The Most Frightening Aspect of the GOP Debate

#151
#151
Vol8188 said:
What are you even trying to say? I'm against a railroad? I'm against the use of big government to build them, yes.
Click to expand...

Relevant quote to this merry-go-round of a discussion:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

- Frederic Bastiat
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#152
#152
RobsPics said:
I'm just saying that if you are truly against eminent domain, then to stay consistent you must also be against anything built using eminent domain. Because that is one of the major purposes of eminent domain...to build things on land purchased through eminent domain.
Click to expand...

This is like saying you say can't say you like Indians and America. It's a dumb argument.

Land can be bought without emminent domain. I support that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#153
#153
UTCVol said:
Relevant quote to this merry-go-round of a discussion:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

- Frederic Bastiat
Click to expand...


But Vol8188 specifically said eminent domain itself is socialism.
 
#155
#155
Vol8188 said:
This is like saying you say can't say you like Indians and America. It's a dumb argument.

Land can be bought without emminent domain. I support that.
Click to expand...

Of course land can be bought w/o eminent domain. That's a given. And if you want to continue stating you are against eminent domain, but you aren't against the railroads that were built using eminent domain, that's your prerogative. I'm just stating its an inconsistent position.
 
#156
#156
Vol8188 said:
I feel like you didn't read his post. If nothing else you didn't comprehend it
Click to expand...

When I referenced eminent domain, you replied: "Socialism.....we are redistributing property against the will of the owners to benefit the masses."

So you weren't claiming eminent domain equates to socialism?
 
#157
#157
RobsPics said:
Of course land can be bought w/o eminent domain. That's a given. And if you want to continue stating you are against eminent domain, but you aren't against the railroads that were built using eminent domain, that's your prerogative. I'm just stating its an inconsistent position.
Click to expand...

When did I say I'm for those railroads and can you define being for or against a railroad? I'm against how it was created. But beyond that idk what you mean by opposing a railroad
 
#158
#158
RobsPics said:
When I referenced eminent domain, you replied: "Socialism.....we are redistributing property against the will of the owners to benefit the masses."

So you weren't claiming eminent domain equates to socialism?
Click to expand...

I feel like you're having your own conversation at this point. Yes, I see eminent domain as socialism. When I said you didn't understand what the quote meant, I was in no way implying emminent domain is not socialism.

I was only stating that you clearly didn't understand the post. Go back and read the quote again.

It says that socialist will try to proclaim that opposing the government growing grain (emminent domain in this scenario) would lead socialist to falsely claim you're against feeding people (or building railroads in this scenario).
 
#159
#159
Vol8188 said:
I feel like you're having your own conversation at this point. Yes, I see eminent domain as socialism. When I said you didn't understand what the quote meant, I was in no way implying emminent domain is not socialism.

I was only stating that you clearly didn't understand the post. Go back and read the quote again.

It says that socialist will try to proclaim that opposing the government growing grain (emminent domain in this scenario) would lead socialist to falsely claim you're against feeding people (or building railroads in this scenario).
Click to expand...


But if you are against eminent domain, then you are in fact against the government granting eminent domain to build railroads. Which means you are against that particular railroad. It seems inconsistent to be against government misdeed, but still support the fruit of the government "misdeed".
 
Last edited:
#160
#160
RobsPics said:
But if you are against eminent domain, then you are in fact against the government granting eminent domain to build railroads. Which means you are against that particular railroad. It seems inconsistent to be against government misdeed, but still support the fruit of the government "misdeed".
Click to expand...

You're still having your own conversation independent of anything I say. You claim I "support" these railroads. Yet I've asked you to define one being pro or anti railroad and you have yet to do so. So I don't know if I even support them. I only know that I don't support how they were built
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#161
#161
Vol8188 said:
You're still having your own conversation independent of anything I say. You claim I "support" these railroads. Yet I've asked you to define one being pro or anti railroad and you have yet to do so. So I don't know if I even support them. I only know that I don't support how they were built
Click to expand...

I never claimed you in-fact support the railroads. I said it is inconsistent to support railroads that were built using eminent domain, if you do not support eminent domain in the first place.
 
#165
#165
Vol8188 said:
We've had about twenty post of you accusing me of being inconsistent and me asking what your definition of supporting a railroad is. That's a circle
Click to expand...

That might be a circle, but that's not me speaking in circles. My statements have always been linear...that if you do not support eminent domain, then it is inconsistent to support the fruits of eminent domain.
 
#166
#166
RobsPics said:
That might be a circle, but that's not me speaking in circles. My statements have always been linear...that if you do not support eminent domain, then it is inconsistent to support the fruits of eminent domain.
Click to expand...

Do you plan on answering the question you keep avoiding?
 
#169
#169
Vol8188 said:
Bump
Click to expand...

I never claimed you said you are for those railroads. And I define "being for" a railroad as supporting everything about it from conception to construction to operation. If you are for those things, then you are for that particular railroad.
 
#171
#171
RobsPics said:
I never claimed you said you are for those railroads. And I define "being for" a railroad as supporting everything about it from conception to construction to operation. If you are for those things, then you are for that particular railroad.
Click to expand...

Good job. You still didn't answer the question.
 
#172
#172
Vol8188 said:
Good job. You still didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

Yes I did.

1)
You asked me where you said something specific. I answered that I never claimed you said something specific.

2)
You asked me for a definition of "being for" a railroad. I provided you with my definition.
 
#173
#173
RobsPics said:
Yes I did.

1)
You asked me where you said something specific. I answered that I never claimed you said something specific.

2)
You asked me for a definition of "being for" a railroad. I provided you with my definition.
Click to expand...

So one is either 100% for something or 100% against it?
 
#175
#175
RobsPics said:
I never claimed you said you are for those railroads. And I define "being for" a railroad as supporting everything about it from conception to construction to operation. If you are for those things, then you are for that particular railroad.
Click to expand...

Let me ask the question again.

Is one either 100% for or 100% against a given entity?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top