Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - Page 5

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 41 through 46 for Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers

     

New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - - - 46 messages. Showing 41 through 46. Go to page: 1  2  3  4  5  
Neal
Junior Member
Joined 02/08/2010
Posts:128

Neal's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 41 Posted: 11:47 AM 11/06/10 (CST)
"Why are you against limited government" responded to with "you think I'm for unlimited government".

I have to give you credit that may be the best example of reverse debate I have ever seen.

How does everything posted on this site regarding the slightest hint of politics always manage to turn into this?
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 42 Posted: 10:05 AM 11/07/10 (CST)
"Why are you against limited government" responded to with "you think I'm for unlimited government".

I have to give you credit that may be the best example of reverse debate I have ever seen.


How is that an example of reverse debate? Do you know what reverse debate is?
Neal
Junior Member
Joined 02/08/2010
Posts:128

Neal's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 43 Posted: 02:34 PM 11/07/10 (CST)
Followed by an attack on my intellect, surprise. Can we let this thread die please, I'm sick of seeing it on top.

Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 44 Posted: 04:03 PM 11/07/10 (CST)
It's clear IronDioPriest thinks an INCREASE in our governments spending and intrusions is ill-advised and should be spoken against. But that is all he said. He didn't call for even a single welfare program that exists today to be cut. He didn't say cancel the police service. He never said cut school funding. So you can use your strawman and argue against a misrepresentation of his point or you can actually talk about the point he made and discuss if an INCREASE from our current level of government could be worth while.

The OP wrote - "All these so-called outdoorsmen and outdoor advocacy groups are nothing more than little piglets lining up to suckle at the teat of the government trough. They want their portion of the nanny-state sugar-tit, . . .",

I interpret this to mean he believes a "nanny-state" existed before the Legacy Amendment became part of the state constitution. How do you interpret it? (And troughs have teats?)

My initial post was an attempt to succinctly point out the flaws in his position and address them, which is why it wasn't a strawman argument. You apparently didn't make the connection, which is probably why you thought it was. I'll try to walk you through it.

Our definitions of "nanny-state" seem to be (as I assumed) substantively the same. The primary difference is in how the government help is regarded. Obviously, people like the OP believe some govt help to be unwarranted intrusions by the State. If they didn't, they wouldn't fulminate against that help. One of the flaws in that position, as I've tried to make clear, is their arbitrary choosing of what is and isn't warranted.

Societies intrinsically limit and intrude on the natural rights and freedoms of their citizens. That's the trade-off people make to live in a civilized society. The test of whether or not those limits/denials are warranted in our system is whether there is deemed compelling reason(s) to do so. Those who voted for the Legacy Amendment apparently believed the reasons were compelling enough to warrant the tax increase.

Minnesota sportsmen could've gone on singly and collectively using their resources to address the state's problems of dwindling wildlife habitat, polluted rivers and lakes, etc., instead of seeking public funding to augment their efforts. The same could be said of the other traditional bugaboos of those who decry the nanny-state. Individuals and their families and NGOs could've used their resources to address the problems of the elderly instead of using taxes to fund govt programs like Social Security and Medicare. NGOs and extended families could've gone on using their resources to address the problems of children in poverty instead of govt using tax money to pay for AFDC, WIC, free school lunches and other govt programs.

Unfortunately, the private sector wasn't adequately addressing those societal problems, so it was incumbent on the public sector to step in. Govt doesn't usually create solutions in search of problems. Govt says we got millions of elderly people who are living in abject poverty and can't afford medical care, so we get Social Security and Medicare. It says we got millions of poor children who aren't being adequately fed and housed and doctored, so we get govt welfare programs to address those problems. It says we got polluted lakes and rivers and dwindling wildlife habitat, so we get more govt regulation and the Legacy Amendment. And to pay for those govt solutions we get tax increases, usually because if solving the problems was cheap or free, the private sector would've already adequately solved them.

The problem (one of 'em) for nanny-state decriers like the OP is consistency, which is why I brought up public education, among other things. If the problems the Legacy Amendment was passed to address should've been left to the private sector, why shouldn't the problems public education was instituted to address be left to the private sector too? Parents could home-school their kids, as many do. Or they could send them to private schools, as millions do. Or they could pool their resources and hire tutors to teach groups of kids. Much if not most of the property taxes people pay (including childless people and people who home-school their kids and people who send their kids to private schools), go to pay for public education.

Could you and/or the OP explain why the Legacy Amendment and the other govt programs I mentioned are derided as unwarranted intrusions by a nanny-state, but public education isn't?

As for Bachmann, I see "Amarica's Congress Woman" recently embarrassed the state and country again by parroting rightwing propaganda about the cost of Obama's India trip. At this point, the best argument for her continuing in pubic service is that cretins deserve representation too.
Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 45 Posted: 10:57 PM 11/07/10 (CST)
"Could you and/or the OP explain why the Legacy Amendment and the other govt programs I mentioned are derided as unwarranted intrusions by a nanny-state, but public education isn't?"


Some people probably think public education is unwarranted, I don't but I'm sure some do.

As for the question- I can at least tell you which one of those programs is closer to being an unwarranted intrusion and which one faces more opposition. Reasons should be clear enough without me explaining.

If this is all about the land and legacy amendment... that debate already happened. Your to late.
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 46 Posted: 10:13 PM 11/08/10 (CST)
As for the question- I can at least tell you which one of those programs is closer to being an unwarranted intrusion and which one faces more opposition. Reasons should be clear enough without me explaining.

I don't understand this. "Closer to being an unwarranted intrusion" implies that the programs are warranted. It's how you differentiate between warranted and unwarranted that I'd like explained. Your reasoning is what I'd like you to explain.

If you believe Welfare is an unwarranted govt intrusion, could you explain why taxing people to adequately house, feed and doctor poor kids is unwarranted, but taxing people to pay to educate many of those same kids is warranted?
Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - - - 46 messages. Showing 41 through 46. Go to page: 1  2  3  4  5  
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
    dlskills_1     Fisherman81     InTheBrook     JR     primehunter     Raildick     TG     willcfish    
Users Online:8
Guests Online:102
Total Online: 110


Terms and Conditions