Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GOP Brings Back Ultrasounds Before Abortion  
User currently offlineken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2907 times:

Here we go again - first Ohio in a very quiet signing a budget that includes anti-abortion elements (including the vaginal probe) and now The Infamous Gov. Walker has signed a bill requiring ultrasounds. I thought the national embarrassment of their last effort would be sufficient to keep the vaginal probes off the table.

Sadly it looks like the Old White Men are back at it. Maybe next they will want it done in public so they can charge admission to watch.

Quote:

Gov. Scott Walker quietly signed a contentious Republican bill Friday that would require women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound and ban doctors who lack admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from performing the procedures.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...uiring-ultrasound-93762.html?hp=l2

I find it amazing when conservatives are so strong on rights to privacy (especially from the "government") and here are conservative state governments having no concerns about "privacy" when they dictate a probe has to be rammed up a woman's vagina.

That's the most impressive lesson on privacy I've ever seen. I wonder how long it will be before responsible Republicans gag on these laws and get rid of them.

115 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2890 times:

Ultrasounds are normally done from the outside.



Nothing in the article or the bill mentions vaginal probes. Your language is blatantly inflammatory, and I have asked the Mods to correct your thread title.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2577 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

So if I were a woman and knocked up, why should I have to look at an ultrasound?

Shouldn't that be between the woman and her doctor?


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

I suppose the government would pay for these medical procedures as well? This from the party that does not want government paying for medical care of any kind?


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2967 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Quoting ken777 (Thread starter):
before responsible Republicans gag on these laws and get rid of them.

There aren't many left anymore. All the Rockefeller Republicans--my type--got voted out of office or are on the line; nothing can be done...

And then they wonder why they don't win elections that matter.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2839 times:

What makes for an interesting juxtaposition is the Texas abortion shenanigans with another current issue:

"Texas, whose lax regulatory climate has come in for scrutiny in the aftermath of the West explosion, went into a special session of its state legislature on Monday to push through an omnibus abortion bill designed to regulate 37 abortion clinics out of existence. But the 2013 session will come to a close without any significant action to impose safeguards on the 74 facilities in the state that contain at least 10,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.

Lawmakers in Austin have a handy excuse for punting on new fertilizer regulations: That would be intrusive. State Sen. Donna Campbell, the Republican who helped to shut down Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of the abortion bill on procedural grounds, told the New York Times that lawmakers should be wary of monitoring chemical plants more closely because there's "a point at which you can overregulate.""



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2720 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

I laugh like hell watching the US debate over abortion. While Americans seem to fear any of the Mideast countries becoming Islamist theocracies, a large segment seems to want the Republicans to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. Real problems that need solving are being pushed aside for the continual fixation on controlling what a woman does with her body. Her body.... her choice!!!!

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

From what I understand an ultrasound early in the pregnancy doesn't show much from the outside, hence the vaginal probe.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Maybe some of the opposition party and woman legislators should put up bills banning the sales of Viagra and other 'erectile dysfunction' drugs in the state, require men to get anal probe ultrasounds every year to look for prostrate and bladder cancer, or mandate all men over the age of 14 must have condoms with them at all times. Perhaps too a special tax on the churches so the holy rollers who demand these ultrasounds and anti-abortion 'talks', would have to pay for it, as well as a special assessment to pay for the medical, social services, educational and other costs of the non-aborted children.

I bet more than a few doctors would nudge-nudge-wink-wink to their patients that they have done the ultrasounds and gave their patients 'the talk', bill for it (or to prevent insurance fraud not bill for it). Problem is that enough would 'obey' such an unjust law and those caught not doing the states' mandate would face further sanctions on their practice.

I wish the anti-abortion crowd, far too often seeking a easy way to 'heaven' would worry about far worse ways they encourage death like wars, the death penalty and taking away government benefits from the poor.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1347 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Your language is blatantly inflammatory,

So's your picture, since most places effectively prohibit abortion that far along in a pregnancy. And since vaginal probes are indeed part of the deal, let's try and keep this factual. Thanks.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 3):
I suppose the government would pay for these medical procedures as well? This from the party that does not want government paying for medical care of any kind?

Oh, no, not at all. If there's a way to tack that surcharge onto whatever the woman in question must pay for this, they will find it, rest assured. See below...

Quoting ken777 (Thread starter):
Maybe next they will want it done in public so they can charge admission to watch.

These rules won't pay for themselves!

I know we're being facetious there, but I would not put it past social conservative lady-haters to at least try that out.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 5):
"Texas, whose lax regulatory climate has come in for scrutiny in the aftermath of the West explosion, went into a special session of its state legislature on Monday to push through an omnibus abortion bill designed to regulate 37 abortion clinics out of existence. But the 2013 session will come to a close without any significant action to impose safeguards on the 74 facilities in the state that contain at least 10,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.

There is not a phrase sharp enough, nor font large enough to describe the epic facepalm this represents. Way to go, TX, way to go...

Quoting photopilot (Reply 6):
While Americans seem to fear any of the Mideast countries becoming Islamist theocracies, a large segment seems to want the Republicans to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. Real problems that need solving are being pushed aside for the continual fixation on controlling what a woman does with her body.

Trust that many Americans are deeply concerned about this. Though the probability of conservative christian religious remaining relevant is declining every day, thankfully, it seems that there will always be some very vocal and ill-intentioned political minority factions to deal with. If it makes you feel better, part of why this type of legislation gets the press time it does is because it is so out there, and not representative of the majority.

But yes, in principle I do agree that these are usually the same people who hate islam and muslims because "they're all terrorists who hate us for our freedom". Indeed, the hypocrisy could be cut with a knife here.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

I wonder how the GOP thinks it'll win public approval. I want to come back in a year or so and ask how the re-branding effort is going.


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8):
I bet more than a few doctors would nudge-nudge-wink-wink to their patients that they have done the ultrasounds and gave their patients 'the talk', bill for it (or to prevent insurance fraud not bill for it). Problem is that enough would 'obey' such an unjust law and those caught not doing the states' mandate would face further sanctions on their practice.

What may also end up happening is the doctors performing the abortion/termination/D&E will just simply have an ultrasound at bedside before performing the procedure.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8):

I wish the anti-abortion crowd, far too often seeking a easy way to 'heaven'

It's been my experience that when people start worrying about others' road to heaven they are typically either sheep who are just regurgitating what their preacher tells them, or they are somehow of the opinion that if they save everyone else their own spiritual short comings will be overlooked.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 9):
So's your picture, since most places effectively prohibit abortion that far along in a pregnancy. And since vaginal probes are indeed part of the deal, let's try and keep this factual. Thanks.

From my limited reading on the subject, vaginal probe ultrasound is more useful in diagnosing the health of the woman's reproductive organs, cysts etc. For having a look at a fetus, the exterior method is the usual method. Maybe DocLightning will chime in.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):

I wonder how the GOP thinks it'll win public approval.

Well the pro-abortion crowd could use a few PR lessons as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...battle-heats-activists-hail-satan/

Quote:
Pro-choice protesters shouted, “Hail Satan!” as an attempt to drown out pro-lifers’ rendition of “Amazing Grace.”

Seriously? Hail Satan?

http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8):
Maybe some of the opposition party and woman legislators should put up bills banning the sales of Viagra and other 'erectile dysfunction' drugs in the state, require men to get anal probe ultrasounds every year to look for prostrate and bladder cancer, or mandate all men over the age of 14 must have condoms with them at all times.

As I have explained here before, I am pro-choice, but am open to a reasonable compromise, such as strict limits on abortions in the third trimester.

The radical pro-abortion crowd is not doing itself any favors by statements like the above, where they continue to insist that the fetus, right up to the moment of birth, is nothing more than a tumor or a cancer. After 20 weeks or so, the fetus is viable outside the womb, and without question can feel pain, dream dreams etc. You'd better have a damned good reason for an abortion that late is my position. At that point, it is more than a lump of hamburger, and I wish the pro-choice crowd would be willing to admit that point.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

What I don't understand with the so-called pro-life crowd is that as soon as the unwanted child who's right to life they have ensured is born, they do everything they can to ensure it's actual life is miserable and short, by getting rid of any healthcare that won't cost them a fortune, and slashing education and other social benefits. Pro-life? Well how about taking care of the living?


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Ultrasounds are normally done from the outside.

When the baby is as large as the one in your picture. In the initial stages you need that vaginal probe.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
I have asked the Mods to correct your thread title.

You asked them to change it. SInce the vaginal probes will be required in early pregnancies the title was correct.

Quoting johnboy (Reply 2):
Shouldn't that be between the woman and her doctor?

In a country where privacy is considered important it would. In the US privacy counts when the government wants to store phone records in a database - that's a real scary invasion of privacy, As for telling a woman to spread em so they can ram a probe up her vagina in order to satisfy a bunch of holy rollin Christians - well, privacy really isn't that important.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 3):
I suppose the government would pay for these medical procedures as well?

        

There will probably be so regulation requiring that only ultra strong Pro-Life ultrasound operators will be allowed to

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
From what I understand an ultrasound early in the pregnancy doesn't show much from the outside, hence the vaginal probe.

Correct. The GOP learned that simple lesson when they tried this law. It's was a major embarrassment for the party, but it looks like the party is now beyond embarrassment.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 13):
Pro-life? Well how about taking care of the living?

        

All these Do Good Christian Conservatives are more concerned about their tax cuts - which is why we rate right down there with Cuba in terms of infant mortality.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 12):
After 20 weeks or so, the fetus is viable outside the womb, and without question can feel pain, dream dreams etc.

If a baby is viable outside the womb then give the mother the option of turning the baby over to the state. A large number of these babies will be "special needs", but funds can be found to take care of them with simple tax increases.

That way the Christian Conservatives can adopt as many as they want.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
SInce the vaginal probes will be required in early pregnancies the title was correct.

Source?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
In a country where privacy is considered important it would.

When will it get into your head that this has nothing to do with privacy, but with the life of a viable child?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Correct. The GOP learned that simple lesson when they tried this law. It's was a major embarrassment for the party, but it looks like the party is now beyond embarrassment.

Hail Satan!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...battle-heats-activists-hail-satan/

Both side have their idiots.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
If a baby is viable outside the womb then give the mother the option of turning the baby over to the state.

Are you advocating the return of state orphanages? I am not against the idea - but let's make it clear.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

These are the same people who scream about personal responsibility but deny anyone access to the pill, condoms, or the morning after pill, in case of rape.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 12):
I am pro-choice, but am open to a reasonable compromise, such as strict limits on abortions in the third trimester.

The radical pro-abortion crowd is not doing itself any favors

For someone who claims they are "pro-choice" you sure do spend a lot of time and effort supporting the anti-choice side!

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 12):
where they continue to insist that the fetus, right up to the moment of birth, is nothing more than a tumor or a cancer.

Except you are wrong. A HUGE HUGE HUGE majority of pro-lifers are fine with no late-term abortions. That same HUGE HUGE HUGE majority of pro-choice people know and understand that there is a point where aborting the fetus is not an option. But, the anti-choice crowd has controlled the conversation for so long the only option is for a woman to carry the fetus to term because anything else is a sin.

That's another thing: Why are a small group of people imposing their morals on everyone else? How is that working in Iran with the mullahs controlling morality or in Saudi Arabia with the morality police? That's how I see the ultra right wing who are very vocal. They go on and on about keeping government out of everyone's lives but they want to impose strict moral codes. Not only for abortion but they insist America is a "Christian" nation and we all must live heterosexual lives. They have no idea what "walk the talk" means. They just want the Christian equivalent of Sharia law in this country.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
They have no idea what "walk the talk" means. They just want the Christian equivalent of Sharia law in this country.

Indeed they would love it until they actually had to live by it themselves. They are perfectly fine with pointing at others' actions and sins but act completely surprised when the same is done to them.

In the South we joke that the only difference between a Methodist and a Baptist is that a Methodist will speak to you at the liquor store.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
For someone who claims they are "pro-choice" you sure do spend a lot of time and effort supporting the anti-choice side!

Because there are very few people on this board who are totally anti-abortion - a position I disagree with but I can respect from a moral position, but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever - a position I find even more distasteful as it is completely devoid of any sort of compromise or moral compass as it relegates the unborn fetus to the status of a tumor - which we scientifically know is false. We know for a fact that a fetus in the third trimester is viable. All the bits and pieces are there and functional. The extremist wing of the pro-choice movement simply refuses to acknowledge this fact.

As we recently saw with the House bill to limit abortion in the 3rd trimester, the reaction from the pro-choice movement (at least the vocal extremists within it) was the 'Slippery Slope' argument - that no restrictions can be accepted because it might justify future restrictions. No interest in compromise or negotiation whatsoever. That is what offends me. They accuse the pro-life movement of wanting Christian Sharia, but they are just as fundamentalist and uncompromising in their positions - the hypocrisy is outrageous.

Polls show that the majority want a compromise. Abortion allowed, but with restrictions. (look at the Gallup poll.)

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

My position is that abortion must remain an option, in the first trimester definitely, but with increasing thought given to the developing human life thereafter. I think it is a reasonable compromise in line with what most people want.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
Source?

OK, here are a few:

Quote:

Question: What is a transvaginal ultrasound or sonogram?

Answer: Transvaginal ultrasound is an ultrasound that is used to help determine many things about a pregnancy. A transvaginal ultrasound is performed by using an ultrasound wand that is actually inserted into the vagina. This can be very helpful in early pregnancy as it is able to provide a better view.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/ultrasounds/f/transvaginal.htm

Quote:

Ultrasound is commonly used during pregnancy to provide information about the developing baby. During an ultrasound, reflected sound waves are used to form a visual image of the baby in the womb. While several types of ultrasounds are available, a transvaginal ultrasound is more common during the early stages of the baby’s development.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/17...nsvaginal-ultrasound-in-pregnancy/

Quote:

Most prenatal ultrasound procedures are performed topically, or on the surface of the skin, using a gel as a conductive medium to aid in the image quality. However, a transvaginal ultrasound is an alternative procedure in which a tubular probe is inserted into the vaginal canal. This method of ultrasound produces an image quality that is greatly enhanced, but it is not a common prenatal procedure. However, it may be used early in pregnancy to get a clearer view of the uterus or ovaries if a problem is suspected. It may also be used early in pregnancy to determine how far along you are in your pregnancy (gestational age).
http://www.webmd.com/baby/ultrasound

There is 3 that indicate trans vaginal ultrasound early in pregnancy. You'll probably have little problem finding hundreds of others.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
When will it get into your head that this has nothing to do with privacy,

Of course not. Forcing woman to spread her legs so a probe can be rammed up her vagina has nothing to do with privacy. After all she's only a woman. Woman haven't even had the right to vote for 100 years, why should a bunch of holy rollers worry about other women's rights?

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
Are you advocating the return of state orphanages?

I'm saying that if a woman is denied an abortion then the state should have full responsibility for that baby - including all financial responsibilities. Obviously some can be adopted out. Some can spend their childhood in foster care and some will simply have to be warehoused until they die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly shows one medical condition that shows a need for warehousing. If you can get into an anatomical museum you can probably find a lot of other medical conditions that fall into that same group. You might even come to the conclusion that, tragic as it is, there are situations where an abortion is the correct approach for some medical conditions.

