The My DB Has More Strawmen Than Your DB Thread, with a side order of How California’s New Immigration Law Affects Screening Policies
-
So...... those are not the same words.
Dude, stop trying to defend your silly statement, unless you can point out some "small fascist dictatorship" that is pretty hands off.
Of course, these things are relative. So while Pinochet was super duper awesome compared to Allende economically, he was a massive douche as far as other sorts of civil liberties.
-
I even tried searching for "smaller government is less controlling government" and can not find anything equating the two in the same way as you have done.
I did find a few article that said "smaller, less controlling government." Because those 2 adjectives are not synonymous.Look at North Korea for an example. 6.1% of their population is in the military, for Christ's sake.
read on to see why that is kind of irrelevant in this argument, since the "smaller is better" people i doubt also want a smaller military too.
-
unless you can point out some "small fascist dictatorship" that is pretty hands off.
Uh.... my entire point is that SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY LESS CONTROLLING.
Hence, yes, I can't point out any less controlling small fascist governments, because THAT IS MY ENTIRE POINT.Jesus. Can you people read?
-
since the "smaller is better" people i doubt also want a smaller military too.
I don't even know what hypothetical person you're talking about now. Libertarians I've talked to always want a tiny military that doesn't project power abroad; there's like a 99.99% intersection between Libertarians and Isolationists.
-
Libertarians I've talked to always want a tiny military that doesn't project power abroad;
OK - you are correct there.
But I don't think @boomzilla or @abarker are exactly libertarian? Or are they?
-
Jesus. Can you people read?
Yes. You're just trying to declare that "smaller" is your ball and take it home. NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKER.
-
Uh.... my entire point is that SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY LESS CONTROLLING. Hence, yes, I can't point out any less controlling small fascist governments, because THAT IS MY ENTIRE POINT.
But if the government is controlling, it follows it needs to be bigger: bigger military, bigger police force, bigger propaganda department, bigger almost-everything.
If you're talking about a government that is strictly controlling of people in theory but not reality, then, ok, a small government could pull that off, but who cares?
-
I think Boomzilla's a Nazi, or one step away.
-
But... they are criminals?
But I still don't support people just slinking over the border and expecting to be treated like normal Joe Sixpack.
And to sit here and type "treated as criminals" as if they weren't in reality criminals is just crazy Orwellian double-think I can't get behind, sorry.
I'm with you on this. All I was attempting to address was the human rights aspect of handling them. Someone jumping over the border is not the same class of criminal as someone who shot 5 dead in cold blood. That's all I was trying to say.
As for:
Deporting them is expensive, and nobody wants to pay for it.
I am willing to put up with higher income taxes to deport them. There is a process to come in - follow the process. Is that so hard to do?
As for why I'm ok with paying part of the bill? Even though I live in the Midwest, I recognize the fact that allowing too many over the border can lead to a change of border long term. Before you know it, that problem that is "over there" is now bordering you. Go back 150 years when the US took what is now New Mexico, Arizona, etc. from Mexico. Need more recent examples? How about Chechnya? Kosovo? Ukraine? The last two are based on population arguments (overwhelming number of people in the area are of X nationality and want to change over to X's country.)
As an immigrant[1] myself, I recognize the unique value opportunities being in the US provides both from a business opportunity and personal rights viewpoint. Such value is worthy of being protected.
Back in the 90's, some of the Libertarians were actually pushing this because no one else seemed to care about intrusions on personal freedoms unless it was their own freedoms being intruded on (and sometimes not even then).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dwuzqF6huc
Love this line:
"Hook me up a new revolution, cause this one is a lie...we sat around laughing and watching the last one die."
Well, it's not dead yet, as evidenced by those Libertarians mentioned by @antiquarian - and that's only one group. The question is, how do we get those who take it for granted to Wake The F#%$ up?[2]
[1] Technically - I was 3 months old when my parents legally immigrated here.
[2] Went off topic in my own train of though about 3 times in this post alone. Guess I'm still Doing It Wrong™
-
But I don't think @boomzilla or @abarker are exactly libertarian? Or are they?
