Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on November 08, 2012, 08:18:19 AM
-
The Democrats have definitely found a formula here. Find a barely-qualified African-American who can say pretty words, and people will vote for him in throngs. After four years of gaffes and disaster, he can win an easy re-election, so he can try again. He gets a mulligan, basically.
The Democratic Party would have to be nuts not to stick with such a winning formula. (Or they would have to actually develop a conscience.) So, assuming the Democratic Party still has to abide by term limits in four years, who are they going to nominate in '16?
-
I think you underestimate the ability of conservatives and right wingers to be unenthused by lackluster establishment (R) candidates. The Dems didn't win *expletive deleted*it, but the Republicans sure lost.
-
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121108/OPINION04/711089946#Republicans-need-to-take-their-party-back
And another political pundit weighing in on how the Republican party has shot itself in the foot. I still like Huntsman.
-
The Democrats have definitely found a formula here. Find a barely-qualified African-American who can say pretty words, and people will vote for him in throngs. After four years of gaffes and disaster, he can win an easy re-election, so he can try again. He gets a mulligan, basically.
I wonder if he's going to get another Peace Prize?
The Democratic Party would have to be nuts not to stick with such a winning formula. (Or they would have to actually develop a conscience.) So, assuming the Democratic Party still has to abide by term limits in four years, who are they going to nominate in '16?
D. of the year, the woman who was stealing checks from the wheelchair bound blind cripple?
-
I think you underestimate the ability of conservatives and right wingers to be unenthused by lackluster establishment (R) candidates. The Dems didn't win *expletive deleted*, but the Republicans sure lost.
From 2008 to 2012, Obama's vote total dropped by almost 9,000,000 votes, which will probably work out to somewhere around a 12%-13% drop in support once all the results are in.
However, Romney got about 2,000,000 fewer votes than McCain did four years ago. And we all know how fired up conservatives were about McCain.
As for minor candidates . . . the Libertarian got a little over a million votes and the tag team of Roseanne Barr and Cindy Shehan got around 40,000 votes, but they were only on the ballot in a few states. (I'm not sure how perennial unofficial write-in candidate Mickey Mouse did.)
-
As for minor candidates . . . the Libertarian got a little over a million votes and the tag team of Roseanne Barr and Cindy Shehan got around 40,000 votes, but they were only on the ballot in a few states. (I'm not sure how perennial unofficial write-in candidate Mickey Mouse did.)
Which is very good for the Libertarians. It's also usually months and months before anything but D&R totals can be found.
-
I'm still sticking with Hillary running in 2016. Usually after 8 years of one party, the other party gets in because the general population is sick of the same old thing. But if the Republicans have a lackluster candidate, or even a decent one, running the first woman for President (with a chance to win) will fire up the emotional and "white/male/rich/liberal/whatever guilt" vote.
Maybe the Republicans will pull a rabbit out of their hat, but right now I don't see any female Republicans that would be popular (or more precisely, more popular than Hillary) among independents and undecideds.
If Hillary doesn't run, then I predict that maybe the Republicans will smarten up and run Rand Paul, Jindal, or one of the other, more conservative and younger names being thrown about and will have a good chance to win. If one of these names is run against Hillary, I predict they won't do well.
-
Yeah, the massive drop in R's (and especially white male R's, the traditional power base of the party) turning out for Romney is what killed him. I wonder how many semi-liberal squishes have to lose big before the GOP pulls its head out and stops trying to chase left leaning indies by alienating the base?
-
Let Hillary finish the job.
Then we can go straight to an Islamic "Republic."
Forget conservatism and libertarianism, liberty-loving people have one and only one option: Separation.
-
Let Hillary finish the job.
Then we can go straight to an Islamic "Republic."
Forget conservatism and libertarianism, liberty-loving people have one and only one option: Separation.
An Islamic take over of the country is less plausible than a Red Dawn style invasion. We're falling apart certainly, but that's not going to happen.
-
Rand Paul, Jindal, or one of the other, more conservative and younger names being thrown about and will have a good chance to win. If one of these names is run against Hillary, I predict they won't do well.
Paul Ryan and Rand Paul ticket?
-
The next Obama
-
An Islamic take over of the country is less plausible than a Red Dawn style invasion. We're falling apart certainly, but that's not going to happen.
I know, I know, and we don't have Communism here either because, well, they don't call it Communism. You are so right.
I guess you haven't noticed that Islam and the Left have a lot in common once you get past the details. Islam isn't going to invade, although I expect a sharp increase in legal immigration under the wise tutelage of Obama and Foggy Bottom, but they are going to exert more and more influence on the culture. It may not be the Islam with an Unhappy Face we're used to, of course; that would be markedly unsubtle. We'll see.
As for Red Dawn scenarios, yeah, also totally crazy, but when our currency collapses and social order starts to crumble, I'd say just about anything is on the table.
-
I know, I know, and we don't have Communism here either because, well, they don't call it Communism. You are so right.
I guess you haven't noticed that Islam and the Left have a lot in common once you get past the details. Islam isn't going to invade, although I expect a sharp increase in legal immigration under the wise tutelage of Obama and Foggy Bottom, but they are going to exert more and more influence on the culture. It may not be the Islam with an Unhappy Face we're used to, of course; that would be markedly unsubtle. We'll see.
As for Red Dawn scenarios, yeah, also totally crazy, but when our currency collapses and social order starts to crumble, I'd say just about anything is on the table.
Communist infiltration of .gov is a well documented fact.
Let's be specific here, much as you avoid that. What would your Islamic take over look like? Forcing us to bow to Mecca and attend mosques? Banning pork products and dog ownership? Forcing women to wear burqas? What exactly are you envisioning when you say that, in real world terms not some vague allegory?
-
Fair question.
I think if this society gets too anarchic New Islam--this is the one with a few relaxed rules and stylish Arabic couture and a bit more swagga--may look appealing. :)
-
So, assuming the Democratic Party still has to abide by term limits in four years, who are they going to nominate in '16?
I doubt this will hinder the Obama Administration much.....
-
Yeah, the massive drop in R's (and especially white male R's, the traditional power base of the party) turning out for Romney is what killed him. I wonder how many semi-liberal squishes have to lose big before the GOP pulls its head out and stops trying to chase left leaning indies by alienating the base?
Channeling Bob Dylan ...? ;)
I don't think that there will be another general election. Either the total economic crash will cause the USSA to break up, or Obama will be Emporer for Life by then =(
-
I doubt this will hinder the Obama Administration much.....
Well, I guess we would have no choice but to repeal the term limit. 'Cause it's racist.
-
Well, I guess we would have no choice but to repeal the term limit. 'Cause it's racist.
And since we can't rely on those racist states to ratify the repeal we'll just go ahead and do it with an Executive Order and have the SCOTUS (properly re-staffed with judges who think correctly) uphold it.
-
I'm still sticking with Hillary running in 2016. Usually after 8 years of one party, the other party gets in because the general population is sick of the same old thing. But if the Republicans have a lackluster candidate, or even a decent one, running the first woman for President (with a chance to win) will fire up the emotional and "white/male/rich/liberal/whatever guilt" vote.
Maybe the Republicans will pull a rabbit out of their hat, but right now I don't see any female Republicans that would be popular (or more precisely, more popular than Hillary) among independents and undecideds.
If Hillary doesn't run, then I predict that maybe the Republicans will smarten up and run Rand Paul, Jindal, or one of the other, more conservative and younger names being thrown about and will have a good chance to win. If one of these names is run against Hillary, I predict they won't do well.
Looking back at the last 4 years, I still agree with myself of 4 years ago...I would have preferred Hillary to Obama. While she's liberal, she is no where near as liberal as BHO, and would have been able to triangulate after 2010. And she would probably not have actively destroyed things as much as BHO.
-
Looking back at the last 4 years, I still agree with myself of 4 years ago...I would have preferred Hillary to Obama. While she's liberal, she is no where near as liberal as BHO, and would have been able to triangulate after 2010. And she would probably not have actively destroyed things as much as BHO.
Speculation on your part.
Hillary is just another version of Obama. Her husband planted a lot of the seeds of we have today. You seem to have forgotten Hillarycare?
If our choices come down to Obama or Hillary the game is up.
-
I think you underestimate the ability of conservatives and right wingers to be unenthused by lackluster establishment (R) candidates. The Dems didn't win *expletive deleted*, but the Republicans sure lost.
I don't think it had to do with enthusiasm. I think the Repubs/Conservatives are too stuck on being single-issue voters, and if the Republican candidate happens to be a moderate rather than a zealot on their particular hot-button issue, rather than support him because at least he's not the other guy ... they either throw away their vote in a "statement" by voting for a minority candidate who never had a prayer of topping 2 percent of the popular vote, or they just stay home.
And then on Wednesday morning they cue up the choir for a rousing rendition of "Where did we go wrong?"
Don't believe it? Go back through pre-election threads here, and on other forums to which you belong. Keep a running tally of how many people you find who admitted to liking Obama or saying they were going to vote for Obama. I predict it'll be a pretty low number. On the iother side of the sheet, keep a running tally of the people who said they hate Obama and what he stands for, BUT who couldn't possibly vote for Romney because he is (or isn't) [fill in pet issue of choice].
-
Maybe the Republicans will pull a rabbit out of their hat, but right now I don't see any female Republicans that would be popular (or more precisely, more popular than Hillary) among independents and undecideds.
:cough: Condaleeza Rice :cough:
-
:cough: Condaleeza Rice :cough:
She has made it abundantly clear that ain't never gonna happen.
-
She has made it abundantly clear that ain't never gonna happen.
Yup.
-
Nikita Kruschev has been proven to have been right.
-
I wouldn't be suprised if Kirsten Gillibrand will try to run for president.
-
I wonder how many semi-liberal squishes have to lose big before the GOP pulls its head out and stops trying to chase left leaning indies by alienating the base?
"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.
I think the only chance the R party has is to go balls-to-the-wall libertarian with their candidates. The candidates they have been running haven't been getting the job done, and it's not because they aren't Republican enough. It's that there aren't enough Republicans anymore. They are dying off and Democrats keep getting elected because their candidates are more hip. Even as un-hip as Obama is after his first term, he still compares favorably in hipness to the tragically un-hip Romney. The only hope for opposing the Democratic party now is a libertarian candidate that will get the votes of the current Republican base )who will vote for anybody but the Democrat), and which urban middle-classers are not ashamed to admit voting for.
With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.
-
"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.
I think the only chance the R party has is to go balls-to-the-wall libertarian with their candidates. The candidates they have been running haven't been getting the job done, and it's not because they aren't Republican enough. It's that there aren't enough Republicans anymore. They are dying off and Democrats keep getting elected because their candidates are more hip. Even as un-hip as Obama is after his first term, he still compares favorably in hipness to the tragically un-hip Romney. The only hope for opposing the Democratic party now is a libertarian candidate that will get the votes of the current Republican base )who will vote for anybody but the Democrat), and which urban middle-classers are not ashamed to admit voting for.
With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.
When you let the Dems choose your candidate for you, let the RINOs rule the party, and get all hand wringy over being "polite" and not attacking the other candidate, well, you're gonna lose the election. Select a candidate that will FIGHT and fight hard for the office and you're gonna get people fired up and ready to vote. That was one of the attractions of Sarah Palin. She got up there, was not afraid to fight for the office, and got people enthusiastic about voting.
