Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes you are.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not your decision

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bullshit argument. Don't share your moral views, they are stupid and lead countries into the shit we are in now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? Cause they already gave more than poor people? Cause they produced goods? Cause the made things of more value? Cause they improved your life immensely? Cause they are better?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So what? One made and did better things to get those 900 more. He has no more duty to pay for underachievers than any other person.

The rich people having more money makes life harder for the poor. Why should they be born into a world of suppression? Why should they be at a disadvantage at birth?

People always call invidualists selfish when in reality it is the polar opposite. We are actually very giving. We just think it it odd to give through the taking of others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why should they?

What about people that have to pay? Do they deserve to get robbed of their money?

Everybody bennefits. It's not 100% consentual, but then your kids should be able to get an education regardless of YOUR choices or stature.

Why should they have to pay for you ignorance?

But then i forget you're "prochoice", your think the little ones should always be the first sacrifical lamb against you desires.

If you were half as ruthless against rapists and serial killers as you are agaist children we'd be living in a utopian.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Very selfish and non social way of thinking.

And? Social ways of thinking fail. They are stupid and immoral. Reasonable selfishness is the moral and intelligent thing for a society.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh well.

At least admit that you are lying.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not yours.

Yeah, it is the decision of the people that earned that money through hard work. Lets always remember that you are the guy proposing to send armed men to steal the money from people.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, that's why countries under a left wing government such as America under Clinton or Britain under Blair or Attlee have been so shit. Oh wait.

You have no political knowledge whatsoever, you talk out of your ass 99% of the time, I am not even sure why I bother with you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Bullshit generalisation. They should get taxed more because money is worth less, the more you have.

It isn't actually. And it is still their money. You want to take their money and give it to other people that didn't do anything. You want to go to people that worked hard and long and smart, with a gun, point it at them and tell them to give you half of their money, so you can give it to people that didn't work hard and didn't produce value. It is extremely unfair and no different to a bank robbery or mugging a guy on the streets. It doesn't get better just because you steal for someone else.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Obviously you're too arrogant to see the connection between those two sentences. Oh well.

Right, or you are that idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about. Which would be more likely?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The rich people having more money makes life harder for the poor. Why should they be born into a world of suppression? Why should they be at a disadvantage at birth?

That's bullshit. Rich people being rich doesn't make it harder for them at all, in fact it makes it easier for them. They should be thankful that rich people produced good and cheap stuff, instead they are envious, and not the good way where they think "I want that too....lets educated ourselves and work hard" but the "I WANT MONEY FOR FREE, CAUSE I WAS BORN POOR" thing. Which is bullshit. You have the majority stealing the ideas and productions of a few people because they can't be as smart and as good and pretend they have a moral right to leech on successful people.

Originally posted by Captain King
That's why i like my voucher idea.

Everybody bennefits. It's not 100% consentual, but then your kids should be able to get an education regardless of YOUR choices or stature.

Just that not everyone benefits. My kids would get an education from someone elses money. Someone that actually worked hard for that money. They'd be taught from stolen money. And there are multiple other approaches which don't involve stealing from innocent people, but socialists never see them, cause they want everything to be paid for, they just don't want to contribute themselves, it should be the successful people that already gave us cheap and good cars, computers, software, etc that made our lives easier. The people that contributed the most to society already are the victims of it again by having to give more than anyone else in it.

Originally posted by Captain King
Why should they have to pay for you ignorance?

Because they are the one that want a service. Why should I have to pay to get my hair cut? I think you should pay for me.

You don't agree? Well, I will get the government to come to your house and take away half or more of your money to pay for my hair cuts from now on. Don't object though, it is highly moral what I am doing. You are a selfish, bad person for not wanting to pay for my haircuts. I have a right to haircuts. And God forbid I work to afford them myself. How dare you suggest that?

Originally posted by Robtard
You know, there is a finite amount of peon jobs.

True, but there seems to be an infinite amount of nice, social folks like you, xyz, capt-fantastic, captain king, etc. who are endlessly willing to steal money from rich people to give it to the poor.

If you guys got together and used your own money in a free market, you could achieve just as much without stealing from other people. Robin Hood is misunderstood, he didn't steal from the rich and gave to the poor. He stole from the government and gave to the people that paid for it.

Originally posted by Captain King
That's why i like my voucher idea.

