The next Obama

[Strings]

>the heterosexual divorce rate of 50% is off-putting, but a large part of that is due to more liberal divorce laws<

Actually, it's more due to people getting married too soon, and for the wrong reasons. Which is why we ended up with more liberal divorce laws, too: folks would realize they made a terrible mistake, and wanted to have a way out.

Part of those "wrong reasons"? Being married offers financial incentives...

[Monkeyleg]

Just a comment about divorce. It's not that roughly 50% of people who marry get divorced, it's that roughly 50% of marriages end in divorce. The difference between the two is that there's a fairly large number of people who marry and divorce multiple times, and skew the average.

Now back to our regular sniping.

[birdman]

Just to niggle...  Berkshire-Hathaway has never paid a dividend and has no plan to.

Crap, that's right.  I forgot they do a continual repurchase with profits to maximize share exclusivity through price.  My bad.

Of course, that still follows my point, a company can only repurchase shares with official (taxed) profits, and if one sells the shares, that is taxed at hopefully long term capital gains, so boom, 45% total.

[Perd Hapley]

You couldn't PAY me to give a damn about your (or anyone else's) religious views on the appropriateness or sinfulness of, well, pretty much anything - that's your business, and you're welcome to it. Try to make that into some sort of justification for violating the rights of others? I'll do my best to see to it that you are ... disappointed.

I didn't say anything about religion. I don't have to. Marriage has overwhelmingly been considered heterosexual, by cultures with vastly different religious beliefs. To blame that on my religious beliefs is, well, a display of ignorance and bigotry.

Again, I simply don't know how to respond to this.

Ours is not a logical difference that we can explain to each other. You believe that male and female are interchangeable, even in matters where their sex/gender is of central importance. I do not hold to that.

As to the rest of your nonsense, I simply align myself with the vast majority of humankind, which acknowledges differences between the genders. So, no, Ken and Steve are NOT equal to John and Mary, as far as marriage is concerned. That's just common sense.

And Mussolini allegedly made the trains run on time. rolleyes Just because something can be said to have "worked", for certain values of the word, doesn't make it right.

Mussolini.   I guess I was right:

Those who don't drop the age-old, ordinary view are cast as hate-mongers and bigots, simply because they won't support the new weirdness with their votes.

It is, in short, a text-book case of a nation emoting when it should be thinking. The same recipe that elected Obama twice, and also believed against all evidence that a milquetoast, family-values politician actually believed some rapes are "legitimate."

[Marnoot]

I didn't say anything about religion. I don't have to. Marriage has overwhelmingly been considered heterosexual, by cultures with vastly different religious beliefs. To blame that on my religious beliefs is, well, a display of ignorance and bigotry.

This. I've posted along this line before, but even in ancient Greece where male homosexual relationships were the norm and expected, "marriage" was only between men and women.

[CAnnoneer]

I strongly disagree. They lost because we assumed that people knew what conservativism was but they didn't, the democrats did a better job of selling themselves.

I respect your opinion but fear that it is indicative of one of the big problems Reps have. What I see is a complete disconnect with large swaths of voters. When they disagree with Reps, they are just called all sorts of names - stupid, gullible, etc. You do not say it, but I think you imply it. The electorate was not stupid. They were given the usual choice between a crapsandwich and a dirbag, and they chose whoever repelled them less. This time around, it was not the sly Dems that stole the election. The Reps lost it because they veered away from the hopes and desires of large chunks of the population. The official Rep ideology is increasingly out of date and unrealistic.If they want, they can go on an ideological tangent and feel morally and intellectually superior, but what I see is them being out of touch, incapable of understanding people not like themselves, and as a result, increasingly irrelevant.

No poor country is conservative?  "Poor countries" are poor either from lack of natural resources or a dictatorial government that proscibes freedom.  What is seen in the world is a lack of freedom.   The former USSR was poor, but not from lack of resources.  Now that it is no longer communist it is becoming slightly more ...."capitalist" and thus a little richer than it used to be.  But deep corruption remains in that system.

My point is that as its economy worsens, a modern country cannot become more conservative. Conservatism thrives in prosperous countries. We are not prosperous enough to maintain or develop conservatism. The election results confirm my observation.

[CAnnoneer]

So let China or Russia "police" the world?  You're kidding, right?  You want THEM policing the world when we've become a country much dependant on trade.  That's insane.