-
Id like to see a Marco Rubio/Bobby Jindal ticket. I havent seen anything in their positions that scares me and the first "Latino" Pres or VP would pull a bunch of votes from conservative latino families.
-
The cultural & demographic trends in play will continue to get worse and magnify the power of the Left. It won't matter who the Republican Party, if it continues to exist, nominates or how great they are by our standards.
We can start by acknowledging we're in a war and that we need to act like it. If we don't secede literally we will have to secede metaphorically: by refusing to accept policies that force us to subsidize our enemies and our own destruction. By refusal I mean civil disobedience for reasons of both honor and survival. We are going to have to think in terms of "our side" and refuse to cooperate with the rest. This is how minorities survive and bide their time: Take care of your own first; that's what they do.
What might overturn the ascent of socialism will be collapse, but that would open the door, I'm wagering, not for a resurgence of the Republican Party or libertarians or conservatives as we've known them but an ultrarightwing nationalist party.
-
Well whatever y'all do, please tell your darling alt candidates to drop the social conservative BS. If I wanted to pick someone to tell me about God I'd walk down to the church. Constitution! Don't play the game where the left baits the social conservative bear, refuse to engage.
-
"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.
With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.
I agree with this statement. In this little corner of the Net, I think we can be prone to thinking that our attitudes and beliefs are widely shared amongst the populace. I think that recent national election results over the years do not support this theory. I do not think the road to success for the Republicans is to run national candidates who are far to the right end of the spectrum. If it was, Barry Goldwater would have won way back in 1964. Recent history seems to indicate that the American people elect more centrist candidates to the office of President. And calling people who disagree with our beliefs stupid, or misguided, or they don't love liberty and freedom is not going to convert people over to our side.
The demographics are changing, and if the Republican party wishes to remain relevant, perhaps they will need to change also, as repugnant as that may be to to the conservative white males who form most of the party Base. Or the Party can double down on social conservatism and see how well that plays with people who are not older conservative white males.
-
I agree with this statement. In this little corner of the Net, I think we can be prone to thinking that our attitudes and beliefs are widely shared amongst the populace. I think that recent national election results over the years do not support this theory. I do not think the road to success for the Republicans is to run national candidates who are far to the right end of the spectrum. If it was, Barry Goldwater would have won way back in 1964. Recent history seems to indicate that the American people elect more centrist candidates to the office of President. And calling people who disagree with our beliefs stupid, or misguided, or they don't love liberty and freedom is not going to convert people over to our side.
The demographics are changing, and if the Republican party wishes to remain relevant, perhaps they will need to change also, as repugnant as that may be to to the conservative white males who form most of the party Base. Or the Party can double down on social conservatism and see how well that plays with people who are not older conservative white males.
OK. I accept the reality of shifting demographics and attitudes. But the question is how to offer a meaningful alternative, without simply creating a "bidding war" promising different stuff for votes? So, the Republicans propose conditional amnesty, and Democrats up the ante with unconditional amnesty. Cave on principle and endorse contemporary views which mirror the Democratic platform just a bit more "moderately"? What's the point of that?
I'm not sure conservatism can be made hip enough to appeal to people who simply don't want it.
-
The only thing that would save us from the snowballing welfare state is a period of unvelievably high prosperity.
I mean like under 3% unemployment for a sustained period of time and a marked improvement in wages.
It would be a perfect economic storm. Odds of hitting the lottery while recieving fellatio from a supermodel are probably higher.
I predict accelerated downward spiral, super inflation, and a breakup of the union in my lifetime.
-
I don't think that there will be another general election. Either the total economic crash will cause the USSA to break up, or Obama will be Emporer for Life by then =(
You are WAY too wrapped up in the lie that your vote actually matters.
The men that run the machine don't care if a new cog gets installed every 4 to 8 years, or if it came from the D or R cog-making factory, any more than you care when you receive change at the grocery store if your coins have a P or a D stamp for the mint they came from. It's about that important to them.
We'll get to vote again. And it'll make about as much effect as if you were a numismatist, sifting through the wal-mart cash registers for morgan dollars. Ain't gonna matter how much you look, they won't have any.
"The Base" that your refer to is not enough anymore. The demographics just aren't there. The Base is outnumbered. It will never be sufficient to elect a Republican, no matter how fired up The Base gets; it's not a matter of the Republican party finding the right subtle McCainPalinRomneyRyan.
I think the only chance the R party has is to go balls-to-the-wall libertarian with their candidates. The candidates they have been running haven't been getting the job done, and it's not because they aren't Republican enough. It's that there aren't enough Republicans anymore. They are dying off and Democrats keep getting elected because their candidates are more hip. Even as un-hip as Obama is after his first term, he still compares favorably in hipness to the tragically un-hip Romney. The only hope for opposing the Democratic party now is a libertarian candidate that will get the votes of the current Republican base )who will vote for anybody but the Democrat), and which urban middle-classers are not ashamed to admit voting for.
With our current voting system, losing by a little is the same as not even running. Tell me, if the Republican party had nominated Ron Paul, could they possibly have done any worse? No.
This is about the smartest thing the Stoopid Party could do.
The young, hip electorate:
-hates wars
-hates government legislating morality
-hates taxes
-doesn't attend church to the degree that R's wants it to, and isn't going to change that
-refuses to be enslaved by the Baby Boomer Generation any more
THAT is why Ron Paul had a viral campaign exploding with hip youth energy and volunteerism.
I remember my grandparents asking me what I saw in this stodgy, tiny, shambling, funny-looking 70-something year old man, and how he could possibly resonate so effectively with so many young people. We had a GREAT conversation about what he represented, and my grandparents really respected it.
-
If the R's pandering to "centrists" ie leftists who don't want to admit it by running slightly less liberal versions of the D candidate, why the hell should I care if they win or not?
-
If "squishy moderate who ignores social issues" was a recipe for success Romney would've won in a landslide.
-
Well whatever y'all do, please tell your darling alt candidates to drop the social conservative BS. If I wanted to pick someone to tell me about God I'd walk down to the church. Constitution! Don't play the game where the left baits the social conservative bear, refuse to engage.
Third party candidates talking religion is our big problem right now? You mean Paul or Johnson, or both of them?
-
I also wouldn't be surprised if Michael Bloomberg runs.
-
I also wouldn't be surprised if Michael Bloomberg runs.
If he does I'm gonna write in Ghenghis Khan.
-
The only thing that would save us from the snowballing welfare state is a period of unvelievably high prosperity.
I mean like under 3% unemployment for a sustained period of time and a marked improvement in wages.
It would be a perfect economic storm. Odds of hitting the lottery while recieving fellatio from a supermodel are probably higher.
I predict accelerated downward spiral, super inflation, and a breakup of the union in my lifetime.
There is always the prospect of game-changing new technological developments. In fact it is a certainty that something "amazing" and unpredicted will come along. Whether it really changes the long-term trends is another story.
-
Get ready for the rolling out of free energy from some new form of fusion. That and free government soma for the asking.
-
Get ready for the rolling out of free energy from some new form of fusion. That and free government soma for the asking.
Don't forget the free rations of SoyLent Red, Yellow and Green, and the soy oil butter substitute.
Oh, and I'm writing in Cthulhu. At least it is honest about it's intentions and will actually try to carry them through.
-
Don't forget the free rations of SoyLent Red, Yellow and Green, and the soy oil butter substitute.
Oh, and I'm writing in Cthulhu. At least it is honest about it's intentions and will actually try to carry them through.
"Soylent Green is made from...recalcitrant conservatives in reeducation camps."
-
We have a lot to fear politically, no doubt about that, but anyone who wants to bet against one or two amazing breakthroughs is willing to do so.
Imagine the American economy in 2012 without all things digital. Most of the far-seeing futurists of the early 20th century were far off base.
Cheap energy--fusion is one possibility--could give us a reprieve for a while, but of course it wouldn't change the underlying moral and social issues. (That's where the Soma comes in. :))
-
The only thing that would save us from the snowballing welfare state is a period of unvelievably high prosperity.
I mean like under 3% unemployment for a sustained period of time and a marked improvement in wages.
It would be a perfect economic storm. Odds of hitting the lottery while recieving fellatio from a supermodel are probably higher.
I predict accelerated downward spiral, super inflation, and a breakup of the union in my lifetime.
Obviously, taxing the rich (anyone with a job) is going to lead to an economic boom :facepalm:
-
We have a lot to fear politically, no doubt about that, but anyone who wants to bet against one or two amazing breakthroughs is willing to do so.
Imagine the American economy in 2012 without all things digital. Most of the far-seeing futurists of the early 20th century were far off base.
Cheap energy--fusion is one possibility--could give us a reprieve for a while, but of course it wouldn't change the underlying moral and social issues. (That's where the Soma comes in. :))
Cheap energy, I am afraid, is an oxymoron. Energy will never again be cheap. It is not a matter of availability, it's due to controls over supply. Cheap energy engenders freedom. Can't have that.
And fusion energy will certainly never happen, at least not without a miraculous paradigm-breaking shift in technology. It's been "just around the corner" for 60 years.
-
OK. I accept the reality of shifting demographics and attitudes. But the question is how to offer a meaningful alternative, without simply creating a "bidding war" promising different stuff for votes? So, the Republicans propose conditional amnesty, and Democrats up the ante with unconditional amnesty. Cave on principle and endorse contemporary views which mirror the Democratic platform just a bit more "moderately"? What's the point of that?
I'm not sure conservatism can be made hip enough to appeal to people who simply don't want it.
Shifting demographics? You mean liberty should step aside for fertility? The fertility of a group of people many of whom arrived here illegally? Excuse me, but that is an ignoble position, though not unexpected from the Republican hierarchy.
-
Cheap energy, I am afraid, is an oxymoron. Energy will never again be cheap. It is not a matter of availability, it's due to controls over supply. Cheap energy engenders freedom. Can't have that.
And fusion energy will certainly never happen, at least not without a miraculous paradigm-breaking shift in technology. It's been "just around the corner" for 60 years.
Well, you certainly have a point about the future of technology being politicized. But that just tells us what we have to fight.
-
Maybe the Republicans will pull a rabbit out of their hat, but right now I don't see any female Republicans that would be popular (or more precisely, more popular than Hillary) among independents and undecideds.
Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico.
-
Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico.
But Republicans will neeeeeeeeeever vote for an Hispanic. Just like them evangelicals will never vote for Mitt Romney. :rofl:
-
Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico.
I loved her convention speech. My favorite line: "Damn, we're Republicans!"
-
Shifting demographics? You mean liberty should step aside for fertility? The fertility of a group of people many of whom arrived here illegally? Excuse me, but that is an ignoble position, though not unexpected from the Republican hierarchy.
I clearly acknowledged a fact. I didn't assert it should serve as a basis for ignoring principles.
-
I have to agree with some of the folks here: I've heard a LOT of people who, if some of the conservative social issues were dropped, would seriously consider voting R. But those social issues drive a wedge.
Abortion... isn't moving. It's a dead issue at the moment, except as a way of getting people VERY excited and drawing stupid statements out of people. Let it be for awhile: we have bigger problems as a nation.
Also: leave the whole "gay marriage" issue alone. Seriously: you have any idea how many gays would be willing to look at R candidates, if it wasn't for that? Google "Pink Pistols".
That's just two issues that come to mind
-
The two social issues mentioned aren't being driven by conservatives.
Both issues are being driven by the so called progressives.
From what I gather Obamacare will be providing government funding for abortions. The pro abortion contingent are the ones not content with the status quo, they are expanding the practice and using tax dollars to pay for their agenda.
