Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The G.O.P.’s Existential Crisis  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4377 times:

For those who don't know Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Laureate in Economics, NY Times op-ed columnist, and self-labelled liberal. I found his column The G.O.P.'s Existential Crisis to be quite thought provoking.

He makes the points that since the 70s the main thrust of the GOP has been to get rid of the welfare state, which sounds like a popular plan until you start saying what you would cut, namely Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are all popular programs. To do this, the GOP approach has been to try to use tax cuts to force cuts in social spending, or to get so much political strength that they could just force cuts through.

And:

Quote:

O.K., you see the problem: Democrats didn't go along with the program, and refused to give up. Worse, from the Republican point of view, all of their party's sources of strength have turned into weaknesses. Democratic dominance among Hispanics has overshadowed Republican dominance among southern whites; women's rights have trumped the politics of abortion and antigay sentiment; and guess who finally did get Osama bin Laden.

And look at where we are now in terms of the welfare state: far from killing it, Republicans now have to watch as Mr. Obama implements the biggest expansion of social insurance since the creation of Medicare.

So Republicans have suffered more than an election defeat, they've seen the collapse of a decades-long project. And with their grandiose goals now out of reach, they literally have no idea what they want, hence their inability to make specific demands.

It's a dangerous situation. The G.O.P. is lost and rudderless, bitter and angry, but it still controls the House and, therefore, retains the ability to do a lot of harm, as it lashes out in the death throes of the conservative dream.

Our best hope is that business interests will use their influence to limit the damage. But the odds are that the next few years will be very, very ugly.

I see his points.

The GOP has been going down the same road a long time now, and is at a decision point: (a) do we do more of the same, or (b) do we do something different?

Doing more of the same is a bad idea. They've lost the last Presidential election, and demographics are working against them, and what they have been suggesting (trickle down economics) clearly is only working for those at the top. Also their stance on gun control seems to be more and more unpopular.

Doing something different is difficult. First of all, the obstructionist policies of the last few years has chased away many of the people on their side capable of leadership. Secondly they are a diverse mashup of (alleged) fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, religious people and radicals.

I wouldn't want to be in Boehner's shoes right now. He seems the be the one who is at most risk of being labelled the person who took us over the fiscal cliff.

The fiscal cliff is a creation of Congress and one way to overt that would be to undo it as fast as it was done, but that'd be almost as bad to Boehner as going over the cliff would be. My bet is that someone else will end up doing that dirty work so that Boehner can save face.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
135 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
the fiscal cliff
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The fiscal cliff

Can we, as a nation, stop calling it the "Fiscal Cliff"? Please and thank you. It is not a cliff. It is a back up plan. They said "If A does not happen, then B will without question."

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
(a) do we do more of the same, or (b) do we do something different?

If they are smart, they will kick out the fringe. But, they are not smart like that. The fringe uses snappy catch phrases to gin up the base. Which, in a way, is smart. It alienates a lot of voters, but, on paper, it sounds good.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

I don't really get most of these articles... The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.

IIRC there was a lot of this talk after 2004

Yes the GOP needs to change, but I don't see them going extinct anytime soon (as much as I would like to see them getting replaced with the Libertarian party or something)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):

Not really. And not only was it a very decisive loss for them, they gave up a lot of seats in the house, and managed to lose horribly in every large MSA to boot.

The damage done to them is more than just a presidential election per se, it's watching "reliable" strongholds go from red to blue and not winning (or even coming meaningfully close) a single "battleground" region. This year's loss was about 6%. Next time will be closer to 20, barring a major and credible overhaul.

Why is this different than 2004... 2004 was indeed a narrower race for starters, and the Dems also didn't sustain likewise losses in contentious states, or lose as many seats in the house and senate. In fact, IIRC, they held onto their majority there. FOX will try to tell you that 2012 & 2004 are similar, but the truth is they're really not. In 2004, the Dems couldn't field a viable candidate, and did not posses the ability to get folks excited about their vision. In 2012, the Republicans were simply found to be peddling useless schlock nobody wants. This isn't a product that can be sold better with just a new salesman.


Libertarians... The problem with these guys is the same problem with Communists. Their vision works well on paper, but in real life requires a damned specific set of parameters to somehow naturally materialize in order to work. They sound innovative, but the truth is that it's basically churched-up anarchy. I will agree though, that it is indeed superior to the baptist taliban dream the GOP seems to be captivated by.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16865 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4316 times:

Quote:
I don't really get most of these articles... The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.

The bigger picture should be more worrying for Republicans, they've lost the popular vote in 5 out of the past six Presidential elections. The country is progressing, the Republican party is regressing. I've voted twice for Republican Presidential candidates since I've turned 18, the last time was G.W Bush in 2000. He was a tremendous let down to say the least, I liked his "compassionate conservative" platform he had I'm 2000. Suffice to say it never materialized. The platform for the Republicans is more and more outdated and out of touch with each election.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4297 times:

The first Presidential election I can remember was when Ike ran in '52. He was the one person who motivated me to register Republican when I was old enough to register. The GOP has, unfortunately, changed since then. I have this feeling that cash is not more important to them than country. That makes it easy to understand why they prefer tax cuts over feeding the hungry or treating the sick. Why should they worry as long as they can keep taxes low?

BTW, over the years I have normally voted for the Democrat when the GOP President really turned me off. Bush I - great guy stuck with a Sanunu based Presidency. That got me voting for Wild Bill twice. Bush II? Gave the Family another shot - what an embarrassment. After his two terms there was no way I could vote for McCain and Bambi.

At my age I don't have too many elections left, but I find it hard to see how I can support the GOP. It is so far away from the party I joined so many years ago - nothing but a money grab these days.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
If they are smart, they will kick out the fringe.

Maybe the fringe will take over their party. Look at the power the Tea Party held when they went to DC. There is sufficient money behind them to keep going for a long time. Just look at how many highly regarded moderate Republicans that were kicked out by the Tea Party this past Election Primary.


These days it's important to look at the shifts in our population. People of color (any color but white) are increasing as a percentage of the population and the old white men with the $2 haircut address these future voters in a manner that brings in votes. The GOP has relied too long on being against these groups to bring in the white vote. How are they going to bring them to the GOP side?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
Can we, as a nation, stop calling it the "Fiscal Cliff"? Please and thank you. It is not a cliff. It is a back up plan. They said "If A does not happen, then B will without question."

You are arguing that we shouldn't use the word "cliff", Krugman's article is saying instead of "fiscal" we should use the word "political". We don't have a fiscal cliff, we have a political cliff. Our fiscal issue has a simple solution: borrow more money. Our political issue is that no one wants to keep borrowing money, but our politicians cannot work out how to stop borrowing more money.

I see three main options:

(A) Congress negotiates a settlement
(B) Mandatory across the board cuts kick in
(C) We kick the can down the road yet again
(a) With both sides doing their best to save face
(b) With both sides blaming the other
(c) Permutations of (a) and (b)

I'm not sure if these map to your A and B, but I see A above as very unlikely, B as somewhat likely and C very likely.

Krugman can say why I find A so unlikely better than I can:

Quote:
...these aren’t normal negotiations in which each side presents specific proposals, and horse-trading proceeds until the two sides converge. By all accounts, Republicans have, so far, offered almost no specifics. They claim that they’re willing to raise $800 billion in revenue by closing loopholes, but they refuse to specify which loopholes they would close; they are demanding large cuts in spending, but the specific cuts they have been willing to lay out wouldn’t come close to delivering the savings they demand.

It’s a very peculiar situation. In effect, Republicans are saying to President Obama, “Come up with something that will make us happy.” He is, understandably, not willing to play that game. And so the talks are stuck.

I agree with the column as it goes on to say that the GOP has been so focused on tax cuts being the answer that they don't know what to do when it's clear the President will block anything that doesn't repeal the cuts on the upper two tax brackets.

The GOP has been so good at pushing out moderates that they seem to be lost right now. They seem to find themselves in a position where they have to chose between their base blaming them for caving in on tax cuts versus the whole country blaming them for tanking the economy.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.

I think a lot of presidential politics depends on exactly who the candidate is, but it's also true that demographics is working against the GOP.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
IIRC there was a lot of this talk after 2004

This certainly isn't 2004!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4225 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
You are arguing that we shouldn't use the word "cliff", Krugman's article is saying instead of "fiscal" we should use the word "political".

I was actually speaking to Americans in general, not Krugman. It is not a cliff. There is an alternative if the obstructionists decide not to pass anything or compromise with Democrats.

I have a feeling that, in 2014, the right-wing fringe will double down on the one-issue voters. I have a feeling they will be right back to trying to throw just a single percieved divicive issue out and seeing what sticks. Not actually dealing with the real problems of the country that real Republicans want to deal with.

Also, I fear, they will try to get long, long lines at urban voting stations again and blame the Democrats. They will try to take away precincts and voting machines and say "Look at what your party did! Look at what Democrats did to you!!" hoping no one did any research.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4225 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):

For those who don't know Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Laureate in Economics, NY Times op-ed columnist, and self-labelled liberal. I found his column The G.O.P.'s Existential Crisis to be quite thought provoking.

I'm sorry, but anyone who who considers Krugman as anything but a blowhard, old-school Keynsian with little if anything worthwhile to say is sick. Sure, you may wave the Nobel prize, but Nobel also gave the Peace prize to the likes of Arafat and Obama (not to compare Obama with Arafat, simply that Obama hadn't done jack-shit to get the award). Nobel has become a political statement rewarding people who think like the PC movement of the time.

I stopped reading the thread at the first paragraph when I saw Krugman mentioned.

http://www.fedupusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KrugmanFail-2.jpg

[Edited 2012-12-15 14:49:45]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
For those who don't know Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Laureate in Economics, NY Times op-ed columnist, and self-labelled liberal.

He's also notable for being wrong about a great many things.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):

   Krugman is full of it, although I'd never heard that quote.

Here's another tidbit from Paul Krugman's Big Box of Wisdom:

Quote:
By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.

The man may wish to plug in his crystal ball at some point.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4154 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
the GOP approach has been to try to use tax cuts to force cuts in social spending

I have suspected that one reason Reagan and GWBush embraced large deficits is because they felt it would pay off their short term constitutency (defense spending hawks) but in the long term actually force the reduction of government programs since they presumed spending cuts and a shrinking govt would be chosen to address the debt they created.
..
..
..
Were it not for the crime of Watergate and the rudeness of Ross Perot running in 1992, I feel the Republicans could have held the presidency from 1968 - 1990s or 2000s.. The country was default on their side as winning white males meant winning the White House.

Don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to become so focused on their leftist agenda that they forget to keep the country's economy running smoothly, just like Bush became so dominated by foreign wars that the stateside economy was just left to crash until it was too late to stop.


Pu


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4149 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 10):
The country was default on their side as winning white males meant winning the White House.

And that's their problem: they are running out of angry white men to keep in power. Their "white men only" stance alienates a lot of people. They, somehow, make their positions sound appealing to a few "minority" voters, but, when all is said and done, they are just a bunch of angry white men.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4110 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 3):
2004, the Dems couldn't field a viable candidate, and did not posses the ability to get folks excited about their vision.

Yes and no. Kerry was actually quite close but the clever folks at the GOP and their media arm Fox News stoked up the divide conquer and fear factors by:

1. The Swift Boat bashing of Kerry
2. The eviness of Gays being able to walk down the aisle and say I Do to each other

Also it seems too much like a coincidence that an Osama Bin Laden tape conveniently was broadcast days before the Presidential election, on the Friday before Election Day.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4071 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
That makes it easy to understand why they prefer tax cuts over feeding the hungry or treating the sick. Why should they worry as long as they can keep taxes low?

I truly hope a "balanced approach" is taken. Revenue has to be addressed. Spending has to be addressed.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 7):
It is not a cliff. There is an alternative if the obstructionists decide not to pass anything or compromise with Democrats.

Ok, I see your point.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 7):
I have a feeling that, in 2014, the right-wing fringe will double down on the one-issue voters. I have a feeling they will be right back to trying to throw just a single percieved divicive issue out and seeing what sticks. Not actually dealing with the real problems of the country that real Republicans want to deal with.

What single issue for them can be a winner?
> Gun Rights
> Every (Hetro) Sperm is Sacred
> Defense of Marriage
> Creationism
> Denial of Global Warming
> Defend our Borders

It kind of makes it clear why they stuck with "Read My Lips No New Taxes" for the last few decades, and why they're willing to go over the cliff for it today, because outside of that, there's not much that unifies the GOP.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
I'm sorry, but anyone who who considers Krugman as anything but a blowhard, old-school Keynsian with little if anything worthwhile to say is sick

I'm no disciple of the man, but sick? Oh my...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
I stopped reading the thread at the first paragraph when I saw Krugman mentioned.

As is your right.

On the other hand, you might just want to participate in a discussion of what direction the GOP should take, regardless of the initiation.

Quoting Pu (Reply 10):
I have suspected that one reason Reagan and GWBush embraced large deficits is because they felt it would pay off their short term constitutency (defense spending hawks) but in the long term actually force the reduction of government programs since they presumed spending cuts and a shrinking govt would be chosen to address the debt they created.

Interesting point, which points out another shift the GOP has to deal with. The Cold War is over and the War on Terror is winding down and the public appetite for massive defense spending is winding down too.

Quoting Pu (Reply 10):
Don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to become so focused on their leftist agenda that they forget to keep the country's economy running smoothly, just like Bush became so dominated by foreign wars that the stateside economy was just left to crash until it was too late to stop.

Indeed, and as above, that's why I hope we see the balanced approach. Hopefully that will give the markets some confidence that the government is capable of rational decisions.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 12):

Very true. And Romney had nothing like that level of "scandal" (for lack of better term), and still lost by a greater margin.