State orphanages? Probably. If the decision to deny an abortion is a state decision then they need to take the responsibility and that may well include state orphanages. Pretty costly, but new taxes can take care of that - maybe taking away the tax exemption of religious properties, like churches. Great source of tax revenues there.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2620 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Most prenatal ultrasound procedures are performed topically, or on the surface of the skin, using a gel as a conductive medium to aid in the image quality. However, a transvaginal ultrasound is an alternative procedure in which a tubular probe is inserted into the vaginal canal

There you go. Topical is the norm. transvaginal is if you want to see more detail, but is not a requirement. In the context of the proposed law, no such invasive ultrasounds are required or mandated.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Of course not. Forcing woman to spread her legs so a probe can be rammed up her vagina has nothing to do with privacy.

The concept really seems to turn you on, you keep harping on it in such graphic detail. I shudder to think of you as a gynecologist.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

The party of smaller government wants to table even more regulations? Who woulda thunk it! The GOP continues to be an embarrassment to conservatism.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 15):
Both side have their idiots.

Except the pro-life side elects theirs into office...

Quoting photopilot (Reply 6):
I laugh like hell watching the US debate over abortion.

  

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
I wonder how the GOP thinks it'll win public approval.

They don't think, that's why Obama won a second term. I didn't think he would be re-elected, but then the Republicans did that thing where they open their mouths and stupid things come out.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 11):
It's been my experience that when people start worrying about others' road to heaven they are typically either sheep who are just regurgitating what their preacher tells them

Indeed. I happened upon the Pride Parade in Toronto last weekend and the particular street corner I was on was also the same street corner all the Christian groups decided to set-up shop. I noticed that their campaign is based on the "we don't hate gays, we just love them so much that we want to stop them from sinning" argument.

As an aside: It was quite interesting that the Muslim group who usually sets up an information table on that particular corner (Dundas & Yonge) was absent on the day of the parade. It seems even they know it's a hopeless cause and just decided to steer clear of confrontation.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever

Alright Dreadnought, I think it's "put up or shut up" time. Please provide a single example of somebody on this forum suggesting zero restrictions on abortion. Every single abortion thread, you whip out the same lines about people here claiming that they want abortions even in the final month of pregnancy (referring to fetuses as "hamburger" is a favourite of yours I've noticed). Well, I've read every single thread on abortion since become a member on A-net two years ago and I cannot a recall a single time anybody has taken that position. I know that because I personally do not support third trimester abortions, and I would have said something if anybody proposed that.

I look forward to being proven wrong.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 20):
Topical is the norm.

For general OB medical care, or because mothers-to-be want to see "their baby".

As the references I provided indicate, the vaginal probes are generally for early in the pregnancy when topical scans are not that effective. People who don't believe that women, including rape victims, will be forced to endure a vaginal probe in the early part of their pregnancy probably believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I can just see the rape victims, laying there thinking "here we go again".

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 20):
In the context of the proposed law, no such invasive ultrasounds are required or mandated.

What about those women very early in their pregnancy where the topical approach doesn't let the holy rollers deliver aggressive arguments agains the pregnancy? Think those women will get off easy? Only if they have a doctor who isn't afraid of the religious freaks who are going to be watching over them.

In terms of a topical scan, it is still FAR more invasive in terms of Constitutional Rights To Privacy that conservatives are so concerned about when it comes to phone logs.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 20):
The concept really seems to turn you on

Actually the forced procedure makes me want to gag. Just like the last time the GOP tried to ram that law through.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
Except the pro-life side elects theirs into office...

Really? Last I checked Abortion was less restrictive in this country than in most others.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
Alright Dreadnought, I think it's "put up or shut up" time. Please provide a single example of somebody on this forum suggesting zero restrictions on abortion. Every single abortion thread, you whip out the same lines about people here claiming that they want abortions even in the final month of pregnancy (referring to fetuses as "hamburger" is a favourite of yours I've noticed). Well, I've read every single thread on abortion since become a member on A-net two years ago and I cannot a recall a single time anybody has taken that position. I know that because I personally do not support third trimester abortions, and I would have said something if anybody proposed that.
House Approves New Abortion Restrictions (by WarRI1 Jun 18 2013 in Non Aviation)

Read all the posts of the people who were against this bill in all its forms, and/or who where against any sort of negotiations on the issue.

WarRI1
einsteinboricua
AeroWesty
seb146

and others.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 22):
As the references I provided indicate, the vaginal probes are generally for early in the pregnancy when topical scans are not that effective.

Who said it has to be particularly effective? Look, I don't particularly approve of the idea. If you want an abortion and it's early in the pregnancy, not much will talk you out of it. I see this as a useless extra regulation and extra cost. But your reaction is that of a chicken-little. The law requires an ultrasound. I 5-second quick topical swipe probably satisfies the requirement - even if you can's see anything. So I agree with you that it should not pass, but I abhor your inflammatory rhetoric.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 5):
State Sen. Donna Campbell, the Republican who helped to shut down Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of the abortion bill on procedural grounds, told the New York Times that lawmakers should be wary of monitoring chemical plants more closely because there's "a point at which you can overregulate.""

Sure, there's a point at which you overregulate. But when your state is one of the most dangerous states in which to work, you haven't reached it.   

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever - a position I find even more distasteful as it is completely devoid of any sort of compromise or moral compass as it relegates the unborn fetus to the status of a tumor - which we scientifically know is false.

Or maybe we just don't want to put women through the unintended consequences of making certain types of abortion illegal.

Whenever you start introducing exceptions into an abortion law, you open up a whole can of worms. That's true whether you're talking about an exception for rape in a complete ban or an exception for something dangerous to the mother in a late-term abortion ban. Let's take the case of a woman who has been told by her doctor that there is a problem with her pregnancy that could endanger her health and recommends an abortion. She goes for a second opinion, and the second doctor disagrees and thinks that the pregnancy could continue safely. She's past the cutoff date for an abortion, and so will have to qualify for an exception. If she has the abortion, she'd be opening herself up to prosecution by the state (and don't think for a second that there aren't pro-life attorney generals out there who would be happy to do so) for having an abortion when there was an opinion that it wasn't medically necessary. If she tries to sort things out beforehand that there's a more solid case for her having an abortion if she wants to go that direction, the process gets delayed, and if the abortion ends up happening later in the term than it should, which is something nobody wants to have happen. And, of course, during that time the pregnancy could take a turn for the worse and she could get sick and die (as happened in Ireland fairly recently) - obviously that's not a desirable outcome for anyone either. She's in a no-win situation - she's either at risk of being a criminal (and possibly going to jail) or at risk of putting her life in danger. And she's done nothing wrong. How is that fair to her? Yet that's the situation that implementing any sort of abortion ban would put her in.

If you're going to advocate putting people in that position, you'd better show that the potential benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. If women are going around having late-term abortions of convenience like it's no bigger deal than getting their hair or nails done, then that's despicable and disgusting and wrong and I'd say that getting rid of that would be worth it. But I've never seen anything from the anti-abortion crowd to indicate that that's the case - it seems to be a lot of anger about a problem that doesn't really exist. And it's not right to put well-meaning people in criminal jeopardy over a phantom problem.

I certainly don't view a fetus as nothing more than a tumor, and I certainly have no love for late-term abortions, but I have even less love for legislatures making decisions on what is medically necessary and what isn't. That's an unacceptable government intrusion into what should be someone's personal decision about their health. Not only do legislatures lack the expertise to make such a determination, but legislatures are inherently political, and politics has no place anywhere near such decisions.

Also, it should be said that what angers me the most about the sorts of abominable bills that Ohio has passed, and that Texas tried to pass (and thankfully failed to, at least for now), is not the limit on when you can do an abortion. It's all the other stuff, like how the bills require abortion clinics to adhere to such strict standards that almost all of them in the state would be forced to close, thus imposing a severe hardship on women who want to get even early-term abortions. Ohio's law requires abortion clinics to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, then prohibits a public hospital from entering into such a transfer agreement, leaving mostly religious hospitals as possible candidates (and you can guess how willing they'd be to work out a deal). That's not about protecting women's health at all, that's about trying to impose a complete abortion ban by making it too impractical to get an abortion. If the bills just banned abortion after a certain time period and left everything else intact, I think you'd see far less opposition to them (though I'd still feel uncomfortable with them for the reasons I mentioned above). But that's not the direction the GOP has decided to take.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
As we recently saw with the House bill to limit abortion in the 3rd trimester, the reaction from the pro-choice movement (at least the vocal extremists within it) was the 'Slippery Slope' argument - that no restrictions can be accepted because it might justify future restrictions. No interest in compromise or negotiation whatsoever. That is what offends me.

May I assume, then, that you were offended when the pro-gun lobby raised hell about a background check law because it was a slippery slope to total confiscation of weapons?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
a position I disagree with but I can respect from a moral position,

Again: Why legislate morality? Why is that for one small group to do?

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
The extremist wing of the pro-choice movement simply refuses to acknowledge this fact.

Actually, they don't. The reason you think that is what MSM has told you.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
I think it is a reasonable compromise in line with what most people want.

Except the far-right wing "morality police" are in control of state houses and law making. So, they want to tell people when and how they can do this. Which is never. Because we must all live by the far-right wing morals.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 4):
All the Rockefeller Republicans--my type--got voted out of office or are on the line

Rockefeller Republicans were neoconservatives from the other side of the aisle, although they predate them by a few years. Or just a Limousine Liberal by a different name.

There's not much point in voting for a Republican that is in favor of high social spending. Beats a hippie, but don't confuse that with fiscal conservatism. Most prominent Rockefeller Republicans came from blue states anyway, and Nixonian politics looked good mostly thanks to following the Great Society and were superseded by Reaganite policies which continued to be successful through the Clinton administration.

But personally, I don't pay too much attention to the abortion debate. Personally, I'm smart enough to make sure that it never affects me. But a bit of gender equality might be nice. A man should be able to sign a form, during roughly the same interval in which a woman can have an abortion, certifying that he is willing to pay the cost of an abortion and, if the woman declines to have one performed, the father irrevocably waives all parental rights and is absolved of all responsibilities, financial or otherwise.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
Again: Why legislate morality? Why is that for one small group to do?

Ask all the liberals who think it's moral to take the first third or so of my paycheck (and some want more than that) partially so they can pay their crappy social programs: subsidizing buses, handing out welfare checks and tax breaks to people who decided they'd rather have kids than go to school. That's my money, and every dime of morality liberals legislate eventually translates to horsepower off my car and inches and pixels off my TV. Go ask them about legislating morality.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19417 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Nothing in the article or the bill mentions vaginal probes.

It does not but it is common in early pregnancy to have to do one if the goal is to find the heartbeat.

In my opinion, It is laughable at best and heinous in reality to mandate an unnecessary medical procedure prior to an abortion solely for the purposes of increasing the cost and other barriers of abortion. Similarly, you cannot tell me that you are interested in "women's health" when you cancel womens health programs and then place absurd restrictions on abortion centers (like requiring ambulatory surgery compliance to be able to give a patient RU-486 or methotrexate pills). Performing an unnecessary procedure is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

It is also my opinion that every legislator involved in the passage of such a law (one that mandates a clinical algorithm) should stand for the criminal charge of practicing medicine without a license, unless they hold a license. It's one thing to pass laws regulating physician behavior, standards, training, etc. It is quite a different thing to try to write a clinical algorithm into law (especially when it is baseless).

Regardless of where you stand on the ethics of abortion, this is a reprehensible bullying tactic. Bullying women out of getting abortions. Disgusting. I just hate bullies. In addition, it demeans all women going to get an abortion as unaware that they contain a beating heart. The woman who just found out that her infant will have Trisomy 13 is devastated enough without needing to be shown the ultrasound. She knows damned well that heart is beating.

If you want to ban abortion, ban it. Don't feed me some line about "protecting women's health" when you oppose providing such services as free breast cancer screening but are going to mandate ridiculous procedures and facilities standards prior to an abortion.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
Because there are very few people on this board who are totally anti-abortion - a position I disagree with but I can respect from a moral position, but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever

Please quote who wants "no restrictions whatsoever." As soon as this murderer guy who killed babies that were crying, the no-choicers (There is being "pro-life," which is different than being "anti-choice") accused all pro-choicers of endorsing his behavior when every single pro-choice organization and poster on this board expressed outrage and disgust.

I can respect being anti-abortion and truly pro-life because that is exactly what I am. I am anti-abortion and I am pro-life. This in no way conflicts with my being pro-choice. I just prefer that the choice occur before conception in the form of a reliable form of contraception (and abstinence is not a reliable form of contraception; I've seen more pregnancies from botched "abstinence...").

The other thing is that abortion is allowed up to the age of viability and I don't like that, but nobody is promoting viable-aged fetuses (unless they have severe anomalies incompatible with life, such as Trisomy 18/13, anencephaly, etc.).


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
If the bills just banned abortion after a certain time period and left everything else intact, I think you'd see far less opposition to them (though I'd still feel uncomfortable with them for the reasons I mentioned above). But that's not the direction the GOP has decided to take.

I agree I would prefer the much simpler approach, such as the abortion bill passed by the House the other week.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
May I assume, then, that you were offended when the pro-gun lobby raised hell about a background check law because it was a slippery slope to total confiscation of weapons?

Yes, and I have said so. I have nothing against a national gun registry, with obligatory reporting when you sell or inherit a gun. But there would have to be safeguards put in place to ensure that database is ONLY used for criminal investigations, and not for any other purposes.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
Again: Why legislate morality? Why is that for one small group to do?

Let's remove the laws against murder then. Let's face it, there are a lot of people in the world we could do without - the generalization that all human life is to be protected is a moral one.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 25):
Actually, they don't. The reason you think that is what MSM has told you.

BS. I have repeatedly challenged people here to admit that, and they always evade.

Let's try again. Are you, Seb, willing to say in plain English that a fetus in its 3rd trimester is as viable a human life as any newborn infant - the only difference is that he hasn't made his first change of address yet. The baby feels, dreams, expreriences pain and pleasure, and is by all intents an living human life. The point at which it becomes such is open to discussion, but is somewhere around 6 months, maybe earlier.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 23):
Read all the posts of the people who were against this bill in all its forms, and/or who where against any sort of negotiations on the issue.
Quoting dreadnought (Reply 23):
AeroWesty

Eh? Wanna quote us from the other thread where I took up that position, Clem?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 29):
Eh? Wanna quote us from the other thread where I took up that position, Clem?

Your reply #21, where WarRI1 claimed that any law limiting abortion "is the opening rounds of a much larger fight to overturn Roe versus Wade which would mean (no) abortions, nada, the dream of the (Right) which is wrong for women."

You answered with a checkmark. Clearly, a no-compromise position.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 30):
You answered with a checkmark. Clearly, a no-compromise position.

LOL! I was agreeing that it was the opening round to overturn Roe v. Wade, and what overturning Roe v. Wade would mean in legal terms. No where did I say I harbored a no-compromise position. That's just nutty.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
LOL! I was agreeing that it was the opening round to overturn Roe v. Wade, and what overturning Roe v. Wade would mean in legal terms. No where did I say I harbored a no-compromise position. That's just nutty.

Oh stop BSing. We are (mostly) adults here. That is a completely bogus argument. A new law cannot overturn Roe v Wade. That was a judicial decision. The only way to overturn it is with another USSC decision.

