The standard for whatever you are talking about.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
This is classical liberalism, not the type of liberalism you identify with. Of course not all progressives think alike, but they are generally not in favor of any of the freedoms you listed other than perhaps religious freedom. They tend to like a sizeable amount of regulation in the economy and typically favor government overhauling of the healthcare system. I'm not quite sure what you mean by political freedom; anyone over the age of 18 or a naturalized citizen can already vote so I'm guessing you're referring to something else.
For the most part, no. Sometimes if the kids are home-schooled or go to private schools with vocational programs they get a good preparation. But the vast majority of all kids are economically useless upon graduation from public high school, which is why they are compelled to go to college. This is not something that's accidental, either. Labor unions would hate it if floods of 18-year-olds entered the work force, joined a labor union (which is required in most U.S. states) and undercut the overall wages of union workers. So the public schools orchestrate the curriculum accordingly. They force you to learn a lot of math that you likely will never need to use , a few proganda-laden history courses, a lot of useless science, etc. Obviously these courses wouldn't be useless if you chose to apply the knowledge gained from them to a career, but the rest of the young 'uns get set back.
Yes, medical services should be free. As well as everything else we know in this world. Sadly, we don't live in Utopia. Instead, we live on planet Earth where resources are always limited and finite and have a price attached to them as a result.
You are wrong in stating that you can't have society without taxation. Such a society has been conceptualized (stateless society). It's too bad you think that in such a society citizens would be like the old Germanic tribes, or any tribes for that matter. It seems obvious that people would still want insurance against having their rights violated by other citizens and that would pave the way for private rights enforcement agencies, arbitrators, dispute resolution organizations, etc. I'm not saying I want privatized legal systems but to say that law can't exist without government is silly.
If by the world you mean Germany, then I would say no. Even though nations generally don't learn from their history, they will this time....mostly because they're forced to ...by the U.N. and such. Plus, their laws forbid any verbal mention of certain Nazi-related terms and Nazi flags etc. and I don't see that changing any time soon.
If you want civilians to be defenseless in the event of armed conflict, then yes. Otherwise, no.
The thing that I find to be most ridiculous about this hotly-debated issue is the idea that it's better for guns to be in the government's hands then regular civilians...as if government officials have a different moral fabric than a regular civilian. Who's to say that if the government has most / all of the guns they won't use them for evil? History shows how ridiculous that idea is.
I favor a state. However, the only moral and legitimate function of a state is to enforce property rights and preserve liberty. Anarchists always say that a government can't possibly protect property because it must tax a citizen to do so, and taxation is inherently a violation of property rights because it takes a citizen's money without permission and may not use it for its stated purpose anyway. However, the reason why rights can't be better protected in a stateless society is simple: Rights don't exist unless others objectively recognize them. So, in a stateless society, your property rights could theoretically be violated by corrupt private DRO's and legal agencies perpetually without a monopoly on force in place. Sure, if every human was rational and sane the entire society would recognize rights as universal and we wouldn't need a state. But humans are not rational actors so we need rights to be declared objective by a monopoly on force to make sure that enforcement happens. Yeah, a state can be corrupt, but so can any private organization. There is simply no foolproof way to keep power completely in check; to believe otherwise is Utopian and frankly, really stupid. We're all human beings, not perfectly programmed machines.
Absolutely more harmful. Religion came into existence because of "men" in the Stone Age who were desperate for a way to control people once their physical and mental strength deteriorated. Without the establishment of religion and a priest class to enforce the dogma, these "men" would move down in the social heirarchy. Religion has always been predatory and evil, and its perceptions on morality are far too often not in synch with many basic tenets of human ethics.
Government is a monopoly on the initiation of force, also known as central planning. It is representative of the political paradox: an entity designed to prevent predation but possessing the ability to be the most predatory thing in the world.
I disagree with the premise that winning a Super Bowl is a prerequisite for being considered an elite QB. (Dan Marino, Jim Kelly etc.) Football championships are won by a team, not only by a QB. If a QB doesn't have a good offensive line to consistently protect him, and/or a decent corps of receivers to throw to....he can't win a Super Bowl no matter how good he is. Not to mention that no matter how good he is, it's pretty tough in any given year to be part of a team that places first out of a plethora of teams.
The vast income inequality in the United States has been caused by inflation, which is a biproduct of government intrustion in the economy. Capitalism had nothing to do with it. The U.S. has been a mixed economy (at best) for some time now.
Serving in the military is certainly brave, but it is over-glorified. Fighting and possibly dying for a government that doesn't care about you is not the greatest thing you can do with your life, unless you are defending your homeland from an invasion or some such thing.
He didn't get the nomination because he doesn't have the fund-raising to get the word out enough and doesn't support military interventionism like most of conservative America seems to.
He's too good for the Republican Party, though. I expect he'll return to the Libertarian Party soon, as this may have been his last presidential run. He'll be retiring soon after that, I imagine.
If the scenario involves zombies, I'm more than ready.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
They've had referendums on this for a while and the independence side never wins out because most Scots realize they are better off being a part of the UK. Secession would make the Scottish economy shrink exponentially, which would of course make them a less powerful state. The Scottish devolved government is nearly powerless anyhow, as most of what happens in Scotland is dictitated by British Parliament. Also, they've been a part of the UK long enough where most Scots identify more with their British identity than their Scottish one.