Not exactly. On domestic stuff, it's a pretty good description. Small 'l', not big 'L,' mind you. But I think it's a good thing to be able to kill lots of foreigners whenever we want. Very useful. Basically, I want the powerful part of government pointed at someone else.
-
Yes. You're just trying to declare that "smaller" is your ball and take it home
Smaller government is not fairer government. It doesn't necessarily give back power to the people. In fact it may indeed be more powerful than larger government -- in doing what it deems right and excluding from its concern those who fail to fit its definition of worthy.Oct 28, 2012
Yep it's clearly only me that thinks this.
-
@abarker said:
irregardless
&$%&@#*^&#%@%&$%^$$!!!!!I was wondering if that would catch anyone. ;)
Too bad I forgot my INB4 comment :(
-
-
Yep it's clearly only me that thinks this.
Fucking straw men all the way down. I looked at that retarded PuffingtonHost article (but I repeat myself) and her first example was student government. "It's small, but it's not fair."
Firstly, who gives a fuck about fair? If your mind can only hold one thing in itself when you look at the word "smaller," then that's your problem (or so she said). You're trying to be a pedantic dickweed but you failed because you didn't stick to the smaller employee line of thought, and your fascism argument was just laughable.
-
So...... those are not the same words. They do not have the same meaning without just making up your own definition that equates them, as you have just done.I can agree that "less controlling governing body" = "better governing body".But your other phrase does not necessarily mean the same.
You have to be hiding under a rock in the US to not now that is what the term "smaller government" means. I hereby conclude that you are not ignorant, but merely a troll, and bid you good day sir.
-
6.1% of their population is in the military, for Christ's sake.
To be fair, it's pretty much join the military or don't eat.
To be fair, that's what makes them a.
Fascist dictatorship
-
You have to be hiding under a rock in the US to not now that is what the term "smaller government" means.
Seriously? Have you TRIED searching for a real definition of how "smaller government" is to work?
Or do you just naively believe the propaganda they feed you about how it will make things better for you?
-
Have you TRIED searching for a real definition of how "smaller government" is to work? LOL
WTF are you even talking about? A "definition?"
-
Have you TRIED searching for a real definition of how "smaller government" is to work?
TDEMSYR
-
Look Darkmatter, if Boomzilla and I agree on something, you have no defense here.
-
So what you're saying is that you're tossing around propaganda words that you don't even know or agree on a definition of?
Sounds like the media has won this round.
The libertarian wing of the Republican Party, which includes politicians such as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, is particularly strong in its support of small government, in contrast with the Neoconservative wing, which favors U.S. military might to settle international conflicts in the interest of the United States, and the Religious Right, which wants a federal government that will enforce what they see as Christian morality.
The entire Republican party screams about small government. Only one section of them actually wants what you want when you say "small government". The rest just go with the propaganda flow that is people loving the idea of "small government".
-
You're trying to be a pedantic dickweed
+1
Beat me to it.
Look Darkmatter, if Boomzilla and I agree on something, you have no defense here.
LMFAO
-
Look Darkmatter, if Boomzilla and I agree on something, you have no defense here
You agree with boomzilla? TBH, that makes me think I've nailed it here.
-
So what you're saying is that you're tossing around propaganda words that you don't even know or agree on a definition of?
No, what we're saying is that you're silently backing off of your original argument and instead coming up with inane counter arguments.
The entire Republican party screams about small government.
Woo! Here we go....more irrelevance. I guess we should just assume you've conceded that you're wrong since you keep changing the topic.
-
TBH, that makes me think I've nailed it here.
I know, I know, IHBT, but it's good fun for a Friday afternoon.
-
The entire Republican party screams about small government.
What the Republican Party screams about has nothing to do with what they want, what they will do if in charge, or really anything for that matter. In other news, water is wet. Story at 11.
-
Seriously? Have you TRIED searching for a real definition of how "smaller government" is to work?Or do you just naively believe the propaganda they feed you about how it will make things better for you?