Which is part of the problem. Abortion has been a contentious issue for half a century largely because the only law on the books is a deeply flawed decision. Look at all other modern countries. People feel just as deeply about abortion in many of them, but it is no longer a big issue because their legislatures hammered out a compromise that set into law a reasonable middle-ground, and the issue was considered settled. We need to do the same. That is not done in the Supreme Court. That's done in Congress.

But I get the feeling that there are many groups (on both sides) that do not want the issue to be settled because it would compromise their political and financial support structure. It's kinda like racism. The last thing that race-peddlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want to see is races living together and working together in total harmony. It would put them out of business.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2535 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 32):
Oh stop BSing. We are (mostly) adults here. That is a completely bogus argument. A new law cannot overturn Roe v Wade. That was a judicial decision. The only way to overturn it is with another USSC decision.

Correct! And it is my opinion that overturning Roe v. Wade is exactly what the anti-abortionists want. You can BS around all you want in your posts implying what you think people are saying, then running with it as if it was the truth, but it'll still come across as the same old BS. You do it often enough, it's an age old pattern that's easy to spot.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 33):
Correct! And it is my opinion that overturning Roe v. Wade is exactly what the anti-abortionists want.

You never took Logic in school, did you?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 34):
You never took Logic in school, did you?

Part B of your pattern is to start with the personal attacks when you get frustrated with your lack of ability to get out of the hole you've built for yourself. Really, you need a new schtick.  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2467 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
they can pay their crappy social programs

So, feeding the hungry (who need to be working before they can get food stamps) and making sure the poor have a reliable way to get to work and helping kids is immoral. That's what you are saying. We should just demand people help themselves but do nothing to actually help out. That's the whole mantra of the right wing.

It's okay to legislate morality of one tiny sliver of the far right wing but heaven forbid we should actually do anything for a large number of people who actually need helping out.

On the other hand, you are right. Why legislate exactly what the Bible says? Helping the least among us? Let them fend for themselves. The right hates the Bible anyway, so that makes sense.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
So, feeding the hungry (who need to be working before they can get food stamps) and making sure the poor have a reliable way to get to work and helping kids is immoral.

No, I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
We should just demand people help themselves but do nothing to actually help out.

Yes. You're getting it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
It's okay to legislate morality of one tiny sliver of the far right wing but heaven forbid we should actually do anything for a large number of people who actually need helping out.

No, but I think that if you're going to be against legislating morality, you should be against it when liberals do it too.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
Why legislate exactly what the Bible says?

You don't have a problem with it when it means giving you someone else's money.

If I'm going to do what the Bible says, I'm going to do it because the Bible says so and not because the government says so.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
Let them fend for themselves.

Exactly.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):
I'm going to do it because the Bible says so and not because the government says so.

The right-wing (AKA Republicans) claim they follow the Bible to the letter and claim they are the party of Christianity. They stand up and tell everyone how much they want to be like Christ and this is a Christian nation. Last time I checked, my Bible said that helping the least among us (the working poor, the disabled, children) is a Christian value. Following that logic, using tax dollars to feed and house the working poor and children is a Christian value. So, the right should have no problem with any of that. However, they demonize anyone trying to help themselves. And, at the same time, ship jobs overseas and blame the poor for not getting jobs.

How very Christian.

Yet another example of how the right wing picks and chooses it's way through life.

[Edited 2013-07-07 09:39:01]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
Last time I checked, my Bible said that helping the least among us (the working poor, the disabled, children) is a Christian value. Following that logic, using tax dollars to feed and house the working poor and children is a Christian value.

A bit off topic, but you are very, very wrong about this. You are supposed to help the poor with your own money (or effort). Requiring others to do it (via taxes) is absolutely meaningless as far as Christian Charity is concerned.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
Ask all the liberals who think it's moral to take the first third or so of my paycheck (and some want more than that) partially so they can pay their crappy social programs

You tend to forget that part of your taxes that goes to Defense, the VA, law enforcement (like the FBI) CDC and other health related departments, infrastructure development and maintenance (including airports), border patrol and border infrastructure, etc.

Every day you drive to work you are driving on infrastructure paid for by tax dollars. Or do you live close enough to walk to work?

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 28):
a fetus in its 3rd trimester is as viable a human life as any newborn infant - the only difference is that he hasn't made his first change of address yet. The baby feels, dreams, expreriences pain and pleasure, and is by all intents an living human life. The point at which it becomes such is open to discussion, but is somewhere around 6 months, maybe earlier.

If life is viable then, as I've said before, the state should just take the baby as part of the abort procedure. The moment the state takes the baby it also assumes all responsibilities for that chile, including premie health care (which is expensive, but probably can be done in a large ward for less money.) Normal babies? The state should be responsible for them until they have been educated to the point where they can work in a job that pays a living wage. That might mean training in a trade, or college (if appropriate, based on the student's school work). If the baby is "special" then the state should assume a lifetime responsibility. If you look at a Downs kid, that might be total care for a severe case, with less involvement for a mild case.

But reality is that states demanding a baby live assumes full responsibility for that baby, If taxes need to be raised then raise them. I've already offered one simple approach for increasing tax revenues to help take care of those kids.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 32):
A new law cannot overturn Roe v Wade. That was a judicial decision.

True, but politicians can surround that decision with laws that severely limit, or kill, the force of the decision. These laws coming out these days are efforts to severely diminish the force of the USSC decision.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
The right-wing (AKA Republicans) claim they follow the Bible to the letter and claim they are the party of Christianity.

I don't think I've ever seen them do that.

Democrats believe that it isn't the government's place to enforce Christian values, "family values" or whatever sort of values you like. The left's idea is that if you think it's moral to not have an abortion, then don't have an abortion but leave everyone else to their own devices. Therefore, it should follow that their attitude should also be that if you believe it is moral to help the poor then by all means do that, but leave everyone else to their own devices. Yet, that isn't the case. You will find liberals across the country applauding crappy social programs and wanting to expand them, using money that belongs to someone else.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
However, they demonize anyone trying to help themselves.

Most of the people who try that hard to help themselves do. The problem is that too many don't, and the social policy makes it possible to do so.

It's my money and I should be the arbiter of where it goes as much as possible. I'd much rather see my money flow to my local Porsche dealer than ghettos and trailer parks across America.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
You tend to forget that part of your taxes that goes to Defense, the VA, law enforcement (like the FBI) CDC and other health related departments, infrastructure development and maintenance (including airports), border patrol and border infrastructure, etc.

Every day you drive to work you are driving on infrastructure paid for by tax dollars.

Show me where I said all taxes and government services should be abolished.

But, since you can't do that, I'll go ahead and explain that I'm willing to pay for useful things such as what you mentioned, but perhaps some of the health stuff should be reconsidered. If you want to go screw someone you meet at the club, you can pay for your own condoms and birth control.

What I'm not interested in paying for is welfare and social programs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
I don't think I've ever seen them do that.

Have you been paying attention, because they most certainly do on the local level.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
What I'm not interested in paying for is welfare and social programs.

When a child is born out of wedlock, or in wedlock, but impoverished, in ill health, where in the world do you think the money for the child is coming from? There are no jobs for most, hence the poverty, no education for many of these women. Ignorance breeds poverty, and we have done an excellent job of creating the conditions for both. We would be supporting millions more now if it were not for Roe versus Wade all those years ago. Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouth on this issue, and many more.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 43):
When a child is born out of wedlock, or in wedlock, but impoverished, in ill health, where in the world do you think the money for the child is coming from?

There are those two people responsible for bringing the kid into the world. And nobody is proposing outlawing charity.

But, let's remember that pregnancy and kids is not just something that happens to people. It is not like getting a cold. People can take steps to make it nearly impossible that a pregnancy will result, which would be the smart thing to do if you do not want, or cannot afford, to have a child.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 43):
There are no jobs for most,

Last time I checked unemployment was hovering around 8%, which would correspond to employment of 92%. Now if you think that 8% is "most" then having a conversation with you about economics or pretty much anything else is a fool's errand and what we should be doing is discussing the educational system.

But, that aside, yes not all jobs pay that well. Perhaps not well enough to have a family in which case the smart thing to do would be not have a family. There are plenty of things I cannot afford, so I don't buy them. It's really quite simple.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 43):
no education for many of these women. Ignorance breeds poverty,

People drop out, or don't show up, or show up and don't take it seriously. Schools aren't cheap, but what happens if people do not take advantage of them? Liberals will just send you a check, no worries.

[Edited 2013-07-07 14:56:07]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
Democrats believe that it isn't the government's place to enforce Christian values, "family values" or whatever sort of values you like.

Republicans are the party that plays lap dog to the big companies and the wealthy. They never saw a political contribution they didn't like. Look how hard Romney wanted zero taxes on capital gains so he would only pay 1% or 2%on his $20+ million income a year.

Not everyone believes in serving only the powerful and the wealthy. They become moderates or liberals or independents or Democrats.

As an ex-Republican who still votes for a GOP candidate when I want I believe that the party needs to move back to the center and address issues important for everyone. All I see now is efforts to cut taxes when that 's not affordable, voting to end ObamaCare 39 or 40 times, efforts to end abortions through obstruction laws, efforts to pleas the powerful and wealthy, etc.

That's why I find you comment above pretty queer.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
You will find liberals across the country applauding crappy social programs and wanting to expand them, using money that belongs to someone else.

There you go again. ANyone not marching in lockstep with you is a "Liberal", which is supposed to be so social disease or something.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
It's my money and I should be the arbiter of where it goes as much as possible.

You et your chance when you vote. Otherwise move to some country without income taxes and change your citizenship. Nothing will change in this country enough to suit you so maybe you should look elsewhere to find happiness.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
Show me where I said all taxes and government services should be abolished.

I guess you would support taxes going to programs that impact your job in a positive way.  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
What I'm not interested in paying for is welfare and social programs.

What about hunger. You happy to see kids in elementary schools have their 2 meals a day cut out? With all the new casual gun laws you might find taking welfare away from the poor makes you a good target, Better forget that Porsche as it tends to say "Rob Me".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
There are those two people responsible for bringing the kid into the world.

Or maybe one person responsible and the other raped? You're assumption tend to make everyone fall into one group that you turn your nose up at.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
Last time I checked unemployment was hovering around 8%, which would correspond to employment of 92%.

And what about the shift in wages and salaries? Isn't that going down in terms of buying power?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
There are plenty of things I cannot afford, so I don't buy them. It's really quite simple.

And then there are people who did all the right things. Studied hard, got their degrees (some even in engineering, worked hard at their jobs for years as demonstrated by promotions and salary increases. Saved for the kids educations and were pretty responsible in the community.

Then the Bush/Cheney Great Recession hit and those folks found themselves out of a job. Might be working now at a fraction of their previous salary - something you should really keep in mind when dreaming about that Porsche.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
There you go again. ANyone not marching in lockstep with you is a "Liberal", which is supposed to be so social disease or something.

The way some of them talk, it certainly seems like a disease. Not as bad as actually being a socialist though.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
You et your chance when you vote.

So tyranny of the majority then. It's my money and it doesn't matter if literally everyone else in the entire country dislikes how I spend it.

You should remember that argument if the majority voters somewhere decide to ban abortions or gay marriage. The people in favor had their say!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
I guess you would support taxes going to programs that impact your job in a positive way.

Any such programs would be things the government actually needs to do, so it's not a problem.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
What about hunger. You happy to see kids in elementary schools have their 2 meals a day cut out?

I'm pretty indifferent, but more incentive to get kids in school and paying attention won't hurt. Plus the kids won't take the money and go buy Kools instead.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
With all the new casual gun laws you might find taking welfare away from the poor makes you a good target, Better forget that Porsche as it tends to say "Rob Me".

If the money has to go out anyway, I'd much rather pay for say, expanded police departments or a gated community, than paying for welfare and social programs. Presumably, whoever is being hired as officers and such got there by staying out of trouble and maybe getting an education. If the money must be paid regardless, I'd much rather pay someone who has demonstrated some personal responsibility to actually do something rather than pay welfare queens to sit in their trailer.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
Or maybe one person responsible and the other raped? You're assumption tend to make everyone fall into one group that you turn your nose up at.

Go find the percentage of pregnancies that are the result of rape. Idiocy is a far larger factor in pregnancies.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
And what about the shift in wages and salaries? Isn't that going down in terms of buying power?

Americans have to compete. Simply showing up with an American passport doesn't cut it when the rest of the world isn't bombed out or buried under Communism. Actually, people should bear in mind the struggles of such places that suffer from excessive government regulations. Eastern Europe is still trying to catch up to their more capitalistic counterparts in the west.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
And then there are people who did all the right things. Studied hard, got their degrees (some even in engineering, worked hard at their jobs for years as demonstrated by promotions and salary increases. Saved for the kids educations and were pretty responsible in the community.

Then the Bush/Cheney Great Recession hit and those folks found themselves out of a job.

Nobody ever promised the economy would never go bad. Save your money and don't listen when people try to convince you that you can own a house no matter what and you aren't really American until you do.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2319 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 6):
I laugh like hell watching the US debate over abortion. While Americans seem to fear any of the Mideast countries becoming Islamist theocracies, a large segment seems to want the Republicans to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy. Real problems that need solving are being pushed aside for the continual fixation on controlling what a woman does with her body. Her body.... her choice!!!!

  

What is the biggest hypocrisy of all of this is that in many of the states that are passing these kind of laws have no problem with capital punishment. Texas executes more than any other state but is one to pass new abortion restriction and want to regulate out the clinics.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
These are the same people who scream about personal responsibility but deny anyone access to the pill, condoms, or the morning after pill, in case of rape.

The ones who oppose both abortion and then oppose sex ed and easy access to contraception are either stupid, hate sex, ashamed that they like it or hadn't had enough about this.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
But personally, I don't pay too much attention to the abortion debate. Personally, I'm smart enough to make sure that it never affects me.

It will never affect you as you don't carry the child.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
But a bit of gender equality might be nice. A man should be able to sign a form, during roughly the same interval in which a woman can have an abortion, certifying that he is willing to pay the cost of an abortion and, if the woman declines to have one performed, the father irrevocably waives all parental rights and is absolved of all responsibilities, financial or otherwise.

Again you don't carry the child and you cannot demand an abortion of the

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
Ask all the liberals who think it's moral to take the first third or so of my paycheck (and some want more than that) partially so they can pay their crappy social programs

You tend to forget that part of your taxes that goes to Defense, the VA, law enforcement (like the FBI) CDC and other health related departments, infrastructure development and maintenance (including airports), border patrol and border infrastructure, etc.

Every day you drive to work you are driving on infrastructure paid for by tax dollars. Or do you live close enough to walk to work?

  

Also you would probably not even notice if all the welfare and safety net taxes were taken out of your pay.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 47):
It will never affect you as you don't carry the child.

...until the woman shows up with a court order for child support payments.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 47):
Again you don't carry the child and you cannot demand an abortion of the

It wouldn't be a demand. Just an opt out of parenthood similar to what women would have.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 47):
Also you would probably not even notice if all the welfare and safety net taxes were taken out of your pay.

