Log in

No account? Create an account
Political Rebuttle - Multiplayer vi [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tomas Gallucci

counter customisable

[ flavors | Meta Profile ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| Value for Value Politics Tech Reads ]

Political Rebuttle [Sep. 16th, 2008|02:19 am]
Tomas Gallucci
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , ]
[music |Brick]

This started out as a comment to lotta_valdez, but as the content grew, I felt that it would work better as a response post. To see the posts that I am responding to, please go Why I Hate the Republican Party Pt.1 and Why I Hate the Republican Party Pt.2. Please note that you will need to verify your age to read the first post in the series.


You're a reasonable, well-thought out person, so I thought I'd share my thoughts with you since you've shared yours with the world.

First, while I believe that abortion is murder, I also respect other's decisions. I think that for whatever reason, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she should at least be able to receive one from a physician that is capable of causing her and her fetus as little harm and pain as possible. This begins with having a sterile facility.

Economics 101 states that if the government makes an activity illegal, a black market will rise up to meet the demand; therefore, by outlawing abortion, women would then have to seek this service in less then ideal conditions. If it's going to cost a hospital or an outpatient clinic more money to engage in illegal activity, one would have to assume that the service would be replaced by those who don't have money or reputations to risk. Thus the risks will be shared with their customers, such as a complication from an improperly performed abortion.

While on the one hand it would be easy to say, "Tough shit. She got what she deserved for having sex when she wasn't ready to have kids", we all know that real life isn't black and white. There are exceptions to every rule.

A counter-argument would be that the woman could carry the baby to term and give the child up for adoption, but again, the success rate isn't that high.

I do take exception to your statement that A collection of cells that urinates/blinks/grows fingernails,/etc is not a human being. I might remind that you that you are one of the collections of cells that urinates, blinks and grows fingernails. Does that mean that you are not a human being?

Healthcare is an awful mess, yes, but I believe that the problem can be solved through privatization. If healthcare groups have to compete, they will take responsibility to ensure that they are providing a quality service to their customers at a competitive rate. Where the problem comes in is when you have a greedy entrepreneur that tries to cut necessary corners. This behavior should be correct immediately via economics because his service would suffer as a direct result of his greed. However, people are stubborn and do not adhere to mathematical formulas.

I agree with you that it's wrong to give incentives to businesses who create jobs outside of the municipality where the operate. On the other hand, it's hard to say if there isn't a direct benefit.

Consider this example: the bulk of the set-work on The Dark Knight was filmed in Pinewood studios in London; however, The Dark Knight has grossed over $500 million in the United States alone. Warner, the distributor and studio backer of the film is a US-based company. Should they get a tax break in the United States for the jobs they created in the UK? Any way you slice it, $500 million is a lot of money. Think of all of the theaters that made money exhibiting the film. They had to hire users for crowd control. Consider all of the dinners that were bought before the movie on dinner dates. And let's not forget the condoms that those dates will need to purchase. So all in all, even if the bulk of the film was shot in the UK, there was a great economic benefit because Warner distributed the film here in the States.

I do not practically know how to shoot a gun. In fact, I have only shot a one twice. I do however believe that it is my right to keep and bear arms (weapons) to defend myself from a tyrannical government, not just people on the streets. Did you know that within six months of confiscating guns in German, the Nazis rose to power? The numbers are similar for communist Russia.

I agree that what goes on behind closed doors in a private residence is not the government's business. It is not, however, a violation of your right of Freedom of Speech to be denied Hanna Montana naked. It is censorship, however, if you can't get naked for the cameras. And I think that we can all agree that there are certain things that children just shouldn't see.

Iraq was one of many problems that needed to be dealt with. Bush didn't handle Iraq in the appropriate manner. Also, I thought that V for Vendetta was cool when I saw it in the theater. I now loath the fact that everyone is turning it into a political tool. It's a fucking movie for Christ's sake!

People make bad decisions. There is someone on Xanga who married a solider who got her pregnant and then went to Iraq twice. He doesn't know how to manage money and has ruined his wife's credit. Instead of saving the money, he blows it on a whim and now they have two kids. The guy is a fucktard not because he joined the Army, but because he didn't learn how to be a responsible citizen. Now his family is paying for his ineptitude.

Additionally, as we both know, banks have recently given anyone a loan who asks and then selling the loan to larger financial institutions. Add to this the fact that illegals were also given loans. Because they were illegal are not legally obligated to pay them back, guess who gets to schlump the load on their back? You and I, Jane and Joe Taxpayer.

I feel the same way about failing banks due to unscrupulous lending as I do the airlines: let them fail. There will be some entrepreneur who will come in and offer a better service at a lower cost. As for those who took the loans and bought houses that they knew they couldn't afford, I don't feel guilty for their suffering. No one is guilty for the student loans I took out, nor for the car payments or the credit cards that I have run up. If someone wants to alleviate my debt, I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not going to ask Jane and Joe Taxpayer to do it for me. (Those of you wishing to donate, make your checks out to The Tomas Benevolence Fund®, The Fund that Makes Tomas Benevolent™)

I'm curious to know how do Democrats, other than marginalizing, allow people like Robert Byrd to rise in the ranks to such positions of power.

Sex ed is important, but it's ultimately the responsibility of the parents. Why can't we start programs that educates parents on how to educate their kids instead of letting the government play nanny?

Lesbianism is acceptable only if they are both hot.

