The Town of Odyssey

@Anemone It's a lot less simple than that. Government should be expected to provide basic needs for people, people call it socialism but it's what the government has been doing for years...are public schools socialism? Should we completely privatize that? How about building roads? Fire departments? GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF EVERYTHING! Right?

Kait wrote:I never called you a racist.

She never said you did.


She was merely saying that, to anyone who may be reading this that might think she is racist for not choosing Obama (or for picking him apart). That, she's not.

Anyone who stands atop a soap box and points to a single issue as reasoning for why one opponent is disastrous... May not be a moron, but seriously needs some real life experience.

In politics it is way too easy to polarize, asking only "what is best for me now?" And only take that answer to the polls as though that trumpeted issue is all that matters or should matter to any sane individual. In truth, politics is like choosing the lesser of two evils. A good citizen should think critically and with an open mind. A good voter will be objective - but that's not asking anyone to put away their principles.

It is all too easy to demonize a candidate.

My two cents.

The Top Crusader wrote:

ique wrote:
question about something said: why was Romney upset that Obama had put 90 million into green jobs?

Because they all went bankrupt after we wasted monies on them. >_>

...actually, they didn't all go bankrupt.

That's my consolation prize.

^ This is why we need a like button.

EK wrote:@Anemone It's a lot less simple than that. Government should be expected to provide basic needs for people, people call it socialism but it's what the government has been doing for years...are public schools socialism? Should we completely privatize that? How about building roads? Fire departments? GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF EVERYTHING! Right?

All the roads are private, you have to pay a toll every time you turn to a different street. Private fire departments. Sorry, we can't put your house fire out because you didn't buy our premium coverage. Private police departments. Someone in your house stealing things? Sorry, you're not covered for theft.

That's the thing I don't get about a lot of "GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" type republicans. The government is bad until people actually need them.

If the government didn't do all that stuff, then ordinary people would have to be responsible to help their neighbors.

Which would mean everyone would need a firetruck and a long garden hose.

Astronomer wrote:If the government didn't do all that stuff, then ordinary people would have to be responsible to help their neighbors.

Which would mean everyone would need a firetruck and a long garden hose.

Benjamin Franklin started the first volunteer fire department. As for the equipment(hose), who wouldn't want donate to something that could save their life?
I just thought of something. If the purpose of government is to provide free services to those whop can't afford it. But the services aren't free, the other people pay for it with taxes. So is the government necessary, because instead of paying government agents with tax money couldn't volunteers be paid with donations?

EK wrote: That's the thing I don't get about a lot of "GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" type republicans. The government is bad until people actually need them.

Government [for Republicans] is only evil when Democrats are in power.

And of course, it works the other way around, too. We demonize each other. It is how the world goes 'round.

EK wrote:are public schools socialism? Should we completely privatize that?

Yes.

Baragon wrote:

EK wrote:That's the thing I don't get about a lot of "GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" type republicans.

Government [for Republicans] is only evil when Democrats are in power.

That’s a bit of an oversimplification. No one is advocating for abolishment of all government. Of course basic government intervention is necessary. What Republicans are against is unnecessarily expansive and invasive government, regardless of whether it is under Republican or Democrat leadership. Where the conflict comes in is in determining at what point the intervention becomes too intrusive, which is where the differing political ideologies play their roles.

Arkán Dreamwalker wrote:

Astronomer wrote:If the government didn't do all that stuff, then ordinary people would have to be responsible to help their neighbors.

Which would mean everyone would need a firetruck and a long garden hose.

Benjamin Franklin started the first volunteer fire department. As for the equipment(hose), who wouldn't want donate to something that could save their life?
I just thought of something. If the purpose of government is to provide free services to those whop can't afford it. But the services aren't free, the other people pay for it with taxes. So is the government necessary, because instead of paying government agents with tax money couldn't volunteers be paid with donations?

That's not the sole purpose of governments, that's one facet of it. There's plenty of other areas we need government in. But if that was the case, it still wouldn't work, you're assuming everyone is kind-hearted in that scenario, which they aren't, especially those with a lot of money. That coincides with one of the topics of this election, the rich people are getting mad about Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire so the working class could have tax cuts of their own...rich people getting mad about their money, money that they could not possibly spend in a lifetime. Like the good book says, money is the root of all evil.

No, the good book says love of money is the root of all evil.
"you're assuming everyone is kind-hearted in that scenario" Not every one. But enough. Before the income tax, Americans used to donate more than almost any where in the world.
"which they aren't, especially those with a lot of money" I am going to assume you aren't assuming that all rich are bad.

My point still stands if you put it as the love of money as well. Money and power corrupts people.

EK wrote:My point still stands if you put it as the love of money as well.

Your point does, but unfortunately this formula doesn’t.

Well, girls are evil. Let that fact be known.

Perhaps, but just remember who makes the samwitches around here

My husband makes his own derned sandwiches.

Why do you abuse your husband Kait?

DIRTY LIBERALS.



My own personal thoughts on the debates are...well, kind of neutral. I won't pretend to be the political junkie, because I'm certainly not, but I will say that this election seems more and more to me like "pick your poison" than anything else. I think both candidates have good ideas to bring to the table, but I'm not sure how new many of these ideas are, nor am I entirely sure how either of them will implement them. Personally, I would choose Mittens if I could vote because he's my least unfavorite--I like his stance on foreign policy and I think his Five Point Plan is, if nothing else, a viable solution.

(I will say that it feels like some of the undecideds will probably be voting for Romney simply because his running mate isn't Biden, giving Biden's apparently jerky performance during the debates this past Thursday, but whatever.)