- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Well, logically no omnipotent, omnipresent being capable of creating a universe and life would reveal the knowledge behind it to a bunch of monkeys... They wouldn't understand. If I were a deity I'd just say "Yeah I made it, all by myself. Only took me a week. Now be good or I'll spank you." After giving humans the mental capacity to figure it out for themselves of course. And what religions are we even talking about? I'm sure there are some that don't exactly attempt to disprove science, New Age Spiritualism, Pantheism, Omnism, the list goes on, but it would all really be different names for the same thing. Just suggesting that evidence to support science isn't evidence to support atheism. In fact discovering that there is a means to creating a universe, in the case of the "god" particle, only reinforces the idea that we have a creator somewhere, somewhen.
The Drug War and public education are just two examples of problems the government creates which have detrimental effects to society. This is wasted money, and I like to use the Federal Department of Education as an example of the worst case scenario with these things. I isolated them with respect to their relevance to Gov. Johnson's platform, as contributing factors to income inequality, as Vice laws force millions of dollars of legitimate business underground, and essentially wasting tax money that could be doing something useful or be back in the hands of the tax payer. I guess there is an argument that these government created jobs are completely superfluous and when the government stops performing them the demand will disappear, leaving those employees with skills they couldn't possibly use anywhere else. Even so the amount of opportunities opening up in the states under a Johnson presidency would offset anything lost by the government. With no corporate, business-to-business, income, or capital gains tax, entrepreneurs would be scrambling to open up shop in our borders. There would be plenty of investment, especially since we would be paying back our debt, things wouldn't look so risky on an international level. Who would invest in something when they know they're not going to get their money back? What I'm hearing from this Keynesian thing is that you believe that the Government can increase demand? This seems strange to me... People's demand for goods and services will be there and whatever it is with or without the government. If anything Government, in forming monopolies on certain goods and services, reduces demand by taking potential jobs from competitors off the table.... Maybe I just don't get it. Even so you admitted that the quality of the service we're getting from this administration or that we would get from the Romney administration is poor, not in so many words, but you seem to agree on most of the issues that really create disparity in this country. So we should be trusting it to someone we know has already improved an economy? Like Gary Johnson? I mean, he has proof. It's literally the best record. You can hold them up next to each other. Can we count on your vote? If not you should admit to yourself at some point that you're knowingly not voting for the best odds at recovery.
So the Congressional Budget Office tells you that Congress has to spend as much money as they want or there will be another recession, and you're just going to take their word for it? all of the recessions we've had recently were caused by government created scenarios.
Romney supports the War on Drugs, which creates poverty and increases the size of a class of people who are environmentally forced to be dependent on the government. Increasing the size of government, ere go how much it spends, ere go how much we pay/waste on a problem the government is creating itself.
Hah. Oh man. There's a lot of stuff there I want to get to but I need to start at the last part that I read. The phenomenon you cite. Starting in 1979 the inequality in this country has been rising steadily, as you said. The reason for this is mostly the creation of the Federal Department of Education by Jimmy Carter. Just think about it. Since 1979 the average test scores of students in public schools have remained the same, or within a margin so small it might as well be. Before then the average was slowly rising. School is a business. No one would pay money for a school that didn't improve your child's test scores and intelligence... unless it's in their taxes. As a result of the failing stagnant education system that simply acts as a guaranteed jobs program to keep humans addicted to government, people who don't have the benefit of living in a good school district are screwed. People have been arrested for trying to send their kids to a better school. Why this staunch resistance to school choice? A system that has worked in every country it has been implemented? The government needs stupid, weak, easily manipulated people that need the government to justify its existence. Same drill with the Drug War. These things create poverty, and if they were eliminated the need for the kind of aid people talk about would be gone. Drastically reducing the cost of government. Gary Johnson is talking about ending the Drug War and the Federal Department of Education, in addition to advocating school choice. We spend more money on education than any other country and we're still failing, I think our methods need to be changed. I just want to point this out as an example of the kind of waste Johnson is talking about cutting.