Everybody bennefits. It's not 100% consentual, but then your kids should be able to get an education regardless of YOUR choices or stature.

Why should they have to pay for you ignorance?

But then i forget you're "prochoice", your think the little ones should always be the first sacrifical lamb against you desires.

If you were half as ruthless against rapists and serial killers as you are agaist children we'd be living in a utopian.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True, but there seems to be an infinite amount of nice, social folks like you, xyz, capt-fantastic, captain king, etc. who are endlessly willing to steal money from rich people to give it to the poor.

If you guys got together and used your own money in a free market, you could achieve just as much without stealing from other people. Robin Hood is misunderstood, he didn't steal from the rich and gave to the poor. He stole from the government and gave to the people that paid for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a free market, before democracy and other socialist values was invented? And if so, why did they invent these socialised attributes?

Why don't you believe in helping others? Do you hate society?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Your optimism about the free market is laughable, but what do I know, right?

Nothing.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I mean, a free market would not only destroy all international laws (eg. copyright)

Not true...relating to your first point. A free market can and does accept property.

Originally posted by lord xyz
but would make it easier for companies to corrupt. If they were being monitored, there would be no corruption.

That is laughable. Most corruption stems from politicians and the power that the states and government have. In fact what do you even see as corruption in big companies. It seems to me that once more you try to participate in a debate without being aware of the most basic knowledge necessary to form a reasonable opinion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
orrect me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a free market, before democracy and other socialist values was invented?

You are wrong.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And if so, why did they invent these socialised attributes?

Because people like you wanted a piece of the pie without working or contributing. Socialists wanted rich people that had ideas and already dragged along society, to give even more.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Why don't you believe in helping others? Do you hate society?

I find your way of debating insulting by the way. If you don't have arguments or an understanding do not try to pull through with empty phrases and an appeal to morality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nothing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not true...relating to your first point. A free market can and does accept property.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is laughable. Most corruption stems from politicians and the power that the states and government have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact what do you even see as corruption in big companies. It seems to me that once more you try to participate in a debate without being aware of the most basic knowledge necessary to form a reasonable opinion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because people like you wanted a piece of the pie without working or contributing. Socialists wanted rich people that had ideas and already dragged along society, to give even more.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe in helping others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't believe in forcing others to help others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't believing in armed robbery.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't believe in oppression and forced altruism. Because I value freedom and my morals are derived from logical conclusion and not an idiotic altruism axiom.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I find your way of debating insulting by the way. If you don't have arguments or an understanding do not try to pull through with empty phrases and an appeal to morality.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'll accept that.

Good.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Accept properly? So do scams, haggles, cheats etc. not exist?

They are illegal. Also, I said "property".

Originally posted by lord xyz
That may be true, yet, we can change and control our government, we can't change or control our sellers.

Nor our buyers. Everyone has their free will. If I don't want to sell to you I have the right not to sell to you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You have a wrong assumption. Corruption would be like the Health Care in America for an example.

That makes no sense. Elaborate.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Very convincing argument.

You were asking whether you are. You were.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ermm, are you stupid? People who don't do anything don't get the money (unless they prove that they can't, and that's when we make them a contributing part of society, and those people pay back when they can). People who need money to be better get money, and then that in affect betters society.

That's a) not true and b) not their right and c) a theory you propose.

In fact I believe that society would be much better in a free market. It would certainly be fairer. People should succeed out of their own will. If you want to help them that is okay. If you force people to help them that's where it becomes a problem. No one is against helping poor people, but stealing up to 50% a person earns for that purpose is ridiculous, unfair and harmful.

Originally posted by lord xyz
We're making them be better parts of society.

Bullshit. Those people on welfare do, on average, not get better parts of society. They get lazier and more comfortable in not working. I agree that

Originally posted by lord xyz
Where did arms come into this?

That's what taxes are. No one says it. But they are stealing money with guns.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How is it idiotic? It's made society better.

No, it actually made it worse. And it continues making it worse. And it is unfair and disgusting.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I do have understanding. They just differ from yours, that's all.

That saying cracks me up.

"It is making society better."

Ah, bullshit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True, but there seems to be an infinite amount of nice, social folks like you, xyz, capt-fantastic, captain king, etc. who are endlessly willing to steal money from rich people to give it to the poor.