Today, everybody is dependent on trade. Anybody who clams up will be left behind, technologically and economically. Explain why it matters who fights the pirates, the islamists, and every dirtbag out there. Also explain why it is in our national interest to pipe out about every conflict out there, and stick our noses into other people's business all the time. If China wants to throw their weight in south Asia and Russia in central Asia, how does this affect us. I want a clear argument.

And add the price of that extra security to the goods they sell?  How do the taxpayers, who will be consumers as well, win there? I doubt there are many private security agencies up to that task anyway.  Just what we need if that isn't true ---major corporations having their own private thugs answerable to no one outside the CEO.

They can add the price. But then you will have a choice to buy the product and pay the surcharge. Now you have no choice at all. The corporations bribe politicians for a tiny fraction of the cost, and then politicians charge the enormous cost to the taxpayers. I prefer to have the choice.

[MillCreek]

Quote from: MillCreek on Today at 12:20:07 AM
Those who don't drop the age-old, ordinary view are cast as hate-mongers and bigots, simply because they won't support the new weirdness with their votes.

It is, in short, a text-book case of a nation emoting when it should be thinking. The same recipe that elected Obama twice, and also believed against all evidence that a milquetoast, family-values politician actually believed some rapes are "legitimate."

I just want to point out that the above statement included in a few posts up was actually made by Fistful to reply to a comment that I made.  I would not want anyone to think that I had made that statement, just because of how the board software handles quotes.

[Ron]

Aquinas vs Nietzsche

Ironically many folks arguing for the expansion of the marriage entitlement under the guise of human rights have no philosophical basis for believing in intrinsic human rights in the first place. It is all nothing more than evolving social constructs to them. There is no right or wrong, truth is relative.

That is why DeSelby mocks the use of logic using historical or even current definitions of words and traditional morality.

The bastardization of language in pursuit of "progressive" goals is as if nobody has ever read Orwell before. Liberty and marriage are just two of the casualties of the western worlds version of newspeak.     

 

[Perd Hapley]

I just want to point out that the above statement included in a few posts up was actually made by Fistful to reply to a comment that I made.  I would not want anyone to think that I had made that statement, just because of how the board software handles quotes.

OK, fixed it. Sorry.


I'll repeat what I said on page three. The GOP has nothing left to lose. So go ahead and replace the social conservatism in the platform with all the anti-social conservative barbarism (baby-killing and man-love and such). Then run a slate of economic libertarian, anti-social conservative candidates. Heck, give it a good 4 election cycles, just to see if it works. I'll just watch.

[Monkeyleg]

I respect your opinion but fear that it is indicative of one of the big problems Reps have. What I see is a complete disconnect with large swaths of voters. When they disagree with Reps, they are just called all sorts of names - stupid, gullible, etc. You do not say it, but I think you imply it. The electorate was not stupid. They were given the usual choice between a crapsandwich and a dirbag, and they chose whoever repelled them less. This time around, it was not the sly Dems that stole the election. The Reps lost it because they veered away from the hopes and desires of large chunks of the population. The official Rep ideology is increasingly out of date and unrealistic.If they want, they can go on an ideological tangent and feel morally and intellectually superior, but what I see is them being out of touch, incapable of understanding people not like themselves, and as a result, increasingly irrelevant.

My point is that as its economy worsens, a modern country cannot become more conservative. Conservatism thrives in prosperous countries. We are not prosperous enough to maintain or develop conservatism. The election results confirm my observation.

Whoooo boy. I don't even know where to begin. To say that people are called names when they disagree with Republicans, when people who disagree with Democrats are at best called racists or Nazi's and at worst are beaten, well...

If the Republicans are going to veer away from people hoping and desiring free stuff at the expense of others, then veer we will.

"Out of date, irrelevant, out of touch". That was said in the days of Goldwater, in the first year or two of Carter's presidency, in the Clinton years, and in 2008. Actually it goes back to prior the Civil War when the Republican Party was formed. Every time Republicans lose elections, the media says that conservatism is dead, but it always comes back in a couple of years. Wait for the 2014 elections. We'll see who's "irrelevant". Obama, if he doesn't move to the center, will lose both houses.

I'd explain to you why Romney lost, but it would be like explaining a Tina Turner concert to Helen Keller.

[Perd Hapley]

I'd explain to you why Romney lost, but it would be like explaining a Tina Turner concert to Helen Keller.

Oh, snap. I don't think the cannon guy is wrong to suggest that the GOP platform is out of touch with the rest of the country. Isn't that what most of us have been saying?