I bet I would. It's the entitlement spending that's been growing the last few decades and fueling the current budget woes.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 47):
The ones who oppose both abortion and then oppose sex ed and easy access to contraception are either stupid, hate sex, ashamed that they like it or hadn't had enough about this.

They also call themselves Republicans.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
Most of the people who try that hard to help themselves do

Yes, but with low wage jobs they had to take after all the good jobs they were promised were shipped overseas.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
The problem is that too many don't, and the social policy makes it possible to do so.

Even though they have to provide a source of steady and verifiable income to get food stamps. Like a low wage job they had to take because the good paying jobs they were promised were shipped overseas.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
I don't think I've ever seen them do that.

You, my friend, have been living under a rock. Look at Newt Gingrich.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
Democrats believe that it isn't the government's place to enforce Christian values, "family values" or whatever sort of values you like.

So, keeping people from starving is the same as abortion?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 49):
Yes, but with low wage jobs they had to take after all the good jobs they were promised were shipped overseas.

Who was ever "promised" a good job? And don't forget that plenty of Americans do have "good jobs" but they had to work and become educated to get them.

Your real complaint is that people don't get good jobs or make money without working for it, but that's always been the case. Somewhere the politics of free money got mixed in and liberals ran with it. It seems that many people seem to think that a middle class life is something one is entitled to just by being alive and American, when in reality that's never been the case.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 49):
You, my friend, have been living under a rock.

Or I just don't watch Fox News and call it "mainstream."

Quoting seb146 (Reply 49):
So, keeping people from starving is the same as abortion?

In this case, yes. If you're going to have a problem with the right trying to legislate morality and write laws based on biblical teachings, you should have just as much objection when liberals do the same thing. You can't blast those trying to restrict abortion on moral grounds and then support social waste by saying it's the moral thing to do.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2247 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 23):
Really? Last I checked Abortion was less restrictive in this country than in most others.

...and this thread is about your country becoming far more restrictive.

Besides, even the least restrictive countries on abortion have an elected official or two in parliament trying to ban the whole thing. My own country is a good example. Women in every province have easy access to abortions (up to a certain week of course). But of course there's an MP by the name of Stephen Woodworth (who is actually the MP for my electoral district...) who has made it is mission as a federal politician to basically outlaw any abortion.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 23):
House Approves New Abortion Restrictions (by WarRI1 Jun 18 2013 in Non Aviation)

Read all the posts of the people who were against this bill in all its forms, and/or who where against any sort of negotiations on the issue.

WarRI1
einsteinboricua
AeroWesty
seb146

and others.

Well, I read all the posts in that thread from the four aforementioned posters...and there's not a single mention of any of them supporting abortion into the third trimester. Seb146 actually explicitly says that only medical abortions should ever happen that late. The rest seem to just want to keep the status quo, which of course doesn't allow third trimester abortions.

So you still haven't shown me where a single poster has ever supported lifting restrictions on abortions to allow them anytime during pregnancy...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
But a bit of gender equality might be nice. A man should be able to sign a form, during roughly the same interval in which a woman can have an abortion, certifying that he is willing to pay the cost of an abortion and, if the woman declines to have one performed, the father irrevocably waives all parental rights and is absolved of all responsibilities, financial or otherwise.

That equality only covers parental rights, but ends at the physical burden of unwanted pregnancy. Signing a paper is a whole lot easier than getting an abortion. Surely you can understand why the decision would be far more difficult for a woman. That's without even going into the whole stigma issue...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
It's my money and I should be the arbiter of where it goes as much as possible.

You are, that's why you vote. Alternatively, you can pressure your State representative if you don't like the way things are being done.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 43):
We would be supporting millions more now if it were not for Roe versus Wade all those years ago.

Therein lies a massive flaw in the Republicans' argument. They oppose abortion, yet fail to realize that no abortion means millions of more mouths to feed and educate. Yet another reason I don't consider the GOP to be truly conservative.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
People can take steps to make it nearly impossible that a pregnancy will result, which would be the smart thing to do if you do not want, or cannot afford, to have a child.

The key word in that sentence being "nearly". Contraception is never 100%, and abstinence is just not realistic. What recourse do you suggest for those unlucky few?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
Republicans are the party that plays lap dog to the big companies and the wealthy. They never saw a political contribution they didn't like.

I shouldn't have to remind you that Obama raised more money than the Republican candidate in the previous election.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 51):
Surely you can understand why the decision would be far more difficult for a woman.

Perhaps, but if they want an opt out of pregnancy and parenthood, men should have the same option.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 51):
You are, that's why you vote. Alternatively, you can pressure your State representative if you don't like the way things are being done.

It's still the government stepping in to regulate my priorities and my money, which is completely outside the scope of reason. It's comical that liberals will tell me that tyranny of the majority is okay for deciding how my money gets spent, but is completely improper for determining who can get married.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 51):
What recourse do you suggest for those unlucky few?

Deal with it in the way they see fit. They knew the statistics and they knew what they were doing. Take responsibility and handle your business. It's a personal issue, not a governmental one.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2234 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 52):
Perhaps, but if they want an opt out of pregnancy and parenthood, men should have the same option.

Indeed, but there has to be a more equitable way than what has so far been proposed. As mentioned, signing a document does not equate to a serious and stigmatizing medical procedure. I'm bloody tired right now so I don't have the answer, but it's something to think about.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 52):
Deal with it in the way they see fit. They knew the statistics and they knew what they were doing. Take responsibility and handle your business. It's a personal issue, not a governmental one.

Exactly, yet we see certain State governments trying to limit the options available to those who want to "handle their business" as it were. It's not even as if your tax dollars would fund this abortion (nor should it).



Flying refined.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
The way some of them talk, it certainly seems like a disease.



As opposed to the rabid right wingers on the right? How many times have the rabid right in the house voted to overturn Health Care Reform? About 40 times IIRC. And yet they seemed to be incapable of delivering real work on issues like student loan interest rates or immigration.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Not as bad as actually being a socialist though.

Every time you drive on a road you're enjoying the benefits of socialism. Same with going to public schools, or being treated in a local hospital that receives funding from Medicare or Medicaid.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Any such programs would be things the government actually needs to do, so it's not a problem.

        

Haven't you been reading about all the mandatory spending on specific items (like helicopters) that actually includes a model that Bell no longer makes? Pork. Pure Pork in order to pass the legislation. "Actually needs"? Sure.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
If the money has to go out anyway, I'd much rather pay for say, expanded police departments or a gated community, than paying for welfare and social programs

You can spend your money buying into a gated community, but our conservative local politicians have cut police & fire personnel levels. They moved into a very overpriced white elephant of a New CIty Hall but cant find the money to increase police?

And the tax dollars that went into your education over 16 or 17 years is asocial (socialist) program. Welfare at it's finest I guess you could say.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
rather than pay welfare queens to sit in their trailer

The biggest welfare queens in this country are the companies that pay a wage bellow the poverty line - letting the taxpayers pick up the difference.

And those queens deliver wealth to folks living in mansions, not trailer parks.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Go find the percentage of pregnancies that are the result of rape.

IIRC sex with a girl under 18 is considered rape. Might be a reason for a bunch of men to get their nose out of women's uteruses.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Americans have to compete.

Americans can compete when paying wages above the poverty line. Look in your own field - Boeing does a pretty good job competing.

If you want to improve the competitive edge then get rid of the massive cost burden employers have with the nanny health care they provide. Move those costs to a tax base (which is far cheaper) and let employers invest those savings into improving prices or expanding R&D. Employer nanny care is a far greater burden than minimum wages above the poverty line.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
Every time you drive on a road you're enjoying the benefits of socialism.

That's not what socialism is.

But, setting that aside, I am not and never have been an anarchist. I'm not interested in abolishing the government, just cutting it down to the things that it actually has to do. Things like maintaining an army or diplomatic relations versus writing checks to people who were too cool for school.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
You can spend your money buying into a gated community, but our conservative local politicians have cut police & fire personnel levels.

Maybe they wouldn't have too if less was spent on welfare.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
And the tax dollars that went into your education over 16 or 17 years is asocial (socialist) program. Welfare at it's finest I guess you could say.

How many times have I said that spending on education is fine? And the US spends plenty, as I recall.

I see where you're going with this, but your argument runs off the rails in a hurry. If you're going to give "the system" all of the credit for me staying out of trouble, showing up, and working hard at school, do you also give the system all of the blame for my neighbor down the street who is now in the county jail?

And now you're going to tell me that it's fair that I pay nearly a third of my income partly to support the school I attended while people like my neighbor who went to the same school, with literally the same classes and same teachers and taking the same roads, who decided they wouldn't show up when they didn't feel like it or not bother with their work get to pay far less for having received the exact same benefit from the government? And I'm sure I'll get to pick up the tab for my neighbor's welfare too, since he has little education and a felony record, all of that completely his fault. "You didn't build it" my ass. I did build it, I know because I was there. And now I want to keep it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
The biggest welfare queens in this country are the companies that pay a wage bellow the poverty line - letting the taxpayers pick up the difference.

That's not welfare. Nobody is entitled to employment, nor is anyone entitled to a given wage. If you aren't making enough money, find another job. That's the basic failure in the premise of the welfare state: nobody is actually entitled to be above the poverty line. People are paid to produce, not to exist.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
Americans can compete when paying wages above the poverty line. Look in your own field - Boeing does a pretty good job competing.

Funny what a little education and hard work can do for you.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
If you want to improve the competitive edge then get rid of the massive cost burden employers have with the nanny health care they provide. Move those costs to a tax base (which is far cheaper) and let employers invest those savings into improving prices or expanding R&D. Employer nanny care is a far greater burden than minimum wages above the poverty line.

It's moving deck chairs. Shift health care to the government and companies will have to increase prices and/or wages to cover the increased taxes needed to cover it.

And I don't want the government involved in healthcare. If you give them responsibility you have to give them control, and I don't want them having control of how I live. Things like the New York soda law could, or really would if you want the costs under control, become the norm.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
Maybe they wouldn't have too if less was spent on welfare.

If minimum wage was over the poverty line then you can spend less on welfare programs. To simply cut welfare spending without eliminating poverty wages will only have one result - and increase in crime. Buy more guns, pay for a gated community, and hope.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
That's not welfare.


It's corporate welfare and it's bloody expensive. Don't look for that welfare to decrease however as companies can put up billions for "lobbying & political contributions" as it only boosts their profits,

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
If you're going to give "the system" all of the credit for me staying out of trouble, showing up, and working hard at school,

Let's face it, there is a wide range of people and how they live their lives. If everyone had the same level of IQ as you and worked as hard as you then your chances of getting a slot at university is greatly reduced. There is also the reality that there would be a long list of totally equal applicants for your new job.

Supply & Demand? You'd be taking home far less than that 70% if everyone was the same. Probability is also fairly high that you wouldn't have gotten that job. Your short term future is far better because

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
And now you're going to tell me that it's fair that I pay nearly a third of my income partly to support the school

And to support everything else that all levels of government are involved in.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
Nobody is entitled to employment, nor is anyone entitled to a given wage.

I'll agree that no one is entitled to a job, In terms of "entitled to a given wage" there are minimum wages (poverty wages, but legally required minimums) that employers are required to pay.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
If you aren't making enough money, find another job.

Maybe you were a hard working engineer with 30 years experience in a company hit buy the Bush/Cheney Great Recession and was unemployed (along with a lot of other hard working professionals). Now, with his age being far more important than education and experience and performance the guy is working way below his previous salary. Tell him to find another job - develop good advice as you might be one of those engineers in 20 years.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
It's moving deck chairs. Shift health care to the government and companies will have to increase prices and/or wages to cover the increased taxes needed to cover it.

You're missing the big elephant in the room - the excessive costs of health insurance because of cost shifting and profit requirements. My experience living in Australia pretty well shows that prices aren't increased - just the opposite. Because Medicare (for everyone) immediately eliminates cost shifting it is realistic to reduce prices. Not only prices for care, but also for private health insurance. My US health insurance was FIVE times my Aussie policy when I was going back and forth on business - and the Aussie policy was far superior. Cost shifting basically represents 80% of your months premiums - and you're thinking it's only deck chairs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
And I don't want the government involved in healthcare.

Get real, the government is involved in health care at a huge level. Start with Medicare, then add in VA Health, military health, BIA, etc. Those are at the federal level. Now add in the funding of Medicaid - and the costs of 50 different state departments. Put Medicaid under Medicare and costs are cut - plus state tax requirements are eliminated.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
If you give them responsibility you have to give them control, and I don't want them having control of how I live

So you have private insurance and you doctor will call 1-800-MOMMIE-MAY-I to get "authorization" for a test or procedure. And you might get some high school graduates sitting at computers at the insurance companies making that decision. The risk of being declined by private insurance for an expensive test or procedure is greater than with Medicare.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
Things like the New York soda law could, or really would if you want the costs under control, become the norm.

Both private health and government programs are continually looking for cost control - totally unrelated to the soda law.

That is why Medicare has new programs on competitive pricing and the over priced companies are closing their doors.

In terms of things like the "soda law" my preference is to tax products that can cause medical problems. Tobacco is a big one, as it booze. But the reality is also that obesity has increased dramatically. Budget cuts for PhysEd as well as increases in fast food. The two add up to increases in diabetes and that adds up to tax dollars that will be needed to address those problems.

That's why I have no problems with taxes on products, drink or food, that part of the problem. Spend part of that tax revenue on treatment and part on increasing PhysEd in the schools - as well as classes on health.

Otherwise young people starting off their careers are going to find huge tax demands later in their careers. I'll be 69 next month to it's not my taxes getting hit. It's yours in 10 or 20 years. Why not be pro-active now to cut costs in the future? You're university educated - you should understand that,


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
If minimum wage was over the poverty line then you can spend less on welfare programs.

You can spend less on welfare anyway.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
To simply cut welfare spending without eliminating poverty wages will only have one result - and increase in crime. Buy more guns, pay for a gated community, and hope.

I'd rather pay cops who went to school and actually do something than pay people to sit around and exist. But I think sitting around saying that welfare is basically extortion to keep people from committing crimes is incredibly insulting to the lower classes. I can't imagine how the right wing is considered racist when they aren't the ones saying that minorities need the money of wealthy white people to get by and otherwise would just be criminals.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
It's corporate welfare and it's bloody expensive.

No it isn't. Wages, except for minimum wage, are set by the market. Welfare continues to exist because people vote for free money. They aren't connected.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
Let's face it, there is a wide range of people and how they live their lives.

There are, but I shouldn't pay for being one of the smart ones. If you try to make everyone equal you enforce mediocrity. I'll pay for the things the government provides to me, but I don't want to pay for the things the government provides idiots too. That is not fair, and people like me supporting people like my neighbor eventually over the years translates to me having a 40" TV instead of 48", or buying a S instead of the Turbo down the road.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
Your short term future is far better because

...because I'm smarter and I worked harder and I stayed out of trouble. That's why my future is better, not because of anything the government did yet politicians will tell me "You didn't build that." The difference isn't the school the difference is the student; the difference isn't the road, the difference is the driver; and the difference isn't the government, the difference is the citizen. And for what it's worth, there have been very few times I've been in a classroom that didn't have at least one empty desk.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
And to support everything else that all levels of government are involved in.

Like I said I'm not an anarchist. But the bloat of the budget over the last forty years or so hasn't been because we've been building tons of airports.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
Get real, the government is involved in health care at a huge level.