If you guys got together and used your own money in a free market, you could achieve just as much without stealing from other people. Robin Hood is misunderstood, he didn't steal from the rich and gave to the poor. He stole from the government and gave to the people that paid for it.

What does that have to do with the issue I brought up... statistically, kids who do not get at least a H.S. education, are more likely to resort to crime or be a burden to society in some manner. Look at the ghettos.

B-but it's fun to steal. You have Robin hood all wrong, he stole money from a corrupt oppressive interim government and gave it to the over-taxed/under represented poor people.

Originally posted by Robtard
What does that have to do with the issue I brought up... statistically, kids who do not get at least a H.S. education, are more likely to resort to crime or be a burden to society in some manner. Look at the ghettos.

Can't a) be sure that would be like that in a free market society and b) be sure that there would be more kids without H.S. education. So, that's a sad thing, sure, just not a good argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
B-but it's fun to steal. You have Robin hood all wrong, he stole money from a corrupt oppressive interim government and gave it to the over-taxed/under represented poor people.

T-that's what I said. He stole from an oppressive overtaxing stealing goverenment and gave to the overtaxed poor that had to pay for it (and were poor because of it)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can't a) be sure that would be like that in a free market society and b) be sure that there would be more kids without H.S. education. So, that's a sad thing, sure, just not a good argument.

T-that's what I said. He stole from an oppressive overtaxing stealing goverenment and gave to the overtaxed poor that had to pay for it (and were poor because of it)

What I am sure of, that there are a lot of poor people; it'd be hard to pay for your kid(s) to go to school, when you already have trouble making rent and paying the utilities each month.

Oh okay, I misunderstood your orginal post.

Originally posted by Robtard
What I am sure of, that there are a lot of poor people; it'd be hard to pay for your kid(s) to go to school, when you already have trouble making rent and paying the utilities each month.

Oh I agree. I am all for charitable organizations. Scholarships. Loans. And all sort of other helping programs, not sure if I made that clear enough. I am against forcibly taking away the money of some people to pay for the education of a few. If it happens voluntarily, and I am absolutely sure it would, I am absolutely for it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh okay, I misunderstood your orginal post.

I went over it. I did generalize it a bit to support my point, but that's what I meant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh I agree. I am all for charitable organizations. Scholarships. Loans. And all sort of other helping programs, not sure if I made that clear enough. I am against forcibly taking away the money of some people to pay for the education of a few. If it happens voluntarily, and I am absolutely sure it would, I am absolutely for it.

I went over it. I did generalize it a bit to support my point, but that's what I meant.

...and that goes back to the earlier point, how many people will just "give" to make these programs you propose work? My bet, not many.

Originally posted by Robtard
...and that goes back to the earlier point, how many people will just "give" to make these programs you propose work? My bet, not many.

I think many would. But it is of no matter, because if not many would then a minority is forcing people to do so, which is even democratically wrong and not just logically and morally.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are illegal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, I said "property".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nor our buyers. Everyone has their free will. If I don't want to sell to you I have the right not to sell to you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That makes no sense. Elaborate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You were asking whether you are. You were.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a) not true and b) not their right and c) a theory you propose.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact I believe that society would be much better in a free market. It would certainly be fairer. People should succeed out of their own will. If you want to help them that is okay. If you force people to help them that's where it becomes a problem. No one is against helping poor people, but stealing up to 50% a person earns for that purpose is ridiculous, unfair and harmful.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bullshit. Those people on welfare do, on average, not get better parts of society. They get lazier and more comfortable in not working. I agree that

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what taxes are. No one says it. But they are stealing money with guns.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it actually made it worse. And it continues making it worse. And it is unfair and disgusting.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. It would be alright if it was that way. You take stupid stances without ever thinking though.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But it's free, no govermental control.

Yeah, see, that's why there are actual definitions of words instead of what you make up in your mind.

Originally posted by lord xyz
But you don't have the right to sell a paper clip for a thousand dollars for example. We have a system, it should be enforced.

You do and should have the right. You will just not sell any.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The prices are too high and it's unfair. That's corruption, an unfair (and insecure (maybe)) market.

They get cheap through free markets, that's one of the major good things about them. You can't control prices, it's a matter of supply and demand. It's not corruption or "insecure", you have to blatant little clue of what you are talking about I get embarrassed for you.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And you aren't convincing anyone I am, therefore, it's logical to assume that you are wrong in saying I'm wrong.

