CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Reagan believed in the expansion of science and technology, so he would definitely spend money on new energy. he would also expand the Space and Ocean programs to give better resources to the military.
He would lessen government control over our lives and property, ensuring that taxes were spent on things that would progress the entire country, mainly militarily.
He would take away boundaries on ANWR so that we could get more oil.
Basically, what we would see if Reagan were around today is a stronger Military, cheaper gas and new energy, and major scientific and technological advancements.
Probably bring down the country again. Somehow he used more fear-mongering that Bush did. He used secret tactics to stage rebellions in South America that destroyed rebellions by the people to control their government in favor of right-wing dictators because he didn't like their economic policy. His trickle-down theory was a complete failure. He began the movement of deregulation which has led to the current economic crisis.
Here are 20 things they don't tell you about Reagan:
Reagan advocating nuclear weapons to end the Vietnam war : “It’s silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas.”
Reagan on the Fair Housing Act : “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.”
Reagan on poverty: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet”.
Reagan after the assassination of MLK, Jr : “a great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break.”
Reagan opposing expansion of Redwood National Park : “A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?”
An quote from Reagan's equivalent of Karl Rove, who interestingly enough was one of Rove's mentors
Atwater: "You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites."
A few other articles about how bad of a president Reagan actually was.
Don't worry your un-analytical mind either prevent you from reading all of this, or it will convince you that it is all false or taken out of context. You will not have to actually critically examine the beliefs you have been taught. You're lucky because it's really painful to realize most of the things that you've been told are lies.
From the first few quotes it sounds like he was a libertarian.
on Vietnam - Saying the same thing that Truman would have said.
on Fair Housing - Believed in individual rights, and exactly what Libertarians believe in. You have a right to sell whatever you want to anyone you want.
I wasn't aware that the Libertarian policy was that it is okay to literally level developing nations that you are fighting against. Remind me where it says that in the Libertarian Party Platform because I am having trouble finding it.
And comparing that statement to what Truman did means nothing. In my opinion Truman was a war criminal and a mass-murderer for ordering the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But he never made flippant jokes about it.
Also you need to realize that in a debate you can't use the fact that a position is the Libertarian position as evidence for it being the correct position.
Also disliking the Fair Housing Act is kind of ridiculous. Many people could not find housing or affordable housing simply because of their race. Just to find out if you are a complete idealist or at least somewhat practical I propose the following hypothetical. If you knew that people were homeless because owners were discriminating against them for factors beyond their control which did not in any way influence the fulfillment of the sale or rent contract, would you agree that the owners have the right to do this?
Libertarians, first off, would be against going into Vietnam. But, Libertarians (being Patriotic and all) would want to have a quick end to the War without pulling out the troops all at once (mainly because that's how you lose more troops). They would support the bombing of Vietnam in order to end the War. As isolationists, they are not worried about innocent civilians, just the livelihood of the troops.
i'm not debating his views with you, actually. you obviously disagree with them, and i agree with most of them. I'm just presenting them as they are (just how you did). what, do you really want an endless debate that will prove nothing? we both realize his views (although, you may be taking them out of context, but because i know this will lead nowhere, i won't bother to do my homework this time).
and, i believe in Private Property, just how the founding fathers did. The only things that can not discriminate are authority (Guns, God and Government). But, if someone doesn't want to sell something to someone because he's a racist, it's his right. Just how I don't want to sell a house to a pedophile (with the whole mental disease theory, he technically has no control over his condition and is therefore a victim). under Fair Housing, we are obligated to sell to him (if not convicted, even better). Michael Jackson, and obvious pedophile but is not convicted, almost became my cousin's neighbor, even though the seller was against it. doesn't matter, fair housing.
So, lets say we make it that it's RACE and SEX and ORIENTATION only. Then, it's pretty easy to say "The person seemed unstable to me and I didn't find it right to sell it to him". A racist can easily say that. So, under fair housing you not feeling right about that guy isn't good enough. So, an obvious pervert or pedophile would still have to be protected under fair housing, or else it would be useless.
