Debate Mark III

[Cynthia]

You can't vote in this country, either, Cynthia. I'd say you don't have a right to give up on something you haven't been actively a part of.

For the record, what was said wasn't the exact context.

And for the record you have no idea if I've voted illegally or not.

And lastly I never said I was leaving right away.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You can't vote in this country, either, Cynthia. I'd say you don't have a right to give up on something you haven't been actively a part of.

@ ValaReven: Dog-eat-dog economics, man.

I'm willing to concede it's difficult for poorer people to get out of the hole, but it's still possible. Should there be more helping hands? I'm not so sure there should be, at least in the form of bigger government. If I'm a rich person, I don't want the government taking my money to give to people who haven't put in the same effort I did to earn my money.

I think the first and foremost role of government is to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of property. If you think this sounds familiar, you must have read John Locke. For the record, his ideas were what my country was founded upon. They changed it to "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, but that's basically what it means. Poor people are still able to live (government doesn't have to protect QUALITY of life), they still have the same freedoms as anyone else, and they are still able to try and acquire wealth.

I think it's just a clash of Principles here. It's a matter of perspective really. Of course, everyone wants what benefits them. There are more poor people than rich people. I believe in support for the poor, and don't believe the rich need any support. Obviously, rich people don't want their money taken, but normally they don't NEED that money.

In truth, I would love a real dog eat dog, pure capitalist economy in principle, but in reality there are a lot of flaws with it. Everything would be monopolized almost instantly. The current economic trouble in the states is because of too few regulations on business. Canada has these regulations, and thus doesn't have to worry about it (actually, I have to say that Canada is usually considered to have one of if not the best and most effective/efficient banking system in the world). But I don't think you're arguing against that entirely.

I just tend to lean to a more liberal side. I think that the people with the capabilities to be rich, and the effort deserve to be rich, but I also believe the people without those abilities should at least be able to lead happy lives. I think the rich should be able to stay rich, but I think the poor should become middle income.

[Meteor]

I've had about enough of this non-citizen crap. If that's the only thing you can think of to invalidate his opinion, your defense is pretty pitiful. Not only is it a slap to their faces ("their" because you said this to Doom too), it's one to your own. Many nations dislike U.S. Americans for reasons like this; thinking our people are the only ones whose opinions matter. Unless you actually have a legitimate reason for disagreeing with him, sit down and shut up.

[sandmanccl]

I think it's just a clash of Principles here. It's a matter of perspective really. Of course, everyone wants what benefits them. There are more poor people than rich people. I believe in support for the poor, and don't believe the rich need any support. Obviously, rich people don't want their money taken, but normally they don't NEED that money.

You're right, this really is a clash of principles and I'm glad we're both able to see that. That's really what this election is all about. I'm actually really glad you see things the way you do and we're able to respectuflly disagree because it'd make my government a lot better.

If you lived here and voted for McCain, I'd actually advise you to vote for Obama because politically, he's more on par with your set of ideals. That's all I really want, is for people to truly understand the issues and vote according to what they really believe, not just with what sounds good.

@ Cynthia: Voter fraud is a pretty serious offense. You're right, I don't know if you've done it illegally, but doing so and getting caught carries a super hefty sentence in prison. Probably less so because you're still a minor, but it's a capital offense.

I'm just saying, if you're going to get on someone else's case for not being able to vote and you still can't vote, it's kind of silly.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You're right, this really is a clash of principles and I'm glad we're both able to see that. That's really what this election is all about. I'm actually really glad you see things the way you do and we're able to respectuflly disagree because it'd make my government a lot better.

If you lived here and voted for McCain, I'd actually advise you to vote for Obama because politically, he's more on par with your set of ideals. That's all I really want, is for people to truly understand the issues and vote according to what they really believe, not just with what sounds good.

@ Cynthia: Voter fraud is a pretty serious offense. You're right, I don't know if you've done it illegally, but doing so and getting caught carries a super hefty sentence in prison. Probably less so because you're still a minor, but it's a capital offense.

I'm just saying, if you're going to get on someone else's case for not being able to vote and you still can't vote, it's kind of silly.

Honestly, this election is a pretty good one. If it weren't for Palin, I really wouldn't mind McCain being elected very much at all. I'd prefer Obama, but McCain himself is pretty moderate, so I wouldn't mind him. I don't think he'd be too bad.