But seriously, to make a smaller government, you eliminate parts that the government has no business/need to be involved in. You eliminate parts that the government has been involved in, but that involvement has produced no real results.
For example: education. The federal government has no constitutional basis for being involved in education. It is technically an overreach of power. The federal government's involvement in education has also not really produced any measurable improvement in childhood education in the US. So we should get the feds out of education. Bam! Smaller government! That would also eliminate Common Core, which would eliminate the data tracking that goes along with it. Bam! (Privacy) Freedoms restored!
-
No, what we're saying is that you're silently backing off of your original argument and instead coming up with inane counter arguments.
When did I back off of it? My original argument specifically doesn't include military because the entire non-libertarian side of the republican doesn't include them. Then I backed it up with another source, which you then claim is"changing the topic". Except that it is specifically backing my original statement.Maybe you just can't keep more than 2 posts in memory, next time I will quotechain myself like Dicsourse hates so that you can see.
-
I'm just shocked that so many people naively believe that no one in power will abuse that power regardless of how many branches of government are removed.
It's too bad none of those politicians stand up for what they claim they want when it comes to things like the so-called "Patriot Act".
-
There is a process to come in - follow the process. Is that so hard to do?
I agree, but it can be hard to do. The process is filled with arcane twists that make no sense. It's been a long time, so I've forgotten the details, but I once had a coworker who traveled overseas on business somewhat frequently, met someone, and wanted to get married. If the ceremony was held in one country (hers, I think, but this is what I don't remember clearly), no problem — no problem, she moves to the US and they live happily as husband and wife. If they get married in the other country (US?), she has to go back to her country, wait six months before immigrating, and can only visit once in the mean time, or something like that. There's apparently a ton of stuff like that, and do it wrong, you get deported and have to wait years before you can try again.
Follow the process, yes, but the process is at least a bit broken and needs to be fixed.
-
Nice Grawlix.
wanna battle my torchic?
I had to Google both of those words. The second apparently has something to do with Pokémon, but I didn't bother reading more than that, so I guess that would probably be a "no."
-
Taking your original argument:
ORLY? Tell that to any of the countries ruled by small fascist dictatorships.
From the Wiki:
Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[24] Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[25][26]Further, every reference to "small" with regard to Fascists show a subsequently significant rise in participation before it came to power as any kind of movement, never mind government.
Add it up: "small fascist" seems to me to be an oxymoron.
Then you drop the fascist part of the argument when you quote:
Smaller government is not fairer government. It doesn't necessarily give back power to the people. In fact it may indeed be more powerful than larger government -- in doing what it deems right and excluding from its concern those who fail to fit its definition of worthy.Oct 28, 2012
Which is out of a newspaper article, citing one opinion. Contrast that to the [Wiki][1] (Same search results as your link, just one higher):
Small government is government which minimizes its own activities. It is an important topic in libertarianism and classical liberalism.
Which is the point @boomzilla and @antiquarian are arguing, and even @blakeyrat by pointing out fascist dictatorships are usually huge, which you seem to be adamantly ignoring.
Hence the
Look Darkmatter, if Boomzilla and I agree on something, you have no defense here.
@redwizard said:LMFAO
Comment.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_government
-
If the ceremony was held in one country (hers, I think, but this is what I don't remember clearly), no problem — no problem, she moves to the US and they live happily as husband and wife. If they get married in the other country (US?), she has to go back to her country, wait six months before immigrating, and can only visit once in the mean time, or something like that.
My wife is Canadian and had to stay in Canada for 6 months after we were married in the US before getting to interview for her visa. But I don't think it's any different if we had gotten married in Canada, she'd still have to live in Canada until we got her visa.
-
Then you drop the fascist part of the argument when you quote:
Fascist was the word that came to mind. Perhaps I should have just gone with Dictatorship and left out any qualifiers. The point really doesn't change in that you do not have to have very many government branches for a government to be controlling of its people. Just a person in charge and a military/police force following their orders.