In fact his campaign, aside from Ryan's perpetual moronship and the 47% remark, was largely trouble free, and not very controversial. He lost because he ran as a Republican more than for any other reason, and I think that's a huge part of what differentiates this from 2004.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 14):
aside from Ryan's perpetual moronship

Ryan is an unfortunate example of what happens when you actually spell out the things you would cut. Seems his party members have taken that to heart by doing their damnedest to not spell out the things they would cut.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 14):
He lost because he ran as a Republican more than for any other reason, and I think that's a huge part of what differentiates this from 2004.

He ran to the right through the primaries, but then had to tack to the center to have any chance at winning the big prize. That's the problem for the GOP. They're this coalition of single issue voters, whose single issues on their own might win enough support, but when you lump them together you get a single party who has the opposition of all those who disagree on those single issues, and ends up coming across as regressive rather than progressive.

I suppose their best play would be to truly be the fiscally conservative party, but from this recent election we see the voters don't trust them to run the economy any more so than they do the Dems, so the GOP would have to find a way to change people's minds on this.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 14):
In fact his campaign, aside from Ryan's perpetual moronship and the 47% remark, was largely trouble free, and not very controversial. He lost because he ran as a Republican more than for any other reason, and I think that's a huge part of what differentiates this from 2004.

Outside of the obvious issues with GOP positions that are just not in line with the changing demographics in the US that may have been a problem. The saying is that any publicity is good publicity and had Romney/Ryan made more of a stir then they may have had a better chance, or they would have lost by more.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 12):
Yes and no. Kerry was actually quite close but the clever folks at the GOP and their media arm Fox News stoked up the divide conquer and fear factors by:

1. The Swift Boat bashing of Kerry
2. The eviness of Gays being able to walk down the aisle and say I Do to each other

Those democrats were pussies and now they are a lot more aggressive and the GOP can't stand it  .

Had that election taken place now the democrats would have nominated Howard Dean, the person they should have in 2004.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
What single issue for them can be a winner?
> Gun Rights
> Every (Hetro) Sperm is Sacred
> Defense of Marriage
> Creationism
> Denial of Global Warming
> Defend our Borders

None of those, demographics and attitudes are changing and many of those issues the majority of the population is on one side ot them. Not necessarily the position that the democrats own either.

The talk of guns rights being changed isn't a serious issue that the democrats at large are going to get behind.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3957 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
there's not much that unifies the GOP.

Yes. It is hate. Hate is the unifying thing for the GOP. Hate of gays. Hate of abortion. Hate of anyone not white voting. Hate of anything non-Christian. Hate unifies the GOP. They will simply cry about hate and hope they get enough people under their tent to win a majority.

Here is the difference between the right-wing and the Democrats: Democrats understand and accept that people are not single-issue voters. Democrats understand that not everyone is against guns. Not everyone is against abortion or gay rights or redistricting or unions or whatever. Democrats understand there are 100,000 shades of grey. Not everything is aboslute. I think that is the main difference. The right-wing needs to get over it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):

Yes. It is hate. Hate is the unifying thing for the GOP. Hate of gays. Hate of abortion. Hate of anyone not white voting. Hate of anything non-Christian. Hate unifies the GOP.

Holy crap. I think it is YOU who has the hate problem Seb. I see this a lot with liberals - they work themselves up into a lather, convincing themselves and each other that Conservatives/Republicans hate them, I suppose to be able to feel better about themselves hating them back.

Psychologically it makes sense that liberals hate more than conservatives. Liberals (in their own mind) are out to accomplish something - to improve the world via the power of government, to right wrongs and avenge the downtrodden. They feel morally superior to anyone who stands in their way. The language used says it all - "Progressives" want to advance - move forward, ergo anyone who is against them must in turn be backwards and anti-progress. Don't you just hate them? To a liberal's way of thinking, opposing progressivism is like a Pratt & Whitney engineer being told to use pig-iron for engine internals instead of titanium.

Conservatives on the other hand are not being prevented from doing something. They want small government that generally stays out of our way and allows us to live our lives as best we can, and we don't like being told that we are being backward because we don't buy into all the wonderful ideas you libs have. We have the sense (shared by our country's founders), that the more a centralized government tries to do, the more unintended consequences come up to bite you in the ass, so we want it only to do what is strictly necessary, things that nobody else can do. So the feeling from conservatives is not so much hatred, but exasperation.

History is full of examples of societies where a highly motivated segment of the population want to take over and push the country in a certain direction, pitted against the conservative part that says, "No, we don't want to go there", and that history also shows that the bulk of the hatred tends to come from the former group. Russian revolution, Nazi Germany, 1950s China, and so forth, all pitting the Statists against people who basically want to be left alone.

The wildcard is the the evangelical segment of society - the bible thumpers. Only 10-20% of the population, but enough of a swing for votes, and they cost Romney the election, I think. I've talked with many of them who, while being traditionally Republican and fiscally conservative, voted for Obama this time around purely because Romney was a Mormon, and "I just can't vote for someone who is a member of a Cult". I'm sure some of them have said prayers for my soul after I gave them my invective-laced opinions of their priorities.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Our fiscal issue has a simple solution: borrow more money.

I don't have an axe to grind in this holy war, but I do wonder how long the borrow more money solution can last. I won't buy into "debates" between libertarians, liberals and conservatives because those terms have completely different meanings in the rest of the world. My question is, in the medium to long term, how does the US see itself addressing both mounting debt and increasing problems of international competitiveness?

As long as the US is able to maintain its position of providing a reserve currency internationally, printing money to pay debts may work, But what if a point is reached when foreign creditors say "enough is enough, we don't want to be repaid in devalued dollars"?

It seems to me that their are two things holding that off at the moment. The cost of losing potential exports to the US if a basket of currencies repayment scheme was adopted and the military power of the US that leads many investors to see the US as a safe refuge. But how long will that remain true?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Yes. It is hate. Hate is the unifying thing for the GOP. Hate of gays. Hate of abortion. Hate of anyone not white voting. Hate of anything non-Christian. Hate unifies the GOP. They will simply cry about hate and hope they get enough people under their tent to win a majority.

Hmm definitely gonna pull the BS card on that. I know dozens and dozens of right leaning folk, and while some of them do get pretty crazy (hateful) most of them don't. In fact, the majority are concerned with the economic aspect of it, and no, it's not as cut and dry as "they must be for big business' profits and throwing old people on the street and hate poor people."

Have some empathy... otherwise, when people say you hate "small businesses" and "freedoms" and "American security" and all the other stuff you get accused of, you have no right to say "hey, I don't hate _____, I just think __insert logical reason here____"

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
I see this a lot with liberals - they work themselves up into a lather, convincing themselves and each other that Conservatives/Republicans hate them, I suppose to be able to feel better about themselves hating them back.

Psychologically it makes sense that liberals hate more than conservatives.

Again, it goes both ways. I know more right leaning people than left leaning people, but I know them well and their reasons for things, while different than some of mine and most other friends I have, aren't carved out of irrationality and hatred. If you go looking, it's very easy to find hateful liberals (and conservatives) and often in the heat of the debate the argument does get intense, but that doesn't mean they don't have logical reasons for their positions


tl;dr you both are accusing each other of being hateful and doing the exact thing you hate being applied to you!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 19):
My question is, in the medium to long term, how does the US see itself addressing both mounting debt and increasing problems of international competitiveness?

The traditional solution for an over-indebted country is to devalue the currency, which impacts everyone's living standards, but most especially those with positive net worth (i.e. those who own more assets than what they owe). Considering how much the current administration seems to despise those people, I don't think he'd have a problem doing it.

Devaluing the currency would be a great gift to those people who are upside down on their mortgages, unless they were foolish enough to take adjustable rate mortgages. But anyone with a fixed-rate note (and that includes the federal government - all T-Bills are effectively fixed rate) will find that their debt load is much easier to pay.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 19):
But what if a point is reached when foreign creditors say "enough is enough, we don't want to be repaid in devalued dollars"?

I think that will happen in the next couple of years.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3886 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20):
tl;dr you both are accusing each other of being hateful and doing the exact thing you hate being applied to you!

I don't hate liberals. I just think they're idiots. You don't hate the village idiot.

[Edited 2012-12-17 08:39:43]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22):
I don't hate liberals. I just think they're idiots. You don't hate the village idiot.

But you don't respect them either, and in that comes the biggest problem. Too much of your sentimentatliy in the current GOP.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I don't really get most of these articles... The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.

You're right. Plus, the GOP had a particularly weak candidate in Mitt Romney up against a very telegenic Obama.

Demographics, though, are against the GOP. They need to reach out to Jews, Hispanics and Asians, show they are immigration friendly, and expunge the religious radicals.

ALL Conservative parties elsewhere in the Western world have bought into gay marriage and abortion. The GOP needs to adopt socially progressive policies as its own (while maintaining its fiscal and military hawk status) and it will do much better.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 23):
But you don't respect them either, and in that comes the biggest problem.

Respect is earned, not owed by default.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 24):
Demographics, though, are against the GOP. They need to reach out to Jews, Hispanics and Asians, show they are immigration friendly,

Therein lies the problem. Conservatives do not like to talk to and treat people differently. White, black, women, men, gay or straight, we want a government who treats everyone on an equal basis. The Democratic party over the last couple of generations has become what it is by calling out to all the different minorities, reinforcing their feelings of being separate, promising each one little special favors, with the implication that whites/straights/men are treating you unfairly and a benevolent government must take care of you. And sure enough when you get all the different minorities together you outnumber the majority. If you are a one-legged black lesbian muslim single mother, you are a walking, talking orgasm for a liberal politician.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Respect is earned, not owed by default.

Yes it is owed, especially in Congress where those viewpoints are represented. there are many subjective priorites for funding and spending that are to be balanced.

For the laymen that are self centered, respect is probably neither given or recieved on the two sides.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22):
I don't hate liberals. I just think they're idiots.

Hmm, nice generalisation. However, idiocy is certainly bipartisan.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20):
I know dozens and dozens of right leaning folk, and while some of them do get pretty crazy (hateful) most of them don't.

This is what I am talking about: There are many reasonable right-leaning folk in this country. Some of them have been conditioned to hate anything their party stands for. Some of them have been conditioned to say "since there is a liberal plan, it is bad for America, therefore, I must hate it." I understand there are open minded right-wingers out there who are willing to listen and even accept some things Democrats want to try. But, what I see and hear from right-wingers are: hate anything that is not supported by FOX, Limbaugh and the right-wing extremists. That includes right-wingers who are willing to compromise. They must be hated and kicked out of the party for they are simply RINOs, not real Republicans.

I can't believe I have to keep repeating myself: I am just reporting what I see and not making blanket statements. I know (as do many Democrats and precious few Republicans) there are exceptions. But, what is being reported by FOX/Limbaugh, etc. is what I see. Not every single person in this country.

I can't believe I need to write out that disclaimer every single time I post. It is really getting old....

[Edited 2012-12-17 10:53:18]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
The Cold War is over and the War on Terror is winding down and the public appetite for massive defense spending is winding down too.

Just because the Cold War is over does not absolve us of the need to maintain a modern and powerful conventional military. And the War on Terror is not as large scale as it once was, but it is continuing and must continue. It would be a shame if it took another 9/11 to convince anti-defense people that terrorism isn't dead.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Democrats understand that not everyone is against guns.

Not that it stops some of them from trying to take guns from those people.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
they work themselves up into a lather, convincing themselves and each other that Conservatives/Republicans hate them

How else do you interpret not being allowed to use other people's money to solve your problems?

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 19):
My question is, in the medium to long term, how does the US see itself addressing both mounting debt and increasing problems of international competitiveness?

It depends. If liberals get their way, the solution is taking as much money from the rich as they can get away with and keeping competitive via protectionism. Or having enough welfare that whether one is employed or unemployed is basically moot.

My solution would be to cut a ton of crap from the government, especially entitlements, and hold the line on further regulations. For competitiveness, America has to compete rather than cheat. Some of the government savings need to go into education and tax laws must be reformed to make doing business in America a better proposition.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
But, what I see and hear from right-wingers are: hate anything that is not supported by FOX, Limbaugh and the right-wing extremists.

You're seeing what you want to see.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
I am just reporting what I see and not making blanket statements.

Not only do you see what you want to see, you don't care to admit that you don't see anything close to the full picture. And you're going to assert that you are not making blanket statements after you wrote:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):
when all is said and done, [Republicans] are just a bunch of angry white men.

and

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Hate is the unifying thing for the GOP.

Really? Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 971 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

I think the GOP does not have a problem with us going over the "cliff" or whatever in the hell you call it. Here's why... waaay back in the day someone in power said, "Don't worry about the deficit, just STARVE THE BEAST." Seems the GOP leadership is playing it quiet on this strategy as God forbid, when all those senior voters being fed by the beast have their entitlements cut there is gonna be hell to pay. Rather elegant really, once the smoke from "falling off the cliff" clears, rather than blaming themselves for laying this egg near 20 years ago, it will appear to be President Obama's fault because he is currently in power.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 30):
it will appear to be President Obama's fault because he is currently in power.

Recent polls point to the contrary.

The President is asking for the tax rates on the top 2% to be raised, and the GOP has been balking on that point. There are signs they are coming around, but if we hit the fiscall cliff over 2% of the population the blame by the sane will point straight at the GOP by allowing everyone's taxes to go up.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3811 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
The wildcard is the the evangelical segment of society - the bible thumpers. Only 10-20% of the population, but enough of a swing for votes, and they cost Romney the election, I think. I've talked with many of them who, while being traditionally Republican and fiscally conservative, voted for Obama this time around purely because Romney was a Mormon, and "I just can't vote for someone who is a member of a Cult". I'm sure some of them have said prayers for my soul after I gave them my invective-laced opinions of their priorities.

As above, I think the GOP has its biggest problems due to its stands on society/culture/religion, because many of the stands they take are divisive and increasingly unpopular.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
Just because the Cold War is over does not absolve us of the need to maintain a modern and powerful conventional military. And the War on Terror is not as large scale as it once was, but it is continuing and must continue. It would be a shame if it took another 9/11 to convince anti-defense people that terrorism isn't dead.

