LogFAQs > #926130621

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Gun rights should be a left wing position.
Gaawa_chan 08/16/19 12:56:20 AM #21:	darkknight109 posted... Don't have to Google it at all - there is no difference. This is about all people need to read of anything you have posted to know you have no idea what you're talking about. Gaawa_chan posted... Criminalizing abortion, turning miscarriages (1/5 of all pregnancies) into suspected murder Social issue, not political Abortion is a social issue and a political issue, but even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant because that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Whether something is considered "big government" or "small government" has nothing to do with whether or not the issue is a social one. You make a restriction/criminalize something? Then you need to pay for enforcement and you need to increase the size of the system for it. Therefore, social issues, especially when it comes to restrictions and criminalization, particularly on the federal level, ARE a matter of "big government." Death Penalty Has nothing to do with size of government Yes it does. I guess you just don't know anything about the death penalty either, then. Ineffectual, absurdly expensive immigration restrictions American issue, not a left/right issue Bloating the already bloated military budget American issue, not a left/right issue No, this is not an "American" issue. Might I suggest paying a little more attention to the news? Next you'll be saying Angela Merkel is a leftie or something lol. Voting restrictions Has nothing to do with the size of government Dictating whether or not you can marry the consenting adult of your choice Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment Dictating what bathroom you can use Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment Union restrictions or outright eradication Supports small government by attempting to maximize competition 1. Yes, it does. Voting/marriage/bathroom restrictions = inflating the system and interference with a variety of parts of the private sector on the taxpayer dime. You already agree with this on drugs (which btw, you might as well have also filed as a "social" issue and therefore somehow magically not be big government by your standards >_>) 2. The State hamstringing people's rights to privately organize in order to prop up employers = big government interference in the free market, and yes, those efforts to require a "bigger government" than not having them would, particularly if it is happening on the federal level. Not so free and competitive if you're such garbage at running a business that the State has to bulk up and shield you from your own employees. Why do you care about my viewpoints on any of these things? They were rhetorical questions. Perhaps I should have stated that outright, all things considered. But ultimately you didn't address my point. "It's not a matter of "big" vs "small." It's just a matter of what you personally want. This is a dishonest framing of politics..." More importantly, and what I should have said earlier, is that it is a completely worthless way of framing political orientations because you run into non-stop exceptions. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:926130621] in Gun rights... [t:77941580]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Don't have to Google it at all - there is no difference.</quote> This is about all people need to read of anything you have posted to know you have no idea what you're talking about. Gaawa_chan posted...</cite> <quote>Criminalizing abortion, turning miscarriages (1/5 of all pregnancies) into suspected murder Social issue, not political</quote> Abortion is a social issue and a political issue, but even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant because that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Whether something is considered "big government" or "small government" has nothing to do with whether or not the issue is a social one. You make a restriction/criminalize something? Then you need to pay for enforcement and you need to increase the size of the system for it. Therefore, social issues, especially when it comes to restrictions and criminalization, particularly on the federal level, ARE a matter of "big government." <quote>Death Penalty Has nothing to do with size of government</quote> Yes it does. I guess you just don't know anything about the death penalty either, then. <quote>Ineffectual, absurdly expensive immigration restrictions American issue, not a left/right issue Bloating the already bloated military budget American issue, not a left/right issue</quote>No, this is not an "American" issue. Might I suggest paying a little more attention to the news? Next you'll be saying Angela Merkel is a leftie or something lol. <quote>Voting restrictions Has nothing to do with the size of government Dictating whether or not you can marry the consenting adult of your choice Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment Dictating what bathroom you can use Social issue, has nothing to do with the size of goverrnment Union restrictions or outright eradication Supports small government by attempting to maximize competition</quote> 1. Yes, it does. Voting/marriage/bathroom restrictions = inflating the system and interference with a variety of parts of the private sector on the taxpayer dime. You already agree with this on drugs (which btw, you might as well have also filed as a "social" issue and therefore somehow magically not be big government by your standards >_>) 2. The State hamstringing people's rights to privately organize in order to prop up employers = big government interference in the free market, and yes, those efforts to require a "bigger government" than not having them would, particularly if it is happening on the federal level. Not so free and competitive if you're such garbage at running a business that the State has to bulk up and shield you from your own employees. <quote>Why do you care about my viewpoints on any of these things?</quote> They were rhetorical questions. Perhaps I should have stated that outright, all things considered. But ultimately you didn't address my point. "It's not a matter of "big" vs "small." It's just a matter of what you personally want. This is a dishonest framing of politics..." More importantly, and what I should have said earlier, is that it is a completely worthless way of framing political orientations because you run into non-stop exceptions. --- Hi</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1