The gay marriage issue is a Trojan horse that will eventually provide the legal foundation to silence any religious (or otherwise) critics of the homosexual lifestyle(s). Opposing the gay agenda is pretty much a thought crime that most folks are already afraid to utter. See vast swaths of Europe and Canada if you don't believe free speech on this issue will fail to be protected.
The culture warriors are either in retreat or have left the field of battle.
-
The two social issues mentioned aren't being driven by conservatives.
Both issues are being driven by the so called progressives.
Exactly.
-
The two social issues mentioned aren't being driven by conservatives.
Both issues are being driven by the so called progressives.
From what I gather Obamacare will be providing government funding for abortions. The pro abortion contingent are the ones not content with the status quo, they are expanding the practice and using tax dollars to pay for their agenda.
The gay marriage issue is a Trojan horse that will eventually provide the legal foundation to silence any religious (or otherwise) critics of the homosexual lifestyle(s). Opposing the gay agenda is pretty much a thought crime that most folks are already afraid to utter. See vast swaths of Europe and Canada if you don't believe free speech on this issue will fail to be protected.
The culture warriors are either in retreat or have left the field of battle.
"The Sleep of Reason breeds monsters." So does muzzling people.
-
Good article Millcreek
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121108/OPINION04/711089946#Republicans-need-to-take-their-party-back
I Especially like (and agree with) the last three sentences.
It's not true that Republicans needed better candidates. They had excellent contenders. The problem was that the electable ones couldn't leap the lunacy barrier erected by the right wing. They couldn't clinch nominations. Or they withdrew from races in the face of the party base's social nastiness, scientific ignorance and fiscal irresponsibility."
1) I used to enjoy Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and crew. Can't stand them now...haven't like them in years. I think they hurt more than help. Acting like thinking adults might help.
2) I won't even go into the science piece...why bother.
3) Spending is spending when you're broke. Too many sacred cows for the GOP. You can't support spending trillions propping up third world countries, and call 47% of US citizens leeches.
-
Did you ever ask yourself why the loonies on the left never damage the Democrats ability to get elected?
I mean really, did you watch the VP debate? Do we need to list the cast of odd characters in the Dem party who keep getting elected?
Seems the spotlight direction, the questions asked, the narrative framed always has the same result.
I'll just leave you with that thought while you engage in your circular firing squad.
-
Hard to believe people are still peddling this suicidal theory. The GOP should dump its base in favor of some hypothetical cohort of Objectivists that are waiting in the wings.
Ya know what, go ahead and try it. We've certainly got nothing to lose now. Heck, maybe it will be enough to finally kill the Grand Ole Party, so a more constitutionally-oriented party can get a foot in the door.
-
Reality based would also be good.
-
The Republican candidates were good enough. What wasn't good enough was the American electorate of 2012.
-
Reality based would also be good.
Yes, hopefully it would also be reality-based, which is to say socially conservative.
-
Yes, hopefully it would also be reality-based, which is to say socially conservative.
Pity that reality is not shared by the majority of Americans, eh?
-
Pity that reality is not shared by the majority of Americans, eh?
Ah, er, we all share the same reality, man.
But, yeah, too bad that people insist on having social values that don't work well in reality.
-
It's real that if you keep giving free *expletive deleted*it to the Free *expletive deleted*it Army, they will ask for even more *expletive deleted*it. And they will organize to take more *expletive deleted*it from you by proxied force of government.
That's real. That's our reality.
-
♫"Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor, and gives to the rich
... Stupid bitch." ♫
Moore : What did you sing?
Singers : We sang... "he steals from the poor and gives to the rich"
Moore : (looking down) Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.
[applause]
-
This may be a good place to point out that the last time a political party came out of nowhere to win the presidential election in less than ten years, it was over a social issue.
That being said, the Framers found it necessary to overlook the issue of slavery, in order to agree on a constitution. Things may be so dire that we might choose to overlook abortion, to save the republic. But we know how it worked out in the case of slavery. Or didn't. =|
-
Communist infiltration of .gov is a well documented fact.
Let's be specific here, much as you avoid that. What would your Islamic take over look like? Forcing us to bow to Mecca and attend mosques? Banning pork products and dog ownership? Forcing women to wear burqas? What exactly are you envisioning when you say that, in real world terms not some vague allegory?
I will venture a few.
Various laws against "hate speech" which would include "insulting Islam", allowing sharia law to replace US law in Muslim enclaves, particularly with regard to civil law, removing reference to Islamic based violence with the usual double speak, seeing an increasing influence in the Government, Universities, and general culture.
basicly, it would look exactly like what is happening in Britain and Europe. All backed by a vast amount of oil money from SA and now Libya.
-
Yes, hopefully it would also be reality-based, which is to say socially conservative.
Social conservatism is about as reality-based as fiscal liberalism. Culture changes, and when those changes aren't harmful to society as a whole in any real meaning of the term (i.e. gay marriage), you're only shooting yourself in the foot by restricting it. It is denying reality to not understand that particular concept.
-
Here we go again. ;/ Nobody is trying to "restrict" gay marriage. The reality-based among us just don't want ersatz marriage to be recognized by law. The unfounded* assertion that they don't harm society is irrelevant, as "it doesn't harm society" is no reason for government to officially condone private behavior. Such "marriages" have no positive effect, either, so government has no place there.
*Unfounded, because we don't yet know what harm it may cause. That being said, I happen to see irrational marriage as a symptom of harm, more than a cause.
Culture changes
We sure learned that on Tuesday. =|
-
I'm going to leave the gay marriage debate alone: I don't feel like going 'round and 'round again. Nobody is changing anyone else's beliefs on that.
Abortion though. That's been an issue brought up since WAY before Obama was in office. And it is usually an issue pushed by social conservatives.
But here's the thing: there is NO movement about it on the horizon at all. None. What that issue DOES give, is the chance for conservative to swallow their feet for the media
They say "Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake". And the Left has done a bang-up job of not only not interrupting the Right, but in actively encouraging and aiding IN that mistake.
Honestly, keeping this issue going gives FAR more help to the Left than anything else could
-
Here we go again. ;/ Nobody is trying to "restrict" gay marriage. The reality-based among us just don't want ersatz marriage to be recognized by law. The unfounded* assertion that they don't harm society is irrelevant, as "it doesn't harm society" is no reason for government to officially condone private behavior. Such "marriages" have no positive effect, either, so government has no place there.
So long as government hands out special privileges based on marriage status, they have a duty to be non-discriminatory about it, as long both individuals involved are consenting adults. Where is the government's place to deny things like death benefits, survivorship, inheritance, default power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, tax breaks, etc. based on something like the sex of the individuals involved?
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the newer generations agree with me, and by ignoring this cultural shift the Republican party is going to find it harder and harder to win elections as they are more and more (and, in this case, justifiably) painted as the party of bigotry and hate. You can't have the government running around peeking into people's bedrooms to make sure they are inserting the correct part into the correct slot and try and claim you are for freedom and smaller government. People will rightly see that as hypocritical, and you lose votes because of it.
And as Strings said, the abortion debate is another problem; not so much as being against abortion in and of itself (there are still enough people that dislike it that it isn't necessarily losing issue), but the way candidates talk about. Akin and that moron in Indiana were probably one of the single biggest reasons that Romney lost. Instead of keeping their traps shut and giving a boilerplate response, they had to ham-fistedly drag religion into it (and/or confirm the complete and uttler lack of "reality based" scientific knowledge, in Akin's case) in such a way as if to confirm every single bit of the idiotic "war on women" meme that the left successfully spread, especially when Romney failed to distance himself adequately.
Barring a massive unexpected cultural shift, there really isn't going to be any movement on how we deal with abortion. As such, Republicans really ought to put it on the back burner and focus in fiscal issues, instead of getting distracted like a bunch of ADHD squirrels and making themselves look like idiots every time it comes up.
The third big problem is immigration; this issue is probably why Florida went blue. Republicans need to figure out a way to approach it that doesn't make the Democrat's job of painting them as xenophobic racists any easier. Actual, effective immigration reform - making immigration easier while enforcing the law more effectively - would be a good start. Being majority practicing Catholics, Hispanics actually tend to be fairly conservative, so if you can figure out a way not to repulse them they can be lured to the Republican party quite easily.
Fix those three problems, and Republicans would find it much easier to actually win elections. The fiscal end of their platform tends to be a net plus for them, but these three issues - all of them social issues - are absolutely killing them nationally.
-
Ha ha, the bastions of liberty at APS are arguing in favor of government funded abortions and the Feds bestowing special privileges on the pet special interest group of the day.
You can have your Republican party and its insignificance. You guys are just another bump in the road for Obama.
Google "government funded abortion", looking more and more like a fait accompli. You guys can have your dystopia, I'm not voting for it though.
May our chains rest lightly upon us.
http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions
-
Ha ha, the bastions of liberty at APS are arguing in favor of government funded abortions and the Feds bestowing special privileges on the pet special interest group of the day.
You can have your Republican party and its insignificance. You guys are just another bump in the road for Obama.
Google "government funded abortion", looking more and more like a fait accompli. You guys can have your dystopia, I'm not voting for it though.
May our chains rest lightly upon us.
http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions
I like how you put words in my mouth I never said. I don't think I've ever seen that tactic before. ;/
I'd prefer to get government out of the marriage business entirely, but neither the Rs or the Ds are pushing for that, are they? As such, we have to deal with the system as it is, and if you're locking out entire groups of people based on specious grounds, that's a big *expletive deleted*ing problem.
Secondly, I don't see where ANYONE has argued for subsidized abortions. That can still be fought on fiscal grounds (though it'd be better to fight against Obamacare in its entirety rather than that one single issue). What we have said is that the abortion issue seems to cause R politicians to lose their gorram minds and make themselves - and by extension, the rest of the party - look like fools, and they should simply avoid talking about it. Say something like "we'd prefer to let individual states decide" and then change the *expletive deleted*ing subject, preferably back to the economy.
Republicans win when they focus on economics. Except in deep red states, they lose when they go off on social subjects, specifically abortion, gay marriage, and immigration.
-
Abortion though. That's been an issue brought up since WAY before Obama was in office. And it is usually an issue pushed by social conservatives.
But here's the thing: there is NO movement about it on the horizon at all. None. What that issue DOES give, is the chance for conservative to swallow their feet for the media
Social conservatives haven't been pushing the issue this election cycle, and the only movement I see is that Obamacare is about to start financing abortions. The only attention the issue gets is what is created by the left. Akin is a perfect example. A left-wing journalist brought it up. Left-wing media and left-wing campaigns pushed Akin's clumsy answer as far as they could. Romney and the GOP leadership distanced themselves about as far as they could, even disavowing him and cutting off funding for one of their own senate candidates, but the left hung it around the GOP's neck, nationally, regardless.
It's only a slightly less egregious example than the narrative the left created out of whole cloth, claiming that Republicans were getting ready to ban birth control. There's no evidence of that. There's no reason to believe that was on the agenda, but the left decided it should be. So George Stephanopoulos asked Romney about it, out of the clear blue sky, paving the way for the completely arbitrary decision to require Catholic institutions to cover it in their health care plans. Which looks suspiciously as if the left "pushed" the issue just to fabricate a "war on women."
Interesting times.
-
Republicans win when they focus on economics. Except in deep red states, they lose when they go off on social subjects, specifically abortion, gay marriage, and immigration.