-
I'm not motivated to try to find out how they got from A to B, but that's what the article says the motivation was. It also seems to suggest that they didn't think it was a particularly onerous requirement, because credit check providers are now a lot more flexible in what they will accept.
-
A rant about eBay feedback would be OT here, so I'll just say I don't think it's very good at achieving its intended purpose.
A++++++++++++++++ great comment, great poster, would read again!!!!!!
-
Fascist was the word that came to mind.
Essentially, this, from the same wiki page you're quoting from:
Fascist as an insult Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word,[57] often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.[58] George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ...
So I made the mistake of fighting one meaningless phrase with another.
-
-
the Religious Right, which wants a federal government that will enforce what they see as Christian morality
I would probably be lumped in with the Religious Right by most people. I want a Federal government that keeps its B******ing nose out of stuff that isn't within the realm of Federal matters as defined by the plain language of our Constitution.
-
When did I back off of it?
I told you why I thought it was bunk and asked for an example of such a government. I didn't see any.
Then I backed it up with another source, which you then claim is"changing the topic".
Yes, because it was more changing the topic than backing up your argument. OK, I went back and read a bit more of the article. I agree, it backs up your argument. It's using a strawman argument for "smaller government," or saying that politicians who say they want that don't really want it.
I would disown that article as flimsy rhetoric, but if that's what you're going with, OK.
Maybe you just can't keep more than 2 posts in memory, next time I will quotechain myself like Dicsourse hates so that you can see.
It won't matter, because you're wrong, but since I've been out of this thread for a few minutes you already have. I'll get to your subsequent trolling in a minute.
-
I'm just shocked that so many people naively believe that no one in power will abuse that power regardless of how many branches of government are removed.
+�
This is my favorite strawman of yours yet. Very good work.
-
I told you why I thought it was bunk and asked for an example of such a government. I didn't see any.
again you are asking for an example of a non-controlling [fascist]* government... How many times do I have to say that I don't know of one, THAT IS THE POINT.
*strike that word because i'm only using it in the insult-to-a-dictatorship sense, not the all-encompassing Fascist nation of zealots sense.
-
The point really doesn't change in that you do not have to have very many government branches for a government to be controlling of its people. Just a person in charge and a military/police force following their orders.
Yes, and none of this contradicts what @abarker originally said. But counting the branches of government is a nice touch.
-
So I made the mistake of fighting one meaningless phrase with another.
No, that's not your mistake at all. What did you mean by "fascist?" I assume you meant something coherent. Communists used it against pretty much everyone and American leftists have typically used it against people they disagreed with. I took your fascist usage in good faith.
-
Yes, and none of this contradicts what @abarker originally said. But counting the branches of government is a nice touch.
It's pretty stupid, because basically you [or abarker, whoever wants to claim it] simply made up a definition, and when I pointed out that your words don't specifically mean that, you got all butthurt about it.
-
again you are asking for an example of a non-controlling [fascist]* government... How many times do I have to say that I don't know of one, THAT IS THE POINT.
Fuuuuuuuck. Well, then why did you bring it up? Bait and switch. Not cool.
How long have you wanted to be an Internet Kook?
-
It's pretty stupid, because basically you [or abarker, whoever wants to claim it] simply made up a definition, and when I pointed out that your words don't specifically mean that, you got all butthurt about it.
That's a pretty unique reading of this thread. You've already admitted that you were wrong, though not in so many words. Why are you still pretending that you had a valid point?
-
Why are you still pretending that you had a valid point?
Why are you still pretending that a small government can't have lots of control?
-
Why are you still pretending that a small government can't have lots of control?
OK, we'll try this again. The amount of control / power / $synonym is what the small is talking about. That was pretty obvious to everyone except you.
Man, I am a sucker for trolls when I'm
boredawake.
-
Fascist dictatorships are usually huge. Look at North Korea for an example. 6.1% of their population is in the military, for Christ's sake.
North Korea is usually reckoned to be a Communist Monarchy these days, which is a combination of terms that would've made Karl Marx go “WTF…”
