Invite Friends

Topic: Supreme Court

Results in this view: Y-free Speech 58% - Convince Me 25% - N-will Get Ugly 17%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
  • 6
Anonymous-user
Anonymous-user
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman This is a conservative victory for for the rights of the individual over the authority of the state.
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 6
Picture?type=square
  • 54
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Mr. Freeman, I can dig it! But, in todays Republican Party, your choice wouldn't be classified as "conservative" because you're endorsing things that, ahem, "Lib'ruls" do. To these Repubs, the word "conservative" means that want the power to shove their "religious" dogma down everybody's throats!
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman The terms "liberal" and "conservative", if they are understood to mean the poles of maximum and minimum government authority, are not, as you pointed out, synonymous with the terms "Democrat" and "Republican".

Take the subject of government registration as an example. Generally Democrats will favor the government having the authority to register privately owned weapons but NOT persons for a draft and with Republicans the issue of government registration is simply reversed. The only people who are consistent in their support for small government and individual liberty tend to be Libertarians.
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio To me, the word "liberal" means to liberate, to allow man to be his own "keeper" -- to be free from government and church authority over him. A liberated man is free to be himself (or herself), to dress as he pleases; to speak as he wishes; to smoke or drink or believe or engage in sexual relations as he wants, without governmental interference, just as long as nobody gets hurt.

A true Conservative, a/k/a a Libertarian, wants to be left alone to do HIS, or HER, thing as he or she chooses. However, the so-called "conservative" (spelled with a lower-case "c") Party, the Republicans, have aligned themselves (for votes, of course) with far-right religious extremists (who have the audacity to call themselves, ah, "christians" (again, spelled with a lower-case "c" on purpose). These fascists (yes, I call them FASCISTS) have hijacked the term "Conservative" to mean anybody who will give in to their INSANE demands. Now, they may have a point about abortion...it does stop a pregnancy of a developing human being, so in essence, it does kill. But...if I were to take abortion out of the discussion...let's say that we RE-criminalize abortion in this country...these fascists still wouldn't be happy, and you know it (they're NEVER happy!). Then they would still have a list of "enemies" that they wanna persecute.

ANY intelligent man would oppose that...except for those who would profit from it as most Republican politicians, and most Evangelical leaders would. So, it's not about "conservatism" or "christianity" -- it's all about the almighty dollar!
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman People who think the will of divinity as they understand it needs their assistance and government assistance to become reality, besides having a very impotent concept of divinity, have a very overblown concept of the efficacy of government and are liberal theocrats no matter what they may claim to be.
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Yeah, I could dig it. Politicians are a raunchy group, aren't they? They always have been, since the beginning of time.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman no they dont you say that because americans are stupid what you call "conservative" is really classical liberalism or libertarianism in antiquity conservatives often advocated big govt google the term tory socialist, you are so ignorant it hurts to read your posts
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you are not a conservative your just another anti government kook
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman “Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . . ” Thomas Jefferson
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman he raped slave girls
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman n association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.

Contents
1 Form
2 Guilt by association
2.1 Examples
2.2 Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
2.3 Honor by association
3 Galileo Gambit
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Form

A Venn diagram illustrating the association fallacy. Although A is within B and is also within C, not all of B is within C.
In notation of first-order logic, this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x ∈ S : φ(x)) ⇒ (∀x ∈ S : φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."

Premise: A is a B
Premise: A is also a C
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: "A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but if one represents this as an Euler diagram, it can clearly be seen that it is possible that a part of set "B" is not part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs".
Picture?type=square
By Kirby Liberty Harris Jefferson didn't rape slave girls. Quit bearing false witness.
Reply
  • | about 20h ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman yes he did it was a fact and you know that!
Reply
  • | about 1h ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the bigger the government the better i love the nanny state
Reply
  • | about 1h ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman yeah like conservatives in the 1950s just loved this word when Lenny bruce used it, conservative? it was conservatives that made certain words obscene and implemented censorship in the first place
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman People who like to use government to coerce others are liberals no matter what they may call or think themselves.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman you misuse the language thats all you can call a duck an eagle doesnt make it so and for that matter coercion isnt always a bad thing when the police arrest a rapist or a bank robber they use coercion all govt use coercion coercion isnt always a bad thing in fact in most situations it s avery good thing
liberal mens liberty you are a liberal a classical liberal
how isit that you cant figure that out?
didnt they teach civics on your reservation?
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Those who favor liberal use of coercion to obtain unwilling obedience to their dictates are liberals and enemies of liberty.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman liberty is important i will give you that but it is not an absolute it isnt the most impotant thing the most important thing is equality and justice that everyone is looked after, and if that requires a bit of coercion.. so the hell what?
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman every government type uses coersion, they have to remember the shayes rebellion the whisey rebellon, hell it took a lot of coearsion to hold millions of black in slavery and herd the survivors of genocid into indigenos cocnetration camps.. dont play that fiddle
we are the ones wiping out whole races, you are!
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman

Slaves are "looked after" just as one "looks after" the other property one owns. Liberty, justice and equality require that no one is the property of another.

Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman With that statement you demonstrate the inherent evil of government.
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Poverty can only be cured with abundance and abundance can only be achieved through liberty from government coercion. " If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." Milton Friedman
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman there will always be an in equitable distribution of wealth between people the workng poor nned a better deal the disable the old the feeble the young need protection
these things are done with government intervention under social democracy or state directed capitalsim

i do not deny capitalism is uperiror arr production what i am disputing is that laisez fair capitalsim is preferable to regualted capitalsim or mix systems where the state intervenes when it is rationally seen as necessary

my respones to milton freedman is this

“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
― John Maynard Keynes
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman children are also looked after as are pets or old people or the disabled not just slaves again you engage in a pathetically transparent association fallacy
there are lots of peoplethat need to be looked after in my family we look after each other it maakes us more free certainly not slaves

dont you have a family
a family is the same exact thingas a government
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman and inherent and also necessarry evil
govrnemnt is a necessarry evil
]prove me wrong
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Studies have shown that in welfare states poverty decreases after countries adopt welfare programs.[2] Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most countries whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP.[3][4][5][6][7][8] In 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development asserted that welfare spending is vital in reducing the ever expanding global wealth gap.[9]

Table of welfare effect on poverty reduction

Countries' income inequality (2014) according to their Gini coefficients

World map indicating the Human Development Index in 2015
Timothy Smeeding used data from the Luxembourg Income Study to determine the effectiveness of anti-poverty and welfare programs on poverty reduction. The data for all the countries was from the year 2000 with the exception of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands for which the data was from 1999.[1]

Country Social expenditures on non-elderly[1][Notes 1]
(as percentage of GDP) Total percent of
poverty reduced[1]
United States 2.3 26.4
Netherlands 9.6 65.2
Sweden 11.6 77.4
Germany 7.3 70.5
Canada 5.8 46.0
Finland 10.9 69.7
United Kingdom 7.1 60.1
Belgium 9.3 76.9
Austria 7.4 75.8
Italy 4.3 57.7
Ireland 5.5 44.1
Average 7.4 60.9
Table of poverty levels pre- and post-welfare

The absolute poverty rates of various countries before and after their introduction of welfare[2]

The relative poverty rates before and after the introduction of welfare of various countries[4]
Two studies compare countries internationally before and after implementing social welfare programs. Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, Bradley et al. and Lane Kenworthy measure the poverty rates both in relative terms (poverty defined by the respective governments) and absolute terms (poverty defined by 40% of United States median income), respectively. Kenworthy's study also adjusts for economic performance and shows that the economy made no significant difference in uplifting people out of poverty.

The studies look at the different countries from 1960 to 1991 (Kenworthy) and from 1970 to 1997 (Bradley et al.). Both these periods are roughly when major welfare programs were implemented such as the War on Poverty in the United States. The results of both studies show that poverty has been significantly reduced during the periods when major welfare programs were created.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman some one had to look after you when you were a child were you a slave?
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman No a family is NOT the same thing as a government in spite of the socialist predilection for "Uncle Joe" Stalin and personality cults centered around their reigning despots.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman n association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.

Contents
1 Form
2 Guilt by association
2.1 Examples
2.2 Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
2.3 Honor by association
3 Galileo Gambit
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Form

A Venn diagram illustrating the association fallacy. Although A is within B and is also within C, not all of B is within C.
In notation of first-order logic, this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x ∈ S : φ(x)) ⇒ (∀x ∈ S : φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."

Premise: A is a B
Premise: A is also a C
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
The fallacy in the argument can be illustrated through the use of an Euler diagram: "A" satisfies the requirement that it is part of both sets "B" and "C", but if one represents this as an Euler diagram, it can clearly be seen that it is possible that a part of set "B" is not part of set "C", refuting the conclusion that "all Bs are Cs".
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman "n association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another"

Sorta like calling a government a family.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman or a tribe or a village or a community sorta like no i'm spot on actually and whats more you know it in your heart
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman the government is your extended family
or at least thats how people back home saw theres
but then we have an honest government and better quality people than you americans
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Democrats are the ones that believe "it takes a village" to change a light bulb. Competent people know better.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman it takes a village to raise a child care for the old educate the young build roads hostitals homes for the poor

yes i do beleive it takes a village

spend time with the amish
i have
its how they live
simply and as a community
individualism is frowned on
it is how god wanted us to live
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Nonsense!
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman oh on the contrary perfect sense
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Ephesians 4:32 ESV / 7 helpful votes
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman
Hebrews 13:16
16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman
“For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.”

― Ayn Rand
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman The Social Gospel was a movement in Protestantism that applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, unclean environment, child labour, inadequate labour unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. It was most prominent in the early-20th-century United States and Canada. Theologically, the Social Gospellers sought to operationalize the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:10): "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".[1] They typically were postmillennialist; that is, they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort.[a] The Social Gospel was more popular among clergy than laity.[2] Its leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the progressive movement, and most were theologically liberal, although a few were also conservative when it came to their views on social issues.[3] Important leaders include Richard T. Ely, Josiah Strong, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch.[4]
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.[1] Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be the greed that they associate with capitalism.[1]

Christian socialism became a major movement in the United Kingdom beginning in the 19th century. The Christian Socialist Movement, since 2013 known as Christians on the Left, is one formal group.[1]

Other earlier figures are also viewed as Christian socialists, such as the nineteenth century writers Frederick Denison Maurice (The Kingdom of Christ, 1838), John Ruskin (Unto This Last, 1862), Charles Kingsley (The Water-Babies, 1863), Thomas Hughes (Tom Brown's Schooldays, 1857), Frederick James Furnivall (co-creator of the Oxford English Dictionary), Adin Ballou (Practical Christian Socialism, 1854), and Francis Bellamy (a Baptist minister and the author of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance).
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman when ayn rand contracted lung cancer she applied for medicare to avoid bankruptcy.. game set match
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman ...and I'm sure the government had never extorted her for any "contributions" to fund their program, right?