I have a lot of beef with Palin though. :(

[YokaiKnight]

Secondly, I think after 17 years of the United States government that I've earned the right to say I've given up on it.

You can't participate in government until you're a legal adult. Even if you have illegally voted, which I highly doubt because you brought it up as a hypothetical, that does not make you any more educated about how government works.

To be 100% honest, you can't even vote in this country. You're not a U.S. Citizen, which means the government decided your not going to vote, therefore I am not alone when I say that you don't have a say in it, because well, the U.S. Government is saying you don't have a say in it.

Correction: He doesn't have an OFFICIAL say. You can't take away his right to an opinion, and to try to do so is just making an ass of yourself. Who are you to tell people who live in another country what they can and can't say about government?

[sandmanccl]

I have a lot of beef with Palin though. :(

I really don't. Most people's issues with Palin are, in my mind, manufactured by the media. The Katie Couric interviews were a disaster, and I have to believe it's because the Republicans tied her hands. I have to believe that. Couric herself is a known liberal (honestly, i can't stand how biased that lady is). For someone that's been a great off-the-cuff political speaker her whole career, Palin fell on her face. It was difficult to watch, because for me, I would have just groaned were I in Palin's shoes with how Couric phrased the obviously loaded questions.

[Meteor]

Palin supports democrats!

[Defeatist Elitist]

I really don't. Most people's issues with Palin are, in my mind, manufactured by the media. The Katie Couric interviews were a disaster, and I have to believe it's because the Republicans tied her hands. I have to believe that. Couric herself is a known liberal (honestly, i can't stand how biased that lady is). For someone that's been a great off-the-cuff political speaker her whole career, Palin fell on her face. It was difficult to watch, because for me, I would have just groaned were I in Palin's shoes with how Couric phrased the obviously loaded questions.

The way she debates and acts just doesn't roll well with me. I'm a guy who likes to hear what peoples plans are. McCain, Obama and Biden often do that, but most of what I hear Palin say is just attacks on Obama, or random patriotism. She does a lot that "gets the vote", but I don't actually think she'd be a good President.

[YokaiKnight]

It was difficult to watch, because for me, I would have just groaned were I in Palin's shoes with how Couric phrased the obviously loaded questions.

Good luck as the second most powerful member in the executive, if you can't parry a loaded question.

[sandmanccl]

Well, that's a pretty good point, YokaiKnight. I can't really argue against that, haha.

I will say this election would be completely different if the media wasn't so biased against conservatives. Something my political science teacher has pointed out to us is some of the stuff Biden has said that, if it was Palin, would have ended the McCain campaign then and there.

Biden said in some interview that FDR was president in 1929, and that television was already around. (Both are incredibly false.)

Biden said the powers of the vice-president are outlined in Article I of the Constitution. (They are outlined in Article II. Guy graduated from the fucking Ivy League and is running for an office he can't even properly identify in the documents that govern our country.)

During some rally or another, Biden told a guy in a wheelchair to stand up next to him so they could get a good photo op for the press. (Imagine the filleting that CBS news would have of Palin if she made that same mistake.)

Biden said that there will be an international crisis that will happen as a result of Obama being elected president. He GUARANTEED it. Holy shit, why does this stuff not go reported?

[canas is back]

I think it's just a clash of Principles here. It's a matter of perspective really. Of course, everyone wants what benefits them. There are more poor people than rich people. I believe in support for the poor, and don't believe the rich need any support. Obviously, rich people don't want their money taken, but normally they don't NEED that money.

In truth, I would love a real dog eat dog, pure capitalist economy in principle, but in reality there are a lot of flaws with it. Everything would be monopolized almost instantly. The current economic trouble in the states is because of too few regulations on business. Canada has these regulations, and thus doesn't have to worry about it (actually, I have to say that Canada is usually considered to have one of if not the best and most effective/efficient banking system in the world). But I don't think you're arguing against that entirely.

I just tend to lean to a more liberal side. I think that the people with the capabilities to be rich, and the effort deserve to be rich, but I also believe the people without those abilities should at least be able to lead happy lives. I think the rich should be able to stay rich, but I think the poor should become middle income.

heh my ideals are about the same as yours, but I think we can get by with less governMENTAL controlling, and half of the time people generally pick thier class

[SSP]

I don't really know what this belongs here, but something popped up in my mind. What about issues outside the economy, like gay marriage and (to some extent) the environment and education? Where do you guys stand on that stuff?

