RebelKev Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:lol, calm down, i didnt realize there was a protocol involved in how to respond to idiots in on going feuds. some of us need reminding of the context, i am old and feeble minded...

You're not doing it, to my knowledge. TOGC and Fo are. It makes a 1-2 sentence response into a page-long response.

oops, i'll shut up now :)

RebelKev Wrote:Damn, can you people ONLY respond to the person you're responding to, not every jackleg that was involved in the debate?

I must admit...Im having touble keeping up with this rambling debate...but I am enjoying the banter...even your input..Kev
Freedom of speech is about the only real right we still have that is unfettered by the State....EMBRACE the HELL out of it while we still can!!

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Damn, can you people ONLY respond to the person you're responding to, not every jackleg that was involved in the debate?

I must admit...Im having touble keeping up with this rambling debate...but I am enjoying the banter...even your input..Kev
Freedom of speech is about the only real right we still have that is unfettered by the State....EMBRACE the HELL out of it while we still can!!

what debate? it's 99% of the people here making valid points and TOGC replying by calling people names...

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:it's 99% of the people here making valid points

Name one.

blah, rebelkev, ninerfan, fsquid, hell even foshizzle at least presents his premises cogently, idealistic though they may be. you on the other hand do NOTHING to illustrate or support anything you say. You generalize everything. If you would one time argue your point with opinions based on analysis of the facts as you see them, even if they were wrong, you might be taken a little more seriously, it would at least show that you have done some research and have educated yourself on the issues as best as possible. your positions are mostly flawed and your opinions are based on sound bites and the rantings of hollywood actors appearing in ads for whatever flavor of the day liberal position is currently popular. i refuse to engage in any further discussion with you (as if there had ever been a rational discourse). i might as well talk to my dog, at least he understands a few words of the english language.

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:blah, rebelkev, ninerfan, fsquid, hell even foshizzle at least presents his premises cogently, idealistic though they may be. you on the other hand do NOTHING to illustrate or support anything you say. You generalize everything. If you would one time argue your point with opinions based on analysis of the facts as you see them, even if they were wrong, you might be taken a little more seriously, it would at least show that you have done some research and have educated yourself on the issues as best as possible. your positions are mostly flawed and your opinions are based on sound bites and the rantings of hollywood actors appearing in ads for whatever flavor of the day liberal position is currently popular. i refuse to engage in any further discussion with you (as if there had ever been a rational discourse). i might as well talk to my dog, at least he understands a few words of the english language.

Thank you...and yes...Classical Liberalism is idealistic...as was initially... the conception of a representive republic.

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:blah, rebelkev, ninerfan, fsquid, hell even foshizzle at least presents his premises cogently, idealistic though they may be. you on the other hand do NOTHING to illustrate or support anything you say. You generalize everything. If you would one time argue your point with opinions based on analysis of the facts as you see them, even if they were wrong, you might be taken a little more seriously, it would at least show that you have done some research and have educated yourself on the issues as best as possible. your positions are mostly flawed and your opinions are based on sound bites and the rantings of hollywood actors appearing in ads for whatever flavor of the day liberal position is currently popular. i refuse to engage in any further discussion with you (as if there had ever been a rational discourse). i might as well talk to my dog, at least he understands a few words of the english language.

You didn't answer the question. Your diatribe, while mildly entertaining, served no real purpose except to sling unsupportable positions and accusations. I would not be surprised to find out that you do carry out meaningful conversations with your dog, who must be your intellectual peer.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You didn't answer the question. Your diatribe, while mildly entertaining, served no real purpose except to sling unsupportable positions and accusations. I would not be surprised to find out that you do carry out meaningful conversations with your dog, who must be your intellectual peer.

Illustration #426.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:blah, rebelkev, ninerfan, fsquid, hell even foshizzle at least presents his premises cogently, idealistic though they may be. you on the other hand do NOTHING to illustrate or support anything you say. You generalize everything. If you would one time argue your point with opinions based on analysis of the facts as you see them, even if they were wrong, you might be taken a little more seriously, it would at least show that you have done some research and have educated yourself on the issues as best as possible. your positions are mostly flawed and your opinions are based on sound bites and the rantings of hollywood actors appearing in ads for whatever flavor of the day liberal position is currently popular. i refuse to engage in any further discussion with you (as if there had ever been a rational discourse). i might as well talk to my dog, at least he understands a few words of the english language.

