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

[Symmetry]

no. the purpose of money is taking YOUR OWN money and giving it to another. it is stealing when you take SOMEONE ELSE'S money and give it to another. you're just trying to avoid the truth at this point...

How would I take my own money? I generally take it from other people, typically an employer, or somebody who supports my research. Occasionally from people who offer me gifts, or loans. This is apparently theft in your definition. I regularly give that money to other people, shop keepers, my landlord, etc. and bizarrely don't think of them taking my money as stealing either.

So, essentially, I'm taking money from people and giving it to others. That is not stealing, It's economics.

it's not theft. theft is involuntary for the victim.

an employer giving you money is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to your landlord is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to UPS for them to send a package is voluntary for both parties.

anything else?

So wait, what was your argument again?

it is stealing when you take SOMEONE ELSE'S money and give it to another

Would the UPS cashier have been stealing from me or not? The answer is plainly no. Taking money from me and giving it to another person is not stealing. Hence your definition was wrong.

[john9blue]

it's not theft. theft is involuntary for the victim.

an employer giving you money is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to your landlord is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to UPS for them to send a package is voluntary for both parties.

anything else?

So wait, what was your argument again?

it is stealing when you take SOMEONE ELSE'S money and give it to another

Would the UPS cashier have been stealing from me or not? The answer is plainly no. Taking money from me and giving it to another person is not stealing. Hence your definition was wrong.

so you don't have a rebuttal to my argument when i include the word "involuntarily"?

[Symmetry]

it's not theft. theft is involuntary for the victim.

an employer giving you money is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to your landlord is voluntary for both parties. you giving money to UPS for them to send a package is voluntary for both parties.

anything else?

So wait, what was your argument again?

it is stealing when you take SOMEONE ELSE'S money and give it to another

Would the UPS cashier have been stealing from me or not? The answer is plainly no. Taking money from me and giving it to another person is not stealing. Hence your definition was wrong.

so you don't have a rebuttal to my argument when i include the word "involuntarily"?

I take it that you accept my point, and want to talk about taxation as stealing now.

I thought you yourself made a rebuttal.

a government that gives its citizens the freedom to choose whether to live there and contribute tax money is giving its citizens a choice. in the US, for example, you can only give money to the government by voluntarily taking an action that you know will give your money to the government, such as taking certain kinds of jobs or purchasing certain items. you also have the freedom (ignoring any personal constraints) to move to another country. the US government is essentially a business; it operates based on voluntary transactions. it's not theft.

So we're basically in agreement on the taking money from other people bit. It's not definitely stealing, and taxation is not theft either. So what's the problem?

Is it that you think receiving the money is stealing? Stealing from whom? The government apparently gets it on a voluntary basis, and distributes it according to government policy. Where is the theft?

Most importantly, why do you think that Santorum would accuse black people of this criminal behaviour?

[john9blue]

so you don't have a rebuttal to my argument when i include the word "involuntarily"?

I take it that you accept my point, and want to talk about taxation as stealing now.

I thought you yourself made a rebuttal.

a government that gives its citizens the freedom to choose whether to live there and contribute tax money is giving its citizens a choice. in the US, for example, you can only give money to the government by voluntarily taking an action that you know will give your money to the government, such as taking certain kinds of jobs or purchasing certain items. you also have the freedom (ignoring any personal constraints) to move to another country. the US government is essentially a business; it operates based on voluntary transactions. it's not theft.

So we're basically in agreement on the taking money from other people bit. It's not definitely stealing, and taxation is not theft either. So what's the problem?

Is it that you think receiving the money is stealing? Stealing from whom? The government apparently gets it on a voluntary basis, and distributes it according to government policy. Where is the theft?

Most importantly, why do you think that Santorum would accuse black people of this criminal behaviour?

firstly, not everything the US government does is what citizens voluntarily sign up for. it's debatable whether or not a government using my money to carry out a policy i disagree with is "stealing". i believe it can be stealing.

secondly, the person receiving the money is not the one stealing. the person who transfers the money is stealing. i don't think santorum was accusing black people of stealing. he may have been, but i feel you're projecting the stereotype of "black people being more prone to theft" onto a situation where it wasn't intended.

[Symmetry]

so you don't have a rebuttal to my argument when i include the word "involuntarily"?

I take it that you accept my point, and want to talk about taxation as stealing now.

I thought you yourself made a rebuttal.

a government that gives its citizens the freedom to choose whether to live there and contribute tax money is giving its citizens a choice. in the US, for example, you can only give money to the government by voluntarily taking an action that you know will give your money to the government, such as taking certain kinds of jobs or purchasing certain items. you also have the freedom (ignoring any personal constraints) to move to another country. the US government is essentially a business; it operates based on voluntary transactions. it's not theft.

So we're basically in agreement on the taking money from other people bit. It's not definitely stealing, and taxation is not theft either. So what's the problem?

Is it that you think receiving the money is stealing? Stealing from whom? The government apparently gets it on a voluntary basis, and distributes it according to government policy. Where is the theft?