This is why he's libertarian about it. This is why many people are libertarian about it.
But you disagree, and i can see why. hell, i used to be that way. But after dissecting this many times (it's all i ever really do in my spare time, dissect ideologies) i've comed to the conclusion that Libertarianism and Individualism fits me best in this situation.
"But, Libertarians (being Patriotic and all) would want to have a quick end to the War"
So if you don't think it is okay to kill millions of civilians and destroy a country, then you are not patriotic?
"As isolationists, they are not worried about innocent civilians, just the livelihood of the troops."
I guarantee libertarians do care about innocent civilians being killed. It may not be their prime motivation, but they definitely do care.
About Michael Jackson, you can not sell to him because you think he is a pedophile that is perfectly fine.
"The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlawed:
Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion or national origin.
Discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.
Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights."
I agree with you that people should be able be able to sell to who they want. That is an important right. But in my opinion the right of groups discriminated against to find affordable housing is greater than the right of racists to sell to who they want. If you think the latter right is more important, then that is your opinion and neither of us is right.
1. sorry, I was too blunt on the Patriotic statement. I should have known that would have looked bad. I purely meant that they care more for America's needs than other Nation's needs.
2. Of course they care to some extent, they're not sociopaths. But they care a hell of a lot more about American troops than innocent, foreign civilians.
3. My main problem with the Fair Housing Act is that it prosecutes thought. How do you know if someone is actually a racist? Do they actually reject a house from someone and say "it's because he's black". Last I heard, it doesn't work that way. The Fair Housing Act can't be backed up by physical evidence, so it uses Though Prosecution.
4. My concern is of the right of the individual and their property to do with it as they please as long as they are not enforcing themselves or the item onto one another. This includes someone not wanting to sell something to someone just cause he's black.
The whole point of this country was so that the Government could not run our individual lives. If you create a law that forces people to sell to people that go against their own beliefs, no matter how crazy it might be, than we are going against the very principals of America.
After all, the Fair Housing Act is basically accusing others of "thoughcrime". The same with Hate Crimes. They might as well be called "thoughtcrimes".
I completely agree with you about thoughtcrimes being bad and about how the government should not run our lives. Being a pretty strong liberal I am libertarian about all social issues ( Abortion, drugs, gay marriage, gambling, prostitution.) Like you said the government's role is not to legislate morality or try to government our everyday lives as long as we do not hurt other people. In my opinion the government's role is to protect us from other people, but not from ourselves. And in this case because many blacks could not get housing they needed to be protected from the tyranny of racist whites. We're probably not going to agree on this because you're just a bit more libertarian than I am, but I do agree with you that the government should not run people's lives.
And yes you did essentially have to prove discrimination with the Fair Housing Act. It was just like how workplace discrimination laws work today. If you are fired and you are black, that is not good enough. But if you can prove to a jury using evidence that you were fired solely because of your race you can win the case.
I actually have a pretty cool story about the Fair Housing Act. My high school government teacher, who is a great guy as you will see, told us this. When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated my teacher, was in college at the time, went to the black students' union at the school and asked if there was anything they could do to help. The students said that many of the black students on campus were not able to get housing in the area because the white owners were refusing to rent apartments. Many colleges only guarantee on-campus housing for two years, so many of these students were getting screwed. So my teacher, his friends, and some of the members of the black student's union would basically perform sting operations on the local building owners. One of the black students would walk into a building and ask to rent an apartment. When the owners told them there was no vacancy they would leave and signal to one of the white students waiting outside who would then go in and ask for an apartment. If the owner then said there was vacancy they would compile the evidence and report the owner to the district attorney with their testimony. Regardless of if you feel the Fair Housing Act should be legal, it should be a pretty touching story.
Alright I'm glad we agree that the Fair Housing Act was necessary at least at one point in time. I still think it needs to exist now just in case to ensure people don't have difficulty finding a place to live due to their race though.