Citation needed. Especially after Romney's loss. =|
-
I like how you put words in my mouth I never said. I don't think I've ever seen that tactic before. ;/
It is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.
Are you not suggesting that conservatives shelve talking about abortion while it is in the process of being established as an entitlement paid for by tax payers?
Are you not suggesting that instead of fighting for the principle of getting government out of marriage (where we agree) you instead once again want social conservatives to shelve any resistance to enshrining an entitlement to which they are morally opposed.
If that is supposed to be the voice of Republican reason I'll take a pass thank you very much.
That is the exact republican tactic for losing on every issue.
-
Abortion is important not only because it is, for many, murder, but because it is the ultimate policy arm of shaping future demographics. The categories of "unwanted" and "undesirable" need to be unpacked and discussed so we can understand and discuss what our cultural priorities really are. Right now it all masquerades as "freedom," "rights," and "convenience." We ought to be adult about who is going to inherit this world we are building day by day.
-
Abortion is important for managing the democratic vote farms, the urban and rural permanent underclass.
The number of permanent underclass have to be kept high enough to win elections but low enough to be controllable.
Using welfare benefits and abortion they have it pretty well fine tuned. As more suburban voters vote Democrat there is less need for the permanent underclass, so access to affordable ie free contraception and abortion is necessary.
Just kidding, nothing like that could really be true in America.
-
Abortion is important for managing the democratic vote farms, the urban and rural permanent underclass.
The number of permanent underclass have to be kept high enough to win elections but low enough to be controllable.
Using welfare benefits and abortion they have it pretty well fine tuned. As more suburban voters vote Democrat there is less need for the permanent underclass, so access to affordable ie free contraception and abortion is necessary.
That is the most cynical thing I've ever read. So it's probably true on some level. (and maybe entirely true) =(
-
>It is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.<
And the outlawing of homosexuality is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.
I've never said that I think gay deserve "special treatment", only that they get the same protections that the rest of us do. For that to happen, you either have to remove any benefit for straights marrying, or you have to allow gays to get the same things the same way.
-
Abortion is important for managing the democratic vote farms, the urban and rural permanent underclass.
The number of permanent underclass have to be kept high enough to win elections but low enough to be controllable.
Using welfare benefits and abortion they have it pretty well fine tuned. As more suburban voters vote Democrat there is less need for the permanent underclass, so access to affordable ie free contraception and abortion is necessary.
Just kidding, nothing like that could really be true in America.
We know what motivated Margaret Sanger, don't we? And we know what motivates the open borders crowd, both parties, right?
Cynicism is just another word for a cleansed mind.
-
I love how the loss of a candidate who distanced himself on social issues proves that we need to distance ourselves from social issues. ;/
-
Our politics has become a way of dealing with elephants (not just the GOP) in not only the living room but the kitchen, den, dining room, and bedrooms.
These guys are so willfully blind.
-
It is the logical extension of what you're suggesting.
Are you not suggesting that conservatives shelve talking about abortion while it is in the process of being established as an entitlement paid for by tax payers?
Did you not read the entirety of my post? Apparently not.
Are you not suggesting that instead of fighting for the principle of getting government out of marriage (where we agree) you instead once again want social conservatives to shelve any resistance to enshrining an entitlement to which they are morally opposed.
The Republican Party, as a whole, does NOT want government out of marriage. That may be something you and I can agree on, but that is not going to be part of the GOP plank anytime soon, nor will it be a Democratic Party plank. Both parties are too statist to give up that power.
In the meantime, the government needs to stop descriminating on idiotic grounds. Period.
-
From now on I'm discriminating against Republicans and Democrats.
Two sides of the same coin in a gypsy game.
C'mon and play, heads I win tails you lose...
-
It doesn't matter who brought it up.
What matters is that it worked.
Both are canidaite killers. The MAJORITY is no longer worried about gay marriage. They don't care. Those of you who get your pants in a tizzle over a word are the minority.
Are you really saying that letting the USA go to fiscel hell in a handbasket is worth they way you define marriage? At the end of the day, does it matter? I'm not saying that you like it, or that you agree with it. I'm saying that if you belive in God and straight only marriages and you married that way, then by your reasoning your good to go. Is the fact that you think the rest of the world is wrong on that issue MORE IMPORTANT then getting behind a fiscally conservative canidate?
Same goes for aboration (which, BTW, you can't do crap about without some SCOTUS seats anyway)
Fistful, I think it was Franklin (who founded the first anti slavery group in America) who pointed out that establishing freedom for at least some was enough of a task for one group. We're humans, not gods. You can only do so much at once or at one time.
Regardless of who's right and wrong, it can get hashed out later, when we have the free time to do so.
Romney and the others got SLAMMED on the women's right issues, and they're responce was weak. I think it was weak, because it was partially true. They will cut womens health programs (which I think is nessasary fically, but needs to be presented as carefully as can be) and the would bring up the pro life platform if they had time for it. The same way the Dems would have already gotten some Anti 2nd Amendment crap out if they had the time over the last four years.
The dems learned the hard way after the AWB that anti RKBA is a canidate killer, why can't the R's figure out the same is true over gay marriage and abortion? Don't tell me the hard core Dems don't belive in those anti RKBA legislation as much as the R's belive in their two issues.
-
You can have your party of professional amoralists and lying sacks of *expletive deleted* who will say anything to get elected.
I'm done being their rube.
-edited for clarity-
-
Are you really saying that letting the USA go to fiscel hell in a handbasket is worth they way you define marriage? At the end of the day, does it matter? I'm not saying that you like it, or that you agree with it. I'm saying that if you belive in God and straight only marriages and you married that way, then by your reasoning your good to go. Is the fact that you think the rest of the world is wrong on that issue MORE IMPORTANT then getting behind a fiscally conservative canidate?
Has anyone said that? I think the point is that fiscally and socially conservative candidates can win, when we bother to nominate them. Examples abound.
Fistful, I think it was Franklin (who founded the first anti slavery group in America) who pointed out that establishing freedom for at least some was enough of a task for one group. We're humans, not gods. You can only do so much at once or at one time.
If it would help you to understand it from the perspective of the other half of America, consider whether you would be willing to back a fiscally conservative party who believed all blacks should be deported or killed. And imagine that half the country was already on board with that idea - you just need to put aside your conscience and deal with the economics thing. Would you be willing to do it?
The dems learned the hard way after the AWB that anti RKBA is a canidate killer, why can't the R's figure out the same is true over gay marriage and abortion? Don't tell me the hard core Dems don't belive in those anti RKBA legislation as much as the R's belive in their two issues.
Please point out where the Republicans have made a significant attack on abortion or gay marriage, and been punished for it in a similar way.
Another question is whether a fiscally conservative but socially liberal America could really work. Could we reduce entitlement spending to some manageable level, while continuing the moral decline that exacerbates poverty and crime? Could we have the guts and resolve to pull ourselves back on track, economically, and defend ourselves militarily, in a culture where reason, decency and family are not important? Would such a benighted nation be worth salvaging, or would it be doomed to sink into the same morass in which latter-day Europe now finds itself?
-
On a local level, they can win. In a conservitive area, they can win. Not on a national level. I think the numbers proved it, and so does the map. Romney got his butt kicked by the large LIBERAL population centers.
Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BROUGHT THE SUBJECT UP. Seriously, how do you justify you're last statment. I didn't said the Republicans or Romney made an attack on those issues. In fact, they tried to avoid the subject. But the issues still got brought up and once they did, bing bang, Romney and fellows couldn't hold out. The subject is a canidate killer and if they don't bring it up the other guys sure the hell will. It's not just about who brings it up, it's the same diffrence between shooting yourself in the foot and getting shot in the back due to the big ass target you've got on. Either way, you still get shot.
You think Franklin thought it was easy to let go of the clause of the declaration that would ban slavery in his new country? And your example is off. We are not voting to activly begin doing something reprehensiable, we are allowing that we can't stop something that is already happening at this time.
(note: I am pro choice, will always be pro choice and belive as strongly as fistful is pro life. I just don't want to get into THAT arguement)
-
Are you really saying that letting the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket is worth they way you define marriage? At the end of the day, does it matter?
Same goes for abortion (which, BTW, you can't do crap about without some SCOTUS seats anyway)
Good questions, what are your answers?
Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than jeopardize the right to unfettered abortion?
Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than impede the expansion of government funded abortions via Obamacare?
Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than deny the expansion of government marriage entitlements to homosexual couples?
You don't have to answer, we already know, they are rhetorical questions.
Some folks social agendas are more equal than others.
-
Good questions, what are your answers?
Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than jeopardize the right to unfettered abortion?
Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than impede the expansion of government funded abortions via Obamacare?
Would you "let the USA go to fiscal hell in a hand-basket" rather than deny the expansion of government marriage entitlements to homosexual couples?
You don't have to answer, we already know, they are rhetorical questions.
Some folks social agendas are more equal than others.
You asked the wrong person. I voted for Romney dispite the fact that I think his social conservitism is totally wrong.
Yes, I would sacrifice my pro choice stance and my veiws on gay marriage to retain the rights to fight for them later.
The way I see it is simple. As long as I (and others) have the bill of rights and the means to exercise them, then everything else is possible.
If I don't have those base things, nothing matters anymore.
How can you even hope to make ANY social improvement or change if you don't have the means to impliment it? :mad:
-
On a local level, they can win. In a conservitive area, they can win. Not on a national level. I think the numbers proved it, and so does the map. Romney got his butt kicked by the large LIBERAL population centers.
That is counter-factual. No Republican is likely to win the large LIBERAL population centers, social issues or no. No Republican presidential campaign plans to win that way. That's American presidential politics 101. Social conservatives like Reagan and Bush DID win, but they did so by motivating enough social and fiscal conservatives to counterbalance the big cities. (Of course, Reagan even won most of what would be called blue states today.) Also, social conservatives like John Ashcroft and Rick Santorum have been elected to the Senate. Ashcroft and Huckabee were governors. They clearly were able to succeed outside of "conservative areas."
Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BROUGHT THE SUBJECT UP. Seriously, how do you justify you're last statment. I didn't said the Republicans or Romney made an attack on those issues. In fact, they tried to avoid the subject.
There you go. That is the difference between an attack and a half-hearted defense. When I said "attack," I was referring to a piece of legislation like the AWB. Or at least something substantive to advance their own platform. We saw that the Democrats made an attack on something and were punished for it in the polls. On social conservatism, we have NOT seen that with the Republicans. In 2004, the GOP profited from the fact that marriage was on the ballot in many states, and social conservatives turned out in droves to support conservative positions and GOP candidates. We haven't seen anything to refute that lesson. Nor have we seen the GOP punished for their abortion stance, Akin notwithstanding. Ersatz marriage won in a few states last week, but they were blue states. That may be evidence that the crazy ersatz marriage is becoming more acceptable, but that doesn't make it some kind of third rail that no one can touch. For a comparison, look at how backward some states are on guns. Yet the pro-gun movement has been doing pretty well.
But the issues still got brought up and once they did, bing bang, Romney and fellows couldn't hold out. The subject is a canidate killer
False. Not knowing how to defend your own position is the candidate-killer. The rape-abortion issue has been controversial for decades, and social conservatives like Todd Akin (in fact, Todd Akin himself) have been elected over and over again, holding the same view that Akin does. The fact that two people made a similar mistake in the same election cycle would be a poor foundation for dropping an anti-abortion stance that has been good for the party in many other elections, and is likely to help in the future.
