katisara:
I can't comment on which is objectively worse, since that's value judgments.
You can. I don't mind.
quote:
I think I've made my personal position clear. And ultimately, I think that's what it comes down to. Sure, you can claim that the democratic party is all backwards due to reasons X, Y and Z (and in fact, I encourage you to do so!)
I have done many times. I think my position is clear as well.
quote:
What you can't really say is that that is an objective fact and anyone who disagrees with you is lying or ignorant (because, again, it comes down to value judgments), or that the Republican/Libertarian Parties are above such things.
I do not believe I say any of these things other than there are some who disagree with me from a position of ignorance. But lots of people here say it even if it is in a roundabout manner.
I actually turned in my Republican Party membership because of GW Bush and his bailout. I will contribute to individuals but not the RNC who seems to like to act like Democrat Light. No where do I claim the Republicans or Conservatives are perfect. Just that they are more Libertarian and that is, I would argue, a fact.
quote:
That's ultimately all Falkus is saying. He's pointed out, rightly, that the Republican Party is trying to push restrictions on people,
And the Democrats aren't? It is the type of restrictions that count.
quote:
which would seem to be contrary to the goal of freedom.
Some government has to exist. I just place the Democrats as the ones who wish to control and restrict more. Our economy, and people, are suffering due to Democrat-controled government.
quote:
He didn't say it, but I'm sure he could make a case for how the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party are similarly tied to freedom-limiting campaigns.
He could make a case but it wouldn't be correct.
quote:
And as much as I wish I could call him out as ignorant or a liar, frankly, I can't.
I actually won't because I don't believe him to a liar and I am pretty sure he is not ignorant. Just ignorant of certain facts. As we all are depending on the topic.
quote:
He's right. Those parties are sort of sucking at that goal. If I had more faith in the government being able to help people, I'd probably be a democrat because, while the democrat party-line is to meddle in pretty much everything, it's with the intention of maximizing actual freedom, equality and happiness.
What you have effectively done here is made the statement that you really don't care about results. You have also dropped any pretense of being a "lean" Libertarian. As long as you feel good about government intentions towards meddling with your life it is okay with you? Not me.
By the way, how can the Libertarian Party and Tea Party suck if they haven't been in power?
quote:
Not at all. I also agree with you, racial quotas and so on are wrong. But the reason I think they're wrong is because it seems like a case of 'sexing it to virginity'. I do understand the intention of affirmative action, and the intention is indeed right.
So it is okay to discriminate if it makes you feel good. Noted.
quote:
In a nutshell, affirmative action recognizes there's active discrimination ('you may not get into this college because you are white!') and passive discrimination ('you may not get into this college because you attended a poor public high school in a hostile environment with drunk parents, and thusly your grades have not met our stringent criteria'). Both of them, ultimately, reduce my freedom just about equally. If I'm born poor, I don't have the 'freedom' to go to an expensive private school, and thusly my ability to exercise my freedom to go to Harvard is greatly reduced. What makes this really dangerous is that means my freedom to get a great job and pay for my kids to go to a private school is squashed, thus repeating the cycle. I think we can all agree that this situation sucks, and if you don't have the freedom to be born rich (you don't) or to be a rich kid (you don't) you should at least have the opportunity to go to a rich college, work your butt off, and provide better for your kids.
Actually, all affirmative action does is say, "You need 10 blacks, 6 hispanics, and, hopefully, and Native American." That's it. It creates resentment in places where it is believed that you only got the job due to skin color.
Look at what happened to the black community and what they had done for themselves before affirmative action. Then take a look at what happened to them after. Welfare and affirmative action have decimated that community.
quote:
And that's the idea behind affirmative action. It's brief (5+ decades) of active discrimination designed to turn back 2+ centuries of passive (and active) discrimination.
So punish white people for the actions of some other white people 200+ years ago. Sounds wonderful.
quote:
Is it a good idea? I don't know. Seems like it has some holes.
You mean like discriminating based on skin color? Those kind of holes?
quote:
But if we look at both sides of the equation, could I say it's a reduction of freedoms? Seems like you're losing a little here and gaining a little there, the whole thing is a mess and there are definitely losers, but it seems to add up, more or less to 0 (it might fall further one way or the other based on how successful it is, but again we're coming to value judgments, so for the sake of being objective, we just kind of have to let it go.)
I don't give up my freedoms or tolerate discrimination in order to be objective.
quote:
Imagine everyone paid a 30% income tax. Would the rich be paying more actual dollars? Of course. Because 30% of $2M is $600,000 and 30% of $20k is peanuts. At the same time, are they really paying more? No, they're paying 30%, just like everyone else. Of course, if 10% of the population is making 90% of the money, you should expect, with a flat tax, for them to be paying somewhere around 90% of the dollars of taxes. Why? Because every dollar is taxed equally.
I'm not sure what else you're suggesting. Should everyone pay $15,000 in taxes, regardless as to whether they make $20k or $200k? I don't think THAT would be fair (or realistic).
I am suggesting that suggesting that the wealthy do not contribute or give back to society is patently false. It is class warfare and based on envy and jealousy and serves no purprose other than to divide society and put idiot socialists in power. I hope I am clear now.
Government should be minimal, it should be non-intrusive, and it should be Constitutional. If it was then all of us would be far wealthier and our country would not be in the situation it is today.
quote:
I'm refering to percentages, not actual dollars. I'm not upset that Bill Gates pays $200k in taxes. I may be upset if he pays 10% tax rate while I pay 40%, though. And that's my point. Middle class pays more per dollar in taxes than anyone else. Everyone past a certain threshold should pay a certain percent per dollar, OR even a mildly progressive tax rate (the super rich pay 45%, middle class pay 40%, poor pay 35% and so on). Right now though, in practice, the rich pay something like 30%, the middle class 45%, the poor 25% and the super poor make a profit. That doesn't make sense.
Provide the ranges for your stats here. What range is the middle class?
quote:
Well ... I hate to turn it around on you, but some conservatives DO view homosexuals as subhuman. Of course, you can't categorize the entire group by that. It's just like any other demographics. You have some crazies and a bunch of normal people. I don't think the Republican PARTY really cares. They've already tied themselves to the Christian Right, who has made it clear they can't support homosexual marriage, so the Republican Party really can't cater to the activist homosexual community (although they don't lose anything by burning said community either, which fortunately hasn't come up as much as it could).
Actually, I don't believe you do hate to turn it around on me. But hey, you like it. I like it. It's a good thing.
Some Conservatives do view homosexuals as subhuman. As do some Democrats. As do Muslims. As do <add group here>. I said, "as a whole" and I also said based on my reading and my experiences. A blanket stereotype is a far cry from pointing out a few crazies.
You will also recall, or you won't, that GW Bush admitted to his pastor that he couldn't judge homosexuals or hate them. Only God can judge and that is the attitude I see amongst a great many Christians.
Here you go:
http://www.goproud.org/about/