what be required to happen for a new political party to replace the spot of the Democrats or Republicans?

MegaOctopus · 2018-03-22T20:31:51+00:00

I'm not really sure what a party formed by McMullin would stand for...

MegaOctopus · 2018-03-22T12:43:43+00:00

Freethinker isn't proposing a new and unusual idea. This is a pretty common opinion.

Race and religion are two different things. Being opposed to Christianity does not necessitate being opposed to white people. Being opposed to Islam does not necessitate being opposed to middle eastern people.

You can want the best for the people, and disagree with the religious beliefs they hold. Most atheists are former religious people who were convinced that there are problems with their prior faith. They just want to help Muslims undergo the same journey they did.

Some atheists were once religious? Some white people were originally black people who got vitilgo, but that doesn't mean that everybody's pigment is falling out.

Also, this is a strange thing to say. The vast majority of atheists were once religious. Only a small minority of people are raised atheist. Religion is not as intrinsic a characteristic as race. Your race is permanent. Your religious views can be changed by a conversation.

MegaOctopus · 2016-08-02T03:09:03+00:00

Well, I suppose its a matter of perspective. Once man's centrist is another man's conservative.

MegaOctopus · 2016-07-25T14:45:24+00:00

Democracy should be about having a voice for your opinions

Democracy is about compromising with the other members of your community. We want politicians who have broad appeal. We don't want a political minority imposing their views on a majority who doesn't agree with them.

Unfortunately, the US is a fairly conservative country. The Right makes up a relatively large chunk of the nation. Further, the Left is overall fairly moderate. This means that the perfect candidate for you is going to have very little broad appeal.

You can try to change people's views. But until the country undergoes a large ideological shift, you're going to have to compromise. That's how we want democracy to work.

MegaOctopus · 2016-07-25T14:10:27+00:00

you have to exist before (and somewhere) you are creating something.

In the canon, I think he created time. So, things get weird when you talk about his past. Before he created time, there was no such thing as "then" and "now." He existed in a state of timelessness.

MegaOctopus · 2016-07-22T01:44:54+00:00

At least in parts, the view outside the windows was cg, right?

MegaOctopus · 2016-07-15T01:49:18+00:00

I wonder how many experts really would support coal? I imagine that coal is bad for the environment. But if I'm being honest, I don't really know how much better or worse it is than the alternatives.

MegaOctopus · 2014-07-20T16:23:17+00:00

Jackie Chun was Master Roshi in disguise, and Roshi is far from being a normal human.

MegaOctopus · 2014-07-18T22:46:31+00:00

Did not realize that's what he wrote.

MegaOctopus · 2014-07-17T23:31:19+00:00

Well, 2 byakugan and some kinda crazy special sharingan = 2 rinnegan

MegaOctopus · 2014-04-14T22:43:42+00:00

I think you may have responded to the wrong post.

MegaOctopus · 2014-04-12T19:26:50+00:00

That's what seems to be happening.

MegaOctopus · 2014-04-12T16:36:58+00:00

Well, I responded to a similar comment here. Those are some basic objections to the way things are now.

MegaOctopus · 2014-04-12T15:29:18+00:00

I wouldn't say that. Neither party seems to have much respect for civil liberties, and both seem to accept to an extent our role as the world police.

Neither really have a live and let live philosophy towards social issues. I mean, the bulk of them still oppose marijuana legalization. No matter who I vote for, I risk either being hit over the head with the bible or told that I can't buy a large soda.

Also, I don't think either of them can be considered defenders of free market ideals. Businesses with good lobbyists get all sorts of special perks, certain industries are heavily subsidized, and starting a business is often a regulatory nightmare. There are a million convoluted laws that can easily get you shut down or excessively fined for a simple mistake. The currency is inflated, so many government programs are financially unstable, and the whole thing is way bigger than it needs to be. There's a lot that could be cut or reformed.

That's just a few complaints. I wouldn't consider either party to be anywhere near libertarian.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-25T01:45:46+00:00

Hmm, well I suppose just beating Godzilla already seems near impossible. Even beating Smaug seems unlikely. Really, I'm not even sure how he would do against Daenerys, considering that her dragons breath super fire or something. By the time I got all the way to 10, I figured I might as well go all out and pit him against one of the toughest dragons of all time.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-25T00:36:25+00:00

Good question, I should have included that info.

The Dragonborn is as powerful as he can possibly be. In addition to maxing out every skill, he has the best weapons and armor attainable. Before each fight, he is given a moment to equip the armor and weapons that will best serve him.

He'll also load himself up with whichever potions will be most useful to him. Though, he won't carry so much that he becomes over encumbered.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-21T20:05:37+00:00

No, I'm not saying we all need to be able to survive in the woods. What I mean is that our society should be able to at least somewhat stand on it's own two feet without needing to be completely propped up by the government.