You were just asking whether you are wrong. I don't have to convince you, I don't care to convince you. Every person that knows anything about anything knows that there were no free markets before democracy. There might have been something close to free in the US in the last century, though even that wasn't actually. You were just wrong. Accept it or don't, I don't give a damn.

Originally posted by lord xyz
a) speaking hyperthetical here. b) it should be our right to help and be helped c) I wouldn't take all the credit though, that system already happens in the UK, we call it fraud.

It's your right to help, not to be helped. And fraud has nothing to do with discussed in this point. I have no idea how in your mind it was reasonable to bring that up. It was a point about welfare not making more people to contribute to society.

Originally posted by lord xyz
They're being selfish arrogant twats, that's immoral to me, and I'm sure it's immoral to lots of others.

Because they don't want to give half or more than half of the money they worked long and hard for to other people that didn't work long or hard for? So what? You steal their money. You are the ******* in this, not them...they are just normal people, you...the *******. Lets be clear on that you immoral piece of shit.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That's a problem that should be sorted. Whether it's on average, you pulled that out your ass. Maybe next time, show a statistic.

Yeah, it should be sorted out by NOT stealing money from good hard working people and giving it to not contributing, not working poor people. And how would you suppose you measure that? You probably know that there are a shitload of political debates about just this problem and there's no real way of determining it. If it helps any there are about 5 million unemployed people in Germany and 2 million of those are long term unemployed, so, those are not contributing...there is a large number.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Who? How? Are you saying that the government goes to rich folks houses and threaten them with guns to give money? Or is this some sort of analogy. Elaborate.

No, it is actually doing that.

It goes to everyone with guns and takes them. Well, it threatens the guns. But what if you don't pay taxes? What happens? What does the government do?

Originally posted by lord xyz
I disagree, I believe socialist values has made society better, and if not, it's been wrongly enforced. In theory, it works well, so what flaws are in the theory?

People don't want to work as much. It does work, it does even work in the long run, it just doesn't work as well and it means that the productive parts of a society have to drag a large absolutely unproductive part with them on principle, instead of being able to use their money the way they want (invest it, thereby create more wealth for everyone)

Originally posted by lord xyz
I do think. Maybe it's just you don't know what I'm saying and think I'm stupid because of it.

No. I heard enough of what you said. I am pretty sure you are not of particular intelligence. Thanks for offering that cop out for me, but I really think you are an idiot (non dadudemon way). Appreciated though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, see, that's why there are actual definitions of words instead of what you make up in your mind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You do and should have the right. You will just not sell any.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They get cheap through free markets, that's one of the major good things about them. You can't control prices, it's a matter of supply and demand. It's not corruption or "insecure", you have to blatant little clue of what you are talking about I get embarrassed for you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You were just asking whether you are wrong. I don't have to convince you, I don't care to convince you. Every person that knows anything about anything knows that there were no free markets before democracy. There might have been something close to free in the US in the last century, though even that wasn't actually. You were just wrong. Accept it or don't, I don't give a damn.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's your right to help, not to be helped. And fraud has nothing to do ]with discussed in this point. I have no idea how in your mind it was reasonable to bring that up. It was a point about welfare not making more people to contribute to society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because they don't want to give half or more than half of the money they worked long and hard for to other people that didn't work long or hard for? So what? You steal their money. You are the ******* in this, not them...they are just normal people, you...the *******. Lets be clear on that you immoral piece of shit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, it should be sorted out by NOT stealing money from good hard working people and giving it to not contributing, not working poor people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And how would you suppose you measure that? You probably know that there are a shitload of political debates about just this problem and there's no real way of determining it. If it helps any there are about 5 million unemployed people in Germany and 2 million of those are long term unemployed, so, those are not contributing...there is a large number.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it is actually doing that.

It goes to everyone with guns and takes them. Well, it threatens the guns. But what if you don't pay taxes? What happens? What does the government do?

Originally posted by Bardock42
People don't want to work as much. It does work, it does even work in the long run, it just doesn't work as well and it means that the productive parts of a society have to drag a large absolutely unproductive part with them on principle, instead of being able to use their money the way they want (invest it, thereby create more wealth for everyone)

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I heard enough of what you said. I am pretty sure you are not of particular intelligence. Thanks for offering that cop out for me, but I really think you are an idiot (non dadudemon way). Appreciated though.