[sandmanccl]

My own stance on gay marriage is kind of similar to Palin's, honestly. I don't think gay people should be discriminated against by the government in terms of tax benefits, rights of estate, visitation rights in hospitals, and all that stuff. I just don't think they should get legally recognized as being married. I realize it's just a term, but I don't think it's right because of my religious beliefs. Marriage between man and woman has been recognized as just that for the entire history of mankind, and it was always a religious ceremony because it's supposed to be a holy union. If the government recognizes them as MARRIED rather than people who enter in a civil union, it's forcing the beliefs of gay Americans upon those that don't believe the same thing they do. It means I'll have to deal with my kids reading required school ciricumlum as soon as the third grade called "My Two Dads". That's unacceptable because I have the right to raise my children to believe what I want them to believe, as does any American.

Environmental issues have never really been a concern to me. I say if we figure a way to make life more livable more more PEOPLE, I'm not concerned over a forest being downed. That's an extreme way of it (I'm not THAT hardcore) but am using it to illustrate my stances.

Education, I believe the problem with the public school system is that it's a socialist institution. Why is our K thru 12 the worst in the world and yet we've got some of if not the best higher education colleges and universities in the entire world? It's because our colleges and universities have to compete in order to get your money because they are a business when you really get down to it. They have to get better professors and offer higher degrees of education to get your dollar. Public schools, on the other hand, you're told what school you must attend, what teacher you have to learn under, and various other things to that extent. How does government fix this, I don't know. I'm just saying why I think it's bad. It's a difficult thing to fix.

[Meteor]

This concept of gay marriage has been one bugging me for a while. Marriage is a religious creation which has worked its way into the secular world, kind of like Christmas or "X-mas" if you're really uptight. (Separation of church and state, anyone?) As for me, I don't really mind if two gay people want to be married. Both parties are willing; I don't want to prevent their happiness just because I do not approve.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Meteor

[YokaiKnight]

Well, that's a pretty good point, YokaiKnight. I can't really argue against that, haha.

The less I say, the better I do. ;) ...so the rest of this post is probably going to be easy to pick apart. :P

My own stance on gay marriage is kind of similar to Palin's, honestly. I don't think gay people should be discriminated against by the government in terms of tax benefits, rights of estate, visitation rights in hospitals, and all that stuff. I just don't think they should get legally recognized as being married. I realize it's just a term, but I don't think it's right because of my religious beliefs. Marriage between man and woman has been recognized as just that for the entire history of mankind, and it was always a religious ceremony because it's supposed to be a holy union. If the government recognizes them as MARRIED rather than people who enter in a civil union, it's forcing the beliefs of gay Americans upon those that don't believe the same thing they do. It means I'll have to deal with my kids reading required school ciricumlum as soon as the third grade called "My Two Dads". That's unacceptable because I have the right to raise my children to believe what I want them to believe, as does any American.

To me, it's important to allow for same-sex marriage, not civil unions. As the Jim Crow south proved for about a century, separate but equal it not actually equal.

I can understand your viewpoint from your personal beliefs, but I would challenge that the Bill of Rights gives you the right to express your beliefs but also others to express theirs. In short, if you think same-sex marriage is immoral, don't do it, and tell other people they shouldn't if you have to, but don't use the law to expressly prohibit people from doing so. The government is WAY overstepping their bounds in prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Education, I believe the problem with the public school system is that it's a socialist institution. Why is our K thru 12 the worst in the world

That's pushing it a little, don't you think? ;)

...and yet we've got some of if not the best higher education colleges and universities in the entire world? It's because our colleges and universities have to compete in order to get your money because they are a business when you really get down to it. They have to get better professors and offer higher degrees of education to get your dollar. Public schools, on the other hand, you're told what school you must attend, what teacher you have to learn under, and various other things to that extent. How does government fix this, I don't know. I'm just saying why I think it's bad. It's a difficult thing to fix.

From personal experience, the culture of public school is a bigger roadblock towards traditional learning than the educational content itself--most people who want to can get a good education at a public school, though how hard they have to try will obviously vary.

[sandmanccl]

The less I say, the better I do. ;) ...so the rest of this post is probably going to be easy to pick apart. :P

To me, it's important to allow for same-sex marriage, not civil unions. As the Jim Crow south proved for about a century, separate but equal it not actually equal.

