Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

***salvador*** · 11-12-2015, 08:46 AM

(11-12-2015 12:26 AM)Spyder Wrote: Those aren't the only options. We had a voucher program in Florida...installed by JEB...that the left hated. Why? Because it let parents CHOOSE who educated their kids. They weren't relegated to settling for the shitty neighborhood schools that they were zoned for...or rolling the dice for the magnet/fundamental school lottery...or stuck paying a college tuition for private schooling. They could get a "refund" of sorts of their tax dollars to send their kids to whatever school they wanted.

Put lightly, very few people are pleased with public schools...even less are happy since Common Core has been accepted as the curriculum. The fucking shit is broken, yet we still continue to pour our tax dollars into it...without the choice to opt out.

Call it what you want, but I call it another way that Gov't fucks up anything that it touches.

I agree that the government is terrible and inefficient at education and virtually everything else. I'm for vouchers and charter schools ect. The question is whether or not the government should tax people to pay to educate kids or if everyone should just figure out how to educate their kids on their own.

I feel confident that the very vast majority of social conservatives would agree that education/police/fire fighters/military are all social programs worth having but that they need to be improved.

Whether the teachers should be retiring in their 50s with $60K+ year pensions for life isn't debatable to me - especially teachers who can barely speak english. And that is the one issue that unions care about above all else and they have bought off all our pols. Disgraceful.

***Spyder*** · 11-12-2015, 10:59 AM

Our gov't has proven itself inept with even the most basic functions. Cash for Clunkers? I have no problem with my tax dollars going to pay for those things, but they should not be gov't run. Alternatives to all of those should be looked at and probably outsourced.

***Warlord*** · 11-12-2015, 02:56 PM

(11-11-2015 09:48 PM)Wikipedia Sal Wrote: To be clear, I believe that the government should be involved in education, poverty, defense, healthcare and other entitlements.

Make up your FUCKING MIND! You said you're a social liberal and a "fiscal conservative." I asked you how you could be both, because social liberalism means big government gets involved in education, healthcare, and other entitlements.

You then accused me of "redefining" the argument, which you "proved" by listing wikipedia's "official" definition... which was the EXACT SAME FUCKING DEFINITION I GAVE YOU!!!

And now, as I so clearly pointed out so many times, you agree and ADMIT, you are a classic social liberal! You admit yourself you support big government taking control of education, welfare, healthcare, and other entitlements.

You call yourself a social liberal, I peg you on it, then you accuse me of trying to redefine the argument, when in the very end you have no choice but to accede to the fact that you are a classic social liberal, as defined by me and everyone else on the planet.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

Quote:Don't you?

No, I certainly do not.

Quote:Would you rather that the state didn't educate our kids, or do you believe in home schooling everyone? Or is education even necessary?

If by state you mean each individual state, then yes. The 10th Amendment clearly supports that idea. If by "the State" you mean the Fed, then no.

Quote:The question is: how much should we spend? Should it be 10% of GDP or 70% of GDP?

That would be up to the state, wouldn't it? Right now the Fed contributes 10.8% of the funds given to schools annually. The rest comes from non-Federal sources. But that number should be 0% from the Fed, and the Department of Education should be abolished.

Quote:When I said I was fiscally conservative and socially liberal I meant I want to cut spending (and I've outlined how I would do it) and I also want women to be able to get abortions, I want gays to be able to get married if they choose, and I want weed legalized. THESE THINGS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!

As I said, there isn't a politician OR a political party ON THE PLANET that runs on a platform of "fiscal irresponsibility!" You saying you want a balanced budget doesn't make you any less of a liberal than Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton!

But what you can't do is say you want government involved in every sector of our lives, from cradle to grave, and then turn around and say you're against big government or big government spending! You aren't!

The fact of the matter is that you're nothing but a stinky, filthy, dirty, godless liberal. You don't give a fuck about individual liberties, and have no problem (as you've previously admitted) with the federal government stepping in when it has no place to, ripping liberty from the hands of the people, and shoving their ideology down our throats.

You don't have any right to call yourself a conservative, not in any sense of the word. You can't have big government without big government spending.

Quote:Regarding the debate about whether it is technically possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal:

Wikipedia says that it is possible
Warlord, King of the Cruz Fans, says it's not

Fair and balanced: We report, you decide!