LOL, such a knee jerk reaction. You immediately imply we'll have an out of date and weak military if we even look at defense spending. We need to look at defense spending as well as everything else, given that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. It seems more and more likely Boehner is taking us over the cliff because the vote for the new House Majority Leader happens after Jan 1st, so we'll see what happens when DoD gets an immediate 10% cut, which is: nothing, they will adjust!

I don't think the GOP thrives on hatred, but one common thread I see behind their policies is fear. It explains their love of guns, their love of big defense, their anti-immigrant stances, their anti-gay stance, etc. We see it in BMI's comment where he wants us to be in fear of another 9/11 unless we fund the DoD to the hilt.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
You immediately imply we'll have an out of date and weak military if we even look at defense spending.

If defense spending is gutted for a number of years that's exactly what happens. Especially when the force is depleted after a decade of war. Reagan ran up some big deficits, but a good portion of that was correcting the post-Vietnam and Carter era neglect of the armed forces.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
so we'll see what happens when DoD gets an immediate 10% cut, which is: nothing, they will adjust!

Evidence? Of course there's also the matter of defense contractors potentially faced with layoffs.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
We see it in BMI's comment where he wants us to be in fear of another 9/11 unless we fund the DoD to the hilt.

How many terror attacks were there in the decade or so leading up to 9/11 that were more or less ignored? It took 9/11 to get America to take terrorism seriously and now people are suddenly deciding that the War on Terror is over because we say it was? Seems to me the liberals who want to cut defense funding are the ones standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner now. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can believe that the military needs to also add a second prong to fight terrorism in addition to the traditional force (which can indeed be smaller after the end of the Cold War). What surrender document did Al Qaeda sign?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3778 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
Of course there's also the matter of defense contractors potentially faced with layoffs.

As opposed to the contractors for other portions of the federal budget?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3781 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20):

Hmm definitely gonna pull the BS card on that

But he has a very good point. While you are correct that the rank-and-file GOP constituency may not be made up of hatemongers who want to march everyone not White, heterosexual, and Christian off to the gas chambers, there are two uncomfortable truths:

1) The GOP's Platform is pretty explicit in its hatred for gays and anyone allying themselves with the GOP is, by definition, allying themselves with that Platform.

2) The "Anti-" people get an awful lot of airtime within the GOP. Let's just look at the GOP Presidential Candidate lineup. Out of the six candidates, three of them (Mr. Santorum, Mr. Perry, Mr. Bachmann) ran their campaigns with anti-gay sentiment being a central pillar of their campaign platforms. All of them signed a pledge by NOM to support an amendment to the Constitution (odd for a party that wants smaller government) banning gay marriage. The NOM is backed by the FRC and AFA, both defined as Hate Groups by the SPLC and both of whom have said that gays are less than human in essentially as many words.

Now, you can talk about the GOP's economic record (lacking though it may be) but the fact is that their economic policies are absolutely wedded to their social policies. Those social policies in which rape can be "voluntary" vs. "legitimate," in which gays are to be marginalized and in which sodomy should even be criminalized, etc. are turning off a lot of voters.

Consider this: Mr. Obama won the last election by ~2.5M votes. It is estimated that he won 75% of the gay vote, which would amount to about 3.9 million votes. It could very well be argued that the GOP's social stance on gay marriage ALONE cost them the election.

So while you are correct to point out that not every GOP-leaning American wears the funny white robes with the pointy hats and enjoys burning crosses on Friday night after work, the GOP gives those people an awful lot of visibility and publicity and, like it or not, they represent the GOP.

If I were a moderate-leaning GOP politician, I'd be starting to chat with moderate-leaning DNC politicians about possibly forming a third party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It would be weak at first and it might even fail, but if it succeeds, it could positively alter the face of American politics in the long-term.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3772 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):

How many terror attacks were there in the decade or so leading up to 9/11 that were more or less ignored? It took 9/11 to get America to take terrorism seriously and now people are suddenly deciding that the War on Terror is over because we say it was?

I think if you read up on 9/11 the issue was not the military, it was the FBI and CIA failing to do their jobs. I'm not sure how tons of defense spending fixes that.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I don't really get most of these articles... The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.

The media has been calling the GOP dead since JFK victory over Nixon.Not to mention God.(lol) Time magazine.



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 34):
As opposed to the contractors for other portions of the federal budget?

How many layoffs do you think Walmart will have because they sell fewer Cheetos and Kools?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
But he has a very good point. While you are correct that the rank-and-file GOP constituency may not be made up of hatemongers who want to march everyone not White, heterosexual, and Christian off to the gas chambers, there are two uncomfortable truths:

I don't care except in the aspect that it makes it harder for them to win. I'm worried about economic issues and money in my pocket, and if fixing that means voting the same way as some bigots and racists, so be it. I'm interested in being better off financially and trying to care about moral or social issues at the same time doesn't help that so I don't bother.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 36):
I think if you read up on 9/11 the issue was not the military, it was the FBI and CIA failing to do their jobs. I'm not sure how tons of defense spending fixes that.

Personally I would tend to throw defense and Homeland Security under the same tent. Particularly in the future the gaps between military, intelligence, and the civilian law enforcement communities will become smaller, which is the way it has to be in what will be an intelligence and information driven war.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 38):
How many layoffs do you think Walmart will have because they sell fewer Cheetos and Kools?

Fairly negligent view of the federal budget.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
Not that it stops some of them from trying to take guns from those people.

Ah, but not all of them. Just a few of them. The ones the right-wing wants to obsess over. The ones the right-wing points to and says "AH-HAH!! ALL liberals want to take away your guns because those two or three are doing it, they all want to do it!"

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
You're seeing what you want to see.

*sigh*

Again, for the umteenth time, I need to say NOT EVERY REPUBLICAN IS LIKE THAT!!! The ones I refer to are the ones who are most vocal; the ones on FOX and with their own radio shows. The ones who shout down callers and guests who dare disagree with them. Those are the ones to whom I am referring. NOT the reasonable ones like MD90 and BMI727.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
Just because the Cold War is over does not absolve us of the need to maintain a modern and powerful conventional military.

No one with sense is saying that shouldn't be the case but when you have a military that is bigger than the next 12 countries combined and have a budget crisis some things should be looked at. No country is going to mess with the US in a 20th century war scenario.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Therein lies the problem. Conservatives do not like to talk to and treat people differently. White, black, women, men, gay or straight, we want a government who treats everyone on an equal basis.

Tell that the the people running the GOP, they can't articulate that very well at all.
There were many things said in this past campaign that wouldn't make Latinos, Blacks, Women (especially single women) vote GOP even if they are conservative on many issues.

- Telling illegal Mexicans who have legal friends and colleagues to self deport isn't going to win you votes. Immigration reform is needed but a comment like that isn't a good starting point.

- Telling women that contraception should be denied from your insurance provider because your employer has a moral objection isn't what the majority of American think.

What needs to be done with the GOP is to engage the changing demographics into creating a new platform that appeals more broadly to the middle of the political spectrum, because that is how you win elections.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
Tell that the the people running the GOP, they can't articulate that very well at all.

They should not have to. By default, politicians should be talking to everyone with the same message. No one group should think that they are getting screwed in favor of someone else, which is generally the feeling that we get from Obama.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
- Telling illegal Mexicans who have legal friends and colleagues to self deport isn't going to win you votes.

They shouldn;t be voting anyway.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
- Telling women that contraception should be denied from your insurance provider because your employer has a moral objection isn't what the majority of American think.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights and Natural Law is to protect the rights of the minority. Just because the majority want something does not make it right.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
What needs to be done with the GOP is to engage the changing demographics into creating a new platform that appeals more broadly to the middle of the political spectrum, because that is how you win elections.

Let's take abortion. The general GOP position over a number of years has been for reasonable restrictions on abortion - late term abortions or parental notification for example. That appears to be much closer to the middle ground than the no-restrictions policy of today's Democratic Party. Unfortunately we had a couple of morons go off the reservation a couple of months ago, and believe me, the GOP was royally pissed at them.

See the CBS News/New York Times Poll

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3699 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 40):
Again, for the umteenth time, I need to say NOT EVERY REPUBLICAN IS LIKE THAT!!!

So you continue to make generalizations and then tell everyone that you aren't making generalizations and it's just what you see.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 40):
The ones I refer to are the ones who are most vocal; the ones on FOX and with their own radio shows. The ones who shout down callers and guests who dare disagree with them.

You love those guys because they fit your view of what conservatives are. It's like racists looking at urban gangsters as justification that black people are bad.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
No country is going to mess with the US in a 20th century war scenario.

I'm sure people thought that around 1991 when the threat of the Soviet Union was waning. But while the massive showdown is less likely than before, there is also the twin needs to retain and update the "20th century" capability while building a "21st Century" military that is quicker reacting and more based on intelligence and information than before.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
But, what I see and hear from right-wingers are: hate anything that is not supported by FOX, Limbaugh and the right-wing extremists.

Stepping back, I see quite a few on the left spew out talking points. Not gonna argue who is worse or has more of those people, but often the same people accusing the other side of doing that are guilty of that themselves...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
I am just reporting what I see and not making blanket statements

Well, I apologize if I misunderstood, but you do very often make blanket statements... I'll keep that in mind next time but every Joe Shmoe on the board isn't going to know that

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
I can't believe I need to write out that disclaimer every single time I post. It is really getting old....

Just insert the word "many" or "most" before you say "right wingers." I'm not trying to be annoying... it just really does appear intolerant and stereotypical. I and others cannot read your mind. Just trying to help

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
So while you are correct to point out that not every GOP-leaning American wears the funny white robes with the pointy hats and enjoys burning crosses on Friday night after work, the GOP gives those people an awful lot of visibility and publicity and, like it or not, they represent the GOP.

I agree with this. There is a difference between the average right leaning American (that I interact with, at least,) the party itself, and the crazies. I could be just completely naive, I've never seen those rapid right wingers in person, I know they are out there. Maybe I've just been lucky and all my experiences have been skewed

[Edited 2012-12-17 16:38:24]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 44):
I could be just completely naive, I've never seen those rapid right wingers in person, I know they are out there. Maybe I've just been lucky and all my experiences have been skewed

Part of that is because you are a heterosexual white man who is at least nominally Christian.

Try being a Gay Jew for a day and they pop out of the woodwork.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
Try being a Gay

I see what you did there...  

But that is true, although, I am talking about when I actually dig deeper to see what their political thoughts are. I know this sounds crazy and illogical to you, but I've met people against gay marriage who aren't at all hateful... it's just so deeply ingrained in them but I could honestly say it is not always hate. May be misguided and stereotypical, and I have met the very anti-gay "we hate them type" but I've also met people that have just thought that way forever and just think "it's not right" but they'd never lift a finger to hurt them.

I can say that because I used to be in that boat, held no hatred, just a feeling that "it wasn't right" (due to the opinion just existing around me, going unquestioned.) Not anymore though  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3678 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
So you continue to make generalizations and then tell everyone that you aren't making generalizations and it's just what you see.

That is who I have to base my observations on. Further, those who get their information only from the right-wing media are nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with.

Before I get jumped on: Yes, it happens from the left, too.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
You love those guys because they fit your view of what conservatives are.

Actually, I can't stand those people becuase they are the whole reason the right-wing is imploding. They have made it so difficult for anyone to voice an opinion because those who have a different opinion are un-American liberals. Look at Hollywood: The celebrities who tow the party line (right-wing) are the ones who are praised for being patriots. Any other celebrity who voices an opinion that comes close to the Democrats are condemned as liberals who hate America. While I do not agree with Clint Eastwood or Jon Voigt, they should have an opinion as much as Barbara Striesand or Matt Damon.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 44):
Well, I apologize if I misunderstood, but you do very often make blanket statements...

It is partly me. My brain gets ahead of my fingers and I sometimes think I have covered all my bases.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 44):
Stepping back, I see quite a few on the left spew out talking points. Not gonna argue who is worse or has more of those people, but often the same people accusing the other side of doing that are guilty of that themselves...

Absolutly it happens from both sides. I will never disagree with that point. However, what I see (and this is just my observation) is that "liberal" talkers are more willing to let those with differing opinions speak more. The result ist the same, but, that is what I have seen and heard.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3674 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
I see what you did there...

Was it that obvious? *cringe*

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
I can say that because I used to be in that boat, held no hatred, just a feeling that "it wasn't right" (due to the opinion just existing around me, going unquestioned.) Not anymore though

That's what makes you different. You actually questioned a longstanding belief of yours and found that belief invalid, so you changed your belief.

The people who just keep on repeating "it's not right" still hurt me. I'm still not married. We have no spousal rights. I'm only on his insurance because his workplace allows it. I can't be on his disability insurance. I can't be on his life insurance (I can be a beneficiary only). It hurts us every day. When someone says "stop hurting me" and you say "I won't stop because not hurting you isn't right," what does that make you?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3662 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
The people who just keep on repeating "it's not right" still hurt me. I'm still not married. We have no spousal rights. I'm only on his insurance because his workplace allows it. I can't be on his disability insurance. I can't be on his life insurance (I can be a beneficiary only). It hurts us every day. When someone says "stop hurting me" and you say "I won't stop because not hurting you isn't right," what does that make you?

Oh, no doubt it's wrong, but I think the difference is the way you approach them. Quite honestly, if you have hate (true hatred, in your heart) nothing anyone can say will stop you from hating gays. But there are many out there (like the past me) who can be reasoned with and persuaded, but absolutely shut down when they get berated (even if it is justified)

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
I see what you did there...

Was it that obvious? *cringe*

I overlooked it at first... but then my eye caught the first half of the sentence   

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
It is partly me. My brain gets ahead of my fingers and I sometimes think I have covered all my bases.