And yet it's still expensive and marginally effective. But the solution is more?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
That's why I have no problems with taxes on products, drink or food, that part of the problem.

And that's a restriction on freedom I'm not willing to accept and why I don't want the government controlling healthcare. Just like I'm not willing to waive the Fourth Amendment to find weed or illegals. The government telling me what I can eat or drink is just so completely beyond the pale.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 57):
And yet it's still expensive and marginally effective. But the solution is more?

Medicare? The VA system? Both are government run and both are wildly popular and successful. The one that isn't? Part D which was enacted by the right wing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 57):
You can spend less on welfare anyway.

So, the solution is not to help people, but to cut programs and services. That is what will truly help people, according to you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
Who was ever "promised" a good job?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
And don't forget that plenty of Americans do have "good jobs" but they had to work and become educated to get them.

Too many Americans worked hard to get a good and quality education in a good field. Like computer programming and electronics but those jobs were either taken away or shipped overseas. That's what I am talking about when I say "we were promised good jobs" because, all the time I was growing up during the greed of the right-wing Reagan years, I was told that if I get a good education in a good field, I will get a good job. Where is it? I have a good education. Where is my good job? No one is hiring unless I have years and years of experience and know someone. They scoff at degrees. The right told us to work hard to get what we want. We did and we got nothing in return.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
If you're going to have a problem with the right trying to legislate morality and write laws based on biblical teachings, you should have just as much objection when liberals do the same thing

In other words: live by the words of the right and not what I believe.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
So, the solution is not to help people, but to cut programs and services.

Yes.

There's nothing wrong with government run education or private social services though. The government taking tax revenue for entitlements is a problem.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Like computer programming and electronics but those jobs were either taken away or shipped overseas.

It's supply and demand. There was a time when new programmers could practically name their price. But then everyone caught on and became programmers, the dot com crash happened, and people in other countries noticed the direction of the future and things moved towards a less lucrative steady state. You cannot use normal business cycles to justify a ridiculous welfare state.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
The right told us to work hard to get what we want. We did and we got nothing in return.

Tough luck, but that isn't the problem of others who did, for whatever reason, get something in return.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
In other words: live by the words of the right and not what I believe.

If you think that the government should not "legislate morality" by outlawing abortion then it's flatly hypocritical to believe that they should "legislate morality" by mandating that taxpayers support the poor.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
It's supply and demand. There was a time when new programmers could practically name their price. But then everyone caught on and became programmers, the dot com crash happened,

I get the whole "supply and demand" thing as far as programming goes, but what about things like the actual assembly of computers or computer repair or even simple factory work? There is a demand for those products in this country and world wide and, following that logic, there is a demand for those jobs in this country and world wide. So, we do something to pull ourselves up and expect something in return. Instead, we get the shaft. We are laden with debt from education for jobs we were told were needed.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
Tough luck, but that isn't the problem of others who did, for whatever reason, get something in return.

"You did what you were supposed to do and what our party demands but you don't deserve anything. Tough luck." nice. How very moral and Christian and American to stand up with people who are actually trying to do something. Reagan would be proud.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
If you think that the government should not "legislate morality" by outlawing abortion then it's flatly hypocritical to believe that they should "legislate morality" by mandating that taxpayers support the poor.

A country is only as strong as the weakest among them. If the weakest are weak because of lack of food, that means the country can be stronger simply by feeding them. That is a good and positive thing for us all. However, telling women they MUST carry pregnancies to term no matter what does not make anyone stronger. It just gives the country more mouths to feed. As much as a vast majority of us do not support abortion for birth control, wouldn't you rather have that than having taxpayers support the poor?

Conversely, if you are going to be for "legislating morality" by forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term, it is hypocritical to believe the government should eliminate supporting the poor.

Watch the movie "Soylent Green" and that shows IMO what the right-wing of this country wants to get to. A small, elite group controlling the masses.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2035 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 56):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
Maybe they wouldn't have too if less was spent on welfare.

If minimum wage was over the poverty line then you can spend less on welfare programs. To simply cut welfare spending without eliminating poverty wages will only have one result - and increase in crime. Buy more guns, pay for a gated community, and hope.

  

When you do this you will get a revolution that may be very violent and it has happened countless times in history and is currently happening in places like Brazil, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey. Many of the uprisings in those countries are from the poor and middle classes getting squeezed so much that they rise up against the rich and the government who supports their interests and not the interests of the public at large.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59):
The government taking tax revenue for entitlements is a problem.

When you look at "entitlements" start with those entitlements that were earned, or prepaid.

Earned entitlements? Military retirement pay is a good start, as are the various VA programs. Those entitlements are paid to people who put on a uniform and actually served. You didn't, so yo have no entitlement to those service benefits.

Medicare & Social Security? Pre-paid as you are now discovering. Medicare, BTW, has a monthly premium - I pay around $106 IIRC so it is not a totally free program. It is, however, the foundation for care to older people and those with disabilities.

Social Security is another pre-paid program and one that is a wise investment for anyone getting older - which is better than the option. It not only delivers funding to the elderly, but is also an insurance program during your working years. Look at Paul Ryan - he clearly admitted that those Social Security Checks that came in monthly after his father died were the reason why he was able to go to university. Toss in all the pre-retirement insurance and all of a sudden the program looks pretty good for a majority of people.

Some programs, like school meals, pretty clearly demonstrate that kids do better in school when they are not starving. It's a investment and it pays off.


User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2577 posts, RR: 7
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 57):
That is not fair, and people like me supporting people like my neighbor eventually over the years translates to me having a 40" TV instead of 48", or buying a S instead of the Turbo down the road.

Well, that just about says it all right there.....


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
I get the whole "supply and demand" thing as far as programming goes

And yet you keep on saying things like:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 58):
Like computer programming and electronics but those jobs were either taken away or shipped overseas
Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
what about things like the actual assembly of computers or computer repair or even simple factory work?

This is going to be a shock to you, but you're not that special. Nor are Americans in general. There is nothing that makes Americans fundamentally better at doing things than Chinese or Brazilians or Malaysians. Lots of them get to go to school too.

If you want the business, you have to do the job better or cheaper, and foreigners can screw together iPods every bit as well as the uber-special Americans who say they were promised good jobs.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
"You did what you were supposed to do and what our party demands but you don't deserve anything. Tough luck." nice.

It means they didn't do it well enough, or did the wrong thing, like paying real money to get a degree in Women's Studies.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
How very moral and Christian and American to stand up with people who are actually trying to do something.

I thought liberals were against writing "Christian values" into law? Or is it only the ones that don't give them access to other people's money?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
A country is only as strong as the weakest among them.

No it isn't. I don't want to see the ceiling lowered in the name of equality. There is entirely too much "We the People" and not enough "I the person." If you want to push the limits then unleash the best and the brightest rather than throwing money at the lazy and stupid. Liberals insist on trying to make every tree in the forest the same height, but either don't understand or don't care that it will only lead to a field of stumps.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
It just gives the country more mouths to feed.

None of those mouths have my genes, so it isn't my problem.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
Military retirement pay is a good start, as are the various VA programs.

Where have I ever supported gutting the VA or military pensions?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
Social Security is another pre-paid program and one that is a wise investment for anyone getting older - which is better than the option.

It's only a good deal for people your age. Bernie Madoff's problem wasn't that he was running a Ponzi scheme, it was that he was running a Ponzi scheme without the benefit of being able to take money directly from people's paychecks.

The system needs to be phased out, lest it end in one of the two ways Ponzi schemes can, neither of which is pleasant.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
is also an insurance program during your working years.

I have private insurance. Anyone who wants some can buy some.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
Toss in all the pre-retirement insurance and all of a sudden the program looks pretty good for a majority of people.

If social security is so star spangled awesome, there should be absolutely no problem with making it completely voluntary. If it is the unbelievably great deal you say it is, everyone would continue contributing just as before. You should put your money where your mouth is.

Problem is you can't. Your money is gone, to someone in your parents' generation. Long ago spent on Depends and cassette tapes of Lawrence Welk. You need my money, and that's where we're gonna have a problem, because it's my money, not your money. That's because Social Security is not a real investment but a pyramid (quickly becoming a diamond) scheme.

Quoting johnboy (Reply 63):
Well, that just about says it all right there.....

Like Snoop Dogg sang "Bitch, I want my money back."



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Here's what I see:

Every sperm is sacred, every life is precious. But, if the woman is raped, the fetus has grave, serious defects, there is no way the mother or child, after birth, should receive any care or treatment unless they have money. Because, life is precious, after all. Help women through pregnancy to child birth but give them nothing but a swift kick in the behind after birth and hand them the bill.

Because that is the Christian way, according to the right-wing.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 65):

If you're going to come out against the government legislating morality or enforcing "Christian values" then you should be against it even if it means not getting your hands on other people's money.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 65):

I actually agree with you there, it's a double standard in my mind. I mean I can see their reasoning and all, I just don't agree. Basically, in their words not mine, someone is responsible for their actions--get pregnant and you must have the kid and not kill the kid. If you are poor and chose bad life choices, it's your fault and you must be responsible for your actions and deal with being poor with a kid.

Again, I disagree with that line of reasoning, but what we can't do be against X because of someone's views on Y. Be for (or against) abortion based off it's harm or merits, not because we think the GOP has double standards



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19417 posts, RR: 58
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
When you do this you will get a revolution that may be very violent and it has happened countless times in history and is currently happening in places like Brazil, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey. Many of the uprisings in those countries are from the poor and middle classes getting squeezed so much that they rise up against the rich and the government who supports their interests and not the interests of the public at large.

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is inevitable in the USA. I am very worried about the consequences if it happened.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Well, at least the US hasn't stooped to Chile's level: Chile's President: Pregnant Girl Shows 'Maturity'


Flying refined.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

I didn't select the whole thing, but:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
If you're going to come out against the government

So, your whole argument is "you can't pick and choose" and "if you can do X but not Y then I can too".

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 67):
Basically, in their words not mine,

I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control. If a woman just happens to get pregnant because the condom broke, tough. I don't think the government should legislate against that, but I do not agree with her choice in that case. I do think it should be a safe medical procedure even when used as birth control, which I disagree with. I do agree there are occasions for it like when the health of the fetus and/or mother are an issue or rape or incest. It should be a choice. If the mother chooses to carry the fetus to term, fine. If not, fine. And, yes, the final trimester is too late, IMO. I think I have said that before, but just in case.

But, if a woman chooses to carry a fetus to term and it is born healthy, I believe there should be safety nets in case she loses her job, her hours are cut because bankers crash the economy, because she just wanted a kid or whatever. Taking away all safety nets because we can't support those low life scum is not good enough. If you support the life of a fetus, you should support the life of a living baby.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 70):
So, your whole argument is "you can't pick and choose" and "if you can do X but not Y then I can too".

You don't get to pick and choose what "Christian values" the government enforces. If only the people so adamant about giving women control of their body were as interested in giving me control of as much of my money as possible, but instead it seems they'd rather vote themselves "raises" out of money that wasn't theirs to begin with.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 71):
You don't get to pick and choose what "Christian values" the government enforces

Yet, "Christians" pick and choose their way through the Bible all the time and choose what Biblical laws to make state or federal law.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 71):
instead it seems they'd rather vote themselves "raises" out of money that wasn't theirs to begin with

I agree that Congress should not vote themselves raises and I agree that Congress should actually do something before going on vacation. I agree with all that. But, I disagree with simply getting rid of food and medical care for the poor. The ones who actually need it. I don't mind paying taxes so the family up the street or across the country can eat and go to the doctor. As long as my roads are paved and I have clean air and water, I am good with feeding others. However, I do not want to see those same tax dollars going to enforce what Christians want to make law.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 72):
I agree that Congress should not vote themselves raises and I agree that Congress should actually do something before going on vacation.

I'm not talking about Congress, I'm talking about normal people. Vote for the liberal, because he will raise taxes on someone else (many people pay no income tax) and make their welfare check bigger. Maybe give them more food stamps or subsidize public transportation and public housing. Go vote for the guy who will use someone else's money to provide you services that the people actually paying don't use.

People exercise tyranny of the majority to vote themselves money from someone else's account.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
This is going to be a shock to you, but you're not that special.

And this may be a shock to you, but neither are you. You can get hit with the traditional "young guy's" cancer (testicular cancer) and you'll discover you are just like every other guy your age. You can have your job hit by cuts in private and government spending in your field. Or you can watch a new engineer hired in a year or two that engineers rings around you with one hand tied behind his (or her) back.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
I thought liberals were against writing "Christian values" into law?

Moderates & Liberals don't always wear their religion on their sleeves like the Christian Conservatives, but they address some of the same issues Jesus did. Like "I was hungry" (food stamps), "I was sick" (Medicare & Medicaid), etc. I think that stuff is in the Book of Mathew and were the keys to salvation. Hard to believe that the Christian Conservatives miss that so much, but, hey,they are Conservatives before Christian and whenever there is a conflict then the political sice will take priority over the religions side. Especially if money is involved.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
I have private insurance.

Congratulations. How does it compare in terms of benefits and costs - especially if you get hit with a lifelong disability?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
If social security is so star spangled awesome, there should be absolutely no problem with making it completely voluntary

No. We need to leave the "star spangled fluff" to private insurance salesmen.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
You should put your money where your mouth is.

I did during my working years, just like your parents. Now it's your turn and all you can do is complain.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
Your money is gone, to someone in your parents' generation

And your grandparents generation as well as their parents generation.

And now our SS payments are electronically deposited - we don't even have to deposit a check at the bank.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
You need my money, and that's where we're gonna have a problem, because it's my money, not your money.

Neither is it your money. FICA is a tax that you have to pay or go to jail.

When I had my little company I transferred all funds for taxes into a Tax Reserve Account. I did it because I knew it was not my money and I never had a problem making any tax payment, both here and in Australia.

When you work for a company there is no way that your employer is going to take the risk of letting their employees make those FICA taxes (as well as any other taxes). They deduct those funds for their protection.

As I sid before, if you can't handle the systems here find a place that is more in line with your beliefs. You won't be the first to move - and you are looking at decades of earning taxable income.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 65):
Every sperm is sacred,

Really? Over the trillions and trillions I produced in my lifetime only two worked.  Wow!


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1816 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
but they address some of the same issues Jesus did.

Then address those issues and leave my money alone.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
How does it compare in terms of benefits and costs - especially if you get hit with a lifelong disability?

I'd do pretty well.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
And your grandparents generation as well as their parents generation.

..because it's a Ponzi scheme. If my bank accepted no new deposits from anyone, my money would still be able to earn interest. Same with a mutual fund, a hedge fund, and a bunch of other investment vehicles because they are truly investments that produce actual returns.

Social Security is not an investment, it is a Ponzi scheme.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
Neither is it your money.

Really? I don't see anyone else at my desk doing my work.

That's what makes liberal politics so incredibly distasteful. At every turn you'll tell me that my money isn't really mine. It's the government's money and I just get to keep whatever leftovers my fellow citizens graciously allow me to have and use to help fuel their economy. I did build it and anyone that says otherwise is full of it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74):
FICA is a tax that you have to pay or go to jail.

If Social Security was even half as good as you say it is it wouldn't have to be mandatory.