America was founded on God, remember ''In God we trust''. If homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes that makes it morally wrong.
Yes, founded on the idea that god gives us natural rights. But not necessarily the christian god. Most of the founders were deists or atheists. They all believed there was a creator that gave humans their nature for a reason, but most of them did not profess to know what that reason was or what the creator was. America is NOT a christian nation.
You're only mad because a black president is getting stonewalled by Congress. But are there blacks in the Republican Party? Yes. So could one of those blacks become President one day? Yes. So your argument that "conservative" policies are "cracker philosphies" is now dismantled.
The "show me your papers" thing is not relevant to why Republicans oppose him, but I'll address it anyway. The Republican Party doesn't endorse that intolerance. The Tea Party, right-wing talk show hosts and in general stupid Americans do. I'm no fan of Republicans either, but even if some Republicans believe deep down he's not a citizen they aren't about to admit it to the media and the public in general. It's political suicide. So I don't know what you're hearing that I'm not. The fact is that Republicans reject Obama because of his policies (big surprise), not his race. Plus, the world is not so black-and-white that you can just assert that the only party that tolerates black people running for office is the Democrats. There are racists on both sides of the aisle, history has shown that. If you want specifics, I'll give 'em.
It's so convenient when you have a young black man leading your party. Anyone who opposes him for any reason can be called racist, and a lot of the stupid majority will believe it. If only I had billions of dollars, I'd go find a young black man with Obama-type stick-up-my-ass swag and make him head of my new political party.
Too bad the federal government trumps states' rights. Sure, Colorado voted to make weed legal but you gotta get the Supreme Court to rule in favor of legalization for it to really matter the way you want it to.
But I deffs wanna move to CO now. That much is true lol.
Disagree. It's true that the younger you get married, the greater the chance of you getting divorced. But, obviously, not everyone is the same and there are some people who have a good idea of what their values/goals/etc. are before they're 25. She thinks that simply because her situation worked itself out a certain way, that that's the way it goes all the time. I'm certainly glad she's not in charge of policy-making at any level.
I don't know, but I bet you could find even sexier referees than her in Lingerie Football. If I'm wrong, that's a shame.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
There really is no doubt the PC is the overall better and more practical computer. Not to mention less expensive. Any PC OS (Windows, Linux, whatever) is better also. The only benefits mac has over PC is it is better for graphic design and is better protected from viruses because of the fact that 90+% of all computer viruses are written for PCs.
OK. Having said all that, how is Great Britain any better than America in that regard? They didn't have slavery as long as America did, but as far as their imperialism and taxation goes, they've got America beat as far as I'm concerned. I'll explain if you explain.
OK, so explain.
Also, I have to say....it seems to me that you never pass up an opportunity to diss America. Which is perfectly fine, I rail against America alot too. But I do so because I believe its government is too willing to suspend civil liberties for "national security", imperialistic, and too tax-happy. Based on the posts I've seen from you, you seem to do it because of your nationalistic pride for Great Britain and no other reason. Am I wrong?
Sure, there are rules that are beneficial to follow, for your own safety or out of respect for other people and their rights etc. But rules should not be blindly followed, in my opinion. Authority has to be questioned for personal liberty, and thus happiness, to be maximized.
Sure, Warren Buffet IS in a better position to help than his cleaning lady theoretically. But the reason you gave for why he's morally obliged defeats your argument. You claim that the wealthy pay less tax than the rest of the country, but that's dead wrong (although it's true that tax rates on the rich are slowly falling). As of a couple years ago, the wealthiest 20% of Americans pay almost 70% of all taxes; the poorest 20% pay less than 1%.
I smoke because its relaxing...period. I don't smoke regularly. The highest amount of cigs I've had in a day was 5. On average I smoke far less than a cigarette per day. I only do it socially or when I've been out of weed for a couple days or more. The people on this thread that say that smoking AT ALL proves you aren't "healthy minded" or are taking a stupid risk are simply filled to the brim with propogandic nonsense..from the government, their families etc. In fact, there actually are health benefits to smoking infrequently. You are at a lower risk for developing certain tumors, stomach conditions etc. Smoking tobacco every once in a while is just fine, unless you have a tendency to get addicted to things easily. Be your own judge. There's a simple rule for all things: Enjoy In Moderation. Whether it's sunlight, alcohol, weed, sex or computer games. It doesn't matter.
It's actually physically impossible to break your penis. There is no bone within it to break, only muscles and veins. You could sprain it, though. I had a friend who claimed he got his sprained by some girl. She was allegedly riding him cowgirl and at one point he fell out and on the way down.....she missed the mark.
Without a doubt the USSR. Although we are currently in a cold war with China...it is an economic cold war. The cold war with the USSR had elements of an economic cold war and the space race but above all it was a national security epidemic. In the 1960's almost every house had a bomb shelter stocked full of food rations. School children took part in drills for nuclear explosion and fallout. There is simply not that kind of panic going on over China today.