I know the feeling, my friend... I get it all the time. Try being a gun owner and advocating some gun control, or a right leaning citizen advocating something left of center (or defending the President) and forgetting the "I'm a gun owner or right of center person" disclaimer... you get accused of some pretty strange things lol.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3623 times:

Let us not forget the huge margin of control the Republicans have across the country on the state level including legislatures and governorships over the Democrats. They still have the majority in the House on the Federal level, a tight minority in the US Senate and Romney only lost by 3-4%. You also have DINO's, 'red dog Democrats', especially from the old south. The Republicans get the majority of white middle class males (and women) as they like the idea of paying much less in taxes, less speeding on government and especially government workers (except 1st Responders) and on the urban non-white poor, not in favor of abortion and other issues.

About 20 years ago, the Democrats faced a splintering of their ranks. Bill Clinton and his 'moderate' Democrats group (DLC) took over the party to move it more towards the center and it came back to some extent. Perhaps this is what the Republicans need to do, create a group of pragmatic moderate leaders that will bring the party back to the center. The Republicans need to move away from the religious and social right wing extremes, promote reasonable fiscal conservative views and contol the tounges of their more extreme members.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3620 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
I know this sounds crazy and illogical to you, but I've met people against gay marriage who aren't at all hateful... it's just so deeply ingrained in them but I could honestly say it is not always hate.

There are those who just go with being against gay marriage "just because the party does" but really don't have strong feelings about it either way. Then, there are those who go on about their hate speech (for want of a better term) but try to explain that religion and law are two different things and they go off on their "you hate America" tangent.

Having this discussion, I feel I need to amend my statements. It is not "hate speech" the right-wing is obsessed with. Oh, they do hate things. Every person does, every party does. But, what I am seeing and thinking about is not necessarily hate speech. It may sound like it on the surface. It is angry, but not always hate. Not passion, but anger.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3620 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 51):
Oh, they do hate things. Every person does, every party does. But, what I am seeing and thinking about is not necessarily hate speech. It may sound like it on the surface. It is angry, but not always hate. Not passion, but anger.

I will agree with this as I do see some of this. I've seen a lot of "hivemind" recently with them, but I am optimistic lately as I've been (personally) seeing some more open thinking... not everything diverging from the party lines is automatically wrong, and a politician who disagrees and has his/her own views should not be torn down as being a RINO. Lame



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 52):
not everything diverging from the party lines is automatically wrong, and a politician who disagrees and has his/her own views should not be torn down as being a RINO. Lame

I think that is one problem with the Republican party: they still hold on to the thought that anyone deviating from the talking points is "liberal" and, therefore, hates America. Unfortunatly, many Democrats see Republicans that way, too and begin a debate from that point.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):

That is my biggest problem with the party, and which is why they turned me off lately. We'll see how the future cliff negotiations go... I am seeing some compromise which makes me hopeful



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3599 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
They shouldn;t be voting anyway.

The illegals aren't but there are Latino's in the US legally who vote and the rhetoric used affects their decision at the poll.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
They should not have to. By default, politicians should be talking to everyone with the same message.

Something the GOP this year did not do.

I'm looking at what was said and it was the Obama campaign using the same message. The Romney was talking about the 47% being takers and we built it and did break up the electorate. Also the GOP talking heads proceeded to call the US electorate a bunch of idiots after they re-elected Obama.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights and Natural Law is to protect the rights of the minority. Just because the majority want something does not make it right.

Contraception was earned in the women's revolution and certain organizations want to not have insurance pay for it regardless of the belief of the woman who wants it.

Also this was never an issue from the 1960's to about 2011 but the GOP shot themselves in the foot with this.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
Let's take abortion. The general GOP position over a number of years has been for reasonable restrictions on abortion - late term abortions or parental notification for example. That appears to be much closer to the middle ground than the no-restrictions policy of today's Democratic Party. Unfortunately we had a couple of morons go off the reservation a couple of months ago, and believe me, the GOP was royally pissed at them.

The democrats want to maintain the status quo, its a woman's choice and that is the end of it. This wasn't always the opinion of the majority but outside of the religious right it is today. You might think abortion is wrong and if you are a woman then don't have one but let each woman choose.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
The GOP's Platform is pretty explicit in its hatred for gays and anyone allying themselves with the GOP is, by definition, allying themselves with that Platform.

The GOP seems to need such strident statements in both its official platform and in its day-to-day media networks to keep its base on-line and energized.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 41):
What needs to be done with the GOP is to engage the changing demographics into creating a new platform that appeals more broadly to the middle of the political spectrum, because that is how you win elections.
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 50):
About 20 years ago, the Democrats faced a splintering of their ranks. Bill Clinton and his 'moderate' Democrats group (DLC) took over the party to move it more towards the center and it came back to some extent. Perhaps this is what the Republicans need to do, create a group of pragmatic moderate leaders that will bring the party back to the center. The Republicans need to move away from the religious and social right wing extremes, promote reasonable fiscal conservative views and contol the tounges of their more extreme members.

That's the "existential crisis" this thread is all about! We just saw how Romney couldn't win the GOP nomination as a centerist. When he tried, people like Santorum and Gingrich (cynically) and their wealthy, more right wing sugar daddies undermined him.

The GOP seem to need hard core right wing theocracy to keep itself together, but such theocracy turns off everyone who isn't a right winger. The article focused on the no tax pledge, but there are several other third rail issues to chose from.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
They shouldn;t be voting anyway.

The illegals aren't but there are Latino's in the US legally who vote and the rhetoric used affects their decision at the poll.

And who's fault is that? Every time someone says "control the border", and "put a stop to illegal immigration", the left starts screaming about you being "anti-immigrant". THEY are the ones who, quite intentionally, blurred the lines between legal immigration done in accordance with the law and which nobody has any problem with, and illegal fence jumping.

While you might say that the GOP walked into a minefield around immigration, I say that the Democrats laid the minefield. If they had not started trying to get people to equate legal with illegal immigration, the border would have been brought under control years ago.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55):
Contraception was earned in the women's revolution and certain organizations want to not have insurance pay for it regardless of the belief of the woman who wants it.

Nobody has an issue with contraception being legal. But why should insurance pay for it? It's cheap! Insurance should not be brought into play for anything that doesn't cost at least $200 or $300 in my opinion. All the insurance overhead and paperwork required for items costing a few bucks is completely nuts, and increases the cost of insurance. Pay for it yourself! Leave insurance to pay for Chemo, etc.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
While you might say that the GOP walked into a minefield around immigration, I say that the Democrats laid the minefield. If they had not started trying to get people to equate legal with illegal immigration, the border would have been brought under control years ago.

The main reason that nothing is done with illegal immigration is that liberals want them as potential voters because some illegals will have children that become voting citizens. Furthermore conservatives want them here as well because they provide large corporations (mainly in agriculture) with cheap labour that the average American won't do at the price being asked.

Both sides want illegals here.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3492 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
Every time someone says "control the border", and "put a stop to illegal immigration", the left starts screaming about you being "anti-immigrant".

Because the right screams about building a 20 foot (or however high) wall is the only way to stop illegals and there is nothing more to talk about. Except there is more to talk about: the illegals who boat here from Haiti and Cuba, illegals who dig tunnels, illegals who are already here who will not self-deport. The only option the right brings to the table is "build a wall."

Obama actually had a plan. But, since it was Obama doing nearly the same thing that Ronald Reagan did, the right hated it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
Nobody has an issue with contraception being legal. But why should insurance pay for it?

Why should Cialis and Viagra be paid for? There are legitimate reasons for women to take the pill besides sex. What you are saying is: since the only reason women are on the pill is for sex, it should not be covered under insurance.

Besides, I thought insurance was private and for-profit? What business is it of yours to tell major corporations what they should do with their money?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
Why should Cialis and Viagra be paid for? There are legitimate reasons for women to take the pill besides sex. What you are saying is: since the only reason women are on the pill is for sex, it should not be covered under insurance.

Besides, I thought insurance was private and for-profit? What business is it of yours to tell major corporations what they should do with their money?

I think the bigger issue is why is this random stuff on insurance. I don't think birth control should be on insurance, nor should Viagra or anything like that (unless you elect to pay more for it.) I have shifted some of my views on healthcare lately... keeping citizens alive and healthy I think should be facilitated/helped by the government as a minimum. But I don't think it's right to pay for someone's birth control, I'm sorry, that goes too far. The only exception I can think of is if it's for a medical reason, IIRC, there are cases where BC is needed to keep a woman healthy



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 58):
The main reason that nothing is done with illegal immigration is that liberals want them as potential voters because some illegals will have children that become voting citizens. Furthermore conservatives want them here as well because they provide large corporations (mainly in agriculture) with cheap labour that the average American won't do at the price being asked.

I think both sides want controlled immigration, but as below, I don't think it can be achieved.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
Because the right screams about building a 20 foot (or however high) wall is the only way to stop illegals and there is nothing more to talk about. Except there is more to talk about: the illegals who boat here from Haiti and Cuba, illegals who dig tunnels, illegals who are already here who will not self-deport. The only option the right brings to the table is "build a wall."

McCain, being from a border state, put out his own proposal, only to have the right wing revolt on him. His response was to say that he would hold off till the border is secured. However, I'd submit that this is for all intents and purposes, impossible. The border gets penetrated even in places where we have two fences with a 'no mans land' in between.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 60):
. But I don't think it's right to pay for someone's birth control, I'm sorry, that goes too far.

I guess you would rather have more children on the governments dime. Because that is what happens.

If you are going to be cold about it: the cost for birth control does have a very nice avoided cost component.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3454 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 62):

We can go down the road all day mentioning stuff that would save money down the line... as far as healthcare, keep people alive and free of disease. That is my opinion.

If individual companies want to offer more coverage/people want to pay extra for that coverage, fine by me.

We may be arguing two different things... I'm talking about what the government should be responsible for assuring



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
as far as healthcare, keep people alive and free of disease.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
I'm talking about what the government should be responsible for assuring

These seem to be one-in-the-same, I think. I mean: the government wants us citizens to be healthy so we can contribute. Many of us want to contribute to paying for roads, bridges, ports, borders, etc. But, if we are sick because we can not afford private insurance, we can not contribute to paying for those things. I would think that would be in the government's best interest, right? There should be a base line for health care. If people want to pay for more health care, they should be able to, but there should be a minimum we are all guaranteed, right? So we can all contribute?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 64):

I do see what you are saying... I really respect the view point... although, I am more small government... I am not one of those that are scared of the government or anything, but as of now, I don't think it's feasible for the government to take over so much. Like I said, I have shifted my views... I don't want people dying in the street and I can appreciate that these occurrence are basically happening in America..... that being said, I want to keep it simple. Part of it goes with small government, yada ya, but a lot of it is just keeping the budget small. I know I may be talking out of my a** when it comes to this, I'm not that well versed in insurance, I just don't want my tax money going to Viagra, condoms, and plan B. That, IMO, lies well within the "pay for it yourself" category... I don't see that as unreasonable either



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
That is who I have to base my observations on.

And you assume that's the whole of the story. You say you don't make generalizations but then you also assert that Republicans are angry, old white men whose party is built on hate.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
Actually, I can't stand those people

They're actually the best thing the left has going for them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
Any other celebrity who voices an opinion that comes close to the Democrats are condemned as liberals who hate America.

Only on Fox. It's funny that you condemn people who get all of their news from Fox, Rush, et. al. when it's painfully clear that you do the same.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
I don't want people dying in the street and I can appreciate that these occurrence are basically happening in America..... that being said, I want to keep it simple. Part of it goes with small government, yada ya, but a lot of it is just keeping the budget small. I know I may be talking out of my a** when it comes to this, I'm not that well versed in insurance, I just don't want my tax money going to Viagra, condoms, and plan B. That, IMO, lies well within the "pay for it yourself" category...

You're hitting on why conservatives really need to fight hard on governmental control. You can't give bureaucrats a cookie because they'll always need a glass of milk.

Everyone can agree that it's good to keep Americans from dying from heart attacks. That's great, but eventually someone is going to notice that heart attacks are expensive and try to cut them off. So all of the sudden it becomes a governmental issue to make sure people eat well and exercise. Before you know it you could see things like sin taxes on junk food or tax deductions for running shoes. Michael Bloomberg is already running down this road. After a bit a ton of personal decisions are being controlled by the government in one form or another. I'll cook the meal myself because don't want the government shopping for the groceries.

Of course this goes both ways. If you want your kids educated on the public dime, they'll learn the curriculum the government sets. If you have a problem with that, feel free to put them in private school or make them homeschooled weirdos with your own money.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
I just don't want my tax money going to Viagra, condoms, and plan B. That, IMO, lies well within the "pay for it yourself" category... I don't see that as unreasonable either

But the problem is the hidden costs. you don't pay for condoms, plan b or contraceptions, then over time the hidden costs of more kids, more people in the hospitals without insureance, and other items creep in. Unfortunately the less educated the people are, the more they don't care about the ramifications they don't see, and you wind up with a world of unwanted kids with parents that would rather get their next high than take care of the kids, and then the kids become the problem of the communities.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
Everyone can agree that it's good to keep Americans from dying from heart attacks. That's great, but eventually someone is going to notice that heart attacks are expensive and try to cut them off

That is how insurance sort of already already works. And truthfully it should work that way. Much as you get breaks in car and home ownership, health insurance should have a rider for risky behavior costs.... not preexisting conditions, but stuff like DUI,Drugs, smoking, obsesity should cause your premium to rise ot offset the costs of your higher likelyhood of needed more healthcare.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3302 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 67):
But the problem is the hidden costs.

Again, hidden costs are everywhere in life... every single thing anyone does can be broken down into cost analysis. You could even make the argument that we should give everyone a car so no one would steal cars, a "hidden cost."