"Guaranteed returns! No risk! You're retirement will be safe and prosperous and not even the worst economy can derail it! Usually this is only available to the millionaires but we're bringing it to everybody! Just let us handle it! You can't lose!"

That sort of thing has been said by quite a few people over the years and they all fall into one of two categories: Social Security supporters, and scam artists. Really, they're not too different.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
If Social Security was even half as good as you say it is it wouldn't have to be mandatory.

Maybe, just maybe, with a few years of reality under your belt, you will realize by nature people are greedy. If someone is not forced to pay, they will screw over the next person to save a buck. They would collect and not pay a dime if allowed. Maybe, just maybe with a few years you will realize people exploit people, so SS was implemented to give the majority a chance to retire, not slave for the minority until death. 42 years of paying for me, maybe 20 years of collecting, a great help to my retirement standard of living. Gee! was that not what it was designed to do. Works for me, and millions more. Maybe, just maybe?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
Then address those issues and leave my money alone.

Odd thing about this country - people vote politicians into office and they pass laws, as well as raising taxes to fund those programs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
Social Security is not an investment, it is a Ponzi scheme.

It's a mandatory insurance program that has paid off for generations. It's only recently that the "Me, Me, Me Generations" have winged so loudly.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
If Social Security was even half as good as you say it is it wouldn't have to be mandatory.

It's mandatory because a lot of people like you will skimp on insurance coverage, have an accident (not even their problem - say an uninsured drunk driver) and they don't have the insurance coverage to take care of their quad future. (I mentioned "quad" because that is what happened to a regional rep I knew. Fortunately he was on Social Security and immediately went onto Medicare.

But a lot of people skimp. Without mandatory FICA taxes we would see these guys & gals (like you?) come crying to Social Security for coverage they didn't pay for. That's why it's mandatory.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 76):
If someone is not forced to pay, they will screw over the next person to save a buck. They would collect and not pay a dime if allowed.

This is only true because Social Security is not a true investment.

If nobody ever makes another deposit at my bank after I do, my account can still make interest. The return on my account does not come from deposits, it comes from interest. Same with investment accounts. If nobody invests another nickel in a mutual fund, hedge fund, private equity fund, venture capital fund, etc. it does not keep the fund from generating a return.

In fact that's how closed end fund works: the manager sells initial shares to raise money to invest and investors realize their returns on the secondary market, so no new money actually from investors in the fund over time.

Social Security is fundamentally different. If all of the people who have not yet paid any FICA never have to and will never collect a Social Security check, the system will collapse in on itself. Social Security needs new money to cover old obligations, and then need newer money to cover the obligations incurred when it raised the money to pay off the first obligations.

To be fair, the financial industry does sometimes offer products that work exactly like this. There's even a word for it: fraud.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 76):
42 years of paying for me, maybe 20 years of collecting, a great help to my retirement standard of living.

Sounds like every retirement savings plan ever.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
Odd thing about this country - people vote politicians into office and they pass laws, as well as raising taxes to fund those programs.

And what happens if they pass a law restricting who you can marry? What if I can find a place (I bet there's a county somewhere in the South) where I can get more than 50% of the population to vote racist politicians into office who pass a hefty "black tax"? It's the will of the majority, so it must be followed, right?

Or are some freedoms of some people just more important to the bleeding heart liberals than others? While you're trying to get the government out of people's bedrooms, make sure you get them out of my garage and bank accounts too.

It pisses me off to realize that if I get to my desk at 8:00, I don't actually start making money until sometime after 10:00. Now some of that money goes to police or soldiers, which is a valuable service I don't mind paying for. But while I'm working but not making money, that money I'm not making is also going to some guy in a trailer park passed out drunk and some single mom in public housing who isn't making sure her kids get to school.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
It's a mandatory insurance program that has paid off for generations.

Bernie Madoff's fund paid off for a lot of people early too. Those returns were pretty good as I recall. How did that end?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 77):
Without mandatory FICA taxes we would see these guys & gals (like you?) come crying to Social Security for coverage they didn't pay for.

You start with the flawed premise that there needs to be a government funded safety net. There doesn't. If people want a safety net they can buy it themselves.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
If people want a safety net they can buy it themselves.

Like health care? For people who make $1200 a month but are charged $1500 a month because their "secure" job is shipped overseas? That works out so well, doesn't it?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
(many people pay no income tax)

Those who don't work. Us that do work pay taxes. Even working as little as 15 hours a week. We still pay taxes. Just another MSM lie you are told.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
make their welfare check bigger. Maybe give them more food stamps or subsidize public transportation and public housing.

As long as they have a job. Yes, that's right. If you are not working, you can not receive welfare and you can only receive a limited amount of food stamps. Plus, you have to have a steady and verifiable income to receive public housing. Even working my limited hours, I am only eligible for $80 a month in food stamps and nothing in welfare. I make too much working part time. If I didn't work at all, I would get even less.

Try it.

And I am a student.

You keep saying how you want people to get a job and get themselves to work, but you want to take away their place to live, their food, and their means of transportation to get to work. I would rather live in a country where people have some kind of chance. What you want is Somalia or Iran. On top of that, you are fine with jobs being shipped overseas so that people have to take low wage jobs at Wal-Mart then blame them for their lot in life.

Bankers found a way to make tons of money. But it was the people who took out the loans that are to blame. A woman is raped by her father but it is the girl's fault. A family loses their jobs but let's blame the kids and make them the villains.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
Those who don't work. Us that do work pay taxes.

...many of whom get it all back come refund time.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
You keep saying how you want people to get a job and get themselves to work, but you want to take away their place to live, their food, and their means of transportation to get to work.

I think people should have all those things. They should just pay for them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
I would rather live in a country where people have some kind of chance.

Go to school and learn to do something useful.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
What you want is Somalia or Iran.

There are plenty of useful government services that are worth the money. Welfare and other social programs are not on the list.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
Bankers found a way to make tons of money.

That's what bankers do. And the money they were making is interest in people's accounts. That's people's retirements mortgages and small business loans.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
But it was the people who took out the loans that are to blame.

People really shouldn't buy things they cannot afford.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
That's what bankers do. And the money they were making is interest in people's accounts. That's people's retirements mortgages and small business loans.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
People really shouldn't buy things they cannot afford.

So, bankers get Congress to get rid of laws so the bankers can make tons of money off bad loans. The bankers convince people who do not have enough money they can own a home and the bankers are the victims?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
Go to school and learn to do something useful.

Like something in computers or electronics or IT? Those jobs that were shipped overseas?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
I think people should have all those things. They should just pay for them.

So, when I pay $3 or more for the bus, that is too little? Plus, you are just fine with people starving to death and dying from curable diseases because they can not afford private health insurance? How very Christian of you. IIRC, Jesus did the same thing when he fed the masses. The first thing He did was ask for proof of income. I remember it well Matthew 38:27 if memory serves.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 81):
The bankers convince people who do not have enough money they can own a home and the bankers are the victims?

Oh the banks lost tons because they wrote bad paper.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 81):
So, when I pay $3 or more for the bus, that is too little?

Without knowing the costs, I can't say.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 81):
IIRC, Jesus did the same thing when he fed the masses.

Jesus also wasn't the government. Giving money to charity makes you generous. Giving money to the same people because the government forces you to is not.

Getting robbed by a homeless man isn't charity, it's just being a victim.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1713 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
You start with the flawed premise that there needs to be a government funded safety net. There doesn't. If people want a safety net they can buy it themselves

We had debtors prisons, and poor farms when there was no unions and government safety nets and SS and Medicare to help people. Probably according to you, an admirable system. Maybe in a few years you will not have learned, but you will still pay to help people whether you like it or not. We are not going back for you or anyone else.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
Oh the banks lost tons because they wrote bad paper

Because they found a way to dupe a lot of people and, in the mean time, make billions of dollars.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 82):
Getting robbed by a homeless man isn't charity, it's just being a victim.

ummmm... what? What does this have to do with anything?

How can you legislate morality (abortion) but not legislate morality (food stamps)? Don't come at me with "Well, the Democrats..." because that is not supporting your position that we need to pick and choose which Christian morals we legislate. I want to know why it is acceptable that we legislate carrying EVERY fetus to term only to turn our backs on that fetus once it is born? Why is that moral? Keep in mid that "Well, Democrats..." will invalidate your argument.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 84):
Don't come at me with "Well, the Democrats..."
Quoting seb146 (Reply 84):
Keep in mid that "Well, Democrats..." will invalidate your argument.

Um, aren't you doing the same thing by saying "well Republicans are against food stamps so yada yada ya?"

Anyway, I agree, "well _____ do this" is a terrible, non-rational argument and should never be used by any poster in any thread on any issue. I wish more people would take that advice...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 84):
Because they found a way to dupe a lot of people and, in the mean time, make billions of dollars.

Oh? Is that why the banks needed to be bailed out? Because they made too much money?

It's a cliche, albeit a completely true one, to say that if you owe the bank $100 then you have a problem but if you owe the bank $1000 the bank has a problem. Let me make this very clear for the economically retarded: Lenders do NOT make money when loans default!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 84):
What does this have to do with anything?

Because if you legislate charity, then it isn't charity anymore. If you legislate the "value" of being generous and force people to contribute to social programs, it stops being generosity.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 84):
because that is not supporting your position that we need to pick and choose which Christian morals we legislate.

I don't think we need to legislate any of them. We should really legislate as little as possible without infringing on people's rights.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1347 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
I don't think we need to legislate any of them. We should really legislate as little as possible without infringing on people's rights.

And just how does that wind up supporting the issue of making abortions more difficult than they already are?



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
I wonder how the GOP thinks it'll win public approval.
Quote:
the poll found 59 percent would approve of restricting abortion at 20 weeks while 30 percent would not
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2...pport-for-Abortion-Ban-at-20-Weeks



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Let me make this very clear for the economically retarded: Lenders do NOT make money when loans default!

Let me make this clear for the economically retarded: Lenders make money by gaming the system! What the lenders did was make and find huge loop holes to make billions of dollars and pass the blame on to consumers. They knew people would default so they were going to get money twice. Lenders didn't care. They just saw dollar signs.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 85):
aren't you doing the same thing by saying "well Republicans are against food stamps so yada yada ya?"

The right claims to be the party of the Christian God and throw out a moral code. When I call that insanity as the BS it is, the response I get is "we shouldn't regulate charity."

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Because if you legislate charity

So, it's okay to legislate one small group's moral code, but not what was actually taught in the Bible. You are saying hypocrisy is just fine.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
We should really legislate as little as possible without infringing on people's rights.

Which is why you try so hard to support legislating abortion.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1560 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Lenders do NOT make money when loans default!
Quoting seb146 (Reply 89):
Let me make this clear for the economically retarded: Lenders make money by gaming the system!

Well you're both half right. Lenders make money when they price risk correctly. Risk itself is NOT inherently bad, providing it is priced and managed correctly, because you measure the profit over the life of the loan (more correctly many loans). A risky loan with a very high interest rate can still be profitable even if it defaults halfway through the loan term.

The main problem with the financial crisis of 2008 is not that the subprime mortgages were thought to be a less risky investment than they actually were (though they were, due to reckless lending practices by the banks), but also that it was not foreseen that the risks of loans were often intimately connected to those of other loans; i.e. the failure of a particular loan made it more likely for other loans held to fail as well. Thus the pricing of the loan risk was further distorted away from what it actually should have been.

The more the risks were bundled and resold the more removed from reality the numbers became, so the only way to gauge the likely outcome of a loan bundle was using a single, almost arbitrary number. This turned out to bear no resemblance to the actual risk.

It's a classic example of an unregulated market going horribly horribly wrong, which is why many seek to blame either the GSEs (inaccurate) or the borrowers (ludicrous).

Sorry- that was a bit off topic.

[Edited 2013-07-12 09:43:03]


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 12):
The radical pro-abortion crowd is not doing itself any favors by statements like the above, where they continue to insist that the fetus, right up to the moment of birth, is nothing more than a tumor or a cancer.
Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Your language is blatantly inflammatory

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones. Also, can you actually point to a pro-choice (note: not pro-abortion - there is a difference) person who has actually and seriously compared a fetus to a tumor?

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):
plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever - a position I find even more distasteful as it is completely devoid of any sort of compromise or moral compass as it relegates the unborn fetus to the status of a tumor
Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Your language is blatantly inflammatory

I hear violins. You are being blatantly inflammatory, likely on purpose, as done so more than once in this very thread.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 34):
You never took Logic in school, did you?
Quoting dreadnought (Reply 23):
I abhor your inflammatory rhetoric
Quoting dreadnought (Reply 1):
Your language is blatantly inflammatory

You are trying to make a valid, common-sense point, but that gets lost in all the petty and personal nastiness.



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 954 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

"...lenders don't make money when loans default....." That's REALLY rich!!! So not a SINGLE bonus was being given out, bank CEO's were being fired left and right....

Man, if I could get it that good if I KNOWINGLY fucked up that bad at work....I WANT THAT JOB!!!

Those banks AND banksters were STILL making money...every one of us taxpayers made sure of it. Does'nt "too big to fail mean a damn thing to you??"

Ok...instead of using the word Christianity. Let's use KARMA.

And BMI727, yer gonna get BUCKETS of it........



Carpe Pices
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1495 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 89):
What the lenders did was make and find huge loop holes to make billions of dollars and pass the blame on to consumers.

Making billions is exactly why Lehman went bankrupt. Your lack of basic economic intelligence means that you'll probably be on the welfare rolls for a while.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 89):
They knew people would default so they were going to get money twice.

When people default they don't get their money twice. They get their money zero times.

If you give me money, and I don't give any back to you, then you don't turn a profit. There are first graders who get that!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 89):
So, it's okay to legislate one small group's moral code, but not what was actually taught in the Bible. You are saying hypocrisy is just fine.

No, hypocrisy is not fine. Which is exactly why if the left is so against legislating morality as it relates to abortion, they should be equally against legislating morality as it relates to social spending.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 89):
Which is why you try so hard to support legislating abortion.

I'm really not interested in legislating abortion. What I'm interested in is un-legislating my paycheck.

Quoting bhill (Reply 92):
That's REALLY rich!!! So not a SINGLE bonus was being given out, bank CEO's were being fired left and right....

Man, if I could get it that good if I KNOWINGLY fucked up that bad at work....I WANT THAT JOB!!!

Ok then. Give this a try: walk into a bank and ask for a loan. Then, inform the loan officer that you do not intend to pay back any of the loan should they approve it. If what you say is true, that banks turn a profit and bankers get bonuses for having loans default, the bank should be more than happy to give you a loan for as much as you want.

Try it and see what happens.

Quoting bhill (Reply 92):
And BMI727, yer gonna get BUCKETS of it........

Why? Because I don't want to give away a chunk of my paycheck to people who do nothing for me? Yeah, whatever.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinen229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1938 posts, RR: 32
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1479 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 5):

"Texas, whose lax regulatory climate has come in for scrutiny in the aftermath of the West explosion, went into a special session of its state legislature on Monday to push through an omnibus abortion bill designed to regulate 37 abortion clinics out of existence. But the 2013 session will come to a close without any significant action to impose safeguards on the 74 facilities in the state that contain at least 10,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.