But it IS funny to see what he thinks conservatives believe. 

[TommyGunn]

I respect your opinion but fear that it is indicative of one of the big problems Reps have. What I see is a complete disconnect with large swaths of voters. When they disagree with Reps, they are just called all sorts of names - stupid, gullible, etc. You do not say it, but I think you imply it. The electorate was not stupid. They were given the usual choice between a crapsandwich and a dirbag, and they chose whoever repelled them less. This time around, it was not the sly Dems that stole the election. The Reps lost it because they veered away from the hopes and desires of large chunks of the population. The official Rep ideology is increasingly out of date and unrealistic.If they want, they can go on an ideological tangent and feel morally and intellectually superior, but what I see is them being out of touch, incapable of understanding people not like themselves, and as a result, increasingly irrelevant.

Refering to the "voters" with epithets goes back to classical Greece, when Socrates pointed out that the problem with democracy was that "two fools outvoye one wise man."
Bobby Jindal was on Faux Snews this morning explaining what the repubs did wrong.  I think they "get" the message, which is slightly different than yours.
Essentially, the moochers don't like to be called moochers because even though it is true that they ARE moochers, it's offensive to be called moochers, so don't call them moochers.  
Look for more nuanced republicans in 2014 & 2016.

My point is that as its economy worsens, a modern country cannot become more conservative. Conservatism thrives in prosperous countries. We are not prosperous enough to maintain or develop conservatism. The election results confirm my observation.

If that is true, and I'm not really buying into it, then we're only going to be digging our grave even deeper.  
I'm sure elctions results confirm something but I seriously doubt this thesis can be supported by a one time event that was lost due to a repub candidate "going off track."

[TommyGunn]

Today, everybody is dependent on trade. Anybody who clams up will be left behind, technologically and economically. Explain why it matters who fights the pirates, the islamists, and every dirtbag out there. Also explain why it is in our national interest to pipe out about every conflict out there, and stick our noses into other people's business all the time. If China wants to throw their weight in south Asia and Russia in central Asia, how does this affect us. I want a clear argument.

Oh geeesh, REALLY?  
I don't give a flip about Russia throwing its weight around in Central Asia or China in South Asia.  That is not my point.  My point was a stronger China with an improved navy, which has developed the police-the-world mentality is going to be an adversary.  They will have the power to close off those trade routes that we depend upon for our trade at their whim.  
You think this can't happen?
During WW2 our servicemen in the Pacific were being bombed and strafed by Japanese planes dropping bombs on them, made of American produced steel.   The GIs would joke sardonically about it being "returned to sender."  
One of the reasons why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place was we cut off our oil to them --- we actually exported it back then.
The Nazis kept records of Jews and other undesirables on equipment manufactered by IBM, an American company.  One should do a little research into how deeply some American companies were involved in Nazu Germany, not just from 1933-41 but through the entire war.
China will blockade trade routes if it is in their interest to do so.  It won't matter if it hurts them too.  The Nazis did a lot that redounded against their own people but that didn't stop them.  

They can add the price. But then you will have a choice to buy the product and pay the surcharge. Now you have no choice at all. The corporations bribe politicians for a tiny fraction of the cost, and then politicians charge the enormous cost to the taxpayers. I prefer to have the choice.  

You won't have the choice, either way, not really.    What makes you think having corporations hiring their own security thugs will allow you a choice?
Either way you buy the product .... or you don't.  THERE is your choice.

[ronnyreagan]

I have a hard time letting blanket statements that are not true just get thrown around.

It doesn't seem like you have that hard a time with it...

people who disagree with Democrats are at best called racists or Nazi's and at worst are beaten

[CAnnoneer]

Crap, that's right.  I forgot they do a continual repurchase with profits to maximize share exclusivity through price.  My bad.

Of course, that still follows my point, a company can only repurchase shares with official (taxed) profits, and if one sells the shares, that is taxed at hopefully long term capital gains, so boom, 45% total.

You can apply the same logic to any income then. Anybody out there working for a private company can claim the same. If there were no corporate tax on the company, the company would be able to afford to pay its workers more. Therefore, any income is double-taxed.

Look, let's compare apples to apples. WB produces income and pays taxes on it. So does John Smith. John Smith makes far less, yet from that he pays more percentage-wise. John Smith would be a fool to think that is fair in any way, shape, or form. John becomes susceptible to Dem propaganda. You want John to be conservative? Treat him fairly. It is that simple.