Still want my tax money only going to keep people alive and free of bad disease. I'll let everyone else pay for their own condoms... or Viagra (I don't see how this helps reduce the birthrate anyway.)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 67):
But the problem is the hidden costs. you don't pay for condoms, plan b or contraceptions, then over time the hidden costs of more kids, more people in the hospitals without insureance, and other items creep in.

That's just government attempting social engineering, and that is not what it is supposed to do.

For generally healthy people who are not elderly, mandatory insurance should cover big-ticket items, and should not be called for regular, predictable expenses. It should be like your auto insurance - used only in emergencies. Imagine how expensive it would be if your insurance had to pay for tires, oil changes etc, with all the overhead they need.

Now when you are elderly, that's a different story, but that's why you paid the premiums when you were young.

Anything regular or small, like birth control, flu medicine, visit to the doctor for a sniffle, the insurance should not be involved with those things at all.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 67):
Unfortunately the less educated the people are, the more they don't care about the ramifications they don't see, and you wind up with a world of unwanted kids with parents that would rather get their next high than take care of the kids, and then the kids become the problem of the communities.

And IMHO the more educated people are, the more likely they are to look at the support network we have for those bringing kids into this world, keeping them healthy, and educating them, and decide that they should keep it wrapped. Granted that's not the primary thing Jack is thinking about when he's on top of Jill, but it's more likely that Jack and/or Jill will have the wrapping available as well as the determination to use it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5595 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3269 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
That's just government attempting social engineering, and that is not what it is supposed to do.

Actually Dread, you are wrong on this. To be quite honest the US Constitution was (and still is) one of the greatest "Social engineering" documents of all time and it is "the government' it is the foundation of the government and the very nation itself. I mean telling people that they must allow freedom of religion, that they must allow freedom of speech, that they cannot subjugate others and own slaves? What about prohibition? How is that not "social engineering"? We are all about "social engineering". All government is an attempt at "social engineering", making laws and creating rules that all citizens must live by and under.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-19 09:43:26]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
You say you don't make generalizations but then you also assert that Republicans are angry, old white men whose party is built on hate.

Because that is who they are putting out there as the face of the Republican party. I know that is not all there is with the Republicans. There are some reasonable and moderate Republicans who stand their ground based on facts. While I may disagree with those people, I have much more respect for them than those who say "I heard on FOX/Rush/Beck that...."

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
Only on Fox. It's funny that you condemn people who get all of their news from Fox, Rush, et. al. when it's painfully clear that you do the same.

Again: I am talking about those who only surround themselves with right-wing news. As I just said: there are those Republicans who are well read and come to their own conclusions based on their own research, not because FOX/Beck/Rush told them to.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5595 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Probably the biggest "Existential Crisis" that Republican's must go through is to get rid of the "no new taxes" fear and mantra. Sure, keep "Low Taxes" as a defining plank in the platform, but taxes must be able to go up and down as the needs of the nation change. The ability to manage taxes is an important element of managing the country in a fiscally responsible manner, so to strangle your ability to change or adjust them (either direction) is the biggest, stupidest mistake you could make.

The second is to drop religious element/requirements from the platform. They limit themselves to really one type of religion (Christianity primarily though they like to say "Judeo-Christian") and they shouldn't, while the nation is primarily Christian, there are many more people than just identify as that.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineHoMsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 71):
To be quite honest the US Constitution was (and still is) one of the greatest "Social engineering" documents of all time and it is "the government' it is the foundation of the government and the very nation itself. I mean telling people that they must allow freedom of religion, that they must allow freedom of speech,

The constitution does not tell people they must allow freedom of religion/speech, etc.

It tells the government that it must allow people freedom of religion/speech.

People are still free to allow/disallow what they want. Try going to work and mouthing off to your boss and tell him that the constitution allows you to do so. The government can't penalize you for that action, but your boss certainly can.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5595 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Quoting HoMsaR (Reply 74):
The constitution does not tell people they must allow freedom of religion/speech, etc.

It tells the government that it must allow people freedom of religion/speech.

So can people, as individuals, own other people?

Do you remember this line: Government of the people, by the people and for the people? "We, the people", individuals, that make a group, are the government and what the Constitution is dealing with, we come together to do something, to allow something or disallow something. So yes, I know what the Constitution is and what is means and I also know what "social engineering" is and that it is about getting "people" as a group to do certain things and the Constitution does that. That individuals do not is one thing, but "social" is all about a group.

The constitution is people telling people what they can and cannot do.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 72):
those Republicans who are well read and come to their own conclusions based on their own research

Whether or not their conclusions are entirely their own or borrowed from the conservative media apostles, in my mind they all share a basic fear that the government will be used as an agency to diminish the advantages they argue as their right through their own hard work, intellect, strength, education, inheritance, religion.

The Republicans are the strongest in most measurable ways and the entirety of their policy objetives are built around protecting what they have, although often this is couched in terms of patriotism, economics or religion.

BUT, the world is now overrun with cheap labour at every level - from the assembly line worker to the software engineer, and while Americans have many fine and admirable qualities, the vast majority of Americans will be unable to do it cheaper than the Chinese, Indians, Latin Americans etc... and thus the promise of the ability to get rich (or even survive comfortably) seems less and less plausible for more Americans

.....this growing public perception that success is no longer assured by hard work or good education (as in generations past), is what Republicans have to address, but their devotion to merely making the market free-er just makes things worse because most Americans are inherently uncompetitive, cost wise, on a world scale.


Pu


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 76):
BUT, the world is now overrun with cheap labour at every level - from the assembly line worker to the software engineer, and while Americans have many fine and admirable qualities, the vast majority of Americans will be unable to do it cheaper than the Chinese, Indians, Latin Americans etc...

In that case we should figure out a way to do things better if we're unwilling to do them cheaper.

Quoting Pu (Reply 76):
and thus the promise of the ability to get rich (or even survive comfortably) seems less and less plausible for more Americans

Maybe it is or maybe it just isn't a given anymore if you can manage to graduate high school. The days of getting your diploma and then going to work at the local factory for four decades while buying a nice house, television, vacations each summer, and a new car every two years are over. None of that makes it okay for liberals to try and make up the difference by taking some of other people's "success" via the force of government.

Quoting Pu (Reply 76):
their devotion to merely making the market free-er just makes things worse because most Americans are inherently uncompetitive, cost wise, on a world scale.

Being uncompetitive is not a problem with the game, it's a problem with the player. If you get your brains beat in each time you get in the ring you should go work out rather than try to change rules.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 71):
Actually Dread, you are wrong on this. To be quite honest the US Constitution was (and still is) one of the greatest "Social engineering" documents of all time and it is "the government' it is the foundation of the government and the very nation itself. I mean telling people that they must allow freedom of religion, that they must allow freedom of speech, that they cannot subjugate others and own slaves?

Tugger, I think your education missed out on a very key part of the foundation of this country. The Constitution does not grant freedoms to citizens. The Constitution recognizes the existence and authority of Natural Law - the unwritten yet fundamental development of human civilization that says, no matter what a nation's laws say, that people have certain fundamental, inalienable rights, like life, liberty, pursuit of property, privacy, dignity, equal treatment etc, even if written laws passed by the government state otherwise. This nation was founded under the concept that government is not the highest authority - that government is subservient to natural law, and nothing a government can do, even with the accord of the people, can legitimize something that is contrary to natural law. That is why the Constitution and specifically the Bill Of Rights was never intended to be exclusive in regards to the rights of the people. It listed a few in particular, but the 9th and 10th amendment state that there are many other unsaid rights, but there is no need to specify them because the responsibilities of government ARE specific and limited to what is listed in the Constitution. We have forgotten that part.

The existence and eventual elimination of slavery was a case in point - all it took was for the Constitution to recognize that black people were humans just like everyone else, and everything else falls into place over time.

Of course this concept is violently in conflict with Statist philosophies, (such as American Liberalism), so it is hardly surprising that Natural Law and the philosophy behind the Constitution has been increasingly ignored by the public school system over the past few decades. I know for a fact that it was taught extensively up until the 50s and 60s.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5595 posts, RR: 8
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3143 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):

Tugger, I think your education missed out on a very key part of the foundation of this country. The Constitution does not grant freedoms to citizens. The Constitution recognizes the existence and authority of Natural Law - the unwritten yet fundamental development of human civilization that says, no matter what a nation's laws say, that people have certain fundamental, inalienable rights, like life, liberty, pursuit of property, privacy, dignity, equal treatment etc, even if written laws passed by the government state otherwise. This nation was founded under the concept that government is not the highest authority - that government is subservient to natural law, and nothing a government can do, even with the accord of the people, can legitimize something that is contrary to natural law. That is why the Constitution and specifically the Bill Of Rights was never intended to be exclusive in regards to the rights of the people. It listed a few in particular, but the 9th and 10th amendment state that there are many other unsaid rights, but there is no need to specify them because the responsibilities of government ARE specific and limited to what is listed in the Constitution. We have forgotten that part.

But the quote you were referring to (Reply 67) has nothing to do with "natural law" and just because certain things are legislated against or in support of also does not violate the "natural law" and limitation of authority etc.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3110 times:

Nice to see an on-topic point being raised.

Quoting tugger (Reply 73):
Probably the biggest "Existential Crisis" that Republican's must go through is to get rid of the "no new taxes" fear and mantra. Sure, keep "Low Taxes" as a defining plank in the platform, but taxes must be able to go up and down as the needs of the nation change. The ability to manage taxes is an important element of managing the country in a fiscally responsible manner, so to strangle your ability to change or adjust them (either direction) is the biggest, stupidest mistake you could make.

Yep, but it's a habit that's hard to break. Just today Boehner was pounding his chest about offering up Plan B to stay as close to the "no new taxes" pledge as he thinks he can stay.

As mentioned above, the way the GOP tries to deal with domestic spending is to "starve the beast" and not provide revenue. Interestingly enough, they feel that's sufficient. They clearly don't want to have any part in working out what gets cut, since that's political poison.

Quoting tugger (Reply 73):
The second is to drop religious element/requirements from the platform. They limit themselves to really one type of religion (Christianity primarily though they like to say "Judeo-Christian") and they shouldn't, while the nation is primarily Christian, there are many more people than just identify as that.

As I've been thinking about it, I think they need to soft-sell all their social agenda. Tone all that stuff way way down. Then actually practice what they preach about small government. Put out budgets that clearly identify what gets cut and why, and sell them to the public. We've seen them pass budgets in the House but they seem to be going through the motions and are not out there selling it to the public. They could have the edge because the public does want smaller government, the GOP keeps promising it, yet they never seem to do much more other than propose budgets that they know won't pass so they can blame the Dems.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 80):
They could have the edge because the public does want smaller government, the GOP keeps promising it, yet they never seem to do much more other than propose budgets that they know won't pass so they can blame the Dems.

The Paul Ryan budget ADDS to the deficit. But, the right-wing wants to be the party of spending control?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 80):
As mentioned above, the way the GOP tries to deal with domestic spending is to "starve the beast" and not provide revenue.

We need to cut spending. No one disagrees with that. We also need revenue. The GOP hates that idea for some reason. We need income. Raise taxes. We need to get more money coming in. Cuts in spending alone will not ever make a dent. Ever.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
For generally healthy people who are not elderly, mandatory insurance should cover big-ticket items, and should not be called for regular, predictable expenses. It should be like your auto insurance - used only in emergencies. Imagine how expensive it would be if your insurance had to pay for tires, oil changes etc, with all the overhead they need.

I agree with you on this, but for some things, such as seat belts, air bags and wipers, , they are a requirment on the part of the manufacturer. So too should contraception, condoms, and educational programs and poissibly screening.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineHoMsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 82):
I agree with you on this, but for some things, such as seat belts, air bags and wipers, , they are a requirment on the part of the manufacturer. So too should contraception, condoms, and educational programs and poissibly screening.

Who is the manufacturer in this case? The parents?



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Quoting HoMsaR (Reply 83):
Who is the manufacturer in this case? The parents?

Possibly, but when the parents don't care, society pays. So I would say Society itself is the manufacturer. Parents are the distributor.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 84):
Possibly, but when the parents don't care, society pays. So I would say Society itself is the manufacturer. Parents are the distributor.

I don't understand the whole "I refuse to pay for contraception but I refuse to pay for the kids" argument. Pick one side or the other. A couple that can not afford health care and can not afford kids want to do the responsible thing and use birth control because they know they can not afford a kid. But, they can not get access to the pill because right-wingers refuse to help pay for it because "every sperm is sacred." But, they turn around and blame the parents for not being responsible.

I don't see what is so wrong with every person to pay like $50 a month for basic health care and, those who want or can afford it, to pay more for "Caddilac" services. That is socialism and we all need to fend for ourselves. We can all, according to the right-wing, afford to pay $1,000 or more a month for health care.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 85):
I don't understand the whole "I refuse to pay for contraception but I refuse to pay for the kids" argument.

This is really quite simple: you are responsible for what you fuck. Whether that means paying for condoms, birth control, a vasectomy, or child support. I really don't care. People need to take responsibility for their actions and not ask the government to try and idiot-proof everything. Trying to do that usually just causes the evolution of more effective idiots.

If you're too poor to raise a child or pay for any of the dozens of contraceptives maybe you should just get a blowjob. How ridiculous is it that advocates of big government are trying to use governmental bureaucracy to solve a problem that can be fixed by blowjobs?

[Edited 2012-12-20 22:30:27]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
I know this sounds crazy and illogical to you, but I've met people against gay marriage who aren't at all hateful..

No, you've met people who are polite about it. We may have differreing philosophies here, but I believe very strongly that you are what you do. You don't need to have "hate" in your heart. If you vote for things that restrict the natural rights of others, rights that the majority has, that's a hateful action, thus it makes one hateful. Doesn't much matter if you're a nice guy deep down, it's only what you do that counts worth a damn.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
all it took was for the Constitution to recognize that black people were humans just like everyone else, and everything else falls into place over time.