Most importantly, why do you think that Santorum would accuse black people of this criminal behaviour?

firstly, not everything the US government does is what citizens voluntarily sign up for. it's debatable whether or not a government using my money to carry out a policy i disagree with is "stealing". i believe it can be stealing.

secondly, the person receiving the money is not the one stealing. the person who transfers the money is stealing. i don't think santorum was accusing black people of stealing. he may have been, but i feel you're projecting the stereotype of "black people being more prone to theft" onto a situation where it wasn't intended.

1) So stealing is basically, for you, an organisation using money that you don't own to give to people that you don't want them to receive?

2) You haven't worked out what you think stealing is yet, but now it seems like you're accusing Santorum of running for thief in chief. He'd be one of the main guys taking my tax money and transferring it to policies that I diasgree with. Admittedly, it's the small amount I pay whenever I visit the US, but taxes all the same. Of course the money I pay in British taxes also goes to policies and people that I disagree with. Still isn't theft, nor would I accuse whichever poor bastard at the tax office who takes my money and gives it to someone else as being guilty of stealing.

[john9blue]

firstly, not everything the US government does is what citizens voluntarily sign up for. it's debatable whether or not a government using my money to carry out a policy i disagree with is "stealing". i believe it can be stealing.

secondly, the person receiving the money is not the one stealing. the person who transfers the money is stealing. i don't think santorum was accusing black people of stealing. he may have been, but i feel you're projecting the stereotype of "black people being more prone to theft" onto a situation where it wasn't intended.

1) So stealing is basically, for you, an organisation using money that you don't own to give to people that you don't want them to receive?

2) You haven't worked out what you think stealing is yet, but now it seems like you're accusing Santorum of running for thief in chief. He'd be one of the main guys taking my tax money and transferring it to policies that I diasgree with. Admittedly, it's the small amount I pay whenever I visit the US, but taxes all the same. Of course the money I pay in British taxes also goes to policies and people that I disagree with. Still isn't theft, nor would I accuse whichever poor bastard at the tax office who takes my money and gives it to someone else as being guilty of stealing.

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.

[AAFitz]

the race card is all they got...

which is why I don't post in these racists threads. These threads are scrapin the bottom of the barrel.

Yeah. Not like a war has ever been fought over race. It's silly to consider it when voting for a countries leader.

Considering that this is 2012, yes, it is VERY silly to try to trump up false charges of racism just to defeat an opponent in an election.

So you feel that in 2012, we should not worry if our leader is racist towards other leaders of the world, because there is no chance that this could lead to any kind of a war? That is just a brilliant deduction on your part. Kind of reminds me of the thinking after World War 1...you know, the war that was to end all wars.

I do agree, its silly to trump up false charges of racism, but it far VERY sillier to deny actual racism. But I understand these principles are completely based on reality and rationality, so I do not expect you to understand them even in the slightest.

[john9blue]

yes, to clarify, santorum may well be a racist for all i know. but to call him racist based on that video alone is a bit ridiculous.

[AAFitz]

yes, to clarify, santorum may well be a racist for all i know. but to call him racist based on that video alone is a bit ridiculous.

Based soley on that video, perhaps definitively defining him as a racist would be aggressive, but suggesting he is one, is hardly a stretch.

However, with the knowledge of other quotes and actions, its simply an example to show an obvious truth.

“Marriage is an institution that’s a bridge too far for too many African-American women and is not desirable among African-American males.

He also signed a petition for a bill which specifically stated that the lives of African Americans as slaves were better, simply because their parents were married.

Coupled with his widespread and open homophobia, I don't think calling this man racist is any more inaccurate than calling him alive.

In any case, the fear that an extremist like this can gain popularity in politics is always there, and this year perhaps more than most. It wouldn't be the first time a country in economic crisis, put an extremist that led their country to ruin. Lets hope ours isn't quite as foolish as Germany was though.

[AAFitz]

firstly, not everything the US government does is what citizens voluntarily sign up for. it's debatable whether or not a government using my money to carry out a policy i disagree with is "stealing". i believe it can be stealing.

secondly, the person receiving the money is not the one stealing. the person who transfers the money is stealing. i don't think santorum was accusing black people of stealing. he may have been, but i feel you're projecting the stereotype of "black people being more prone to theft" onto a situation where it wasn't intended.

1) So stealing is basically, for you, an organisation using money that you don't own to give to people that you don't want them to receive?

2) You haven't worked out what you think stealing is yet, but now it seems like you're accusing Santorum of running for thief in chief. He'd be one of the main guys taking my tax money and transferring it to policies that I diasgree with. Admittedly, it's the small amount I pay whenever I visit the US, but taxes all the same. Of course the money I pay in British taxes also goes to policies and people that I disagree with. Still isn't theft, nor would I accuse whichever poor bastard at the tax office who takes my money and gives it to someone else as being guilty of stealing.

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.

[john9blue]

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?