[Perd Hapley]

It doesn't seem like you have that hard a time with it...

Do you know what a blanket statement is?

[ronnyreagan]

Do you know what a blanket statement is?

Not exactly. 

I have noticed that there seems to be some sort of racism persecution complex around here. People can and do disagree with Republicans without calling them racist. I haven't seen anyone called racist here in quite some time, if ever - I'm not sure why everyone seems so obsessed with it. Are you guys really being called racists and nazis that often?

[birdman]

You can apply the same logic to any income then. Anybody out there working for a private company can claim the same. If there were no corporate tax on the company, the company would be able to afford to pay its workers more. Therefore, any income is double-taxed.

Look, let's compare apples to apples. WB produces income and pays taxes on it. So does John Smith. John Smith makes far less, yet from that he pays more percentage-wise. John Smith would be a fool to think that is fair in any way, shape, or form. John becomes susceptible to Dem propaganda. You want John to be conservative? Treat him fairly. It is that simple.

No, you can't apply that logic.  Wages are business expenses, and not taxed.  Profits (earnings minus expenses) ARE taxed at the corporate level and then at the personal level. 

You just aren't getting the argument.

[zxcvbob]

Not exactly. 

I have noticed that there seems to be some sort of racism persecution complex around here. People can and do disagree with Republicans without calling them racist. I haven't seen anyone called racist here in quite some time, if ever - I'm not sure why everyone seems so obsessed with it. Are you guys really being called racists and nazis that often?

You're kidding, right?  We call each other "racist" here (in an ironic sort of way) all the time.

[ronnyreagan]

You're kidding, right?  We call each other "racist" here (in an ironic sort of way) all the time.

I know, that's part of what I'm talking about.
Why do that? Are you guys really (non-ironically) being called racist that often that it's become a joke?

[longeyes]

I respect your opinion but fear that it is indicative of one of the big problems Reps have. What I see is a complete disconnect with large swaths of voters. When they disagree with Reps, they are just called all sorts of names - stupid, gullible, etc. You do not say it, but I think you imply it. The electorate was not stupid. They were given the usual choice between a crapsandwich and a dirbag, and they chose whoever repelled them less. This time around, it was not the sly Dems that stole the election. The Reps lost it because they veered away from the hopes and desires of large chunks of the population. The official Rep ideology is increasingly out of date and unrealistic.If they want, they can go on an ideological tangent and feel morally and intellectually superior, but what I see is them being out of touch, incapable of understanding people not like themselves, and as a result, increasingly irrelevant.

My point is that as its economy worsens, a modern country cannot become more conservative. Conservatism thrives in prosperous countries. We are not prosperous enough to maintain or develop conservatism. The election results confirm my observation.

Don't you mean we are not conservative enough to be prosperous?

[Perd Hapley]

Not exactly. 

I have noticed that there seems to be some sort of racism persecution complex around here. People can and do disagree with Republicans without calling them racist. I haven't seen anyone called racist here in quite some time, if ever - I'm not sure why everyone seems so obsessed with it. Are you guys really being called racists and nazis that often?

Cute.

[Strings]

>Are you guys really (non-ironically) being called racist that often that it's become a joke?<

On a personal level? Yeah... it's happened a few times.

And "we" (conservatives, libertarians, what have you) who oppose anything Obama wants DO get branded as racist in the media a bit...

[Perd Hapley]

C'mon, Strings. You really think he doesn't know exactly what we're talking about?  


Oh, heck. I sometimes forget that other people live in tiny bubbles that are not quite like the tiny bubble I inhabit. So maybe he really doesn't get it.

Look, Ronny, we're talking about the way that media goons like Chris Matthews make every issue about race. You don't think Obama is a citizen? Racist. You say his full name, including the middle name he shares with a famous dictator? Racist. Of course, race can't possibly be related to either of those issues, so any topic is fair game for left-wing race-baiting.

Of course, when they know their charges of racism would look ludicrous even to superficial idiots, they just claim it's a "dog whistle." Go ahead and Google the words dog, whistle and racism. You'll find that "Chicago" is a racist dog whistle. If memory serves, a media dope tried to claim that describing Obama as "skinny" was also a racist dog whistle.

Fun times.


http://www.ocregister.com/articles/racist-370103-white-dog.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/02/mitt-romneys-shockingly-racist-acceptance-speech/