Lawmakers in Austin have a handy excuse for punting on new fertilizer regulations: That would be intrusive. State Sen. Donna Campbell, the Republican who helped to shut down Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of the abortion bill on procedural grounds, told the New York Times that lawmakers should be wary of monitoring chemical plants more closely because there's "a point at which you can overregulate.""

Just...wow.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 13):
What I don't understand with the so-called pro-life crowd is that as soon as the unwanted child who's right to life they have ensured is born, they do everything they can to ensure it's actual life is miserable and short, by getting rid of any healthcare that won't cost them a fortune, and slashing education and other social benefits. Pro-life? Well how about taking care of the living?

Yes, and don't forget some of these are also the same people who try to block some of those unwanted kids from being adopted into a loving family instead of being left to rot in institutionalized care because the adoptive parents are gay.

How about mandating that all of these lawmakers adopt at least three kids themselves.   

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
These are the same people who scream about personal responsibility but deny anyone access to the pill, condoms, or the morning after pill, in case of rape.

   In many cases, yes.
________________________

BMI727, there are consistent elements in your argument, but I can only hope that you are making it to troll or as some kind of debate team type exercise, because it is so utterly barren and devoid of human empathy. It's almost as though you are arguing for legislated psychopathy.

You argument is also devoid of any understanding of human psychology--about what stops people from achieving.

Let me start by saying that I do believe in personal responsibility. Ultimately, if you kill someone, if you drive drunk, if you are lazy, it is you who must accept the consequences. Otherwise, morality makes no sense. Furthermore, I think welfare needs a good deal of reform. I think it is essential to avoid creating dependence.

But when you are talking about huge groups of people who get ahead, and others who don't, based on their circumstances, you have to consider the system as well. Children whose parents don't love them (or even abuse them), or don't model a valuing of education, etc. etc. have to be almost miracles to escape entirely from those circumstances. Look at statistics that show how little class mobility there is from the ends of the spectrum. Now look at all the kids of rich people and all the kids born into ghettos etc. Do you honestly believe that everyone has equal access to jobs, education, etc.? The rich kid who is failing out of school, doing drugs at the beach will get an expensive tutor, stumble through college with a tremendous sense of entitlement and end up often making tons of money through an old boys network. (And I encountered some of these kids growing up.) Then there are kids who don't even have a decent school to go to, and who are not shown any incentive at all to crave one.

Is it "fair" to punish or reward people for their parents' actions?

I happen to have just finished watching the old film Los Olvidados. It is extremely bleak, and there are many other films (From a long time ago, I remember Boyz n the hood) that make similar points. Can you look at these characters and tell me that you deserve a bigger television and every character caught in these worlds (I don't mean the real "bad guys" of the films) is just lazy?

Furthermore, your argument is not even ultimately consistent. You actually believe the government should spend money protecting rich people but not protecting poor people? It should pay police to protect you from the feral humans lashing at the gates of your community? Given your own logic, shouldn't you at least be paying yourself for the army you believe is necessary both domestically and internationally to stop the hordes from plundering you? Otherwise, maybe you are robbed because you deserve it. The others are cleverer than you--it's your own fault you were walking down that street that night, you know--and they should get your money, right?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 57):
because I'm smarter

So there we have it in a nutshell. Even if you refuse to admit it, you are basically arguing that some people inherently deserve bigger televisions because of they way they were born.

I can to some extent understand objecting to strong cultural elements (such as in Scandinavia) that try to level achievements so much that some people's personal growth may be stunted (though there is much to be said for the social systems that result from these cultures), but you go so extremely in the opposite direction that you're on a slippery slope toward eugenics, and worse.



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
BMI727, there are consistent elements in your argument, but I can only hope that you are making it to troll or as some kind of debate team type exercise, because it is so utterly barren and devoid of human empathy. It's almost as though you are arguing for legislated psychopathy.

I'm dead serious.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
Do you honestly believe that everyone has equal access to jobs, education, etc.?

I'm all for giving people access to education. But when they decide they'd rather sleep in, or stay out late, or drop out at 15 and have a baby I'm not about to support them for the rest of their life because they failed to seize opportunity.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
The rich kid who is failing out of school, doing drugs at the beach will get an expensive tutor, stumble through college with a tremendous sense of entitlement and end up often making tons of money through an old boys network.

Doesn't make a difference to me. If you want to screw up your life with your money, go for it. If you can afford to be a useless burnout, fine.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
who are not shown any incentive at all to crave one.

If they don't want it, they don't want it. You can't force work ethic, desire, or greed into anyone. All you can do is keep their problem from becoming my problem.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
Is it "fair" to punish or reward people for their parents' actions?

That's the way life is. There are plenty of people who prove everyday that children need not be representative of parents so that isn't an excuse.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
It should pay police to protect you from the feral humans lashing at the gates of your community?

I never said that the police should offer protection based on how much tax one pays, just that it's a useful government service that I benefit from and am willing to pay for. Welfare is not.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
Otherwise, maybe you are robbed because you deserve it. The others are cleverer than you--it's your own fault you were walking down that street that night, you know--and they should get your money, right?

I've never said it's alright for someone's rights to be infringed on. Getting money that belongs to others is not a right.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 94):
Even if you refuse to admit it, you are basically arguing that some people inherently deserve bigger televisions because of they way they were born.

At some level, yes. But that isn't a problem, and I worked for it. Nobody else did anything to deserve the fruits of my labor and talents. At least, if you think that I should pay more in taxes because of some teacher that in some way made me successful, then someone from my school should also be doing time with my old neighbor in the county jail.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8414 posts, RR: 3
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

The GOP should keep its ashamed, dirty, molesting hands off women's bodies.

User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 96):
The GOP should keep its ashamed, dirty, molesting hands off women's bodies.

Oh my, what an adult contribution. How about a response like, "Only if the Democrats keep their bloody, murderous hands off of babies"?

Not very constructive either, and I am sure you would not appreciate it, even though it accurately portrays the attitude of pro-lifers toward you.

This is an emotional issue. Try to argue the issues rather than the emotions.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
This is only true because Social Security is not a true investment.

Fortunately it is not the basic market investment, or insurance investment that we have in the US. Look at the massive loss from the Bush/Cheney Great Recession. How many trillions did that rip out of retirement programs of the Average Americans?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
it does not keep the fund from generating a return.

Really? One would assume that the bank would continue to incur normal expenses and some of those fixed expenses.

bot don't worry - if the bank goes under you'll get the government bailout (FDIC

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
If all of the people who have not yet paid any FICA never have to and will never collect a Social Security check, the system will collapse in on itself.

If that were to happen it would go right along with people stop0ping paying any of their taxes. So Social Security shuts down, right along with Defense and every other part of the US Government.

Democracies (as opposed to dictatorships) rely on the public's compliance with tax laws. Dictators can just kill a few high profile tax evaders and compliance goes up. In a democracy we don't kill evaders, but we do go after them and they can end up in prison.

For petty ante evaders there are simply fines, generally having your employer send a nice chunk of your pay to them and pulling any security clearances if there are any. Of course your credit rating takes a huge hit, impacting you for a long time.

So the only chance you have seeing stop paying FICA will have some really nasty side effects.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Social Security needs new money to cover old obligations, and then need newer money to cover the obligations incurred when it raised the money to pay off the first obligations.

FICA has covered payouts until the Bush/Cheney Great Recession hit. As that time SS needed to add about 10% of the interest earned for the year to add to normal FICA revenues to meet payout obligations.

The SS Trust Fund does have money and does receive interest on those funds. Growth of the fund through interest earned helps maintain growth with inflation. The ultra low interest rates these days has slowed that down, but interest rates will increase over time.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Bernie Madoff's fund paid off for a lot of people early too

And Bernie obviously had some third rate auditors. But then the financial sector is pretty good at protecting each other.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
You start with the flawed premise that there needs to be a government funded safety net.

Not flawed at al. You mentioned Madoff - a classic example of how trustworthy the markets can be. Bernie was the President of the NYSE - remember? He ripped off the well educated as well as the average investor. For many of those investors their Social Security will be a critical part of their surviving in old age. Toss in for stamps and Medicare and they can get through.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
If people want a safety net they can buy it themselves.

You gotta be kidding, You're against a minimum wage above the poverty line. You're agains your precious tax dollars being spent on core support and now you are talking about, say, a waitress making $3 an hour plus tips having the money to actually pay for their safety net. I guess you them want to buy that safety net from private insurance companies

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
many people pay no income tax

LOL! I love it when conservatives moan about "all those people who don't pay income tax". You ALWAYS forget the annual GOP $1,000 per child SOCIALIST handout. THe GOP developed that $1,000 per child per year socialist handout in order to sin an election 20 years ago. Remember that Contract With America? That SOCIALIST handout was one of the core foundations.

When you add in that GOP SOCIALIST handout, a family with 3 kids who would normally pay some income tax finds that tax wiped out by that handout.

So the basic question is: was it worth the trillions of tax credits just to win ONE SINGLE election?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98):
LOL! I love it when conservatives moan about "all those people who don't pay income tax". You ALWAYS forget the annual GOP $1,000 per child SOCIALIST handout. THe GOP developed that $1,000 per child per year socialist handout in order to sin an election 20 years ago. Remember that Contract With America? That SOCIALIST handout was one of the core foundations.

When you add in that GOP SOCIALIST handout, a family with 3 kids who would normally pay some income tax finds that tax wiped out by that handout.

So the basic question is: was it worth the trillions of tax credits just to win ONE SINGLE election?

To be fair, I don't think BMI727 is for that. That's like saying you are for every single action taken by the Democrat Party (which we both know is far from the truth.)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 96):
The GOP should keep its ashamed, dirty, molesting hands off women's bodies.

Democrats should do the same for my money. And unlike a fetus, there is no case to be made that may money has rights of its own.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98):
How many trillions did that rip out of retirement programs of the Average Americans?

Compared to when? My bet is that if you look at reasonable financial decisions, even with the recession one would be barely more than a blip on the radar. If you've been investing for decades, as you'd have to if you've been saving for retirement, you'd still be way in the black despite the recession.

And, if you're smart, when you are close enough to retirement where something like a recession would seriously damage your savings you shouldn't be invested in such volatile things. At my age I could take my entire retirement savings to Vegas and, if I lost every nickel of it, I wouldn't damage my retirement in four decades plus.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98):
Really? One would assume that the bank would continue to incur normal expenses and some of those fixed expenses.

They would incur expenses, and be able to pay them off plus have money left for investors. This is because banks do not derive their revenue from new deposits but rather from interest on funds they have loaned out. It's an actual investment that actually grows in value without resorting to simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. In fact, what I described is not just some theoretical thought experiment but how actual closed-end investment funds work. After a fixed point, the fund manager receives no new money from investors.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98):
If that were to happen it would go right along with people stop0ping paying any of their taxes.

So you admit that Social Security is just a mandatory pyramid scheme. It's ironic that shows on CNBC would show pretty clearly why many of the views espoused on MSNBC are horseshit.

But you're making my point for me: people wouldn't invest in Social Security if it wasn't mandatory because it is a scam. Since law can be used to shake down the "investors" it can go on for longer and most Ponzi schemes, but that doesn't make it a good deal.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98):
The SS Trust Fund does have money and does receive interest on those funds.

Not nearly enough. If the fund were a real investment, we wouldn't have to worry about how many people are paying into the system for each person collecting a check.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98):
You're against a minimum wage above the poverty line. You're agains your precious tax dollars being spent on core support and now you are talking about, say, a waitress making $3 an hour plus tips having the money to actually pay for their safety net. I guess you them want to buy that safety net from private insurance companies

Precisely.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 98):
I love it when conservatives moan about "all those people who don't pay income tax". You ALWAYS forget the annual GOP $1,000 per child SOCIALIST handout.

You bring this up in every thread and in every thread I say the tax credit should die a quick death. Next.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1406 times:

Where to start....

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
And unlike a fetus, there is no case to be made that may money has rights of its own.

So, the girl who was raped by her father (or raped period) has zero choice. The woman who has a high probability of dying has zero choice. But, corporations from China, India, France, etc. can pour as much money as they want into our elections to ensure their agenda is rammed through our legislative process.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
Making billions is exactly why Lehman went bankrupt. Your lack of basic economic intelligence means that you'll probably be on the welfare rolls for a while.

This one I don't understand at all. Banks legislated a way to make tons of money through lobbyists. They sold mortgages to people who didn't understand what was going on. They told people everything would be fine. "Trust us" they said. Because the banks have never steered you wrong before. But, you are still willing to blame the consumer.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
When people default they don't get their money twice. They get their money zero times.

Explain how the CEOs got payoffs AFTER the bailouts happened. The best reason I heard is: "They made the banks lots of money like they were supposed to".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
hypocrisy is not fine. Which is exactly why if the left

You still don't explain why abortion is not good but starving people to death is fine.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
I'm really not interested in legislating abortion.

Why are you defending it so hard?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
What I'm interested in is un-legislating my paycheck.

You can work really hard at more airplane crashes, more pot holes, more levees failing, more cancer from dirty water and air, more kids not being able to speak English properly. However, I want things like clean water, education, smooth roads, public transit, and health care.

What I don't want is the "Christian" minority telling the majority of Americans how we can and can not live. This is not Iran. This is not Afghanistan. This is the United States of America where we have the freedom to sigh a contract issued by an individual state and have that contract honored by the other states. Where we worship how we choose. Where we have optional medical procedures we choose to have.

Let me ask you one thing, BMI: What religion does the United States follow? "Christianity" is very vague. That is Catholic, Mormon, Lutheran, Methodist. I want to know exactly what religion the Untied States mandates us to follow? What does the Constitution say about religion? That's what this is all based on. Some nut job law makers decided the United States is a Christian nation. So, I want to know, under the law, what branch of Christianity does the United States fall? What branch is the Constitution based on?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1406 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
This one I don't understand at all.

Obviously.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Banks legislated a way to make tons of money through lobbyists.

Actually banks make money by banking.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
They sold mortgages to people who didn't understand what was going on.

Whose fault is that? For God's sake, information is so easy to come by these days that there is no excuse for ignorance.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
They told people everything would be fine. "Trust us" they said. Because the banks have never steered you wrong before.

They were selling a product, there should be a healthy level of skepticism on the part of the consumer. Home buyers and owners were told that a house was an asset that would never drop in value, and way too many were too dumb to question it. Not that the banks weren't dumb by giving loans to people who couldn't really afford it, but people have to take some responsibility for their actions.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Explain how the CEOs got payoffs AFTER the bailouts happened.

They have jobs, and like everyone with a job, there is a salary attached to having that job.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
You still don't explain why abortion is not good but starving people to death is fine.

I'm not saying people should starve to death, just that they shouldn't eat on my dime without my express permission.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
However, I want things like clean water, education, smooth roads, public transit, and health care.

Deep six the crappy social programs and subsidies for public transport and there will be more money for the rest of it. There are certain things we need a government to do, but feeding people isn't one of them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Where we worship how we choose. Where we have optional medical procedures we choose to have.

...but somehow the right to spend my money as I see fit didn't quite make the cut?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
What religion does the United States follow?

There isn't one, which is the way it's supposed to be. Which makes it somewhat curious that people want mandatory participation in "charity."



