Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-24-2014, 11:39 PM
 
25,021 posts, read 27,922,556 times
Reputation: 11790

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Ironically, every single person that I personally know who has admitted to voting for Obama did so because of social issues...
For me, personally, I voted for Obama in 2008 and social issues had zero to do with it. But, as I thought in 2008, Obama is a center-right president, but to the left of McCain
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2014, 12:04 AM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,418,688 times
Reputation: 540
Every country that has tried to have a system without a strong central government has ended up in anarchy or feudalism. I would challenge a libertarian to cite and example to the contrary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:08 AM
 
129 posts, read 101,210 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
Every country that has tried to have a system without a strong central government has ended up in anarchy or feudalism. I would challenge a libertarian to cite and example to the contrary.
Would you rather have anarchy or total control and mass murder by government like what Mao and Hitler did? I'd rather be free and take my chances than have every aspect of my life controlled. You can just go to prison if you want to live like that. Or you could just kill yourself because what would be the point of living in the first place if you can't do things you want to do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:34 AM
 
Location: South Bay
1,404 posts, read 1,031,539 times
Reputation: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Libertarians are not in power making these decisions. Where are your complaints about those who are making the decisions to close down the roads?
WTH are Libertarians being targeted in this thread? It makes no sense, other than a gasp at bashing the empowered thought of constitutional awareness. This thread is yet another ridiculous bit of tripe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:39 AM
 
Location: South Bay
1,404 posts, read 1,031,539 times
Reputation: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
Every country that has tried to have a system without a strong central government has ended up in anarchy or feudalism. I would challenge a libertarian to cite and example to the contrary.
Every country that had an over powered centralized government has ended in disaster. We, the USA, are the only federal democracy in the history of man, and we became the greatest nation in history based on the premise that all men are created equal, and freedom is a God given right.

I would challenge any socialist, communist, totalitarian, fascist, to cite an example to the contrary!

Progressive is just a word that has replaced repressive, shared misery.

Social justice = shared misery

Some people deserve to be in their condition because they add nothing to society by choice!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 05:26 AM
 
29,407 posts, read 21,998,309 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Let's also use Amtrak as an example. Amtrak has horribly slow service outside of the Northeast US, why? Because Amtrak does not own any tracks outside of the Northeast, they signed a contract with Norfolk Southern, CSX, BNSF, Union Pacific, etc. that leases these privately owned railroads to Amtrak, but company freight trains maintain right-of-way on their railroads. So, Amtrak trains have no choice but to pull over for the mile plus long freight trains that come their way, causing hours of delay. Whereas this does not occur in the Northeast.

Something more relevant, I believe that the communications lines are owned by the government in England. What results is that my wife, for example, has a choice of about 8 different ISPs to choose from and each may provide TV service as well. Her 50Mb DSL fiber connection costs her $50 a month, and includes basic phone service and dozens of TV channels. Comcast, in my area, charges upwards of $120 for the same services, and of lower quality. Want an alternative? You only have one, Verizon, and they do not have fiber DSL in my area. so, if you want a connection faster than 10Mb, you're stuck with Comcast. This is from a country that, supposedly, prides itself on competition and free enterprise. Most of what RWNJs crow on about good points of the US are actually untrue, exaggerated, or just plain *******s, as the British would say.
I guess you never heard of direct tv?

I don't really care what the british say. You do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 05:44 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,090,553 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
Without net neutrality, internet firms won't have equal stream times. This hurts competition. Big companies would contract with ISP to collude website access to takeover the information stream to their liking. Governments should own the internet infrastructure to assure equal access for consumers and equal stream capacity for websites.

If there's privately owned roads, corporations would collude with construction companies to keep mom and pop stores from competing. Government owned infrastructure makes sure that logistics and transportation can move freely without any private interest. Use this example in the net neutrality issue that's going on with the FCC now.
So let me see if I understand your argument..

If I take and build a road across MY property, you think somehow that you get to dictate who gets to use it.

Using that argument, we should just deem all private yards open for the good of the public. Let people come play football in your yard, or even make it part of a neighborhood dump.

After all, one might collude to not take your trash and then what would you do..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 05:46 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,090,553 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
Riiiight, instead of adopt the principals of the other 50% of people they need to win elections.

If the adopt strict libertarianism they are sure to lose elections. I think it's a great idea to help Liberals win.
So you're suggesting Republicans should sell out their values or lie about how they feel in order to win..

That would make us no different than Democrats..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 06:24 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,602,543 times
Reputation: 18521
Right now there is competition, because government isn't involved.
Get government involved and you get ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, all in the fascist authoritarian governments pocket
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,172,220 times
Reputation: 4232
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
Without net neutrality, internet firms won't have equal stream times. This hurts competition. Big companies would contract with ISP to collude website access to takeover the information stream to their liking. Governments should own the internet infrastructure to assure equal access for consumers and equal stream capacity for websites.


If there's privately owned roads, corporations would collude with construction companies to keep mom and pop stores from competing. Government owned infrastructure makes sure that logistics and transportation can move freely without any private interest. Use this example in the net neutrality issue that's going on with the FCC now.

Without Reagan deregulating the telecom industry, there would be no cell phones and we would still be tethered to land lines and pay phones because there would be no incentive for Ma Bell to provide anything else. See how that works?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top