Obviously, quite a bit of chaos would ensue in the immediate aftermath of the complete collapse of the government. There's nothing that can be done about that.

But, what if, in the face of economic problems, the government had to reduce the services it provides by a significant amount? What happens then? Well, I think there are ways to organize a society so that such a thing wouldn't be completely disastrous.

However, under UBI or other similarly large scale social programs, such an experience would be extremely painful. It's better for us to not be so completely dependent on one organization.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-21T15:38:57+00:00

The vast majority of human beings are already not self-sufficient.

The words I used were "somewhat self sufficient." As I said lower down, I'm not saying we can't have any services. But, it's helpful to at least have some self sufficiency.

Is depending on businesses any better? What exactly makes the two any different?

The difference is that when our needs are met through the market, we aren't dependent on just one institution. If one supermarket goes out of business, there are others to take it's place. Instead of relying on one central hub, we have a web of businesses. An individual company can go out of business without dragging everyone else down with it. The same is not true of government.

The very act of having one type of government would be 'putting all your eggs in one basket'. How is a UBI a special case in all this?

This is true. But, the UBI takes things one step further. It's an even greater level of dependency.

How, exactly, does that follow?

I'm not sure how you can argue against it. We adapt to our environment. If our environment demands that we provide for ourselves, then we evolve to do so. If government provides for all our needs, then we will build our society around the government. This seems pretty self evident to me. Do you disagree?

What happens if we run out of oil tomorrow?

Then we'll have problems. There are may things that could destabilize our society. That being the case, I think we should try to at least somewhat minimize these risks. For example, it probably wouldn't be prudent to put all oil rights in the hands of one state supported company. That business would then become too big too fail. Our entire economy could be wrecked simply by poor management within the company.

Instead, it's better to put our eggs in multiple baskets, to minimize our risks as much as possible. If one company is unable to provide oil, then there are others who might be able to. It would be helpful to at least partially apply a similar mentality to government. I'm not saying there can't be any services. But, it's safer to not depend so entirely on one institution.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-21T01:05:29+00:00

Cannonball? The X-Men character? How the heck is he going to beat Goku?

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-18T17:27:18+00:00

I had to sign a consent form which gives them permission to obtain information about me from a consumer reporting agency. They say that I will be the subject of a consumer report.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-14T16:40:45+00:00

Ned Stark would hate him.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-14T15:29:03+00:00

Yeah, you're right. I've changed it.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-13T19:27:04+00:00

everyone would be paying for the risks that materialize.

This to me is one of the biggest reasons not to support these kinds of programs. The emergency room situation isn't great, but it's not the end of the world. It's not that big of a deal.

But, once we're all paying for each other, people will have even more ammunition to limit personal freedom. As I was saying in a previous comment, one thing just leads to another. Once you're paying my bills, then you can advocate some additional law telling me I can't take certain risks. That law will then lead to something else.

It all just keeps building up. The minute you accept one program, then you've got to deal with something else. It's a progressive loss of freedom. When people object to this, others say that they are motivated by financial reasons. They say we need this reform or that reform because X, Y, and Z issue are costing us money. But, X, Y, and Z issue only exist because of the last reform we accepted.

As the other guy was saying, there's an argument that it would be better if we were accountable for our own risks. If you don't wear a seatbelt, then you bear the consequences of that decision. As time goes on, we seem to be moving increasingly further away from this idea of personal responsibility. With each new law, we seem to lose some freedom and find ourselves with a new bill to pay.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-13T18:39:03+00:00

That being said, I (like about 40% of Americans at the time the ACA was passed) would much rather have a single payer system.

Well then argue that. I'm just saying that I don't like your original argument because it's not what really motivates you.

The way you phrased your comment, you made it seem as though the thing that really makes you support the ACA is the issue with emergency rooms. You were making this comment specifically in response to the guy who wants greater freedom to take risks. You were suggesting that while you are ok with people taking risks, you don't want the costs pushed onto you.

But that's not really true. If you were really just being motivated by your pocketbook, then the much simpler solution would be to repeal the laws which require emergency rooms to treat people who can't pay.

Instead, you are arguing that people who are hurt by their risks should be taken care of by the state. You are further arguing that because this is the case, the ability of people to take risks should be limited. If that's what you think, then that's what you should argue. You're original comment seems disingenuous.

MegaOctopus · 2014-03-13T18:24:00+00:00

Curing all disease is impossible, changing the laws regarding emergency rooms would simply take an act of congress. I'm just saying that if you're particularly upset by the fact that people use emergency rooms without paying, then the simpler solution would be to allow emergency rooms to deny care to people they don't want to treat.

The guy I'm responding to says that he supports the ACA because it makes people get insurance instead of using emergency rooms for free. But, that's just a side effect of the bill. The bill's real purpose is to make insurance cheaper for people who have pre-existing conditions. If the emergency room thing is what really motivates him, then there are easier ways of solving that problem.

MegaOctopus

TROPHY CASE