So let me get this straight, you deride anyone who disagrees with you as dirty brainwashed Christians baptized in a river and educated by talk radio, but YOU use fucking WIKIPEDIA as the crux of your argument? A website that is comprised SOLELY of user-generated, user-edited content, you use THAT as the basis of your argument?

You get your politics from wikipedia and you want to get on your high horse with ME? Fuck off you condescending, pretentious little asshole. You don't got shit for me. I'd get a better debate from a dead tree.

***salvador*** · 11-12-2015, 05:12 PM

(11-12-2015 02:56 PM)Warlord Wrote: Make up your FUCKING MIND! You said you're a social liberal and a "fiscal conservative." I asked you how you could be both, because social liberalism means big government gets involved in education, healthcare, and other entitlements.

You then accused me of "redefining" the argument, which you "proved" by listing wikipedia's "official" definition... which was the EXACT SAME FUCKING DEFINITION I GAVE YOU!!!

And now, as I so clearly pointed out so many times, you agree and ADMIT, you are a classic social liberal! You admit yourself you support big government taking control of education, welfare, healthcare, and other entitlements.

You call yourself a social liberal, I peg you on it, then you accuse me of trying to redefine the argument, when in the very end you have no choice but to accede to the fact that you are a classic social liberal, as defined by me and everyone else on the planet.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

No, I certainly do not.

If by state you mean each individual state, then yes. The 10th Amendment clearly supports that idea. If by "the State" you mean the Fed, then no.

That would be up to the state, wouldn't it? Right now the Fed contributes 10.8% of the funds given to schools annually. The rest comes from non-Federal sources. But that number should be 0% from the Fed, and the Department of Education should be abolished.

As I said, there isn't a politician OR a political party ON THE PLANET that runs on a platform of "fiscal irresponsibility!" You saying you want a balanced budget doesn't make you any less of a liberal than Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton!

But what you can't do is say you want government involved in every sector of our lives, from cradle to grave, and then turn around and say you're against big government or big government spending! You aren't!

The fact of the matter is that you're nothing but a stinky, filthy, dirty, godless liberal. You don't give a fuck about individual liberties, and have no problem (as you've previously admitted) with the federal government stepping in when it has no place to, ripping liberty from the hands of the people, and shoving their ideology down our throats.

You don't have any right to call yourself a conservative, not in any sense of the word. You can't have big government without big government spending.

So let me get this straight, you deride anyone who disagrees with you as dirty brainwashed Christians baptized in a river and educated by talk radio, but YOU use fucking WIKIPEDIA as the crux of your argument? A website that is comprised SOLELY of user-generated, user-edited content, you use THAT as the basis of your argument?

You get your politics from wikipedia and you want to get on your high horse with ME? Fuck off you condescending, pretentious little asshole. You don't got shit for me. I'd get a better debate from a dead tree.

You're obviously trolling at this point.

No definition of social liberalism differentiates between the state and federal gov't. If you believe that the state gov't should provide all the services instead of the fed then you are a social liberal as well. Which makes sense given that you can't win arguments and so you resort to name calling like you claim the dems do.

I'm not a politician. I'm an individual who believes that the gov't should cut spending - particularly in 3rd rail issues. By arguing that pols "say they are fiscally conservative" and then grouping me in with them you are stretching, comically.

I've never said that I want the gov't in every sector of our lives and I'm deeply offended by all the things I'm paying for just so pols from both parties can get reelected.

I uprooted my life and left a state because of excessive gov't taxing and spending. Being fiscally conservative is more than just a philosophy to me.

Whatever flaws Wikipedia has, it's safe to say it's more credible than someone who believes that Ted Cruz can win the center in a general election and that a Cruz presidency would be "epic".

No to mention, that you are arguing about a definition rather than a policy.

How, by the way, would you define someone who believes that government spending should be cut while at the same time believing that abortion, gay marriage, and weed should be legal? By the strictest of definitions, libertarian isn't quite accurate is it?

Mostly, I love that you think I'm pretentious. There's no one in my life who thinks that other than you. I think it's safe to say that you are the biggest asshole on this board (something you seem to be proud of).