The Federal government adds thousands of pages of regulations that businesses have to work around every year. State governments add thousands of pages of regulations that businesses have to work around every year. See what I'm saying? It's redundant, not to mention county regulations, and city regulations. There are states where if an Entrepreneur thinks he can provide a better service to customers that get that service from Unionized employees, then he is legally bound not to compete with the price at the customer's benefit. This practice started after slavery ended and Black people along with Immigrants from Mexico and Central America, etc. were entering the work force, asking to work for very little, less than the Unions which were White only at that time. If you want to live in a place where progress and cheaper, better goods & services take a back seat to this impossible safety net illusion Statists have, that's perfectly alright. That's why we have state's rights. At least with the Federal regulations loosened or gone entirely the giant corporations who bought all the politicians writing those regulations won't have such a massive upperhand on small business owners who get none of the tax credits or loopholes that stem from a faulty corruptible Income tax model, when the production and sale of everything you use your income on is already taxed. Oh hey Gary Johnson wants to scrap the current tax system. He's advocating with the fair tax right now, but it's really just a model to face the rigor of diplomacy between the branches of government. It's cool because used goods aren't taxed so there's a lot of initiative to recycle and for producers to make reliable goods. Not bad for the environment.
Some of the policy you're talking about it seems like you're not on the right web site. When Gary was the governor of New Mexico, he reduced the size of state government by over a thousand jobs without firing anyone. His was one of four states with a balanced budget when he left office, term-limited. We all know that if not for the two-term limit he, as the most popular governor of NM in the past several decades at least, would have been re-elected. He took state healthcare and reformed it, delivering better care at a 20% savings, and that's just money saved on the state application of healthcare which isn't the only tax money used on it in every state. This is ludicrous, why is he wrong to say that "There is a better way to take care of people, and its cheaper too."? This has proven true with every industry opened to the free market, why not with some of the stuff we traditionally assume as the government's job? Why can't we introduce elements of the free market into the way our government operates like with School Choice so that we can implement a level of accountability to the people paying for it and maybe see some results from this alleged do-gooder instinct.
You talk an awful lot about jobs but Johnson has done an awful lot about jobs. He has the best record out of any of the candidates on growth and unemployment. The Federal government still twists the facts they put out by things like not including people who have been unemployed over a certain length of time, etc. so it's impossible to tell where Obama really is in regards to his first term. But look at his record before he took office. What kind of success did Obama display in the Executive branch of government that made people think he would be a good president? Oh that's right- NOTHING. Romney's record is... unremarkable. Literally nothing to be mentioned worthy of praise. This alone makes Johnson the only sane choice for reasonable, logical voters. People keep throwing up this wall of Keynesian economics to tell us that we can't possibly spend less money than we are and get a better service for it, even though the price has been rising for years and it still hasn't gotten any better. Something is fundamentally wrong with that picture. Here's Gary Johnson, proven to run executive government to everyone's liking, to everyone's benefit, while lessening the tax burden on everyone, and you're trying to disprove his plan for the rest of the country with theory that has only led us into massive debt that someone someday I guarantee you will come to collect, from us, whether we like it or not. That's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson and why you should too.
well I guess I'll give the point to Red Hood. But Red Robin or Tim Drake is the best Robin of all time. Let's look at the facts, 1. Tim Drake figured out Batman's identity (albeit in kind of a weird way but whatever he's the only person in Gotham to figure it out). 2. "Come on Batman... where are the pants?" First Robin to not where a bikini bottom as part of his costume. 3. Owned the entire discography of Depeche Mode. The guy followed Bruce's steps around the world investigating this massive conspiracy when everyone else threw in the towel. He's the first Robin with his own mobile, and his own series AS Robin that lasted years. Now he's kind of like a red-headed stepchild because of Damian Wayne and his only job is the Teen Titans. Even so, he's the smartest Robin, and the deadliest, because he wasn't just trained by Batman but Lady Shiva too. All that shit that Jason Todd went through in the new 52 doesn't really compare because there's magic and spirituality mixed in there, Tim Drake is grounded in physical reality like Batman and Nightwing, guns and knives are a cheat anyways.
Obama's just afraid of Gary Johnson. That's where this whole Gay marriage issue with him came from. First it was more from Ron Paul but not as direct as Johnson's whole-fisted support for Gay Rights, as well as being named ACLU's top candidate in the defense of Civil Liberties. Now I think I sense a little pressure. Obama's just not going to be able to hold the people who are Left-leaning purely because of the social issues. Everyone on the right is afraid of Johnson spoiling the election for the GOP, but honestly at the very least he'll take as many votes from both. Unless of course Obama is going to pull through in a big way the next six months. But the DEA and the president have both made statements that the Drug War is working, and if anything they'll only increase the severity. Obama even said something about Nationwide drug testing laws. I'm expecting the same kind of avoidance and politicking we got in his 2008 campaign, that we got in his first term, and people will not put up with it again. People are too upset and displeased with this crap. Or maybe they'll all be so disillusioned nobody votes. Hahah. What if absolutely no one showed up one year? I know obviously somebody would buy votes for a candidate or whatever but just imagine. Isn't everyone else feeling that sick on election day?