discussing the presidential election, a challenge of sorts

[gwd-scouter 11]

Guess the every man for himself approach should also apply to corporations that receive tax credits from our government (free market after all), bailouts of financial institutions (let 'em fail), do away with bankruptcy laws and reinstate debtors prisons. FEMA? Forget about it - let 'em be homeless or drown. Drought stricken farmers? Guess we could all do with eating a little less once in a while. Government funding for medical research? Do we really need cures for everything? Let them die and decrease the surplus population.

 

Have a nice day all.

[packsaddle 753]

That's the spirit, GWD! The 'FAIR TAX' will fix all of this. You have a great day too!

BDB, it's not spelled out anywhere. It's the view that emerges by taking the actual policies and stances that ARE spelled out either in words or deeds...and put them together. Is this not obvious?

[TheScout 10]

"Guess the every man for himself approach should also apply to corporations that receive tax credits from our government (free market after all), bailouts of financial institutions"

 

Yes don't give money to corporations. Don't bail out financial institutions, it will discourage them from making bad investments.

 

"do away with bankruptcy laws and reinstate debtors prisons"

 

Makes no sense you can still have bankruptcy laws without debtors prisons.

 

"Drought stricken farmers? Guess we could all do with eating a little less once in a while."

 

You seem to be implying we shouldn't help corporations but we should bail out farmers? Hypocrisy?

 

"Government funding for medical research?"

 

We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway.

 

"FEMA"

 

I don't like bailing people out over and over again all along the coast for hurricanes. Do you?

 

 

There was a dream once that the American government would be one of limited powers. That it wouldn't do much and the people and the states would be free to run their own affairs. Oh how that poor dream of freedom died.

 

Get rid of all that stuff mentioned above, think about how much lower taxes could be. Return money back to the people. Let them be free to do with it as they wish.

 

King George didn't even bother his subjects this much.

[packsaddle 753]

"We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway."

 

It depends but 'we' don't ALL know this. Where are your data? What are your measures of efficiency? How are they calculated? What research is it that you think is totally and completely private?

What years were they in which we 'seemed' to get along well without government research? You said there were many years. How many?

 

[BulldogBlitz 10]

"Government funding for medical research? Do we really need cures for everything? Let them die and decrease the surplus population. "

 

[sarcasm]by all means, let's promote sex to 6th graders and give them abortion vouchers. then the government researchers can have all the study tissue needed to give a more deserving individual one more day. [/sarcasm]

[gwd-scouter 11]

You seem to be implying we shouldn't help corporations but we should bail out farmers? Hypocrisy.

 

Not at all. I'm not implying I'm saying - forget about bailing out corporations as well as the farmers. Haven't you heard? Americans are too fat anyway.

[TheScout 10]

Then I read that wrong. I thought you were implying we should bail out farmers. I wouldn't bail out anyone.

 

'"We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway."

 

It depends but 'we' don't ALL know this. Where are your data? What are your measures of efficiency? How are they calculated? What research is it that you think is totally and completely private?

What years were they in which we 'seemed' to get along well without government research? You said there were many years. How many? '

 

Life expectancy has been rising in the Western world for a long time before the government was involved in medical research.

 

Are you seriously trying to say that private action is not better than public in the way of research?

[packsaddle 753]

YOU made a statement and I asked for you to back it up. You cited a trend in life expectancy that could just as easily be explained by greater cleanliness. You cited not a single line of research, public or private, that you can demonstrate as contributing to that rise in life expectancy.

But I didn't ask about life expectancy. You initiated that subject as a lame (and obvious) way to finesse your lack of evidence. In an oral prelim you'd be on your way toward dismissal right now.

I asked you direct, relevant questions about your claim and you have not answered a single one of those questions. As a historian I expect you to have real evidence for the claims that you make. Where is it?

Answer my questions.

[TheScout 10]

To tell you the truth I am too lazy and do not care enough about the subject to do any actual research.

 

People often speak in generalizations for topics that are not very controversial.

 

I thought the fact that people were getting healthier for many years before government aid was quite obvious.

 

I also thought that most people, especially in America, would concur that private work is superior to that of government when it comes to research.

 

Do you honestly believe that I am wrong? You private medical work did not improve the human condition until the last century when government stepped it? Or that government directed research is superior?

[packsaddle 753]

Although I had actually hoped you would bring to this thread some substantial evidence, your response was sadly what I expected. You are still trying to side-step things.

Since you don't seem to remember what the statement was that I was asking about, here it is again:

"We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway."

 

THAT was the statement that you wrote. I asked direct, relevant questions about it. Whether or not I disagree is not yet relevant. I am asking for you to give evidence so that I SHOULD BELIEVE YOU.

If you cannot substantiate your claims, that alone is sufficient to dismiss them. The onus is on YOU.

 

As for the statement, "To tell you the truth I am too lazy and do not care enough about the subject to do any actual research."

The committee would save time and merely exit without another question and without signing the document - the candidate is a charlatan.

[TheScout 10]

To me, it is simply an article of faith in the American dream that private is better than public.

 

Do you not agree?

[packsaddle 753]

Again you attempt to avoid the questions. You are hoping I will answer the new question that you just asked in order to open a new line of argument and 'hopefully' everyone will forget the questions I have asked.

It is a cowardly approach and, I might add, transparent to everyone who has ever engaged in discussions of ideas. You're not fooling anyone. The best approach for you is to either: Answer my questions and provide the support for your statements, OR admit that you don't have support for your statements, OR merely withdraw in silence with your unsigned form in hand and ready to begin an exciting career in the service sector (private, no doubt).

[TheScout 10]

No. I admitted I made a generalizaton. In converstation must people do not research every single thing they say. This is acceptable for statements that are not controversial.

 

I did not think that anyone would seriously contest that primacy of private initiative compared to government dictate, but I suppose I am wrong. Am I?

[Eagledad 2782]

>>It is a cowardly approach and, I might add, transparent to everyone who has ever engaged in discussions of ideas.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Eagledad, you're totally mischaracterizing packsaddle's argument with TheScout. TheScout has made statements with no support other than variations on "everyone knows/agrees with that," which is just an attempt to handwave an argument. Packsaddle isn't resorting to "name calling and condescension," he properly pointed out what TheScout was doing. You apparently can't discern the difference between properly dismissing invalid arguments vs. trying to win an argument by namecalling. Sorry, you're the one failing debate class.