01-28-2018, 11:36 PM
(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(01-28-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.
I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia. I still use similar services. They help. Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.
The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good. Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do. There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.
There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided. I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise. I can believe that government corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests. I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them. There will always be the possibility to improve.
But government is not going away soon, and can help. Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.
I still get some mail. Do we need the US Postal Service to deliver our mail as much as we needed it 30 years ago? Would the liberal argument to keep funding the USPS be as strong as it was 30 years ago? I don't need it nearly as much as I did 30 years ago. Lets see, I can text or email back and forth with my brother in Tennessee any time I want without any delay in response for much less than the cost of a stamp. I can pay the bulk of my bills directly/ automatically via transfers.
I cannot handle all the e-mail that I get. Sorry, people sending me links to cat videos. And F--- the spammers trying to get me to buy counterfeit Viagra and Cialis.
Quote:There are libertarians/ anarchists who are out of touch with reality just like there are liberals who are out of touch with reality. Hint! Don't use an argument that you could effectively use with one of them with someone like me? As smart as the liberals claim to be, the liberals use the wrong arguments with the wrong people a lot which makes them look clueless. Nebraska is an idiot who is looking for idiots who agree with his anarchist views. Nebraska and Eric are similar but connected to different crowds. Nebraska spends more time driving on ATV trails than he spends driving on the roads that most of us are accustomed to driving on.
Hint: don;t try to convince us liberals that we are fools for disagreeing with you. We have different interpretations of history and politics than you do. Different assumptions change everything.
Quote:Hint! Don't use race with a libertarian because race doesn't matter to libertarians. Liberals still use race a lot which isn't good in my opinion considering white support for liberals is dropping. Now, as I've told blues before, I don't care if a bunch of white liberals end up getting strung up by racists of all colors. Liberals deserve it based on there choice and their use of rhetoric. Hint! We aren't going to use our guns and waste our bullets to save them.
Strung up? Do you realize what that refers to? Some people have deserved to be strung up. Like Saddam Hussein.
Quote:So, how much government do the liberals need and where do the liberals draw the line with peoples lives? Despite what you think about the liberals, I don't see very many sharp liberals. I see a lot of clueless liberals who aren't used to being challenged by sharper people.
Your judgment of intellect of people with whom you joust rhetorically is a bit lacking, to put it mildly.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.