A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things. Something like, "No innocent person should be executed for something a criminal did to someone else." Something like that. Judging the popularity of a policy on the worst possible presentation of it is patently misleading. And by that I mean that you are misleading yourself.
-
>A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things<
Therein is the problem with these two issues. Folks that would be willing to look at some form of compromise position for the party on any other issue, want to fight for an absolute stance on these two.
Abortion: no longer acceptable as a form of birth control. Allowed in cases of extreme danger to the mother, rape*, or incest*
Gay marriage: change the law to a civil union, good between any two or more consenting adults. Makes everyone equal under the law.
*I wanted to note on this: some women can deal with carrying such a child to term. For some, you are legislating that the victim be tortured for 9 months. Let the victim have the decision
-
>A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things<
Therein is the problem with these two issues. Folks that would be willing to look at some form of compromise position for the party on any other issue, want to fight for an absolute stance on these two.
Abortion: no longer acceptable as a form of birth control. Allowed in cases of extreme danger to the mother, rape*, or incest*
Gay marriage: change the law to a civil union, good between any two or more consenting adults. Makes everyone equal under the law.
*I wanted to note on this: some women can deal with carrying such a child to term. For some, you are legislating that the victim be tortured for 9 months. Let the victim have the decision
If a fiscal conservative or liberty minded person was on the ballot holding those positions I could vote for them with a clear conscience.
-
That's the problem though: those two issues seem to be impossible to reach such a compromise. At least for the party itself
-
>A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things<
Therein is the problem with these two issues. Folks that would be willing to look at some form of compromise position for the party on any other issue, want to fight for an absolute stance on these two.
That's not what I was talking about at all. Please read the rest of the above paragraph. I was pointing out that the anti-abortion position in cases of rape is far, far easier to defend than Akin made it out to be. Simply say that you don't condone the murder of innocent people. Done.
*I wanted to note on this: some women can deal with carrying such a child to term. For some, you are legislating that the victim be tortured for 9 months. Let the victim have the decision
No, the rapist tortured them. Murdering the child is not an acceptable response to this. To make such a claim is a thousand times worse than what Akin said. But your extremist viewpoint is what passes for a moderate position now. :facepalm:
-
And your example is off. We are not voting to activly begin doing something reprehensiable, we are allowing that we can't stop something that is already happening at this time.
Then adjust it. You can either save your country economically, or try to do that and save the black folks at the same time.
But that example is off, too. Both scenarios assume, as you do, that we can right the ship economically, while giving the finger to the non-racists (or the social conservatives). A troubled theory, at best.
-
*sigh*
As someone who deals with such victims, let me say that yes, in some cases, going through the 9 months of pregnancy due to rape would be torture for the victim.
Note: IN SOME CASES. Others can deal with it fine. Oddly enough, different people handle things differently.
>Murdering the child is not an acceptable response to this<
Were my wife the victim of a rape, got pregnant due to said crime, and chose to terminate the pregnancy, I would support that decision. Were someone to tell her that this choice made her a murderer, that person would need medical assistance themselves.
We're talking about the genuine well-being of the victim. Which, wow, once again gets left behind. Our society (Left and Right) are always perfectly fine with saying "Screw the victim! We have more important things to deal with!"
I've been there for those victims. I've watched women fall apart after testifying, having had to relive what happened. Actually, just visited with one, who has nightmares still, years after the fact. And you feel that, if her rapist had gotten her knocked-up, she should have had 9 months of reinforcement of her trauma.
It's easy to take a principled stand when you don't have to actually have to deal with the consequences...
-
*sigh*
It's easy to take a principled stand when you don't have to actually have to deal with the consequences...
And that argument is a cop-out. It's easy to say the life of the fetus isn't even worth considering now that you are no longer a fetus.
-
Spurious argument.
I help abused kids and rape victims. That means I DO get to deal with the fallout.
Yes, I place more value on the victim's well being. So sorry that I place value on a victim's life.
We're not talking about abortion as birth control here. We're talking about letting to victim of a sexual assault have the choice available, so as to move on with their life (instead of having 9 months of hell before rebuilding their life).
You DON'T have to deal with the repercussions of your principles here, unless and until yourself or someone close to you is raped, and has to deal with the fallout...
-
Isn't the issue one's standard of living, not "economics" per se?
And, frankly, the way we compute standard of living is rather superficial; it's far more than a matter of dollars and cents. If your society is degenerating socially & morally while your income is going up, or only yours is going up while everyone's around you is going down, your standard of "living" isn't improving.
Romney talked about jobs, vaguely, but he was mum about illegal immigration's impact on the job market and about both multinationals exporting jobs and the challenges of globalism. Such questions are not "left-wing," they are basic economic reality looked at through a nationalist prism. The alternative is not Obama's Marxist statism but something neither candidate was prepared to look at.
-
Spurious argument.
I help abused kids and rape victims. That means I DO get to deal with the fallout.
Yes, I place more value on the victim's well being. So sorry that I place value on a victim's life.
We're not talking about abortion as birth control here. We're talking about letting to victim of a sexual assault have the choice available, so as to move on with their life (instead of having 9 months of hell before rebuilding their life).
You DON'T have to deal with the repercussions of your principles here, unless and until yourself or someone close to you is raped, and has to deal with the fallout...
I think you are being rather presumptuous as to whether any of us who think a child deserves life no matter the crimes of his or her father have had no one close to us that has had to deal with rape and its consequences.
It's the whole: "YOU WEREN'T THERE MAN! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE!!" I can feel great sympathy for the victim of a rape, and still oppose the murder of her child. It is not in callous indifference that we protect the life of the child. Yes, it is a significant burden placed on the victim, but the responsibility of that crime lies on the father, not the child. An innocent child should not be murdered even to alleviate the suffering of a crime victim.
Of course, I believe that an abortion may only increase the suffering of the victim, but it is not my place to claim I know better than they do: I advocate for the life of the child, not the well-being of the victim.
-
>I advocate for the life of the child, not the well-being of the victim<
At least you boldly admit that, Mak.
Some of my attitude, I'll admit, is colored by my experiences. What I usually see is a system that is, at best, indifferent to the victim... except to put the perp away. After that... yer on your own.
>Of course, I believe that an abortion may only increase the suffering of the victim, but it is not my place to claim I know better than they do<
And the best person to make that decision is the victim. Not you, not me, certainly not some government appointed "expert".
I've seen victims go both ways. I've seen some that, were they to terminate the pregnancy, would suffer more than the original rape caused. But I've also seen some that, forced to carry to term, neither they nor the child would make it that far.
-
Some of my attitude, I'll admit, is colored by my experiences. What I usually see is a system that is, at best, indifferent to the victim... except to put the perp away. After that... yer on your own.
If by, "the system", you mean the justice system, then I am glad to hear that. The government should be concerned SOLELY with the administration of justice.
Healing and sympathy for the victim ought to come from private sources. The government is a soul-less wretch and doesn't do "sympathy" well, unless throwing money at something counts as "sympathy."
And again, it isn't because I think the victims ought to just suck it up because life is pain. It is because I don't think that should be the province of the government. (Just as I don't want poor people to crawl under a bridge and die just because I think the government shouldn't be in the charity business. "Charity" means love. I don't want a government to love me or anyone else. And not the least reason for which that everything the government touches, it screws up.)
-
It's easy to take a principled stand when you don't have to actually have to deal with the consequences...
It's also easy to make the wrong decision when you're too close to the situation. It's easy to focus on the victim that you can see and that can tell you what she's going through (and for the politicians, the one that can vote), and ignore the victim that is unseen, unheard and easily disposed of.
What you have is a logic fail. You choose to ignore the fact that the child is also a victim. First of the circumstances of his/her conception. Then of being murdered, should someone decide to murder them.
When a person is molested as a child, and then molests their own children, we understand that they are both victim and violator, and should face the consequences. When a person is raped, and then kills her own child, such clarity seems to go out the window.
-
The abortion question is pretty simple: at what point does life begin? If you think it starts at conception there can be no moral abortion, save in the rare cases such as ectopic pregnancy where it is analogous to self defense.
And as a sexual assault victim married to another one, with many family and friends who have been raped or molested let me say that not wanting a child killed because his or her father was a rapist is absolutely NOT a way to disregard the suffering of the rape victim. It's merely recognizing that there are two victims, and killing one of them is not ok even if the child is in the womb.
I assume if a rape victim carried her child that was conceived in the attack to term you would be opposed to her killing the child (or abusing the kid) after the birth. So why is killing the child before the birth ok?
-
I assume if a rape victim carried her child that was conceived in the attack to term you would be opposed to her killing the child (or abusing the kid) after the birth. So why is killing the child before the birth ok?
Because a child, quite obviously, is physically attached to the body of the mother.
A person has a right to defend themselves against an invasion of their property, especially their body, even if the invasion is non-lethal, and even if the 'invader', like a child, cannot bear personal responsibility for it.
Now, one could argue that in the case of consensual sex, you agree to a certain chance of pregnancy (no birth control is 100% effective), and thus void your own right to defend yourself - but with actual rape this is different. You have never agreed to have this child in your body, and your right not to be pregnant is not made vacant because the child is oh-so-small and oh-so-adorable.
But on the other hand, I don't believe human life begins at conception.
-
So....abortion is now considered self-defense?.....
....I'm not even joining this argument if that can even be considered a legitimate viewpoint....
-
So....abortion is now considered self-defense?.....
....I'm not even joining this argument if that can even be considered a legitimate viewpoint....
The obvious question of a firearms-themed forum...
"What caliber for preemies?(1)"
"I swear, your honor, the preemie was so menacing that I feared for my life and then proceeded to shoot to stop. Who knows what would have happened if it had removed the ventilator tube and crawled out of its crib?"
Yeah, Western Civ is circling the drain. The coming economic crisis is merely a symptom of cultural and moral degradation, some of which we have been graced with in this thread. Similar to late Rome's martial and economic weakness: a sign if its internal decay.
There have been Great Awakenings, so there is hope. For some. But let us be clear: it is hope despite empirical evidence. Those wholly bound to materialist conceptions of reality have no business pointing toward a new horizon or some sort of neo-renaissance. The empiricist side of my soul demands you show me the data.
(1) Prematurely born infant, in Neonatal ICU if premature enough.
-
Because a child, quite obviously, is physically attached to the body of the mother.
A person has a right to defend themselves against an invasion of their property, especially their body, even if the invasion is non-lethal, and even if the 'invader', like a child, cannot bear personal responsibility for it.
Now, one could argue that in the case of consensual sex, you agree to a certain chance of pregnancy (no birth control is 100% effective), and thus void your own right to defend yourself - but with actual rape this is different. You have never agreed to have this child in your body, and your right not to be pregnant is not made vacant because the child is oh-so-small and oh-so-adorable.
But on the other hand, I don't believe human life begins at conception.
We know it may not know when human life begins but we do know when it ends: with the advent of socialism.
-
The obvious question of a firearms-themed forum...
"What caliber for preemies?(1)"
"I swear, your honor, the preemie was so menacing that I feared for my life and then proceeded to shoot to stop. Who knows what would have happened if it had removed the ventilator tube and crawled out of its crib?"
Yeah, Western Civ is circling the drain. The coming economic crisis is merely a symptom of cultural and moral degradation, some of which we have been graced with in this thread. Similar to late Rome's martial and economic weakness: a sign if its internal decay.