It just fell into place, huh? I guess that depends on your timeline. 120+ years is a long time for things to just fall into place for most folks. Would you be ok with that?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):

If you're too poor to raise a child or pay for any of the dozens of contraceptives maybe you should just get a blowjob.

You can let us know how that platform works out.


I think there's nothing wrong with requiring companies to cover this stuff. Like any mechanic will tell you about changing oil & tires. Pay me now or pay me later. But you're gunna, one way or the other.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 88, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
This is really quite simple: you are responsible for what you fuck. Whether that means paying for condoms, birth control, a vasectomy, or child support. I really don't care. People need to take responsibility for their actions and not ask the government to try and idiot-proof everything. Trying to do that usually just causes the evolution of more effective idiots.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
If you're too poor to raise a child or pay for any of the dozens of contraceptives maybe you should just get a blowjob. How ridiculous is it that advocates of big government are trying to use governmental bureaucracy to solve a problem that can be fixed by blowjobs?

What's ridiculous (cf: subject to ridicule) is the notion that your model of society depends on everyone having a strong sense of responsibility and the discipline to follow through on that strong sense of responsibility. It might be true in some sort of ideal world, but it's never been true in this world at any point in time, and there's no sensible proposal to ever get there. People who don't meet your standard of responsibility will not just "self-deport", and you standing there saying it's all going to happen because you insist the world is a certain way is ridiculous.

The issue of abortion is a case where a woman didn't meet your standard of responsibility is now saying she can't meet the standard of being a good parent either and wants to do something about it (as simple as taking a morning after pill), yet right wingers think she should go through with it as some sort of punishment for irresponsibility which is not only ridiculous but also absurd. Keep in mind the baby isn't going to self-deport either.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 89, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2802 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 88):
The issue of abortion is a case where a woman didn't meet your standard of responsibility is

This brings up two other points, one I made in the gun hoarder thread.

1. Why does the right-wing have this notion of "love the fetus, hate the child"?
2. Why is a woman who has to have an abortion due to ectopic (sp) pregnancy going to hell as is a woman who was raped but has no access to the morning after pill as is a woman who knows she can not afford to raise a child and is being responsible, even after the fact?

What the right-wing fails to realize is that many people to their left do not want abortion used as birth control, but should keep it as an option. What I hear from the *right-wing punditry* is "All 'liberals' want every woman to have an abortion always" which is simply not true.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2797 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
This is really quite simple: you are responsible for what you fuck.

This individualism is where the GOP fails. They make this utopian assumption that everyone does what they are supposed to. However their are countless examples of failures within the GOP itself.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 91, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 87):
No, you've met people who are polite about it. We may have differreing philosophies here, but I believe very strongly that you are what you do.

No. There are differences. I completely disagree with abortion, yet, I don't call them moral-less baby killers... I see that they see different about it.

Some people just see it as morally wrong, just like there are many people against marijuana use, gambling, and prostitution. Now, I disagree with them, but I would not call that hate



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 92, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 87):
I think there's nothing wrong with requiring companies to cover this stuff.

It is not the responsibility of government or employers to ensure that their people are either not having kids or paying for said kids. It's the left that wants the government out of people's bedrooms, so here you go: screw who you want when you want, but you're responsible for the consequences.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 88):
What's ridiculous (cf: subject to ridicule) is the notion that your model of society depends on everyone having a strong sense of responsibility and the discipline to follow through on that strong sense of responsibility.

No, it relies on people paying for their lack of intelligence. It's simply ridiculous for all of us to pay for some idiot's inability to properly use contraceptives. You don't have to be responsible or disciplined, just write 216 checks.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 90):
This individualism is where the GOP fails. They make this utopian assumption that everyone does what they are supposed to.

I'm not the least bit interested in whether everyone does what they are supposed to. I really only care about making sure I don't have to pay for it when they don't.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4619 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
I'm not the least bit interested in whether everyone does what they are supposed to. I really only care about making sure I don't have to pay for it when they don't.

The island of you can be a very lonely place. I wonder how your parents feel about your job search?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 94, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):

And what if the parent can't pay? You want the kid to pay for his parents' lack of responsibility? In that case society still ends up paying- just later when they are delinquent adults because of their shitty childhood.

[Edited 2012-12-21 10:34:00]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 95, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 94):
And what if the parent can't pay?

Why, they'll all self-deport.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 94):
And what if the parent can't pay?

Then they have a problem. I have no problem with the government paying for education of children, or adults for that matter. It's a wonderful replacement for welfare, since it's much better to hand out fish hooks than fish.

If you do not want or cannot afford to raise a child, then make sure you don't end up with one. Seriously, there are how many kinds of birth control these days? Attempts to stupid proof life are expensive and doomed to failure.

Quoting Polot (Reply 94):
You want the kid to pay for his parents' lack of responsibility?

Better than taxpayers having to pay for it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
If you do not want or cannot afford to raise a child, then make sure you don't end up with one. Seriously, there are how many kinds of birth control these days? Attempts to stupid proof life are expensive and doomed to failure.

Yes it is stupid and you shouldn't have a child if you can't afford one. But here in the real world it happens all the time and you can't just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
Better than taxpayers having to pay for it.

But as I mention taxpayers do pay for it. Look at the background (childhood) of most criminals. In fact look at the background of most of these deadbeat parents. You are just paying for it when they are an adult, not a kid.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2738 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 97):
But here in the real world it happens all the time and you can't just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

That doesn't mean it needs to be the taxpayers' issue to deal with.

Quoting Polot (Reply 97):
In fact look at the background of most of these deadbeat parents. You are just paying for it when they are an adult, not a kid.

The government should take the money they'd be spending on it and spend it on education instead. Use the opportunity and it won't matter a bit that your parents may be imbeciles. Don't and you'll have a similarly miserable life, which taxpayers should not be subsidizing. It is not the government's responsibility to keep people from acting like idiots or keep them out of jail.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2737 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
The government should take the money they'd be spending on it and spend it on education instead.

Education doesn't put food in kids bellies or give them clothes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Don't and you'll have a similarly miserable life, which taxpayers should not be subsidizing. It is not the government's responsibility to keep people from acting like idiots or keep them out of jail.

You do realize that it is taxpayers who are paying for prison inmates, right? Prisoners are not paying for their food and lodging while enjoying the county's/state's/federal government's/whatever hospitality. There is an interest in making sure people don't turn to a life of crime.

[Edited 2012-12-21 12:23:57]

[Edited 2012-12-21 12:24:41]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The cant even get "Plan B" passed!


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 99):
Education doesn't put food in kids bellies or give them clothes.

No, that's what parents are for. (Yes, there is the free lunch thing, but for the most part)

Quoting Polot (Reply 99):
You do realize that it is taxpayers who are paying for prison inmates, right?

Sure, but if the government must pay to keep someone it's probably better that it be done in jail where nobody has to deal with them and they aren't making more kids.

People have plenty of incentive already to stay out of jail as it is. Far more incentive than the government has to keep them free, so if those people are too stupid or simply don't care enough to stay out of the system there won't be much the government can do to keep them out of jail either.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
Sure, but if the government must pay to keep someone it's probably better that it be done in jail where nobody has to deal with them and they aren't making more kids.

No it is best to do it when they are a child. In jail sure they are not making any more kids. But they also have no job, so no earnings and therefore are paying no taxes (and if they already have a kid- contributing nothing to him/her). Depending on the offense you can also be doing irreparable damage to their future earning potential as it is harder for them to recover and get new jobs, so they further contribute less tax dollars.

Children are already a drain on society. They suck money out of taxpayers but return nothing- as they have no job and pay no taxes. But you invest in them in the hopes that in the future they will will great jobs earning a lot of money and in the end contribute far more in taxes/boosting the economy than you paid on them.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 102):
No it is best to do it when they are a child.

Which is exactly why I'm not in favor of disbanding public schools. But, if someone for whatever reason decides to not take advantage of public education, I'm not in favor of paying for that person and their poor choices for the remainder of their life.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Which is exactly why I'm not in favor of disbanding public schools. But, if someone for whatever reason decides to not take advantage of public education, I'm not in favor of paying for that person and their poor choices for the remainder of their life.

But again, there is more to a healthy childhood than just education. They need food, clothing, proper shelter, etc.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
It's the left that wants the government out of people's bedrooms, so here you go: screw who you want when you want, but you're responsible for the consequences.

Oops... the condom broke. Oops... the pill failed to take. Oops... he forgot to pull out in time. None of that ever happens, does it?

Quoting Polot (Reply 104):
But again, there is more to a healthy childhood than just education. They need food, clothing, proper shelter, etc.

And, in the right-wing world, everyone has $25 an hour job and low or no cost benefits supplied by their employer. However, the real world is very, very different.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2672 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 104):
But again, there is more to a healthy childhood than just education. They need food, clothing, proper shelter, etc.

That's why there are parents rather than government run child farms.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have great parents. That's rather sad, but not reason to force everyone else to pay for it. Next I suppose people will be in favor of hefty inheritance taxes to keep anyone from having an unfair advantage.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
Oops... the condom broke. Oops... the pill failed to take. Oops... he forgot to pull out in time. None of that ever happens, does it?

Everyone knows that birth control methods can fail and at what rates. Make choices accordingly, it's that simple.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
Everyone knows that birth control methods can fail and at what rates.

Interesting comment for someone who frequently uses the word idiot.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2658 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
And, in the right-wing world, everyone has $25 an hour job and low or no cost benefits supplied by their employer. However, the real world is very, very different.

I agree, and believe me, a lot of what you have said has showed me the struggle of many hard working but unfortunate Americans, causing me to change my stances a bit, but I still can't wrap my head around paying for a 75c condom... I've said it a lot, and I guess I should stop saying it since my stance isn't changing, but I think government healthcare and the mandatory stuff insurance should cover is keeping you alive and free of terrible diseases. I know we can go down the road of long term this and that, but I still don't think it's society's job to pay for condoms, Viagra, aspirin, or any small petty products. It goes from "life/limb saving" to kind of ridiculous.

May disagree, but do you understand what I'm saying? I've heard people say that being against paying for birth control is anti-woman, maybe some strange people with vendettas against women think that, but can people at least see that me not wanting to pay for birth control isn't anti-woman or anti-poor or something?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 108):
I still can't wrap my head around paying for a 75c condom...

Some county run clinics just hand them out. But, the "every sperm is sacred" crowd hates this idea as well. Even though that is a small, small section of the right-wing.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 108):
May disagree, but do you understand what I'm saying?

I do. I don't agree, but I understand. I don't (and this is only me and my opinion) have a problem paying for birth control if it means a woman will not be popping out more kids she can not afford or makes her monthlies easier to manage. If it is covered along with my x-rays or someone else's diabetes medicine, I am fine with it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
Make choices accordingly, it's that simple.

Like the woman who chooses to jog through the park in the middle of the afternoon and gets raped?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 109):
Like the woman who chooses to jog through the park in the middle of the afternoon and gets raped?

No. That's a crime.

It's the liberals that are always talking about wanting to get the government out of their bedrooms, so there you go. I suppose, based on the opinions expressed here, a more accurate statement would be to say that the left wants the government to let them do what they wish in their bedrooms, but be waiting just outside the door to deal with the results or potential results for them. Guess you want freedom to do what you want in your life, just not the freedom to pay for it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
but be waiting just outside the door to deal with the results or potential results for them. Guess you want freedom to do what you want in your life, just not the freedom to pay for it.

No. Absolutly not. We are willing to pay for it. Unlike the far right who just wants guns and religion handed to them and everything else be damned. We are willing to pitch in for everything: education, roads, health care. We also want options in case we can not afford basic needs on our own. Not complete and total government control as you and the right-wing punditry believe we want. We are more about human nature than pie-in-the-sky military and church spending which do nothing to advance the common good. Only the good of the military and heterosexual Christians.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 112, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 111):
We are willing to pay for it.

No you aren't. What else do you call wanting the government to cover your Viagra and condoms?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 111):
We also want options in case we can not afford basic needs on our own.

Last time I checked, contraceptives are not a basic need. Like I said, if you can't afford it, get a blowjob. (Maybe get one anyway, even if you can afford condoms)

Quoting seb146 (Reply 111):
Only the good of the military and heterosexual Christians.

What does this have to do with homosexuality? If you're going to force taxpayers to pick up the bill, I'd prefer as many other men in the country as possible to be gay. Besides the obvious supply and demand issue, it's cheaper for the government since two gay guys never got drunk and accidentally ended up with a kid. You can buy a lot of neon colored drinks and skinny jeans for what a child costs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 113, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
It's the liberals that are always talking about wanting to get the government out of their bedrooms, so there you go. I suppose, based on the opinions expressed here, a more accurate statement would be to say that the left wants the government to let them do what they wish in their bedrooms, but be waiting just outside the door to deal with the results or potential results for them.

You still don't say what you'd DO about unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and STDs other than "just say no", which is proven time and again not to work. You keep saying why they shouldn't happen, and offer a (fairly unworkable) alternative to intercourse, and then wash your hands of it. So, what happens to the unwanted children? Poor houses? Euthanize them? What about the fathers/mothers that can't/don't meet your standard of responsibility? Prison? Set them on an ice flow and wait for it to melt?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 114, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
What does this have to do with homosexuality?

It seems to be important to the fringe of the GOP. Ask them. They are the ones who keep screaming about it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
No you aren't. What else do you call wanting the government to cover your Viagra and condoms?

Time and again many of us have agreed that paying into a system we all can have access to for basic needs is a good thing. Many of us would love to be able to pay a set amount every month for basic services and prescriptions.