You didn't answer the question. Your diatribe, while mildly entertaining, served no real purpose except to sling unsupportable positions and accusations. I would not be surprised to find out that you do carry out meaningful conversations with your dog, who must be your intellectual peer.

which would make him vastly superior to you intellectually and infinitely more entertaining, which part of the 5 persons names that I named in response to your "name one" went over that liberal donkeys ass you have perched atop your shoulders?

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You didn't answer the question. Your diatribe, while mildly entertaining, served no real purpose except to sling unsupportable positions and accusations. I would not be surprised to find out that you do carry out meaningful conversations with your dog, who must be your intellectual peer.

Illustration #426.

i don't even know why i bother responding, illustration #427 would be forthcoming regardless. apparently the book I am reading on how to talk to liberals wasn't really meant as a reference guide but rather a comedic spin on the fruitlessness of actually attempting to have a conversation with one. Sometimes sarcasm escapes me...

Wait, in hindsight maybe he was asking me to name one valid point rather than one person who made a valid point? So i guess I should have ask him what it was he was referring to. These liberals are devious and tricky...

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:You didn't answer the question. Your diatribe, while mildly entertaining, served no real purpose except to sling unsupportable positions and accusations. I would not be surprised to find out that you do carry out meaningful conversations with your dog, who must be your intellectual peer.

Illustration #426.

These liberals are devious and tricky...

I am not.

Okay, maybe a little devious. But not tricky.

It appears conservatives have to get their opinions spoon fed to them from talk radio, FauxNews, NewsMax, and the latest Ann Coulter diatribe.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Please name 1 thing that the government does well or a problem it has solved?

The G.I. Bill, and that's despite the fact it originally did not extend equitable benefits to African-American soldiers.

I pretty much double-dog dare RebelKev, who is (and should be) proud of his own and his family's military service, to say any different.

BlazerUnit Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Please name 1 thing that the government does well or a problem it has solved?

The G.I. Bill, and that's despite the fact it originally did not extend equitable benefits to African-American soldiers.

I pretty much double-dog dare RebelKev, who is (and should be) proud of his own and his family's military service, to say any different.

Environmental protection. The air and water these days is not cleaner than it was a few decades ago because corporations decided out of the goodness of their heart to cut down on pollution.

Space exploration - this created numerous high-tech industries that created jobs and helped keep the US the world technological leader. Would not have been undertaken by corporations otherwise, due to the expense and the lack of foreseeable profits from it. Other large science projects as well, due to the deep pockets needed.

Protection of the country. Not to sound callous, but how much would the fighting in Iraq cost if all those involved got paid as much as the private contractors? Or should I say mercenaries? Even in the War of Independence it was tough to get state governments to fund the war against the British. Try getting 1000s of individual corporations to agree on something. And again, the deep pockets required to run a military that is not economically profitable.

BlazerUnit Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Please name 1 thing that the government does well or a problem it has solved?

The G.I. Bill, and that's despite the fact it originally did not extend equitable benefits to African-American soldiers.

I pretty much double-dog dare RebelKev, who is (and should be) proud of his own and his family's military service, to say any different.

That's tied to the military. The military is a Socialist entity. I have never had a problem with that nor have I ever said anything about it. You think I want private armies defending the homeland?

BTW, the military is also written into the Constitution.

NIU007 Wrote:Environmental protection. The air and water these days is not cleaner than it was a few decades ago because corporations decided out of the goodness of their heart to cut down on pollution.

Ok, that was Nixon that signed the EPA into law, but it falls under "provide for the welfare of the nation". As for being cleaner a few decades ago, I don't know how old you are, but that is FAR from what I remember. We are a HELLUVA lot cleaner these days than when I was coming up in the 70's.

Quote:Space exploration - this created numerous high-tech industries that created jobs and helped keep the US the world technological leader. Would not have been undertaken by corporations otherwise, due to the expense and the lack of foreseeable profits from it. Other large science projects as well, due to the deep pockets needed.

Could be done cheaper and more efficiently by the private sector.

Quote:Protection of the country. Not to sound callous, but how much would the fighting in Iraq cost if all those involved got paid as much as the private contractors? Or should I say mercenaries? Even in the War of Independence it was tough to get state governments to fund the war against the British. Try getting 1000s of individual corporations to agree on something. And again, the deep pockets required to run a military that is not economically profitable.

Constitutionally mandated. See post above.

BlazerUnit Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Please name 1 thing that the government does well or a problem it has solved?

The G.I. Bill, and that's despite the fact it originally did not extend equitable benefits to African-American soldiers.

I pretty much double-dog dare RebelKev, who is (and should be) proud of his own and his family's military service, to say any different.