***BrotherCane*** · (This post was last modified: 11-12-2015 06:32 PM by BrotherCane.)

This is one dangerous mess http://www.businessinsider.com/missouri-...on-2015-11

People should be sued for this crap and professors could be behind it! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...-apologiz/

***salvador*** · 11-12-2015, 07:01 PM

This is a real painting hanging in Ben Carson's house:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5iLq22wn-MU/Vj..._jesus.jpg

***BrotherCane*** · 11-12-2015, 07:01 PM

Dear neo cons lol http://truthinmedia.com/lotfi-dear-neoco...-spending/

***Warlord*** · 11-12-2015, 09:05 PM

(11-12-2015 05:12 PM)Wikipedia Sal Wrote: No definition of social liberalism differentiates between the state and federal gov't.

EXACTLY! Because you clowns don't have a clue. It's conservatives and libertarians that have to spell it out.

Quote:If you believe that the state gov't should provide all the services instead of the fed then you are a social liberal as well.

When did I EVER say I thought states should pay for that shit? I said it should be UP to the States to decide. You need to step it up, man. Your reading comprehension is SHIT. What school did you go to again? What was your liberal arts major?

Quote:Which makes sense given that you can't win arguments and so you resort to name calling like you claim the dems do.

At least I know what the fucking argument is. I got you fucking going wikipedia on me here, you're so mixed up. lol

Quote:I'm not a politician. I'm an individual who believes that the gov't should cut spending - particularly in 3rd rail issues.

You believe government should cut spending, and YET be in charge of every aspect of our lives from the cradle to the grave. It's typical liberalism! There's nothing conservative about it!

Quote:I've never said that I want the gov't in every sector of our lives and I'm deeply offended by all the things I'm paying for just so pols from both parties can get reelected.

Asswipe, you said you thought the Fed should be involved in education, welfare, healthcare, and other entitlements. You've gone on record supporting the Fed over the state on numerous issues in addition to those. So which sector exactly do you think government should NOT be a part of?

Quote:You are arguing about a definition rather than a policy.

Asswipe, it's YOU arguing definitions. I told you what a social liberal was. You disagreed, and said I was redefining it to win the argument. You then went to wikipedia and posted a definition of social liberalism that was LITERALLY almost word for fucking word what I said from the beginning.

Quote:How, by the way, would you define someone who believes that government spending should be cut while at the same time believing that abortion, gay marriage, and weed should be legal? By the strictest of definitions, libertarian isn't quite accurate is it?

You sit here and bitch about arguing over definitions and then... launch into an argument over definitions. lol

Pick a fucking side, asswipe.

Why don't you go ahead and give us the "strictest definition" of what it means to be a libertarian, and then explain exactly how it doesn't fit someone who believes in individual liberty AND fiscal responsibility.

Quote:Mostly, I love that you think I'm pretentious. There's no one in my life who thinks that other than you. I think it's safe to say that you are the biggest asshole on this board (something you seem to be proud of).

I'm sure your mother told you what a special boy you are. And if you have a significant other, I'm sure you're a real joy to be around with them too. But here? You're a pretentious asshole. And here's a clue, free of charge. Don't climb up on your high horse making baseless accusations about someone's education and/or belief system, coupled with complete and total disrespect because you don't like a politician he/she supports.

It's not like I didn't want to have a civil debate. I mean, I tried my best to see things from your point of view. I just couldn't get my head that far up my ass to do it.

***salvador*** · (This post was last modified: 11-12-2015 09:18 PM by salvador.)

Now I know you're trolling.

***Warlord*** · 11-12-2015, 09:50 PM

(11-12-2015 09:11 PM)Wikipedia Sal Wrote: Now I know you're trolling.

Typical liberal.

(11-12-2015 07:01 PM)BrotherCane Wrote: Dear neo cons lol http://truthinmedia.com/lotfi-dear-neoco...-spending/

There's definitely a TON of wasteful spending in the military and elsewhere that needs to get reigned in, and I don't think doing so would diminish our military whatsoever.

That said, I wish Rand hadn't have let Rubio suck him into a debate on the military. Rand had him nailed dead to rights on his "pro-family tax code." Rubio maneuvered him into a debate regarding military because most conservatives don't want to hear a word about cutting military spending.

It was still a good moment for Rand, but not nearly what it could/should've been.