I don't have a problem with the government helping people be responsible and handing out free condoms or helping cover the cost of the pill. Viagra? That should not be covered at all, IMO.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
Last time I checked, contraceptives are not a basic need

So, you want people to be responsible but only the way you want them to be. They should have no options is what I hear you saying. There are some women who use the pill to control their monthy cycles, not for birth control. There are some women use use the pill for various ovarian issues. But, what I hear from you is women only use the pill because they have sex. If a person has an objection to contraception, fine. But, don't deny medication to people to help control other issues.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 115, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
You still don't say what you'd DO about unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and STDs

Unless it's an unplanned pregnancy or STD that affects me or my family, nothing.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
So, what happens to the unwanted children? Poor houses?

Children with insufficient parenting get placed into the social services system as it is now.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
What about the fathers/mothers that can't/don't meet your standard of responsibility? Prison?

There would have to be some sort of penalties for neglect or failure to pay child support.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 114):
I don't have a problem with the government helping people be responsible and handing out free condoms or helping cover the cost of the pill.

People need to be responsible on their own.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 114):
So, you want people to be responsible but only the way you want them to be.

Not at all. I want people to do whatever they want but they need to pay for it and be responsible for whatever consequences it may have.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 114):
They should have no options is what I hear you saying.

They should have as many options as possible, just not at the taxpayers' expense.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 114):
But, don't deny medication to people to help control other issues.

I'm not wanting to deny anything to anyone. You should be able to get whatever you want if you can pay for it. I just want to make sure taxpayers aren't picking up the bill.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25247 posts, RR: 85
Reply 116, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
No you aren't. What else do you call wanting the government to cover your Viagra and condoms?

At least as far as the condoms are concerned, dealing with reality and the cheaper option. I dunno how many lives - and expensive medical treatments - condoms saved during the height of the AIDS crisis, or even now.

I really worry about your generalisations about "liberals." I'm far to the left, socially (somewhat less so fiscally), but I have never knowingly taken a government handout, and certainly not in the many years I lived and worked in the US.

Since the day I left home, I have never looked to the state (or my parents) for financial help. I have always made my own way, including, when I was younger, working in a morgue to pay the rent.

And, briefly,I worked in a a strip club - although not as a stripper. LOL.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 117, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 115):
People need to be responsible on their own.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 115):
I want people to do whatever they want but they need to pay for it and be responsible for whatever consequences it may have.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 115):
They should have as many options as possible, just not at the taxpayers' expense.

Okay. So, the asbestos plant and coal plant should be next to your house. Now we have a plan! Great!

If it reduces the burden on me, I am willing to help especially if I get something out of it. If I pay $50 into health care for basic care, and everyone else does too, that reduces the cost of unwanted pregnancies and the cost on me. I am willing to help off-set that cost. It reduces the burden on me, in the long run. Cost-benefit analysis is what capitalists call it, I believe.

I throw $50 a month out there as a round and starting figure. Not a set standard.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 118, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 117):
If it reduces the burden on me, I am willing to help especially if I get something out of it. If I pay $50 into health care for basic care, and everyone else does too, that reduces the cost of unwanted pregnancies and the cost on me. I am willing to help off-set that cost. It reduces the burden on me, in the long run.

You, and a lot of other liberals, miss the connection between responsibility and control. Making the government responsible for something they cannot control is a recipe for disaster. Letting them pick up the tab for basic healthcare, but pretty soon people start to notice that it's expensive to be unhealthy. It's taxing the system and costing a ton of money, so what to do? The answer would be to take control of the inputs: restrict freedom and try to force people to eat healthy and exercise.

Being conservative is all about wanting to shop for groceries and consequently being willing to cook.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 117):
Cost-benefit analysis is what capitalists call it, I believe.

Okay, let's say somebody has unprotected sex and gets a sexually transmitted disease:

Under socialized/universal healthcare:
Cost to me: something
Benefit to me: nothing

Under healthcare as personal responsibility:
Cost to me: nothing (unless I choose to share a risk pool)
Benefit to me: nothing

Seems like an easy decision.

People already have plenty of incentive to not have unplanned pregnancies or contract STDs, and in the modern age failure to do so is purely a case of the inability of the government or any other entity to fix stupidity. The best thing to do is ensure that the cost of such stupidity is born only by the perpetrators rather than taxpayers as a whole.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 117):
I throw $50 a month out there as a round and starting figure. Not a set standard.

Does that have anything to do with how much it actually costs, or is that just a number? And for that matter, I and probably many others do not consume $50 of healthcare per month (unless you count buying toothpaste and aspirin) while the elderly or chronically ill may consume many times that. It's better to let people pick a risk pool that fits them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 119, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 118):
Under healthcare as personal responsibility:
Cost to me: nothing (unless I choose to share a risk pool)
Benefit to me: nothing

No, it still costs you something. Insurance isn't free, where do you think the money that you pay the insurance company goes? (hint- they don't store it until a bank waiting until YOU need it)

If you are not insured...well have fun with being completely responsible if something goes wrong.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 120, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

The Newtown Massacre has also added to the crises in the Republican party. Many are beholding to or fearful of the NRA and it's views on guns to stay in power. They have also become so attached to the military, the 'religous', supporters of Israel, big corporate interests and the richest. There is among the voters a deep desire for a more balanced government, one that recognizes the changes many Americans face.

If we 'go over the cliff' the affects on all Americans will be massive and they are going to go after the politicians of both parties, but Republicans with a particular vengeance due to their absolutism of not willing to raise taxes or only cutting critical 'entitlement' spending and not military spending. It will also deeply affect our status in the world (even worse than it is) as a economic leader.

The 'fiscal cliff' had led to a huge debate we needed for many years. The government is reaching practical limits on how much they can borrow. We can't raise taxes due to politics and the collaspe of the working and middle class that did pay a lot of taxes and corporations that extort tax deals for their shareholders and not the public. We can't cut entitlements as too many need those benefits to survive, we have out of control costs for medical care and public employee retirement benefits few will really deal with.

We used to 'grow our way out' of a recession. That is not happening this time as consumers have far less money to spend, the shifting of many good paying jobs outside the USA that would help in a recovery destroys that way out. We certaintly don't need another 'bubble' like real estate was that led us in part to our current recession.

I don't have any particular answers but to say we need to come to some reasonable comprormise that shares the real responsability and both parties put the masses first.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4014 posts, RR: 13
Reply 121, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

Indeed it seems the GOP continues to dig its own grave. Narrow interest groups like Grover Norquist and the NRA have cornered the GOP into inflexible positions. GOP politicians like to sound macho and play rough but lobbists have them in their pockets. Anybody breaking the line gets punished with a primary challenger. Romney had his faults but as a moderate, he got a large section of the electorate taking a hard look at him. This should have been an easy presidential election for the GOP with a weak economy and high unemployment rate. The fairly close election may give some the impression they just need some tweaking to get the presidency, but the reality is that most of the aspiring presidential candidates within the GOP were truly unelectable. In a good economy and the DEMs with an Ok candidate the GOP is going to get less than 40% of the popular vote. Drop the G. It's become the Old Party.

America lacks a party true to the American ideals of small government and personal freedom.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 122, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2397 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 85):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):

You still don't say what you'd DO about unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and STDs other than "just say no", which is proven time and again not to work.

For hundreds, even thousands of years it did work. Until only a generation or two ago, a woman was ashamed to have a child out of wedlock, and a man was looked at as good-for-nothing scoundrel for fathering a bastard. That kept illegitimacy rates down. In our modern society, for all its benefits, we have lost the value of shame.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 120):
If we 'go over the cliff' the affects on all Americans will be massive and they are going to go after the politicians of both parties, but Republicans with a particular vengeance due to their absolutism of not willing to raise taxes or only cutting critical 'entitlement' spending and not military spending.

Utter BS. The Republicans have put tax increases on the table. Not everything the Democrats want, but it's an offer to be negotiated. They have asked for the Dems to reciprocate by offering to cut some expenses. Democratic response: "Phfffft!"

Your line about the GOP being inflexible as the reason for the impasse is a complete lie, but that is the propaganda that has successfully been put out by the Democrats and their lapdog media. The real problem is actually a lot worse.

1) The GOP (and Boehner in particular) have fallen into the Dem's trap of talking about a 10 year plan. They talk about X trillion in new revenues, and Y trillion in cuts... over 10 years. Completely and utterly meaningless. I want to know what the taxes are going to raise in 2013, and what spending cuts will happen in 2013. We will worry about 2014 next summer when budget season comes around for FY 2014.

2) Boehner's Plan B seems like it was written by Obama. No spending cuts in 2013. Actually a budget increase of 20-40 billion.

3) Boehner has demoted those GOP'ers who are tied to the Tea Party - the wing of the party that wants to reign in spending.

All three of the above shows that Boehner is not a conservative - he is a progressive republican, as was GWB, Nixon and others. I think he should be replaced as Speaker of the House. By not offering a real set of cuts in the short term, he is handing Obama a megaphone with which he can blame all the future misery (and I think there will be plenty) on the Republicans.

The Wall Street Journal today had a graph showing how the stock market over the past month or so has a) fallen every time it sounds like a "Fiscal Cliff" plan is getting closer, and b) rises every time those talks fall apart. It is pretty clear that among the investment community - i.e. those people who tend to be the best informed and educated about economics - think that going over the "fiscal cliff" is the best thing to happen for our economy in the medium-long term. I am in whole-hearted agreement. Let's do it. The "Fiscal Cliff" at least forces us to make some painful spending cuts in 2013, which neither side apparently is interested in doing.

The Wall Street Journal also had an article today about Japan's new PM declaring that Japan will no longer go along wiith US and EU attempts to devalue their currencies. Get ready folks for some serious waves in interest rates and inflation - they are coming. We simply CANNOT borrow 40 cents on the dollar for much longer. A week or two ago I said that we would probably see a dramatic rise in Treasury interest rates in the next 3-6 years - which will suck every ounce of liquidity in the economy. I'm starting to think I was optimistic. I hereby cut my forecast timeline in half. I think the shit's going to hit the fan in the next 2-3 years.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 121):
Indeed it seems the GOP continues to dig its own grave. Narrow interest groups like Grover Norquist and the NRA have cornered the GOP into inflexible positions. GOP politicians like to sound macho and play rough but lobbists have them in their pockets. Anybody breaking the line gets punished with a primary challenger. Romney had his faults but as a moderate, he got a large section of the electorate taking a hard look at him. This should have been an easy presidential election for the GOP with a weak economy and high unemployment rate.

Romney lost because of a) a certain percent of the religious right bible thumpers could not bring themselves to vote for a Mormon, and b) because only a few weeks before the election a couple of these neanderthals said some really stupid things about rape and abortion which allowed the left to cry, "Oh look, if you women vote for Romney, you will lose your reproductive freedoms" - which was horsehit, but if 2% believed it, and another 2% had a problem with Mormans, that was enough.

Back to the subject at hand, let me re-iterate. If we don't come up, very soon, with a budget that reflects at least $2-$3 in cuts for every $1 in new revenue in the short term (I'm talking 2013, not 2022), we are SO hosed.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 122):
Until only a generation or two ago, a woman was ashamed to have a child out of wedlock, and a man was looked at as good-for-nothing scoundrel for fathering a bastard. That kept illegitimacy rates down. In our modern society, for all its benefits, we have lost the value of shame.

That's not a value at all.

What actually happened is that we finally figured out that women were not property after all (though the GOP is still having a very hard time with this one). Additionally, we dug ourselves out of the stone age and realized that children born out of wedlock (and Lock sure is a good word for that mess) have no less value than any other. That kind of progress is a good thing, and not something to be embarrassed about.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 124, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 123):
Additionally, we dug ourselves out of the stone age and realized that children born out of wedlock (and Lock sure is a good word for that mess) have no less value than any other. That kind of progress is a good thing, and not something to be embarrassed about.

Typical liberal BS. A few facts:

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993

Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, "The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data," Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994)

"...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)

A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

"Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families...those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had double the odds of being incarcerated -- even when other factors such as race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant."
Source: Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton University cited in "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.

Suicide. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities? - see link below

Behavioral Disorders. 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities? - see link below

High School Dropouts. 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities? - https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172210.pdf

Educational Attainment. Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families. Source: N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, American Sociological Review, No. 56

Juvenile Detention Rates. 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes
Source: What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and Revitalize Communities? - see link above

Confused Identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press.

Aggression. In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5.

Achievement. Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.
Source: One-Parent Families and Their Children, Charles F. Kettering Foundation.

Shall we go on?

Shame IS a value. A sense of shame stops you from doing something wrong regardless of whether you think you might get away with it. A sense of shame, and the sense of right and wrong that guides it, is the final brake on antisocial behavior.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 122):
Shall we go on?

Nope, that's a crap post and you know it.


Where did I say anything about being fatherless? Don't worry about it though. Reading all the way through a post without assigning extras is a necessary part of Critical Thinking skills. But, being a rabid supporter of a party that is threatened by and thoroughly opposed to education in all forms, I wouldn't expect you to know that, now would I?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 124):
Shame IS a value.

No, it isn't. It's a cheap trick to let yourself off the hook when you screw up or want to throw mud at people you don't like, or are jealous of. That is the basis of GOP social policy after all, resentful jealousy. But by all means, don't let me stop you trying to church it up...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 124):
A sense of shame stops you from doing something wrong regardless of whether you think you might get away with it.

Wrong again. Not living in the stone age or being a judgmental knuckle-dragger is quite sufficient for that. But by all means, keep making up lame excuses to hate people because of the way they were born. Talk about shameful...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 126, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
But, being a rabid supporter of a party that is threatened by and thoroughly opposed to education in all forms, I wouldn't expect you to know that, now would I?

And you illustrate the point perfectly in your sentence structure where, if you bothered to learn English, you would realize that you just called yourself a supporter of a " party that is threatened by and thoroughly opposed to education in all forms". Which actually is pretty close to the truth - Our education system has been basically in the hands of the left for a couple of generations (over 90% of all teachers are liberal), eliminating courses like civics We used to spend a whole year in public school on the Constitution and the Federalist papers - that's all gone now.