There have been Great Awakenings, so there is hope. For some. But let us be clear: it is hope despite empirical evidence. Those wholly bound to materialist conceptions of reality have no business pointing toward a new horizon or some sort of neo-renaissance. The empiricist side of my soul demands you show me the data.
(1) Prematurely born infant, in Neonatal ICU if premature enough.
Here's the trouble: civilization as it really is is built on genocide, slavery, and tyranny. We have had a few centuries of exceptionalism in various places. That is all.
-
Because a child, quite obviously, is physically attached to the body of the mother.
A person has a right to defend themselves against an invasion of their property, especially their body, even if the invasion is non-lethal, and even if the 'invader', like a child, cannot bear personal responsibility for it.
Now, one could argue that in the case of consensual sex, you agree to a certain chance of pregnancy (no birth control is 100% effective), and thus void your own right to defend yourself - but with actual rape this is different. You have never agreed to have this child in your body, and your right not to be pregnant is not made vacant because the child is oh-so-small and oh-so-adorable.
But on the other hand, I don't believe human life begins at conception.
There is no doubt the fetus is alive at conception. That it is safe to say, a scientific fact. At the very least it is a nascent human being.
If you purposely terminate the life of a fetus you are destroying a life. If the fetus has brain waves they should be recognized for what they are, a child.
The Republicans struggling to verbalize clarity in the conundrum of individual rights of the mother vs her yet unborn child are not the monsters in the American tragedy. Our monsters actually have blood on their hands, a lot of it.
-
There is no doubt the fetus is alive at conception. That it is safe to say, a scientific fact. At the very least it is a nascent human being.
If you purposely terminate the life of a fetus you are destroying a life. If the fetus has brain waves they should be recognized for what they are, a child.
I'm an atheist, and I approve this message.
-
That is counter-factual. No Republican is likely to win the large LIBERAL population centers, social issues or no. No Republican presidential campaign plans to win that way. That's American presidential politics 101. Social conservatives like Reagan and Bush DID win, but they did so by motivating enough social and fiscal conservatives to counterbalance the big cities. (Of course, Reagan even won most of what would be called blue states today.) Also, social conservatives like John Ashcroft and Rick Santorum have been elected to the Senate. Ashcroft and Huckabee were governors. They clearly were able to succeed outside of "conservative areas."
There you go. That is the difference between an attack and a half-hearted defense. When I said "attack," I was referring to a piece of legislation like the AWB. Or at least something substantive to advance their own platform. We saw that the Democrats made an attack on something and were punished for it in the polls. On social conservatism, we have NOT seen that with the Republicans. In 2004, the GOP profited from the fact that marriage was on the ballot in many states, and social conservatives turned out in droves to support conservative positions and GOP candidates. We haven't seen anything to refute that lesson. Nor have we seen the GOP punished for their abortion stance, Akin notwithstanding. Ersatz marriage won in a few states last week, but they were blue states. That may be evidence that the crazy ersatz marriage is becoming more acceptable, but that doesn't make it some kind of third rail that no one can touch. For a comparison, look at how backward some states are on guns. Yet the pro-gun movement has been doing pretty well.
False. Not knowing how to defend your own position is the candidate-killer. The rape-abortion issue has been controversial for decades, and social conservatives like Todd Akin (in fact, Todd Akin himself) have been elected over and over again, holding the same view that Akin does. The fact that two people made a similar mistake in the same election cycle would be a poor foundation for dropping an anti-abortion stance that has been good for the party in many other elections, and is likely to help in the future.
A party that was unified behind its own candidates and policy positions would have had a standard response ready for such things. Something like, "No innocent person should be executed for something a criminal did to someone else." Something like that. Judging the popularity of a policy on the worst possible presentation of it is patently misleading. And by that I mean that you are misleading yourself.
I see that nobody has refuted the above.
-
There is no doubt the fetus is alive at conception. That it is safe to say, a scientific fact. At the very least it is a nascent human being.
If you purposely terminate the life of a fetus you are destroying a life. If the fetus has brain waves they should be recognized for what they are, a child.
The Republicans struggling to verbalize clarity in the conundrum of individual rights of the mother vs her yet unborn child are not the monsters in the American tragedy. Our monsters actually have blood on their hands, a lot of it.
People rationalized slavery because it was in their financial interest. We are rationalizing abortion because it is a matter of "convenience."
-
The obvious question of a firearms-themed forum...
"What caliber for preemies?"
So epic.
-
We have to treat "to protect life of mother", rape, and consensual sex as three different cases.
There is ZERO reason why a pregnancy should go more than a few days in the case of rape...I mean seriously. IIRC isn't it standard medical practice to offer plan-B to rape victims in the hospital? In my opinion, preventing embryo attachment is fundamentally different than "abortion".
In the case of protecting the life of the mother, that is a no-brainer, and only really radical pro-lifers disagree.
As for pregnancies resulting from consensual sex, AGAIN, in this day and age, there is no reason an unwanted pregnancy should happen. But in any case, I don't see why it should be further along than a few weeks at most, at which point, no brain waves. Waiting any longer? Seriously, why? Did you have something more important to do?
IMHO, I follow the "legal and RARE" attitude. Basically, abortion is a horrible thing, and in this day and age, with the availability a huge variety of highly effective birthcontrol methods, of pretty reliable early pregnancy tests, plan B (which is only an abortifacient to those of extreme viewpoints...it's not RU486), etc, there is no reason an unwanted fetus post a few weeks of development should need to be aborted, except in the "save mothers life" addressed above.
Anyway, just my opinion.
-
There is no doubt the fetus is alive at conception. That it is safe to say, a scientific fact. At the very least it is a nascent human being.
If you purposely terminate the life of a fetus you are destroying a life. If the fetus has brain waves they should be recognized for what they are, a child
The definition of 'alive' is not a 'scientific fact', it is a method of definition, of describing facts.
And of couse, a fetus does not have brain waves at conception, or a brain.
-
It's amazing what you can do when you can define how you describe facts, innit?
-
I'd say he's defining liberals but that's become the oldest joke in the world...
-
The definition of 'alive' is not a 'scientific fact', it is a method of definition, of describing facts.
And of couse, a fetus does not have brain waves at conception, or a brain.
Ok, so let's define "is." Is the unborn child alive or dead? Or a vampire, perhaps?
How do you think life is defined, and can you cite sources?
-
So, about that next Obama... [popcorn]
-
Ok, so let's define "is." Is the unborn child alive or dead? Or a vampire, perhaps?
How do you think life is defined, and can you cite sources?
Life is rather like the U.S. Constitution. Living, breathing, subject to abortion at any time.
-
The definition of 'alive' is not a 'scientific fact', it is a method of definition, of describing facts.
And what would be the definition of "scientific fact"?
And of couse, a fetus does not have brain waves at conception, or a brain.
And that has to do with the definition of "human life" how?
-
"The definition of 'alive' is not a 'scientific fact', it is a method of definition, of describing facts."
Is that The Grand Inquisitor speaking? Damned if it don't sound like him...
-
C'mon micro, your argument is not only weak, it is factually WRONG.
Here is what the encyclopedia has to say about the subject, for your edification.
The zygote is a fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.
The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism.
The zygote is endowed with genes from two parents, and thus it is diploid (carrying two sets of chromosomes). The joining of haploid gametes to produce a diploid zygote is a common feature in the sexual reproduction of all organisms except bacteria.
organism
or·gan·ism
[awr-guh-niz-uhm]
noun
1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
Now, on to the next Obama...
-
I have to agree with birdman. That is the optimal path.
-
I have to agree with birdman. That is the optimal path.
I disagree. If fetus = human then there is no justifiable reason to kill him/her, aside from legitimate self defense ala ectopic pregnancy. If fetus != human then there's really no issue with terminating it, so the Democratic National Convention is totally justified in giving abortion a standing ovation.
I truly don't understand the logic there. Either it's not a human, in which case why is it a terrible thing we need to limit as much as possible, or it is a human in which case "The mother will suffer serious emotional pain" is not a reason to kill it. Unless "severe emotional pain" is a legitimate cause for use of force in self defense now.
So which is it? Is the fetus a human, and you're ok with murdering him/her if it means the mother won't need to deal with emotional trauma? Or is it not human, and you're opposed to abortion as birth control just because you like telling women what they can do with their own bodies?
-
C'mon micro, your argument is not only weak, it is factually WRONG.
Here is what the encyclopedia has to say about the subject, for your edification.
I don't think any of this refutes my argument at all.
-
Unless "severe emotional pain" is a legitimate cause for use of force in self defense now.
Are you arguing you can only use force in self-defense in a situation where you are threatened with death?
This is clearly not true.
-
I don't think any of this refutes my argument at all.
When the facts don't fit your predisposition, start redefining words and manipulating language, :facepalm:
-
Afaik most use of force laws cover stopping threats to your life or the life of another, or stopping certain violent felonies in progress. None cover taking the life of another because to not do so would result in emotional trauma. None (again afaik) allow for the use of force against a helpless opponent.
What other situations should be covered under your proposal that emotional trauma is a legitimate justification for use of lethal force, and that use of force vs a helpless ie unconscious or bound enemy is justified? I'm so curious to see where this goes.
-
Obama is causing me emotional trauma :P
-
I disagree. If fetus = human then there is no justifiable reason to kill him/her, aside from legitimate self defense ala ectopic pregnancy. If fetus != human then there's really no issue with terminating it, so the Democratic National Convention is totally justified in giving abortion a standing ovation.
I truly don't understand the logic there. Either it's not a human, in which case why is it a terrible thing we need to limit as much as possible, or it is a human in which case "The mother will suffer serious emotional pain" is not a reason to kill it. Unless "severe emotional pain" is a legitimate cause for use of force in self defense now.
So which is it? Is the fetus a human, and you're ok with murdering him/her if it means the mother won't need to deal with emotional trauma? Or is it not human, and you're opposed to abortion as birth control just because you like telling women what they can do with their own bodies?
By the specifics of that logic, a miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter, or if said miscarriage could be attributed to actions (everything from drug use to inadequate nutrition) then criminal endangerment.
Just sayin, you can't have it both ways.
-
Deciding great moral questions via the dictionary is so much fail it hurts my head.
Sorry folks, cracking the dictionary is not going to (nor should it) convince anyone on abortion. It's like referencing the bible to prove things to someone who isn't Christian - unless you already agree on the moral authority of the text, it's beyond silly to use it to settle a moral debate.
-
Deciding great moral questions via the dictionary is so much fail it hurts my head.
Sorry folks, cracking the dictionary is not going to (nor should it) convince anyone on abortion. It's like referencing the bible to prove things to someone who isn't Christian - unless you already agree on the moral authority of the text, it's beyond silly to use it to settle a moral debate.
There is no deciding of moral questions via dictionary going on.
In order to have a conversation that makes any sense there has to be agreement on the definition of terms. I defined what I meant when I said life. I used the most common understanding according to modern science. The fetus is a distinct organism that by definition is "alive", in fact it is human life.
What value you place on that life is the moral question. You are correct, dictionary and encyclopedia entries will have limited use in answering that question.
Sophistry and post modern nihilism are a much shakier foundation to base a decision on regarding this as opposed to defining terms clearly and applying the traditional (Judeo/Christian) view of a human right to life as inalienable.
-
Ron, you're using the term as a loaded one to force a decision on "the value of life" that obviously the other side doesn't agree has to be made. Your definition does not acknowledge gradations theirs does, and that's why it won't and can't convince anyone.
