Jump to content

Steve Seib

Member
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Steve Seib last won the day on July 7 2009

Steve Seib had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

About Steve Seib

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/20/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Steven
  • School
    Saint Thomas Aquinas/K-State

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    KCWizMystic4Life
  1. Agree to disagree then. I agree, and although I'm a libertarian, I don't think the CRA was that big of a deal in this aspect. I was just trying to show explain where Mr. Paul was coming from because I don't believe he's a racist, and because I enjoy playing devils advocate .
  2. I know what you're saying, but the idea behind the free market is that if there was widespread support for stopping racism and ending segregation in businesses, people could use their choice of businesses and where they spend their money as their means of creating change as I explained, rather than through government action. The difference though between segregation in businesses and hate crimes is that the former doesn't actually cause any harm whereas hate crimes and violence like what occurred in the south clearly do harm individuals and encroach on their rights, and clearly should be and is/was illegal. It's hard to argue though that forcing racist business owners to accept all races does/did anything to stop those same people from being racist. A free market is defined as any market where trade is unrestricted by regulation. My explanation was that you have a misconception of what the term 'free market' means. It's just the same to say that it isn't a free market if people are forced to do things against their will. A market where business owners are told who they have to do business with, is not a free market.
  3. The view from a libertarian perspective is that in a free market, people/businesses should have the choice to deny providing their goods/services to whoever they choose. Does that allow racists to be racist? Yes, but the idea is that in a free society people should have the right to do as they please, as long as it doesn't encroach on the rights of others. As businesses have no obligation to sell you their goods/services since they provide them out of their own free will, denying someone service isn't a violation of rights. Ideally, if you didn't want to support a business that denied their services to individuals of a certain race/sex/creed/etc., you could boycott that business in favor of one that doesn't discriminate. Thusly, over time, if enough people chose to do so, the discriminating business would lose money, making their racist policies unprofitable, meaning either they go out of business or have to change to accommodate the demands of consumers. Is it an idealistic vision? Probably, but so was the idea that passing the Civil Rights act would get rid of racism. Assuming Mr. Paul was following the typical libertarian thought process as explained above, he knows full well what he was saying and thusly doesn't feel the need to apologize. You can't simply assume he's a racist because of a viewpoint like this which is likely formed, not out of racism, but out of the ideals he holds regarding economics. Interesting assumption, any evidence to back that claim up? See above for the libertarian thought process on the issue. Yes, it allows racists to be racists, but a business denying someone service doesn't encroach upon anyones rights, lynching/murdering someone does. I somehow doubt Mr. Paul would advocate the latter, and unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure he hasn't/wouldn't.
  4. Aww man, but that's like, work or something, can't we just complain about it on here and hope something happens???
  5. Steve Seib

    South Africa 2010

    I'm still mystified as to what the call was to disallow our 3rd goal...
  6. I'm also looking to judge/coach/cut cards for NFL/CFL. I wouldn't need housing for NFL, but would for CFL. If interested, e-mail me at stevenseib@gmail.com
  7. I'm looking to judge/cut cards/coach/etc. for NFL nationals. As I live in KC, I won't need transportation or a place to stay. I'm also looking to do the same at CFL, though I would need a place to stay for that. I'm just finishing my freshman year debating at Kansas State University, and I debated 4 years in high school. I know more about policy arguments, but I also know a decent amount about the K as well. If interested, please e-mail me at stevenseib@gmail.com
  8. this makes so little sense in so many ways...
  9. Steve Seib