Instead we get curriculums like this:

Quote:
Regular High School Curriculum
Our high school diploma program curriculum has several components:

* Core Courses - English, social studies, science, math, foreign language, fine arts, computers, etc. Peace and diversity themes woven throughout the courses provide an integrated picture of the world.

* Peace, Diversity & Sustainability Studies - Each year students select from high school curriculum courses such as Human Rights, The History of Civil Rights in America (ethnic and religious; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and women's issues; etc.), The Peacemakers, Global Spirituality and Activism, Literature of Diversity, The Buddhist Path to Peace, World Religions, etc.

* Service Learning - Students research what is going on in their communities and in the world, and choose where to volunteer their services.

* Electives - The possibilities are infinite, including independent electives where students can take courses in their local communities, or construct creative projects of their own. Life and learning are inseparable!
http://www.globalvillageschool.org/high-school-curriculum.html

Yes, that's a private school, but it has "Liberal" written all over it.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
No, it isn't. It's a cheap trick to let yourself off the hook when you screw up or want to throw mud at people you don't like, or are jealous of. That is the basis of GOP social policy after all, resentful jealousy. But by all means, don't let me stop you trying to church it up...
Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
Wrong again. Not living in the stone age or being a judgmental knuckle-dragger is quite sufficient for that. But by all means, keep making up lame excuses to hate people because of the way they were born. Talk about shameful...

So in your world, black is white, 2+2=5? You make no sense.

Are you saying that shame does not stop you from doing things - even if nobody knows but you? That is one of the central cores of morality - the fact that if you do something bad, you feel ashamed of yourself. It's self-punishment, and is the best way to make sure people treat each other decently. You can't have a cop in every house.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 127, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
Not living in the stone age or being a judgmental knuckle-dragger

I think Dreadnought is saying people are mostly responsible for the good and bad that happens to them in life, while the Democrats tend to focus on the idea that people (especially the lower half economically) are often living in circumstances beyond their control.

The error is the extremism: the Right loves assigning punishment (aka "consequences") onto loads of people who had little choice in the matter while the Left goes too far in excusing bad behaviour.



Pu


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11651 posts, RR: 15
Reply 128, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 118):
Okay, let's say somebody has unprotected sex and gets a sexually transmitted disease:

Under socialized/universal healthcare:
Cost to me: something
Benefit to me: nothing

Under healthcare as personal responsibility:
Cost to me: nothing (unless I choose to share a risk pool)
Benefit to me: nothing

Actually, you have that a bit wrong. If someone contracts an STD, the benefit to you for them being treated is much greater than "nothing" because they are able to work and contribute to society and pay taxes and such. But, if they can not afford health care to begin with because you "conservatives" insist it is a free market interprise that only the privileged few should have access to, it is their own fault for being human and doing what they are told is their life.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 118):
You, and a lot of other liberals, miss the connection between responsibility and control.

Like the connection between spending what you have vs. spending what you don't? Like that? I am talking about the $10 trillion deficit and the houses and cars gained on credit in places like Orange County. Us hated liberals actually hate people insisting they live outside their means. But, you conservatives insist that does not happen and that is the other way around.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 118):
People already have plenty of incentive to not have unplanned pregnancies or contract STDs, and in the modern age failure to do so is purely a case of the inability of the government or any other entity to fix stupidity.

So, when people do what comes naturally, it is our fault? For being human?

Quoting Pu (Reply 127):
I think Dreadnought is saying people

No, he is just making his usual ignorant statements. When a study says "more likely" it means "sure, it happens, but not always." I am really so offended by the statements about homosexuals I can't say what I want to or I will be banned for life. It is just a bunch of ignorant BS.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 129, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 119):
Insurance isn't free,

It also isn't mandatory. This whole $50 per month scheme and whatever is stupid. You wouldn't force all Americans to drive the same car or wear the same clothes, and there's no reason for them to have the same health coverage.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 120):
The 'fiscal cliff' had led to a huge debate we needed for many years.

Some were too busy stimulating the economy.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 120):
We certaintly don't need another 'bubble' like real estate was that led us in part to our current recession.

That's not what liberal blowhard Paul Krugman said years ago.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 122):
In our modern society, for all its benefits, we have lost the value of shame.

You cannot be seriously saying that the country would be better off with more stigmatization of personal behavior? That's the opposite of freedom. Why write laws to get people to do what you want them to do when you can just shame them? Does that take a bureaucracy? Who gets to be the first Secretary of Shame?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 122):
Boehner has demoted those GOP'ers who are tied to the Tea Party - the wing of the party that wants to reign in spending.

Also the wing of the party that is unrealistic, irrelevant, and generally useless.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
Nope, that's a crap post and you know it.

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
Yes, that's a private school,

So all of that is completely irrelevant then.

Quoting Pu (Reply 127):
The error is the extremism: the Right loves assigning punishment (aka "consequences") onto loads of people who had little choice in the matter

It's not punishment if you do it to yourself, then it's just results.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
If someone contracts an STD, the benefit to you for them being treated is much greater than "nothing" because they are able to work and contribute to society and pay taxes and such.

They're the one with the disease, not me. They should take care of it themselves.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
the houses and cars gained on credit in places like Orange County.

First, using credit is not necessarily a bad thing and secondly, poor personal financial decisions are just that: personal.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
Us hated liberals actually hate people insisting they live outside their means.

Then get your machete and start on entitlements.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
So, when people do what comes naturally, it is our fault? For being human?

For God's sake control yourself. This really is not hard. You are responsible for conducting yourself in a safe manner and not ending up with unintended consequences.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 130, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
And you illustrate the point perfectly

No, I don't think so. Skipping a word while typing too fast indicates nothing at all, other than that I was late for lunch. Every one of us here, including you, has done that at least a few times. Using that as a crutch, however, says a lot. Especially as my point had to do with critical thinking, which I maintain your posts are very weak on. All the more so as you keep responding to things that aren't said here.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
Which actually is pretty close to the truth - Our education system has been basically in the hands of the left for a couple of generations

I wouldn't say that at all. Almost every reduction in educational spending can be traced to GOP measures.

If you're saying we need more Maths & Sciences, ok fine, we all want that. But we're going to need more teachers hired and schools built to make that happen correctly anyway. And you folks don't seem to want to invest in that.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
You make no sense.

I suppose I wouldn't if you couldn't keep up, would I? So sure, you can have that one.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
Are you saying that shame does not stop you from doing things

Damn straight, it doesn't. Oddly enough, I'm not a hardened criminal either, imagine that. In fact, there are a few other people who have good jobs now because I've "shamelessly" pursued a lot of projects where I work. I'd venture to say, while we're at it that I'd probably not even the job I do, and sure as hell not the social calendar I do if I just let shame hold me back all over the place.

I'll tell you what though. You go ahead and hoard up all the shame you want. I guess you like that, so don't let me stop you. I'll just keep doing what works for me, and that doesn't involve hanging out in some glorified Comfort Zone all day. Life aint a dress rehearsal, and I for one am not about to let someone else's shame tell me what to do.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
even if nobody knows but you?

Especially if nobody knows. But that's not shame. What I do when no one is looking is very predictable given what I do when they are. That has everything to do (good, bad, and otherwise) with the person I want to be. Actions make the man/we are what we do. Shame does not enter into the equation; only a value of consistency.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 126):
It's self-punishment, and is the best way to make sure people treat each other decently.

No, the golden rule and the fact that folks have memories are quite sufficient for that task. Get a rep as a scoundrel and it's hard to do business. Allow folks to figure out that you're awesome and success gets practically thrown at you. You don't need shame or guilt to put that one together.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 131, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 127):
I think Dreadnought is saying people are mostly responsible for the good and bad that happens to them in life, while the Democrats tend to focus on the idea that people (especially the lower half economically) are often living in circumstances beyond their control.

The error is the extremism: the Right loves assigning punishment (aka "consequences") onto loads of people who had little choice in the matter while the Left goes too far in excusing bad behaviour.

   Thank you.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
Us hated liberals actually hate people insisting they live outside their means. But, you conservatives insist that does not happen and that is the other way around.

In what reality do you live? The Liberals in this country are the ones who seem the most comfortable spending our way to oblivion.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
No, he is just making his usual ignorant statements. When a study says "more likely" it means "sure, it happens, but not always." I am really so offended by the statements about homosexuals I can't say what I want to or I will be banned for life. It is just a bunch of ignorant BS.

Please expand on this. What can't you say? I'm sure we will all be quite understanding if you put some context to this statement.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
You cannot be seriously saying that the country would be better off with more stigmatization of personal behavior? That's the opposite of freedom. Why write laws to get people to do what you want them to do when you can just shame them? Does that take a bureaucracy? Who gets to be the first Secretary of Shame?

Shame cannot be dictated by the state. The state can only enforce law, essentially by putting cops around and nicking you if he sees you doing something wrong. Shame comes from within, including (but not exclusive to) religious beliefs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
Also the wing of the party that is unrealistic, irrelevant, and generally useless.

So spending only what we have is unrealistic?

It would actually be easy to do. Call a Constitutional referendum, and have the states pass a Constitutional Amendment, bypassing Washington entirely. The Amendment would say, "If Federal spending exceed a deficit of 3% in any year, all sitting Congressmen, Senators and Presidents shall be ineligible for re-election or appointment to any Federal Office.

The problem will be solved in 6 weeks.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
Quoting Pu (Reply 127):
The error is the extremism: the Right loves assigning punishment (aka "consequences") onto loads of people who had little choice in the matter

It's not punishment if you do it to yourself, then it's just results.

So if a girl drops out of high school, and has two kids by two different fathers by the time she's 18, Society owes nothing to her, right? After all, it's just results of her decisions...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 132, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
Shame cannot be dictated by the state.

No, but it can be encouraged or allowed to become excessive.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
So spending only what we have is unrealistic?

In many cases, yes. Huge deficits year after year are bad, but saying no deficits ever except maybe during a war is an unnecessarily tight box.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 131):
So if a girl drops out of high school, and has two kids by two different fathers by the time she's 18, Society owes nothing to her, right?

Correct. Punishment would be fining her for committing adultery or not allowing her or the children to access certain services because the children were born out of wedlock.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 133, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
Correct. Punishment would be fining her for committing adultery or not allowing her or the children to access certain services because the children were born out of wedlock.

Well Dreadnaught's scenario is possible without committing adultery and again you are back to punishing kids for their parent's actions.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 134, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
No, but it can be encouraged or allowed to become excessive.

In statist societies, yes, like Nazi Germany or the USSR where, for instance, children were indoctrinated to turn in their parents if they said the "wrong" things. But that is a hallmark of progressivism, not of libertarian/conservatism.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
In many cases, yes. Huge deficits year after year are bad, but saying no deficits ever except maybe during a war is an unnecessarily tight box.

Did I ever say no deficits? No. But the deficits should be limited to those you can grow out of, like a maximum of 3% GDP. In 2007 we were at around 1.5%. We have been in the 10-12% range for the past 4 years.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
Correct. Punishment would be fining her for committing adultery or not allowing her or the children to access certain services because the children were born out of wedlock.

Did I ever say put her in jail? Don't put such words in my mouth. It's more of a "YOU decided to have the baby, YOU support it." Or better yet, give her the additional option to put the kid up for adoption. From what I recently heard from South Carolina, the percentage of unwed mothers who have had at least TWO kids before age 18 is in the double digits, and amazingly it is the mothers (the mother of the teenager) who are enabling and even encouraging it. Each kid brings in an extra $500 from the state per month.

We should get it so that young women do not see having a child out of wedlock as being cool or grown up. It isn't. And if you are pro-choice, you have no excuse to be enabling these girls.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15740 posts, RR: 27
Reply 135, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 133):
Well Dreadnaught's scenario is possible without committing adultery and again you are back to punishing kids for their parent's actions.

Unless you're going to move towards government boarding schools, kids will always in some way suffer from parental idiocy. If lower class, uneducated parents continually tell their kids that school is pointless, what are the chances the kids ever make it out of the lower class? There's no way around such things, other than try and maybe stem the tide through schools.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
But that is a hallmark of progressivism, not of libertarian/conservatism.

Unless of course you're a conservative lamenting the fact that people have less shame over children born out of wedlock and it's costing the government money.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
Did I ever say no deficits? No.

How do you spend only what you have and still have a deficit?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
Did I ever say put her in jail? Don't put such words in my mouth.

No, I'm making the distinction between results of an action and actual punishment.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
It's more of a "YOU decided to have the baby, YOU support it."

That's exactly what it should be, but that makes all the talk about shame over children born out of wedlock irrelevant. If you decide to have a baby, you support the baby whether that includes two married parents or not.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
We should get it so that young women do not see having a child out of wedlock as being cool or grown up.

There should be no "we" in there. Parents should be getting it so that young women (or men for that matter) do not see having a child out of wedlock as being cool or grown up. That's a family issue, not a governmental one.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Subprime Crisis, In A (British) Nutshell posted Sun Feb 3 2008 22:02:23 by MaverickM11
Whose Fault Is The Energy Crisis? posted Mon May 14 2001 03:28:52 by N400QX
Crisis In The NFL - Team Accused Of Being Sexist! posted Mon Sep 13 2010 11:00:12 by tugger
So, Who Really Started The Crisis? posted Tue May 26 2009 03:24:51 by LH526
The Crisis And The Media posted Mon Dec 22 2008 08:57:23 by NA
Crisis May Make 1929 Look A 'walk In The Park' posted Mon Dec 24 2007 04:21:08 by MadameConcorde
The Coming Population Crisis posted Thu Jun 8 2006 16:24:54 by Slider
The United States Has A Major Crisis Every 70 Yrs posted Fri May 21 2004 09:57:44 by MD-90
The Surface Of Jupiter And Other Gas/Ice Giants posted Fri Dec 14 2012 20:53:47 by 2707200X
The World Is Not Just Filled With Jerks posted Fri Dec 14 2012 11:09:36 by AR385