FYI, I get tired of this meme that Judeo-Christian tradition is that life is inalienable - that is clearly not the case, as death was sanctioned as punishment for offences from the beginning.
On abortion, it's only relatively recent that Judeo-Christian religions have stopped sanctioning it. So there's not much in the way of tradition there to pose as an alternative to the unworkable (and more importantly, unshared) definitions you're using.
-
If "pro-choice" people were honest, they would admit they don't know exactly when life begins.
I also know that in my Hunter Education classes, we are taught to positively identify a target before taking a shot (preferably before even aiming at it.) Unless you can positively verify that the target is not a human and is the game animal you are hunting, you don't take the shot. Even if you are "pretty sure" it's a deer, you don't take a shot on "pretty sure."
That's considered safe, ethical hunting.
It's a shame we don't have the same type of ethics about killing babies.
-
De Selby
If the newly fertilized egg is considered a distinct organism from the mother which is what modern science says is true, then there are no "graduations" of life. It "is" and it posses life. "It" is a developing human being.
The graduations are in the value of that life as determined by society. The value seems to go down the earlier in development the unborn child is found.
Own your position, don't try and escape the logical conclusions of your position through sophistry and word games.
-
When I wrote inalienable right to life I had the Declaration of Independence in my mind.
I guess I could have said inalienable right to life discovered in the Judeo/Christian tradition influenced by Greco/Roman history and thought.
That is a little clunky though.
Many in the ancient world believed the child wasn't human (had a soul) until it breathed the breath of life outside the womb. Many today would like to deny the science and go back to that archaic line of thought. We have the benefit of technology and our technology allows us to realize just how human the unborn child really is.
Our technology cannot tell us the worth of that unborn child. Some who have made a religion of science and technology often want to deconstruct man down to nothing more than a bio/chem machine. If that is all we are then the lack of value placed on the unborn may be logical, though no less barbaric.
Some of us believe that humans have a unique standing in the universe. We've been made in the image of our Creator, given rights and responsibilities. This was the worldview of those who framed our constitution and wrote the DOI.
-
Sorry Ron, but you're stuck in the same method there. You're confusing your conclusory moral claims to frame the debate in a way that other people don't. "Modern science" does not get to determine when, for the purposes of a moral prohibition, an abortion is the same as a homicide. You are mistaking your own choice of dictionary definitions for a moral truth again. Demanding that everyone else buy your moral characterisation of embryo development only creates an "own it!" scenario in your own mind.
This is part of why the abortion debate is so intractable. It's hard for some people to see why the dictionary (or the bible) don't clearly settle the question, when it's never occurred to most abortion rights supporters that any sane person would rely on either book to evaluate it.
-
You are correct, it is an intractable debate.
I have nothing more to say on this (I think :P )
There is no point in trying to unpack the load of gibberish and straw men in your post.
-
Demanding that everyone else buy your moral characterisation of embryo development only creates an "own it!" scenario in your own mind. is what laws do.
More correcter.
-
More correcter.
That is true - which is why people debate laws and have a rough process of obtaining consent before they're passed.
-
Given what I know of post traumatic psychology, then yes: I place more weight on the well-being of the woman than I do the unborn child
Ideally, some form of "plan B" would be available immediately for victims of rape, and they would go to the hospital and police right away. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case
And again, I'm not saying "you got pregnant from a rape, you go for an abortion". I'm saying the woman (the victim in this) should have the choice. Might she make the wrong choice? Certainly: that is always a possibility. But she is the one most likely to make the correct decision for herself.
-
That is true - which is why people debate laws and have a rough process of obtaining consent before they're passed.
And Ron was debating. So quit griping about it.
-
And Ron was debating. So quit griping about it.
Where's the gripe? I explained in logical terms why his claims weren't really arguments, and couldn't be expected to convince anyone.
-
FYI, I get tired of this meme that Judeo-Christian tradition is that life is inalienable - that is clearly not the case, as death was sanctioned as punishment for offences from the beginning.
It is the right to life that is inalienable, but you need to understand the concept. If inalienable means what you think it means, then any imprisonment or punishment of any kind, no matter how well-deserved, is a violation of inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.
-
Where's the gripe? I explained in logical terms why his claims weren't really arguments, and couldn't be expected to convince anyone.
You wouldn't know logical terms if Ron used them. But we know that now.
-
By the specifics of that logic, a miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter, or if said miscarriage could be attributed to actions (everything from drug use to inadequate nutrition) then criminal endangerment.
Just sayin, you can't have it both ways.
I want it one way. One approach, regardless whether the child is in the womb or out. If you mistreat a four-year-old, you can be charged with various crimes. Do you have a good reason why the same should not apply to the four-month-old fetus? No, you don't.
Obviously, such laws are not intended for accidental injury for which the parent is not to blame.
If pro-abortionists would simply do a little thinking, they would not embarrass themselves with these absurd, dystopian scenarios.
-
This thread exactly demonstrates what I said earlier: on these issues, there is NO compromise allowed.
If y'all can, go back and read some of the things that have been said. In particular, read the responses to birdman's post.
Taking an absolutest stance is great... in principal. Unfortunately, I know a LOT of folks who are turned away from the R platform because of that stance. Who would be fine with most of the platform, but for that one issue
The saddest part of the whole debate? You (the pro life side) could easily win this, except you refuse to learn the lesson you have in front of you. You insist on getting everything you want, right bloody now.
Look at how far gun control got in the US, and how it got there. Nibble by nibble, until they had damn near removed the right.
But don't take my word for it: I'm just some heathen person who believes in a limited form of pro-choice. You have to save the babies... even if your strategy isn't working
-
Given what I know of post traumatic psychology, then yes: I place more weight on the well-being of the woman than I do the unborn child
Are there any other classes of people who's lives are less valuable and worth protecting than others to you?
This thread exactly demonstrates what I said earlier: on these issues, there is NO compromise allowed.
If y'all can, go back and read some of the things that have been said. In particular, read the responses to birdman's post.
Taking an absolutest stance is great... in principal. Unfortunately, I know a LOT of folks who are turned away from the R platform because of that stance. Who would be fine with most of the platform, but for that one issue
The saddest part of the whole debate? You (the pro life side) could easily win this, except you refuse to learn the lesson you have in front of you. You insist on getting everything you want, right bloody now.
Look at how far gun control got in the US, and how it got there. Nibble by nibble, until they had damn near removed the right.
But don't take my word for it: I'm just some heathen person who believes in a limited form of pro-choice. You have to save the babies... even if your strategy isn't working
False dichotomy. The fact that I want all non-self defense abortions to be illegal doesn't mean I'm not happy to accept incremental changes in that direction, any more than the fact that I want all drugs legalised or all federal gun laws repealed means I'm nott happy to see incremental improvement there.
And the false victimhood of implying that our argumentation against you has to do with your religion is pathetic and beneath you.
-
By the specifics of that logic, a miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter, or if said miscarriage could be attributed to actions (everything from drug use to inadequate nutrition) then criminal endangerment.
Just sayin, you can't have it both ways.
Specious argument. If your child gets the flu and dies despite being treated, is that involuntary manslaughter? And assuming the bar was at the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" level that proving any other case of criminal negligence or homicide is held to then yeah I'm ok with a woman who killed her baby in utero by free basing crack being punished for that.
Speaking of having it both ways, care to answer my earlier question? Are the unborn humans who have the same right to not be killed that we all do? If yes, why is it ok to kill them because their father was a violent criminal and they will cause emotional trauma to their mother? If they are not, then why do you want to keep abortion rare and not allow its use as birth control?
-
I predict that not a single mind or opinion will be changed as a result of this thread.
-
Are there any other classes of people who's lives are less valuable and worth protecting than others to you?
False dichotomy. The fact that I want all non-self defense abortions to be illegal doesn't mean I'm not happy to accept incremental changes in that direction, any more than the fact that I want all drugs legalised or all federal gun laws repealed means I'm nott happy to see incremental improvement there.
And the false victimhood of implying that our argumentation against you has to do with your religion is pathetic and beneath you.
All of this.
You can claim that anti-abortioners could/should do more, or do it differently, but it doesn't really apply to an internet discussion. About the only way we could be incremental here is to lie about just how seriously we take this whole not-killing-children thing. We could promise, like the anti-gunners do, that we only want "common-sense controls," but that wouldn't be honest. In the legal/political arena, could we ask for less to start off with? Yes, and that has been an ongoing project. Asking for parental consent before minors have abortions, further regulation of clinics, etc. Naturally, the bad guys react to each step the same way we do to each new gun bill.
-
>Are there any other classes of people who's lives are less valuable and worth protecting than others to you?<
Not particularly. Proven violent felons, maybe, but I believe they shouldn't be allowed to be in society.
I'm sorry... did you think that would bother me?
>False dichotomy. The fact that I want all non-self defense abortions to be illegal doesn't mean I'm not happy to accept incremental changes in that direction, any more than the fact that I want all drugs legalised or all federal gun laws repealed means I'm nott happy to see incremental improvement there.<
Ahhh... but I (not being heavily involved in the issue) never hear about anything incremental. All I ever hear from the pro life side is "no terminating or interrupting a pregnancy ever ever ever". On this thread, Birdman's suggestion that the morning after pill be available for rape victims was greeted with the same level of scorn as a woman deciding to have an abortion in the third trimester.
>And the false victimhood of implying that our argumentation against you has to do with your religion is pathetic and beneath you.<
Not "false victimhood". Just a left-handed way of pointing out that I usually only hear devout Christians promoting the stance you're advocating. And it has been said on this board (in more than one thread) that my choice of religion demonstrates that I'm an immoral person
-
On this thread, Birdman's suggestion that the morning after pill be available for rape victims was greeted with the same level of scorn as a woman deciding to have an abortion in the third trimester.
The same level of scorn we (APS members) reserve for people who believe in gun registration and limits on ammo purchases. The more libertarian one becomes, the more any assault on liberty is, well, an assault on liberty.
Ahhh... but I (not being heavily involved in the issue) never hear about anything incremental. All I ever hear from the pro life side is "no terminating or interrupting a pregnancy ever ever ever".
Are you counting Birdman's post? Which side are you putting him on? And like I said, incremental steps to restrict abortion are a common tactic.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/
-
As a note, the morning after pill is -technically- not an abortifacient by the truest sense of the word, as their primary method of efficacy is prevention of ovulation. While there is some evidence that their action may also prevent implantation (so a fertilized embryo wouldnt attach...to each their own if that is considered 'abortion') the same can be said for a copper IUD, which is absolutely considered to be a contraceptive, NOT an abortifacient.
So that being said, that is why I stated earlier that separation of the various causes of unwanted pregnancy is important, and why (strings' points regarding the fact not all raped women seek medical attention in a short enough time period) if plan B is considered to be not an abortifacient, then my point remains that in the day and age, actual abortions should not be necessary except in the "life of the mother" case.
In my opinion, a fertilized, unimplanted embryo is not an independent life. My logic being:
1. since ALL embryos have the potential to become twins, in the case of identical twins vs single fetuses, the differentiation from one independent entity to multiple occurs post implantation and post cell division, the "identity" of the entity cannot be established until that occurs.