I can understand your viewpoint from your personal beliefs, but I would challenge that the Bill of Rights gives you the right to express your beliefs but also others to express theirs. In short, if you think same-sex marriage is immoral, don't do it, and tell other people they shouldn't if you have to, but don't use the law to expressly prohibit people from doing so. The government is WAY overstepping their bounds in prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Well, as I said, marriage is first and foremost a religious institution, in my mind.

I actually don't think the states should recognize STRAIGHT marriages. I think they should only recognize civil unions, which could potentially be defined in a myriad of ways.

I don't care if someone wants to fuck a goat and consider it his life partner, but damned if I have to recognize it as a marriage. Extreme examples usually make the best points.

That's pushing it a little, don't you think? ;)

From personal experience, the culture of public school is a bigger roadblock towards traditional learning than the educational content itself--most people who want to can get a good education at a public school, though how hard they have to try will obviously vary.

Well, a little, but not really. I should have specified first world countries, granted, but we're far behind pretty much every country in the EU and Canada when it comes to public education.

Like I said, education is really a can of worms because I can point a lot of flaws out, but don't really know how I'd go about fixing it.

[YokaiKnight]

Well, as I said, marriage is first and foremost a religious institution, in my mind.

I actually don't think the states should recognize STRAIGHT marriages. I think they should only recognize civil unions, which could potentially be defined in a myriad of ways.

I don't care if someone wants to fuck a goat and consider it his life partner, but damned if I have to recognize it as a marriage. Extreme examples usually make the best points.

Legal marriages =/= religious marriages. You don't have to recognize it as the same thing if you don't really want to.

Also, I would say that marriage should be between two legally consenting parties. Can a goat legally consent to anything? I may have a liberal view on this, but I'm not going to go down the slippery slope for marriage here.

[canas is back]

Legal marriages =/= religious marriages. You don't have to recognize it as the same thing if you don't really want to.

Also, I would say that marriage should be between two legally consenting parties. Can a goat legally consent to anything? I may have a liberal view on this, but I'm not going to go down the slippery slope for marriage here.

he was saying that the government shouldn't recognize MARRIGE, but rather civil unions and I take the same view as him aith this and the prop 8 thing in my state

[YokaiKnight]

he was saying that the government shouldn't recognize MARRIGE, but rather civil unions and I take the same view as him aith this and the prop 8 thing in my state

That would require all those with marriage licenses (everyone legally married) to have those replaced with civil unions and lose the various benefits marriage has that civil unions don't. Is that something you're willing to do for every married couple in the country?

Sorry, I'm feeling a little lazy right now--the Proposition 8 of the moment is in CA, right?

[canas is back]

That would require all those with marriage licenses (everyone legally married) to have those replaced with civil unions and lose the various benefits marriage has that civil unions don't. Is that something you're willing to do for every married couple in the country?

Sorry, I'm feeling a little lazy right now--the Proposition 8 of the moment is in CA, right?

to the first: it needs work on but I think that civil unions should gain almost the same benefits, but like I said, it needs work

to the second:YAH

[YokaiKnight]

to the first: it needs work on but I think that civil unions should gain almost the same benefits, but like I said, it needs work

to the second:YAH

"Almost?" Why not all?

[sandmanccl]

Grandfather clauses are wonderful things. I'm sure if any real bill about that sort of thing was passed, that'd be included somehow.

The problem is that from the get-go the government is recognizing what was a religious ceremony and granting tax benefits to that.

I also am too lazy to elaborate. Brain is totally fried because I went through about 30 levels just now in the Item World in Disgaea.

[canas is back]

"Almost?" Why not all?

it has to do with all of the nit picky details inside each of the states definitions

[bunny: spider bitten]

I'm a bit late, but on Education, I think that is *largely* subject to general intelligence of those in the system. Alaska, as an in country example, provides a great Education system in that those who don't get a concept will generally get help.

But at the end of the day, a kid in Baltimore who doesn't understand addition after the third lesson on the subject is just going to be forgotten. They'll get it eventually(it's a simple concept), but they'll be left behind in most cases, and it's because of that their chances of making it through 8 years is low.

Part of that is the number of people.

It's personal experience. My school had a huge gap between the top 10% Senior year and the people in the bottom 5% of the top 15%.

Not that the Alaskan background will help Palin incredibly. Though she's probably the only person I don't like in the election. In fact, I think McCain gets a bit more grief than he deserves.