law, unless of course that law is unconstitutional. That is how taxes work. Laws are made to determine where the money is spent. The lawmakers are elected and given that duty. The President is elected and given that power, and the judges are appointed, to insure the acts are legal.

At no time, can a welfare check be called stealing, unless a law was broken along the way. Stealing is the unlawful removal of property.

I do agree, that government can virtually be guilty of stealing however, when they are paid by the most profitable corporations on the planet, to insure they get tax write offs, and government hand outs, but until we are smart enough, to actually vote in people that refuse to give into this corruption, which is now simply commonplace, we are nearly no less guilty than they are. But if tax money is used, within the limits of the laws, it really cant be labeled as stealing. Fleecing, absolutely, but stealing is just the wrong word.

so you believe that morality is dependent on the laws of a country? what if the due process of law is something completely unfair?

No, and since I made statements in this very thread suggesting that many good people do good things and fight wrong, even when the government may punishment.

Also, I mention nothing about the morality of the situation, and only suggest that stealing is the wrong word. I say nothing about it being right or wrong.

Again, your question is just stupid, based on what you've quoted. In any case, if you use the word stealing for any tax for something you disagree with, than you simply believe every tax and every expenditure is stealing, which is fine, but given the country that has been very much built and made safe by our tax monies, its also ridiculous.

John.. even Christ acknowledged taxes must be paid. You drive roads, drink water, so you have to pay for those things to be maintained and kept safe. That's not stealing, its how things are.

Like many things, you cannot just pick out individual use, though, because the overall benefit to everyone of having a universally accessable transport system, etc overrides the "harm" you want to claim by being "charged too much" for this or that item. You might not drive on a particular Montana back road yourself, but you benefit from the fact that it is there. More directly, you might not live anywhere near the Mississippi river, but you benefit from limiting pollution, keeping it open and navigable, etc. Also, to divide all those things up is just incredibly in efficient.

BUT.. that is part of why we are in the mess we are in, this illusionary idea that people do and can just pay their own way. In the real world, it doesn't work that way.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe I should start a thread about all of the things American government should do according to you. Such as: no more FDA! Anyone can put shit in a pill and call it medicine! Yeah!

Look! Another one! Can PD go for a third?

Except, didn't you come out against the FDA in another thread not so long ago?

Also , I don't believe Ron Paul is exactly a fan of the FDA.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe I should start a thread about all of the things American government should do according to you. Such as: no more FDA! Anyone can put shit in a pill and call it medicine! Yeah!

Look! Another one! Can PD go for a third?

Except, didn't you come out against the FDA in another thread not so long ago?

Also , I don't believe Ron Paul is exactly a fan of the FDA.

He's not a fan of the FDA. Just because I support someone or vote for someone does not make me a supporter of all of his or her policies. Just ask anyone who voted for President Obama.

Similarly, just because I'm in favor of limited government including a limited FDA, does not make me an anarchist.

[BigBallinStalin]

i told you what i think stealing is: taking something from someone without their consent. and what do you mean by "money you don't own"?

the guy at the tax office is following orders from others. he is "complicit" in the thievery, and therefore guilty, but not as guilty as the ones who coordinate the actions of government. furthermore, intentions play a part in guilt for a crime, so if the IRS agent (or british equivalent) believed that he was doing a good service for his countrymen, then he is not as guilty. again, think of him as an unwitting accomplice in a large corporate scandal or mob scheme.

It is not stealing, when it is done through due process of law, unless of course that law is unconstitutional. That is how taxes work. Laws are made to determine where the money is spent. The lawmakers are elected and given that duty. The President is elected and given that power, and the judges are appointed, to insure the acts are legal.

At no time, can a welfare check be called stealing, unless a law was broken along the way. Stealing is the unlawful removal of property.

I do agree, that government can virtually be guilty of stealing however, when they are paid by the most profitable corporations on the planet, to insure they get tax write offs, and government hand outs, but until we are smart enough, to actually vote in people that refuse to give into this corruption, which is now simply commonplace, we are nearly no less guilty than they are. But if tax money is used, within the limits of the laws, it really cant be labeled as stealing. Fleecing, absolutely, but stealing is just the wrong word.

so you believe that morality is dependent on the laws of a country? what if the due process of law is something completely unfair?

No, and since I made statements in this very thread suggesting that many good people do good things and fight wrong, even when the government may punishment.

Also, I mention nothing about the morality of the situation, and only suggest that stealing is the wrong word. I say nothing about it being right or wrong.

Again, your question is just stupid, based on what you've quoted. In any case, if you use the word stealing for any tax for something you disagree with, than you simply believe every tax and every expenditure is stealing, which is fine, but given the country that has been very much built and made safe by our tax monies, its also ridiculous.

Taxation built this country? How did the meager taxes during this nation's history (pre-WW1) turn the US into one of the world's largest producers (late 1800s, around WW1)? Hint: it didn't.

"Made safe" is funny too. Security can be broadly defined, can't it? How much else was justified in the name of national defense or interests? Remember, OWS was cleared for "health concerns." They could've been a hotbed for a biological attack by terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda...

I find about 2%-10% of the federal tax revenues to be justifiable enough (even though it's still theft). The rest is unnecessary. It's largely for self-serving purposes.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe I should start a thread about all of the things American government should do according to you. Such as: no more FDA! Anyone can put shit in a pill and call it medicine! Yeah!

Look! Another one! Can PD go for a third?

Except, didn't you come out against the FDA in another thread not so long ago?

Also , I don't believe Ron Paul is exactly a fan of the FDA.

He's not a fan of the FDA. Just because I support someone or vote for someone does not make me a supporter of all of his or her policies. Just ask anyone who voted for President Obama.

Similarly, just because I'm in favor of limited government including a limited FDA, does not make me an anarchist.

The FDA is a monopoly, thus it faces bad incentives which are conducive toward providing low quality services.

Why not have multiple certification agencies which would verify the safety of whatever food/drug production which they're paid to cover? Competition would drive the quality of these safety services up.

[PLAYER57832]

Taxation built this country? How did the meager taxes during this nation's history (pre-WW1) turn the US into one of the world's largest producers (late 1800s, around WW1)? Hint: it didn't.

Try the other side to that coin. Uncontrolled industry led to extreme worker abuses, lack of food safety, heavy pollution and various types of outright corruption.

Contrast that with the post WWII boom when we had a fantastic highway system, huge expansion of SAFE industries, emphasis on education for all. THOSE are the things that led to the booms of the 80's directly.

"Made safe" is funny too. Security can be broadly defined, can't it? How much else was justified in the name of national defense or interests?

Agree with you here. (though not your spurious OWS comment)

I find about 2%-10% of the federal tax revenues to be justifiable enough (even though it's still theft). The rest is unnecessary. It's largely for self-serving purposes.

Put out some figures. 2-10% imight be enough to to sustain roads, bridges, schools, or other true needs of the populace. It won't, however, be enough to pay down the debt..a nd therein lies the problem.

[BigBallinStalin]

Player, hey. So, yeahhh... after your "chat" with TGD, I'm just going to let you talk to yourself. Ok? Greeaatt. Bye-bye, then.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, hey. So, yeahhh... after your "chat" with TGD, I'm just going to let you talk to yourself. Ok? Greeaatt. Bye-bye, then.

Yeah, its a pattern with you.. when someone intelligently refutes what you say, you laugh at them and bag off.

And... gd never did really address MY points.