Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Was George W. Bush a "Bad" President?

nawlins72 Wrote: Apr 28, 2013 9:08 PM
Sad how conservatives feel some need to worship politicians, considering they pay so much lip service to small government and individual liberty. It makes sense that liberals glorify the State and its actors, seeing how they put government on a pedestal ideologically. Bush was a typical president: pandered to the public, acted contrary to campaign rhetoric, increased government power, burdened the citizens with greater debt and stirred up international tensions causing untold deaths.
What evidence shows this to be accurate? Do all Tea Partiers prance around in colonial garb? No? Well I've seen videos that represent said characterization.
Laws don't spring forth from a vacuum, all laws have some rationale supporting them. Slavery had reasons. The only question should be are such reasons logically compelling.
"It certainly isn't a constitutional right." The Constitution does not list all of our rights, it enumerates the powers of government. " While conservatives are also for personal responsiblity, they that there are situations where society as the whole needs to be protected from those who show no responsibility before those people actually harm someone." The template for every statist. Conflate individual harm into "social chaos", except of course for things they like, such as guns. And never recognize the harmful consequences of criminalization: expansion of State power, police and judicial abuse of power, violent black markets, increased taxation, etc.
RiffRaff is the perfect example of the nanny statist who cowers at the thought of people choosing their own actions. "If people can do as they please, they may choose to do things I don't like."
"the next thing on the agenda will be LSD, not harmful, everyone says so." All drugs should be decriminalized.
What evidence supports this?
"Explain that type of liberty when one of these potheads gets high and kills someone's innocent son or daughter when driving under the influence. I do not think that relates to liberty as it was meant in the constitution." Yet you don't make this same argument for guns do you? If a gun owner accidentally kills a child, you don't run out and demand a ban on guns, huh? Liberty isn't the freedom from harm but the right of self determination.
"Remember, the government has a vested interest in crafting public policies that promote virtue and civic responsibility. Therefore, I’m not so sure legalizing pot is in the nation’s best interest." When conservatives finally reject this false notion that government can "promote virtue" they will be on the correct path of liberty. Until then they will still support statism and the repression of freedom.
"Capitalism MUST be regulated, for left to its own devices it is cannibalistic." And who shall regulate it? The rich and powerful politicians that collude with businesses for their own interests? And what knowledge do they have to regulate industry better than those intimately involved in the day to day operations of said business? Lawyers and political science majors? Trust fund heirs of connected families? Very weak argument.
"Capitalism, or market freedom and private property will not work in an amoral or immoral environment" This argument is trotted out inevitably in all discussions of capitalism, but it is a red herring. In an amoral or immoral society EVERYTHING will be amoral or immoral, reflecting the individuals that comprise society. Thus the argument is irrelevant, as there is no system that can escape this scenario. But capitalism, a free voluntary market, is still the moral choice under such conditions, as it allows individuals the right to choose.
Previous 11 - 20 Next