I fully backed my Senator's (Richard Shelby) proposal that if someone hires an illegal or gives them a place to stay, the offender looses their privilege to be awarded a federal contract for a period of no less then five years, be fined and imprisoned for up to five years.

The issue here isn't about human rights. Geo-political boarders are not abstract concepts; they delineate jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction leads to anarchy. Conservatives are not about denying someone human rights. Conservatives are, however, about abiding by the law. If someone illegally crosses the border from Mexico, they are subject to the penalties under our law. It's absurd when those who have flagrantly flaunted their disrespect of our laws suddenly cry for rights that are no longer accosted to natural-born citizens of this country.

You want to fix the economy? Quit giving jobs to and harboring those who haven't went through due process to be here legally. If Jane and Joe Taxpayer didn't have to cover Juan's doctor bills along with his failing mortgage, consumers would have more money to pay off their own debt and purchase the goods and services offered by legitimate businesses operating in the United States.

And the issue isn't about jobs that Americans are too lazy to do, it's about jobs that Americans won't do for minimum wage. Some of this is pride--no arguments there-- but in this country, we have grown accustomed to an honest day's wage for an honest day's work. Even John Kerry campaigned on his father being part of the milkman union.

Should McDonald's pay cashiers $20/hr? That depends. Is the labor worth it to McDonald's? Has that worker been loyal and come to work on-time faithfully for years, always serving and helping their store to be successful? On the other hand, who aspires to work as a cashier at McDonald's their entire life?

The electric cars that you crave, what will provide power to charge them at night? The decrepit power plants that the EPA will not allow to be rebuilt except as fossil fuel burning entities? When will Chernobyl be recognized for the mismanagement that it was instead of using the isolated incident as a means to ban progress? And have you seriously thought about what it would take to replace the current infrastructure of the automobile? If we were to move to some kind of electric car, how would cross-country driving occur? Much of America is rural and spread out--mass transit isn't going to solve this problem. Even if you developed a new system, you would have to have an efficient way to provide cost-effective solutions to the common person while at the same time figuring out how to phase out the current implementation of transportation.

Simply put, Conservatives seek to give a hand up, not a hand out. Personally, I want to see people get the help they need to reach their fullest potential, not have their low standard of living subsidized.

I most respectfully disagree with you on many of the issues that you have raised as mentioned above. I appreciate you taking the time to explain what you believe and why as well as taking the time to listen to what I believe and why. I hope that I have given a new perspective on old issues and look forward to your rebuttle(s).

[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-09-16 07:51 am (UTC)
Excellent reply. I hope she gets a chance to see it. Basically, its people who are stupid, not a particular political party. There are ignorant Republicans, and ignorant Democrats. Not every single person in a specific party can know every single thing. Take a look at you, for example - you're a Republican, and I normally disagree with everything that comes out of your mouth! Are all Republicans that stupid? No. Same can be said for Democrats. Its a problem with the population of America. People are the problem. And that girl sounds very, very naive. I could stake my life on the fact that her world view will change drastically once she experiences and matures.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-09-16 10:27 am (UTC)
Let's get something straight: I'm not part of the Republican Party; I'm a Conservative and there is a difference.

It is not my intention to persuade anyone to change their beliefs. Rather, I am using my blog as an outlet. What I do hope to do is get people to critically think about what it is they believe and why. If in so doing they conclude that I'm right, so be it. After all, I don't know everything you just think I do.

I'm curious, is there anything here that you disagree with?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-09-16 10:58 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-09-16 11:17 am (UTC)
That was a thinly-veiled attempt to engage you on the issues. But if all you can answer is probably, one can only conclude that you either didn't read the article or have not the skill of reading comprehension.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-09-16 11:21 am (UTC)
Really? Those are the only two reasons I chose not to engage you in debate?

You're right, you're not a Republican. You strike me more as a Democrat. GOOD JOB!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-09-16 11:31 am (UTC)
No, I assume that as you mellowed in your old age, you no longer wish to engage in debate. If you you don't know if you disagree with what I have written here, then you obviously either didn't read the post or didn't comprehend it.

You talk about me being stupid and unable to comprehend. I don't think there is a better example of lack of comprehension then what you have displayed here.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-09-16 11:37 am (UTC)
If you you don't know if you disagree with what I have written here, then you obviously either didn't read the post or didn't comprehend it.

I love when people use the word 'obviously' in scenarios in which its entirely false. It makes them appear ignorant.

Let me put it this way, dumbass, if your question was a thinly-veiled attempt to engage me on the issues, then my answer was designed to answer you in the same manner. Obviously, you're retarded ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-09-16 11:44 am (UTC)
Please explain to me how you can only "probably" disagree with something that you have read.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-09-16 12:06 pm (UTC)
I didn't wish to engage you in debate on any of your points. If you continue to be so literal, that is, remain blissfully ignorant of allusion and implication, you're going to self-destruct.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: snapper521
2008-09-16 06:32 pm (UTC)
Tomas, simply put that was amazingly breath taking and awesome. This just may have trumped any and all superb posts you ever wrote because this my dear... is fantastic.

You know this already, but I agree whole heartedly. You also know that I do not have the skill necessary to write down my thoughts in such an eloquent fashion.

The newspaper man in you has shown himself and... it was a glorious sight to witness.

This most certainly gets rated a 10.
(Reply) (Thread)