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19417 posts, RR: 58
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1320 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 79):
You keep saying how you want people to get a job and get themselves to work,

Ask him what he does for work.

Yes, it's ad-homiem, but it's relevant ad-homiem.

He doesn't work. He lives with his mommy and daddy. Yet he rails against those who DO work and yet are poor and have to pay their own bills and barely scrape by.

Ad-homiem is quite relevant when it exposes hypocrisy. It's no different than calling Mr. Gingrich out on his three marriages when he talks about the "Sanctity of Marriage."


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1309 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):
drop out at 15 and have a baby

That baby would legally be the result of rape so the girl can either have an abortion or simp;ly turn the baby over to the state for care.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):
Getting money that belongs to others is not a right

Raising taxes is both the right AND the responsibility of government. Check out the Constitution on raising taxes.

That means as long as you are a US Citizen most of it's your money, but part of what you earn is the government's money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):
Nobody else did anything to deserve the fruits of my labor and talents.

How about all the taxpayers paying taxes to build and operate all the schools you went to, or the roads you drove on to get to school (or now to work)?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 99):
To be fair, I don't think BMI727 is for that.

Hey, it's how the GOP bought the election. Part of that Contract With America.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
I wouldn't damage my retirement in four decades plus.

Another assumption: that you can work 40 years. My Dad was able to work 43 years at one company, but that was back in the days where there was mutual loyalty between companies and their employees. He was also able to do so because he wasn't killed or injured during all his business travels, nor was he hit with any major illness.

You aren't even out of the age group for guys getting testicular cancer and you have all those other medical issues ahead of you.

And, being an engineer, you are at risk of your company hiring some fresh engineers over the years that have more advanced training than you do. Or your over the top attitude will come out.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
So you admit that Social Security is just a mandatory pyramid scheme.

Nope. It's a mandatory government insurance program. Insurance for not only retirement, but other needs as well. Just ask Paul Ryan.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
people wouldn't invest in Social Security if it wasn't mandatory because it is a scam.

It's a legal program, not a scam. Just because you're young and believe you can't possible be hit with anything that would kick SS benefits in before you are able to work a full 40 years doesn't mean you'll escape various problems. Just ask Paul Ryan.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Since law can be used to shake down the "investors" it can go on for longer and most Ponzi schemes, but that doesn't make it a good deal.

Since the law has been delivering benefits longer than Madoff has been alive you need to look somewhere else. Conservatives would love to kill SS, but they have ho idea what the country and the economy would be like without it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Precisely.

I guess you are still getting help from Mommy & Daddy as you are clueless about the severe financial limitations of those "less fortunate" then you. You just don have a clue. Pity.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
You bring this up in every thread and in every thread I say the tax credit should die a quick death. Next.

Next? Do you believe that the GOP will actually kill that socialist handout? It bought them an election and they know that it they kill it they will had that election over to the Democrats.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 101):
Explain how the CEOs got payoffs AFTER the bailouts happened.

Well, they said "It's My Money And I Want It!"

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
information is so easy to come by these days that there is no excuse for ignorance.

Ignorance (or IQ) varies from person to person. An IQ of 100 is average so half the population is below that line - often pretty far below that line.

Just because you have been lucky enough to be above that line (some may argue against that, but I'll give you credit) there is no guarantee that you will remain above that mid-line. It only takes one drunk driver.

And, the reality is that if you had been less fortunate on the IQ side you would not be an engineer, but maybe a mechanic, or you might even have your own business mowing lawns. Or work for a guy mowing lawns.

Your continual assumption that everyone is as intelligent as you are, or has the same abilities as you are clearly demonstrates that in some areas you are pretty ignorant. That changes over time for most people as they mature in their adult years and experience challenges, or observe friends experience them.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
There isn't one, which is the way it's supposed to be.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
I'm not saying people should starve to death, just that they shouldn't eat on my dime without my express permission.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
There are certain things we need a government to do, but feeding people isn't one of them

This is all very interesting. You say there is no official religion in the United States, yet you still claim to stand for religion dictating law. But, only when it comes to what a woman can do with her body. You are against any other form of religion getting into law. Like feeding the hungry. You have no sympathy for people working two and three jobs just to scrape by. At least they have a place of their own and they are trying. Your solution to that problem? Get rid of any help they may be eligible for. That will fix everything, won't it? Take away what little they have and that will make things better. Don't bother trying to lobby for better jobs or anything. Just take stuff away from people that need it. The poor who actually are working. Don't do what Jesus taught. Do what the right wing says Jesus said.

Look at charities and churches and tell me how they help the hungry so much better than the government. With their fancy gilded buildings, fancy clothes, gardens... And, yet, the best they can do is cheap cans of tuna and ramen to give to a select few.

Ken and Doc are right: Get a job and live on your own for six months and then come back and tell us how that worked out.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
Ken and Doc are right: Get a job

I don't know why everyone keeps saying 'get a job', last we heard he was working.

See reply #139: Obama Wants To Raise Minimum Wage Part 2 (by jetblueguy22 Feb 17 2013 in Non Aviation)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1290 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
You say there is no official religion in the United States, yet you still claim to stand for religion dictating law.

      Where did he say that? Definitely not in the 3 quotes you just quoted of him, nor any of his posts on this thread. Me and BMI have our disagreements, believe me, so don't think I'm defending every viewpoint he has. In this case, I'm not seeing him say anything that you are accusing him of

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
But, only when it comes to what a woman can do with her body. You are against any other form of religion getting into law.

Not speaking for BMI, but you do know there are non-religious reasons against abortions

Seb, BMI makes his point very clear early on. He's indifferent on abortion:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
But personally, I don't pay too much attention to the abortion debate. Personally, I'm smart enough to make sure that it never affects me. But a bit of gender equality might be nice. A man should be able to sign a form, during roughly the same interval in which a woman can have an abortion, certifying that he is willing to pay the cost of an abortion and, if the woman declines to have one performed, the father irrevocably waives all parental rights and is absolved of all responsibilities, financial or otherwise.

He's bringing up the father's rights... agree or disagree with him on that, but ignoring that only confuses the debate and misses the point

This basically sums his argument up on the Christian morality thing:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
If you're going to come out against the government legislating morality or enforcing "Christian values" then you should be against it even if it means not getting your hands on other people's money.

I know you disagree with it, but at least get what he's saying. He's against legislating morality in regards to abortion but thinks the left should do the same in regards to social welfare programs. A bad argument against that is what you've been saying: either broadly lumping him in with other GOPers/right wingers (which we've been through a million times, not everyone to the right of you fits the stereotypical GOP stereotype you've conjured up) or that he's somehow against social handouts but also against abortion, because he's clearly not.

A good argument, on the other hand, would talk about the social good and freedom aspect of abortion (free of religion) but also, your views on social welfare are ALSO FREE of religion. You're not gonna get a "gotcha" moment on BMI when you talk about the Christian hypocrisy angle because he's clearly not a subscriber to that ideology, even if some "other right wingers" are



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8414 posts, RR: 3
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 97):
Oh my, what an adult contribution.

Thanks.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Democrats should do the same for my money.

I somewhat agree -- although I don't consider it a human right to keep _all_ of your money. We live in a majority-rule civilized country, which means taxation is going to be part of life.

I _do_ consider it a human right to be in control of your own body.

And embryos and gametes are not people.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1280 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Raising taxes is both the right AND the responsibility of government. Check out the Constitution on raising taxes.

Raising taxes for services that benefit me is fine. Roads are nice, as is having police and a military. Welfare is not a useful service and I don't benefit from it. It's not worth my money.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
It's a mandatory government insurance program. Insurance for not only retirement, but other needs as well.

That's not how insurance works. If you own and insure a house and then sell the house completely intact to a new owner, you don't get you insurance premiums back.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
It's a legal program, not a scam.

...it works exactly like one. There is no way around that reality.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Just because you're young and believe you can't possible be hit with anything that would kick SS benefits in before you are able to work a full 40 years doesn't mean you'll escape various problems.

Having benefits kick in soon might be the only way I'll ever see a Social Security benefit.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Do you believe that the GOP will actually kill that socialist handout?

They should.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Just because you have been lucky enough to be above that line (some may argue against that, but I'll give you credit) there is no guarantee that you will remain above that mid-line. It only takes one drunk driver.

That's the risk of being alive.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Your continual assumption that everyone is as intelligent as you are, or has the same abilities as you are clearly demonstrates that in some areas you are pretty ignorant.

I've never assumed that. In fact there are few people who detest dealing with idiots as much as I do. You don't need to be a genius, but people without common sense really, really, irritate me. It isn't fair that not everybody is super intelligent, and I genuinely wish everyone was, but that's not the point.

Why should I pay for someone being less intelligent? It isn't my fault. I didn't do anything to them to keep them from going to school. Playing the lucky genes card undermines the "You didn't build it" mantra because I know that I did build it. The guy that grew up down the street from me is in jail and I'm supposed to believe I didn't build it?



Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 107):
In this case, I'm not seeing him say anything that you are accusing him of

Someone gives Seb a different version of everything to read.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1224 times:

Since you are a right-wing extremist, you will probably understand this:

An army marches on it's stomach. If people are starving, they have little will to fight and defend this country. They will only fight for food. Also, a military is only as strong as the weakest among them. Likewise, this nation is as strong as the weakest among us. Those who are weak are the sick and the under nourished. I am happy to give some out of my pay check so that others can have even a little scrap of a meal and even one or two doctor visits a year. I wish it could be more to make this country even better and stronger.

But, instead, we have to take all that away because, according to the right-wing extremists, the only threat to freedom and liberty in this country is not starvation and disease, but woman who want an abortion. That is the only thing we need concern ourselves with. Not education or feeding anyone. Just women's reproduction.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
Since you are a right-wing extremist, you will probably understand this:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
according to the right-wing extremists

Again, Seb, stop it! "Right wing extremist" isn't some defined list of attributes. You have right wing extremists of different flavors. You are a liberal, are you not? Do you agree with every "liberal" idea? NO

I don't know how many times we have to go through this, but you're still not getting it when you lump in BMI with people who think that:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
the only threat to freedom and liberty in this country is not starvation and disease, but woman who want an abortion. That is the only thing we need concern ourselves with. Not education or feeding anyone. Just women's reproduction.

How many times does he have to tell you he doesn't want to legislate abortion? Are you just refusing to believe him when he says that?

Now your second paragraph actually counters the argument BMI makes, but the rest of the post makes that not matter because you're completely misunderstanding him by stereotyping, yet again. Forget about the "right wing extremists." You are not debating those imaginary people that aren't here. Concern yourself with what the posters here are saying, otherwise the debate between you and him will get even more confusing and offtrack needlessly



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1215 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
Likewise, this nation is as strong as the weakest among us.

That's not true, thank God. If it were, then this country is no better than a trailer park queen working on a Natty Ice and a bag of Funyuns.

If you want every tree in the forest to be the same height you'll make a field of stumps.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 110):
I am happy to give some out of my pay check so that others can have even a little scrap of a meal and even one or two doctor visits a year.

And there are plenty of organizations who are more than happy to facilitate that, and I fully support that. The government, however, should not be one of those organizations. Let the government be the government, and let charities be charities. Just like the government shouldn't be acting as a venture capitalist by giving away money to educated white guys with ideas. There are people for that, just like there are people who feed the poor.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1205 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
"Right wing extremist" isn't some defined list of attributes.

They all walk in lock step. As a free thinker, you should surely see this. I know you are more conservative than I, but you must see that the right-wing extremists in control vote in a block.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
How many times does he have to tell you he doesn't want to legislate abortion?

Why is he trying so hard to make his morals law?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
then this country is no better than a trailer park queen working on a Natty Ice and a bag of Funyuns.

Those would be the good ole boys sittin' on the porch complaining the gub'mint taking away what's theirs. The people you are thinking of have to resort to a job at Wal-Mart. By that I mean: they have a job.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1202 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 113):
They all walk in lock step. As a free thinker, you should surely see this. I know you are more conservative than I, but you must see that the right-wing extremists in control vote in a block.

Lock step... no. I'd consider BMI pretty heavily right wing, I'd consider Bachmann pretty far right, and I'd consider Rand Paul pretty far right. Let's throw in my favorite, Rick Santorum (favorite as in I'm most terrified of him.) How can you lump those 4 into one single right wing stereotype? You have Rand Paul who hates foreign intervention (almost as much as his dad) and Santorum who'd launch a crusade if he could (a real one, "Onward Christian Soldiers" type of crusade.) Santorum is probably as conservative as you can get on abortion while BMI has stated he wants nothing to do with it. Bachmann seems terrified of gays, BMI (IIRC) says he couldn't care less about banning gay marriage

That is hardly lock step. I hate that term. I never though I'd vote for a democrat a couple years ago, but I ended up doing it for the first time because his opponent, instead of arguing coherent arguments, just lumped the vauge, diverse "left" into what he described as "liberals in lockstep." That comment alone did it for me, looked at the crappy campaign he had on his website, and voted for the Democrat that I disagreed with on a good deal of issues, but he wasn't stereotyping and being immature like his opponent

You play a dangerous game when you lump anyone together, which is my point. Saying he is a far right extremist, marching in lock step, totally gets shattered when he repeatedly denies being for the banning of abortion

Quoting seb146 (Reply 113):
Why is he trying so hard to make his morals law?

The whole point of what he has been saying is he doesn't want anyone's morals as law. He doesn't want people saying they're morals dictate we should ban abortion and he, likewise, doesn't want anyone saying their morals should make him pay for social welfare.

Now there are plenty of points for and against his argument, but we need to grasp each other's arguments. That's like me asking you: "Why are you against abortion if a female gets raped, Seb?" (You are not and never said that)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 114):
Santorum is probably as conservative as you can get on abortion while BMI has stated he wants nothing to do with it.

My solution to abortion is to not knock up women. Actually, that's the solution to a lot of things.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 114):
BMI (IIRC) says he couldn't care less about banning gay marriage

I couldn't care less, it's just noise to me except for two aspects: 1) being a bit amused a few weeks ago to see liberals dancing in the streets at having won what amounted to access to a tax loophole and 2) liberals railing against things like Prop 8 and then telling me that the will of the majority is sufficient reason to spend my money without my consent.



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...
GOP Puts Lott Back In Leadership posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:41:55 by Falcon84
Are You Parking "Back-in, Head-out"? posted Sat Jun 29 2013 08:50:28 by AeroWesty
My Blood Work's Back - Or,Airstud Vs Quello Clinic posted Thu Jun 20 2013 18:10:40 by Airstud
Welcome Back, Norman! (1979) posted Mon Jun 3 2013 16:54:33 by Goldenshield
GOP Outreach Director Calls GOP Racist posted Tue May 14 2013 11:01:02 by blueflyer
I'm Back From NY - Thoughts posted Tue Apr 30 2013 01:29:52 by sebolino
Will Maybach Be Back Again One Day? posted Tue Apr 23 2013 00:36:17 by United Airline
NH GOP Pol Refers To Women As "Vagina's" In Email posted Wed Apr 17 2013 12:03:39 by Revelation
GOP Roadmap: Immigration Reform, Minority Outreach posted Mon Mar 18 2013 13:10:27 by tugger
Iran Claims To Send Monkey To Space And Back posted Mon Jan 28 2013 15:17:42 by RussianJet