    Next Year

    yeah, that'll happen
  10. Vouching for this, debating for K-State is one of the best decisions I've ever made. The coaches are amazing, the squad is a lot of fun, if you're thinking about debating in college at all, check out K-State.
  11. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125053127944937569.html "In a normal political cycle, Democrats would look at the electoral indicators right now and say: Get out the Tylenol, because we're going to have a big headache next year. Here's how they can console themselves: This isn't a normal political cycle. Indeed, we're in a period now in which down turns to up, and up to down, at about twice the normal speed. Hence, the next few months may well be more important than were the past few in setting the tone for next year's crucial midterm elections. The outcome of the pitched battle over health care, which right now is ruining many a Democrat's summer vacation, will help determine that tone, of course. But the X factor in this equation is the shape and pace of the economic recovery. Certainly Democrats have to hope that trend lines are subject to change, because they point distinctly downward for the party right now. That's a particular problem for them, because the coming midterm is going to be an exceptionally important one, determining whether the 2008 victory by Barack Obama was the start of a long-term Democratic wave, or whether that wave will quickly hit the rocks. The first sobering thought for Democrats is that they will be fighting history in next year's midterms. The first congressional election after a new president takes office normally is a tough one for his party, whichever party that happens to be. Over the past century, a new president's party has lost an average of 28 seats in the House in his first midterm. Only twice during that century has the president's party managed to gain seats, most recently when George W. Bush and his Republican Party picked up eight seats in 2002, in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks. More common are substantial losses; Bill Clinton's Democrats lost a whopping 52 seats in 1994. So the potential for a substantial erosion of the Democrats' current comfortable majorities in Congress is very real, if history is any guide. At the moment, Democrats have a 79-seat majority in the House, 256 to 177, with two vacancies. In the Senate, if you count independents who tend to vote with the Democrats, they have a 60-40 majority. Yet it isn't just history working against Democrats, but the current political climate. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll is a pretty good barometer. The readings there start out reasonably well for Democrats. When Americans were asked whether they would prefer next year's election to produce a Congress controlled by Democrats or Republicans, Democrats still are preferred, by 46% to 39%. But the party's weaknesses show up quickly thereafter. That's the smallest margin Democrats have held on the party-control question since April 2006. White males now say by a double-digit margin that they want a Republican-controlled Congress. And white women, who in previous polls said by a comfortable margin that they preferred a Democratic Congress, now are split evenly on the question. Though Americans still say they think Democrats can do a better job managing the economy than Republicans can, that margin has narrowed to just six percentage points. Meanwhile, those polled gave Republicans the advantage on reducing the deficit, controlling government spending and dealing with taxes -- all areas where Democrats were preferred previously. Moreover, just one in four Americans say they approve of the job the (Democrat-controlled) Congress is doing, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is viewed positively by only 25% of those surveyed. Want to guess who Republicans will try to make the face of the Democrats next year? Finally, Democrats face some structural problems. As the majority party, they have more House seats to defend than do the Republicans. The ones with the toughest road ahead are the 48 House Democrats who won last year in districts carried by Republican presidential nominee John McCain. All told, the Cook Political Report, the bible for those tracking congressional races, lists 23 Democrats as vulnerable, compared with 13 Republicans. Still... The picture isn't as bad in Senate races for Democrats. More important, the election is being held in the fall of 2010, not the fall of 2009. The political climate figures to be quite different if Democrats manage to pull something resembling a victory from the current health debate -- or if, as Democratic strategist James Carville suggests, they manage to paint Republicans as intransigents who stood in the way of progress. Perhaps more important is whether most Americans start to feel by early next year that the economy really is recovering from the worst recession in seven decades. That will determine whether Democrats can claim that their economic stimulus, financial-sector rescue packages and housing-recovery plans worked. The real statistics to watch are economic growth and unemployment in next year's second and third quarters. When does the concrete start to harden on public attitudes? Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Report, guesses next summer. But he also notes that the only question is the amount of difficulty Democrats face. "We don't know how bad for Democrats this is going to be," he says, "but the debate is over the degree, not the direction." " Ok, maybe it's just because I wanted to link one of my uncle's articles, but gives an interesting look at how 2010 is looking at the moment. If current trends continue, it's looking like dems will lose, if nothing else, the super majority they have now. Thoughts?
