|
|
#12
10-20-2006, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What will it take??
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Define "worked". [/ QUOTE ] You possessed the income and technology necessary to post that message. [/ QUOTE ] Government gave him neither. And by that definition it's still working, so what's the problem? 
|
|
#13
10-20-2006, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What will it take??
[ QUOTE ]
Government gave him neither. [/ QUOTE ] Besides the fact that we owe our civilization to the government, my response is: ORLY? [ QUOTE ] And by that definition it's still working, so what's the problem? [/ QUOTE ] I've really got to read that more carefully. My point is that statist societies have been successful in developing civilization. AC has no such track record, which should make those considering it nervous.
|
|
#14
10-20-2006, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What will it take??
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Government gave him neither. [/ QUOTE ] Besides the fact that we owe our civilization to the government, [/ QUOTE ] That's your opinion, not a fact. If it's a fact, prove it. [ QUOTE ] my response is: ORLY? [/ QUOTE ] I won't argue here. Government still didn't give him his income. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And by that definition it's still working, so what's the problem? [/ QUOTE ] I've really got to read that more carefully. My point is that statist societies have been successful in developing civilization. AC has no such track record, which should make those considering it nervous. [/ QUOTE ] AC aside - whiskey says government under 2 parties worked fine for 200 years until republicans took over in 2000. BCPVP asked for a useful definition of "worked" for which this is true, in an attempt to show that whiskey is wrong when he states that government did its job wonderfully until 2000, and has failed since then. Even if you ultimately reject AC, he has a valid point IMO. Edit: A point that could as easily have been made by Natedogg or Felix. Don't be too quick to dismiss ACist's arguments. Not all of them depend on or necessitate total anarchism. For instance when Borodog argues against socialized health care you should not dismiss his arguments just because he's an ACister.
|
|
#15
10-20-2006, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What will it take??
[ QUOTE ]
I believe everyone should vote their conscience. [/ QUOTE ] This blatantly contradicts every word in your OP. Do you see why?
|
|
#16
10-20-2006, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What will it take??
[ QUOTE ]
Government did its job wonderfully until 2000, and has failed since then. Even if you ultimately reject AC, he has a valid point IMO. [/ QUOTE ] Here are my thoughts on that subject.
|
|
#17
10-20-2006, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What will it take??
Sorry for my ignorance but who do AC'ers vote for? Or do they even vote?
After thinking about it for a while and having voted for them once or twice in some local elections, I am going to vote Libertarian for a while here. Both major parties are for too much government in everything, and even worse, are just playing to win the game regardless of the consequences to anyone but themselves. When the best H. Clinton can say after the NK nuclear test is "this is the result of the failed policies of the Bush administration", and the best McCain can say is "this is the result of the failed policies of the Clinton administration", I get ill. Where is the leadership and the sense of the good of the people? How about trying "I am going to get together with the leaders of the other party, and the President, and we are going to come up with a plan to deal with this situation", and presenting at least a semi-united front to the world. I'm embarrassed to watch the news with my kids, I don't want them to see the way supposedly responsible adults act. The current crowd will still be pointing fingers at each other and doing nothing productive when the (pick one) hordes are inside the gates. This country started as a grand experiment in self-selection, with energetic people who did incredible things for the times in which they lived. And the country did great things. People can argue over how right some of those things were, but they were great things. Government has been gradually growing to the point that it is strangling the whole shooting match (see the thread about the fiscal iceberg we are starting to scrape into). Not even an income tax for the first 140 years, and now the federal, state, local governments are kudzu. I mean, for heavens sake, what kind of mamby-pamby thing is it to ban gambling, this whole country was a gamble for millions of people. To me Democrats are the worse choice between the two majors, and I just couldn't punch a ballot for one of them, but the Repubs have gotten way lost, just been somehow converted to playing on the other side's field over time. Anyway, I don't consider my Libertarian vote wasted, if enough of us were to vote that way the numbers would show up on the radar. In this age of razor thin elections all over the place, as little as ten percent would be a huge swing factor and could get its voice heard and at least affect policy. If clucks like John(?) Anderson and Ross Perot can get 20 % of a national vote on pretty short notice, Libertarians can build something over time that would matter, and the less government crowd would get some traction. Those 20 % numbers, years ago, tell me that there are lots of people unhappy with the big two, and willing to vote another way Rant concluded.
|
|
#20
10-20-2006, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What will it take??
"the only time it's worked like dogshit is under the One party system the Repub's set up in 2000"
Damn so your telling me that america "worked" better during the civil war and great depression than it is now????
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