I have not been a member of the military either through conscription or voluntarilly..and I honor the sacrifice and service of both.
I contend though...that our policies of intervention and corruption of executive powers have led to most of the mess that you refer to....I will state though that I personally advocate benefits to "conscripted" soldiers above and beyond the norm...simply because I feel they were cast into involuntary servitude and should be compensated. I consider voluntary service a career choice subject to the same type of benefits of any entity in the free market and thus we should honor those contractual obligations established at the time of employment.

I will concede your point.

NIU007 Wrote:

BlazerUnit Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Please name 1 thing that the government does well or a problem it has solved?

The G.I. Bill, and that's despite the fact it originally did not extend equitable benefits to African-American soldiers.

I pretty much double-dog dare RebelKev, who is (and should be) proud of his own and his family's military service, to say any different.

Environmental protection. The air and water these days is not cleaner than it was a few decades ago because corporations decided out of the goodness of their heart to cut down on pollution.

Space exploration - this created numerous high-tech industries that created jobs and helped keep the US the world technological leader. Would not have been undertaken by corporations otherwise, due to the expense and the lack of foreseeable profits from it. Other large science projects as well, due to the deep pockets needed.

Protection of the country. Not to sound callous, but how much would the fighting in Iraq cost if all those involved got paid as much as the private contractors? Or should I say mercenaries? Even in the War of Independence it was tough to get state governments to fund the war against the British. Try getting 1000s of individual corporations to agree on something. And again, the deep pockets required to run a military that is not economically profitable.

Ok...Where to begin?

Our government has done a very poor job of environmental protection....and in a totally free market(with NO public property) private property rights would be respected and pollution would NOT occur without compensation to the property owner or owners...The penalties of compensation and the ostracism of the free market against polluters would be MUCH more effective than our current system of goverment mismanagement,bribery,and coersion.

Space Exploration....Again.. the free market would be much more effective in this endeavor, and without stealing the wages of Americans to further the enterprise....Stock offerings,advertising,and personal capital would fund this just as effectively...and...Those investors would hold this business accountable for its mistakes...unlike the govt. which has NO incentive to do so....I concede your point that great discoveries have occured due to NASAs endeavors...but I contend that the govt. actually stiffles NASA through the control of the capital.

Military...Well...This is complicated but NOT impractical...The free market would do a fine job in defense of the country....Our force today is voluntary and why would we think that those that wish to pursue a career in the military would not do so in a free market situation...In fact I contend that it would foster competiton among several defense contractors for the best training,working conditions and benefits...Today...its the one size fits all system that...IS the govt.
Not to be argumentive, but Iraq has nothing to do with the defense of our nation as has most of the interventions we have gotten into throughout our history..We have totally ignored our constitution and have added to the executive powers to the point the we now have a situation where we can go to war at a whim without the declaration and carefull dillegence of congress that the consitution requires....We are becoming the very thing that we fought against to win our independence...emperialist

RebelKev Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:Environmental protection. The air and water these days is not cleaner than it was a few decades ago because corporations decided out of the goodness of their heart to cut down on pollution.

Ok, that was Nixon that signed the EPA into law, but it falls under "provide for the welfare of the nation". As for being cleaner a few decades ago, I don't know how old you are, but that is FAR from what I remember. We are a HELLUVA lot cleaner these days than when I was coming up in the 70's.

Quote:Space exploration - this created numerous high-tech industries that created jobs and helped keep the US the world technological leader. Would not have been undertaken by corporations otherwise, due to the expense and the lack of foreseeable profits from it. Other large science projects as well, due to the deep pockets needed.

Could be done cheaper and more efficiently by the private sector.

Quote:Protection of the country. Not to sound callous, but how much would the fighting in Iraq cost if all those involved got paid as much as the private contractors? Or should I say mercenaries? Even in the War of Independence it was tough to get state governments to fund the war against the British. Try getting 1000s of individual corporations to agree on something. And again, the deep pockets required to run a military that is not economically profitable.

Constitutionally mandated. See post above.

You misunderstood what I said, I could have worded that more clearly I guess. I was saying the air and water aren't cleaner because of corporations' free will, they are cleaner because of the EPA, etc. forcing them to be cleaner.

Regarding the space program - IF the private sector had a reason to go into space - i.e. profits - and IF they had the money to do it, then yes, they would do it better. Any time private industry has a sufficient monetary motivation to do something, it will do it better than the government. The point is that it wouldn't have happened because the companies themselves wouldn't profit from, for example, sending somebody to the moon. If it did happen the moon would probably have lots of billboards on it already.

The military is constitutionally mandated because it is necessary, and the national government is the best organization to do that.