  12. You know, it really kills your argument when about 80% of what you posted (the parts I've bolded) isn't true of Palin. The whole point of the podcast that I linked in my first post was to point out that simply because you have ideological differences with Palin, it doesn't make her stupid. Had you taken the time to read the entire transcript of Dunning's podcast (I'm assuming you didn't based on your post), you would understand the point I'm trying to make. As you appear unable to click the link, however, I'll post more of it here: "For example, I heard some skeptics the other day talking about Bill Maher, saying "I didn't realize he was as crazy as he is." (Bill Maher is an outspoken critic of science based medicine. He's endorsed AIDS denialism, Big Pharma conspiracies, anti-vaccination, and natural medicine.) Now, granted Bill Maher is wrong about a lot of things, but he's not on the fringe. A lot of people believe that stuff. Clearly it's important that they be educated, because widespread beliefs like this would represent a serious national health crisis. If you dismiss those beliefs as craziness, you're saying there's nothing to them, they're meaningless. Instead, acknowledge that there are compelling cultural influences that have led Bill Maher and others to believe those things. Bill Maher is just one of many victims of these influences, and it's because he has the average person's ability to understand and interpret the information he's been exposed to, not because he's crazy. In the same way, you could say Sarah Palin is simply responding to cultural and political influences. People need cheap energy, so she's a proponent of drilling the oil in her state. People want government to eliminate wasteful spending, so she bashes fruit fly research, the significance of which has never been made clear to her or to the public. The United States is a strongly Christian nation, and many people support teaching creationism in schools, and oppose stem cell research. Palin isn't being stupid by embracing these concepts, she's responding to the same influences everyone else is." Does it mean that her views are right? Not necessarily, but what is for sure is that those views in and of themselves don't make her stupid. Ok, even if her policies benefit oil companies, you have yet to establish why that's a bad thing. Care to explain how exactly? That's seriously all you've got? I know it's hard to grasp, but people do actually misspeak. In the cases of the ethics complaints filed against her (all of which, by the way, have been dropped or dismissed) the Alaska Department of Law has been the agency dealing with them on Palin's behalf. It's fairly obvious that Palin meant that in the White House there would be a similar agency to deal with anything like what she experienced with the ethics complaints. I don't consider this any different than when Obama mistakenly said he had visited 57 states, and don't see why anyone else should either. Er, link/source?
  13. Explain to me how she fits the definition of being 'quasi-fascist' at all. If you're going to throw out terms like that, at least provide some justification for them. As to her being an airhead, Brian Dunning put it pretty well in a recent podcast: "Let me tell you something about Sarah Palin, but first with the understanding that I don't know any more about her than you do; I've never met her either; and I didn't vote for her. Stupid people don't tend to attract contributors, managers, supporters, and electorates. If she'd exhibited stupidity on the Wasilla city council, they probably wouldn't have elected her mayor. If she'd exhibited stupidity as mayor, they probably wouldn't have elected her for a second term. Her appointment to the Oil and Gas Committee by the governor was probably not because she'd behaved stupidly. Finally, stupidity probably does not characterize most successful bids to run for governor of one of the United States. Does she exhibit an almost robotic and uncritical point-by-point support of the Republican platform? Yes. Is she undereducated for her position? Possibly, her bachelor's degree is in journalism. It's arguable that she's demonstrated a clear disdain for, and illiteracy in, science. She gives every indication that her religious beliefs and her party guidance determine her priorities. But welcome to reality: That's the way a lot of people work, including a lot of people on the other side of the political aisle. If you call yourself a critical thinker, ad hominem attacks should not be the extent of your criticisms of those in whom you find fault. Show me one thing Sarah Palin has said or done that's "stupid", and I'll show you something that's perfectly rational for someone with her religious and political convictions. It may be that you simply disagree with her convictions, and you probably have very good reasons for doing so. But if that's the case, don't just say "Sarah Palin is stupid". That's kindergarten talk, and it makes you look bad, not her. Understand why she takes the position she does, then reveal the faults in that position. My point today has nothing to do with Sarah Palin, or with anyone else. It has to do with a lack of critical thinking among many people who consider themselves skeptics." Lololololol! Compared to the policies of Obama which have done absolutely nothing for small businesses, but which instead include bailing out nothing but big businesses, you honestly think Palin's policies would favor big business MORE? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html Do your research before just parroting things you've heard in the media please.
×
×
  • Create New...