[thegreekdog]

What governmental transactions shall we consider theft and which ones shall we not? If theft is, by your definition, "[involunatrily] taking money from one person and giving it to another person," aren't all transactions the government partakes in theft?

We are to assume theft is bad and must be prevented, right? If so, all governmental transactions must be prevented.

I'd have no reaction if this were coming from someone like BBS or saxi, but you've never once indicated that you were an anarchist.

The whole "theft" thing is certainly grandstanding, but why must there be only two options - government and anarchy? Suggesting that someone like BBS is an anarchist for advocating limited government is not dissimilar from suggesting that spurgistan is a Soviet communist for advocating increased government.

[pimpdave]

How about suggesting that Santorum is an idiot because he says lots of stupid things?

[thegreekdog]

How about suggesting that Santorum is an idiot because he says lots of stupid things?

Alternatively or in addition, how about suggesting that Santorum is a big government Republican that wants to use the government to invade your private lives and, oh yeah, invade Iran too.

[GreecePwns]

What governmental transactions shall we consider theft and which ones shall we not? If theft is, by your definition, "[involunatrily] taking money from one person and giving it to another person," aren't all transactions the government partakes in theft?

We are to assume theft is bad and must be prevented, right? If so, all governmental transactions must be prevented.

I'd have no reaction if this were coming from someone like BBS or saxi, but you've never once indicated that you were an anarchist.

The whole "theft" thing is certainly grandstanding, but why must there be only two options - government and anarchy? Suggesting that someone like BBS is an anarchist for advocating limited government is not dissimilar from suggesting that spurgistan is a Soviet communist for advocating increased government.

Well, BBS has himself called himself a anarcho-capitalist (whether or not its real or just for shits and gigs, I don't know).

The real point is that by making the stance, John9blue either advocates no governmental transactions at all or no governmental transactions that he doesn't like, which is what I assume he means by "involuntarily."

[thegreekdog]

What governmental transactions shall we consider theft and which ones shall we not? If theft is, by your definition, "[involunatrily] taking money from one person and giving it to another person," aren't all transactions the government partakes in theft?

We are to assume theft is bad and must be prevented, right? If so, all governmental transactions must be prevented.

I'd have no reaction if this were coming from someone like BBS or saxi, but you've never once indicated that you were an anarchist.

The whole "theft" thing is certainly grandstanding, but why must there be only two options - government and anarchy? Suggesting that someone like BBS is an anarchist for advocating limited government is not dissimilar from suggesting that spurgistan is a Soviet communist for advocating increased government.

Well, BBS has himself called himself a anarcho-capitalist (whether or not its real or just for shits and gigs, I don't know).

The real point is that by making the stance, John9blue either advocates no governmental transactions at all or no governmental transactions that he doesn't like, which is what I assume he means by "involuntarily."

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. I'm going to be simplistic here (and this is all my own opinion), but...

(1) Some self-styled conservatives believe in big government in certain areas (military, police, violations of privacy); these conservatives also generally believe in small government in most other areas (healthcare, private company protections). Examples include Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ronald Reagan (probably), George W. Bush
(2) Other self-styled conservatives are anarcho-capitalists (I actually don't think BBS is one). I think we all know the definition of those guys. I can't think of any well-known examples.
(3) Others are constitutional conservatives. I'm sort of one of those, I guess. Although I don't agree with all constitutional conservatives including someone like Ron Paul who is close to a constitutional conservative as you get in the current Republican party. Paul and I have different views on immigration, for example. Examples include Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman (whom I'm beginning to like a lot).

However, most conservatives in 2012 belong to the first classification. I find these types of Republicans to be hypocritical and dangerous for the country (as we've seen). The Democrats and Republicans may have differing views on the role of government in some instances (some being the operative word as we've seen with the president), but they have the same view on the size of government in all instances (big).

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, the traditional definition of conservativism is "wanting to maintain the status quo". but yes.. definitions have shifted quite a bit.

Santorum is perhaps better than Perry or Bachman, but only "perhaps".

[natty dread]

Simple definition -

If you ever use the "race card" card, you're a racist.

[barackattack]

What is the line where 'racism' stops and 'realism' begins?

A question for all of us to consider.

[natty dread]

What is the line where 'racism' stops and 'realism' begins?

In the imagination of racists.

[john9blue]

What is the line where 'racism' stops and 'realism' begins?

In the imagination of racists.

which is why "racists" are the ones who see race differences the way they really are, and not with the rose-colored glasses of "racial equality"

[Timminz]

What is the line where 'racism' stops and 'realism' begins?

In the imagination of racists.

which is why "racists" are the ones who see race differences the way they really are, and not with the rose-colored glasses of "racial equality"

"The way they really are"?

[john9blue]

What is the line where 'racism' stops and 'realism' begins?

In the imagination of racists.

which is why "racists" are the ones who see race differences the way they really are, and not with the rose-colored glasses of "racial equality"

"The way they really are"?

i was being... about 40% serious

[natty dread]

So you're, what, about 40% racist?

[john9blue]

So you're, what, about 40% racist?

yes, and 100% correct.