2. It is no more an independent life than a unfertilized egg or sperm cell--both of which are alive, but cannot live independently (they have no method of imbibing nutrients or oxygen other than in the uterine lining in the case of an egg or at all in the case of a sperm. Additionally, while a fertilized egg has a different genome than either parent, so does each parent's reproductive cells due to crossover and other meiotic actions. Additionally, it has been shown in vertebrate eggs that the necessary chromosomal doubling can occur without a second reproductive cell (ie cloning), so again, an fertilized unimplanted egg has no more potentiation than an unfertilized unreleased egg in a follicle.
3. A pluripotent stem cell can technically create a whole new cloned human being, as it has the same genetic potential as the fertilized egg that created the individual. While these stem cells are referred to commonly as "embryonic" stem cells as they are most commonly obtained from multicellular embryos before any differentiation can occur--breaking apart the embryo at this stage is identical to the process which creates identical multiple births, it has been determined that pluripotent stem cells may exist in an post birth human, in which case, as these cells have the same technical potentiation as a fertilized unimplanted embryo, does that mean that if one of these cells were say, on some skin tissue that you scratched, does that mean you "aborted" that potential life-form?
4. While fertilization results in cellular changes that enable the now fertilized egg to begin dividing (mitosis), it is one step in a process of cellular changes that take a egg in a follicle (which doesn't divide, ever) to a dividing embryo. These changes, plus the addition of the other chromosomes are required to result in a new genetically different, embryo undergoing growth through cell division. However, as meiosis failures (triple chromosomes, missing chromosomes) can occur, (or nuclear replacement with a full set of chromosomes) it is technically possible that the process by which the egg starts dividing can occur artificially and without "fertilization" (the combining of the two groups of chromosomes) can occur (we have to define fertilization this way, as it is technically possible for a sperm and egg to combine with no transfer of genetic material and this a non-viable embryo).
Given that, that it has undetermined identity of potentiation and no more of a different genome than an individual egg or sperm, it is logical to come to the conclusion that "life" (an independent entity with determined potentiation) begins on implantation and the first few cell divisions (once the embryo rewches the point where it has differentiated sufficiently to fix its potentiation into a single life form) otherwise, since all fertilized unimplanted, or implanted but Pre-division cells can potentially be twins, any single pregnancy is technically the elimination of at least one potential independent life (the twin that never occurred). Additionally, due to variety of steps and exceptions stated above, the embryo cannot be considered "living" in the same sense as an independent life form until implantation and division, as until those occur, it cannot eat, excrete, have a fixed identity, or grow or reproduce--the aspects that are fundamental to "life". Before implantation and division to diversification, it is a cell or group of cells that cannot exist for other than a short period of time, has no more genetic diversity or identity than potential cast off tissue cells or reproductive cells, and has an upon determined potentiation (like stem cells), so it should be reasonable to conclude that before this point it is no more an independent life than the other examples.
Now, I am expressing an opinion here, not about the right or wrong of abortion, but rather how to better (ie using logical argument based on scientific facts) define "life beginning"--the argument can be made that while parasitic, a new, fixed potentiation identity is formed at the post implantation and division to diversification point, not fertilization.
Anyway...just trying to add some thoughts to the debate.
-
While I don't understand all of the jargon you're using there, there are a couple of things that stood out.
1. since ALL embryos have the potential to become twins, in the case of identical twins vs single fetuses, the differentiation from one independent entity to multiple occurs post implantation and post cell division, the "identity" of the entity cannot be established until that occurs.
If this is a defense of pre-implantation abortifacients, it is surely an odd one. "It's OK, you could be killing more than one human."
2. It is no more an independent life than a unfertilized egg or sperm cell--both of which are alive, but cannot live independently (they have no method of imbibing nutrients or oxygen other than in the uterine lining in the case of an egg or at all in the case of a sperm.
Er, no, it's because the egg and sperm are parts of a larger organism, not because they can't buy eggs and bread at the store.
While these stem cells are referred to commonly as "embryonic" stem cells as they are most commonly obtained from multicellular embryos before any differentiation can occur--breaking apart the embryo at this stage is identical to the process which creates identical multiple births, it has been determined that pluripotent stem cells may exist in an post birth human, in which case, as these cells have the same technical potentiation as a fertilized unimplanted embryo, does that mean that if one of these cells were say, on some skin tissue that you scratched, does that mean you "aborted" that potential life-form?
You think the cells of your skin are going to turn into babies? Seriously? And just when you were starting to sound so sciencey and smart...
-
It amazes me that after such a sound beating, Republicans still do not get what went wrong and how to fix it. Even my hero, Ann Coulter, is so deluded that Romney was a great candidate.
Let's face it - demographics predicts the future. Minorities may soon be a majority. Incorporate them culturally rather than antagonizing them with grandstanding. An immigration compromise is the only way to move forward.
Social conservatism is on the way out. Stick to it, and you will NEVER win. George W. was the last one who won that way. It will not happen again. Boomers are retiring and dying. Bye-bye, base.
Fiscal conservatism is good on paper but only works with moral people and/or prosperity. Morality is low. Prosperity is evaporating. You do the math. Telling people they should vote for a multimillionaire executive who wants to cut capital gains tax for trickle-down prosperity will not fly with people scared about the economy and worrying they may need to count on the government to feed their families through the worst which may lie ahead.
Stop insisting on candidates to pass ridiculous hoops about whatever the "base" likes. All that is just giving the D's ammunition to paint the candidate as extremist.
Stop going for candidates that will be rejected by large swaths of the population on general principle. Let me see. Romney:
1) Mormon. Scratch out a bunch of Christians and secularists.
2) Made a fortune on shutting companies down. Yeah, that will fly with workers...
3) Flipflopping on so many issues. Inspiring trust, anyone?
Add to that an innate inability for articulate expression, a forced desire to please all, overly polite to an obvious ideological enemy, agreeing with so many things a completely incompetent and dishonest administration did... Hell, it is a surprise he got as MANY votes as he did.
Also, some of you, look deep into yourselves and see if you are not a bit tyrannical in desiring to see others do what you want, for your own pet peeves or "principled positions". Why pick and choose which freedoms you support? Don't be surprised when people see you as hypocritical, or at least inconsistent.
-
Stop going for candidates that will be rejected by large swaths of the population on general principle. Let me see. Romney:
1) Mormon. Scratch out a bunch of Christians and secularists.
2) Made a fortune on shutting companies down. Yeah, that will fly with workers...
3) Flipflopping on so many issues. Inspiring trust, anyone?
Huh? The stats I've heard indicate that more evangelicals turned out this time, than in 2008. In fact, one source is reporting that Romney did slightly better among evangelicals than he did among Mormons.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765615349/Mitt-Romney-won-white-evangelicals-but-struggled-with-Latino-Catholics.html
-
...Let's face it - demographics predicts the future. Minorities may soon be a majority. Incorporate them culturally rather than antagonizing them with grandstanding. An immigration compromise is the only way to move forward.
Social conservatism is on the way out. Stick to it, and you will NEVER win. George W. was the last one who won that way. It will not happen again. Boomers are retiring and dying. Bye-bye, base.
Fiscal conservatism is good on paper but only works with moral people and/or prosperity. Morality is low. Prosperity is evaporating. You do the math. Telling people they should vote for a multimillionaire executive who wants to cut capital gains tax for trickle-down prosperity will not fly with people scared about the economy and worrying they may need to count on the government to feed their families through the worst which may lie ahead. ......
So republicans ought to become social liberals and endorse abortion and free contraception, and become fiscal liberals and tax and spend, and buy Latino votes with goodies and amnesty?
Why, then, a republican party? Just decommission it and have the ex-repubs join the demorat party.
Anyone have advice on whether I should reregister as a independant or Libertarian? :facepalm:
-
I have to wonder how many of these telling pro-lifers to compromise and not reveal their full agenda also hate the NRA because they compromise and don't demand an end to GCA68 and NFA36?
-
It amazes me that after such a sound beating, Republicans still do not get what went wrong and how to fix it. Even my hero, Ann Coulter, is so deluded that Romney was a great candidate.
Let's face it - demographics predicts the future. Minorities may soon be a majority. Incorporate them culturally rather than antagonizing them with grandstanding. An immigration compromise is the only way to move forward.
Social conservatism is on the way out. Stick to it, and you will NEVER win. George W. was the last one who won that way. It will not happen again. Boomers are retiring and dying. Bye-bye, base.
Fiscal conservatism is good on paper but only works with moral people and/or prosperity. Morality is low. Prosperity is evaporating. You do the math. Telling people they should vote for a multimillionaire executive who wants to cut capital gains tax for trickle-down prosperity will not fly with people scared about the economy and worrying they may need to count on the government to feed their families through the worst which may lie ahead.
Stop insisting on candidates to pass ridiculous hoops about whatever the "base" likes. All that is just giving the D's ammunition to paint the candidate as extremist.
Stop going for candidates that will be rejected by large swaths of the population on general principle. Let me see. Romney:
1) Mormon. Scratch out a bunch of Christians and secularists.
2) Made a fortune on shutting companies down. Yeah, that will fly with workers...
3) Flipflopping on so many issues. Inspiring trust, anyone?
Add to that an innate inability for articulate expression, a forced desire to please all, overly polite to an obvious ideological enemy, agreeing with so many things a completely incompetent and dishonest administration did... Hell, it is a surprise he got as MANY votes as he did.
Also, some of you, look deep into yourselves and see if you are not a bit tyrannical in desiring to see others do what you want, for your own pet peeves or "principled positions". Why pick and choose which freedoms you support? Don't be surprised when people see you as hypocritical, or at least inconsistent.
What cannot go on will not. Neither social nor fiscal conservatism will lose, long run.
Both social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are a recognition of the reality of man: both his nature and the nature of the world. You can reject them both for a time, but the gods of the copybook headings will return.
-
Also, some of you, look deep into yourselves and see if you are not a bit tyrannical in desiring to see others do what you want, for your own pet peeves or "principled positions". Why pick and choose which freedoms you support? Don't be surprised when people see you as hypocritical, or at least inconsistent.
This is a big, big element in what happened to the right in America.
-
What cannot go on will not. Neither social nor fiscal conservatism will lose, long run.
Both social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are a recognition of the reality of man: both his nature and the nature of the world. You can reject them both for a time, but the gods of the copybook headings will return.
Ayup. "Conservatism" regarding social and economic interaction is a mere acknowledgment of reality and the "liberal" position an exercise in shifting who bears the consequences of actions taken.
-
This is a big, big element in what happened to the right in America.
Yeah, we "pick and choose" freedoms that don't lead to infanticide and unicorn marriage. How did we go so terribly wrong? :rofl:
-
What cannot go on will not. Neither social nor fiscal conservatism will lose, long run.
Both social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are a recognition of the reality of man: both his nature and the nature of the world. You can reject them both for a time, but the gods of the copybook headings will return.
I remember reading an article making much the same point over two years ago: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_revenge_of_the_gods_of_the_copybook_headings.html
-
What cannot go on will not. Neither social nor fiscal conservatism will lose, long run.
Both social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are a recognition of the reality of man: both his nature and the nature of the world. You can reject them both for a time, but the gods of the copybook headings will return.
What a great ol' Kipling Poem that was!! ;)
-
Yeah, we "pick and choose" freedoms that don't lead to infanticide and unicorn marriage. How did we go so terribly wrong? :rofl:
A basic form of freedom is freedom of association. Marriage is a form of association. Opposing gay marriage is denying gays that form of association. I am happily married and know what commitment that is to undertake towards another human being, how rewarding and scary it is. While homosexuality is repulsive to me, I see no reason why two gays cannot hold the same kind of commitment and connection among each other. I cannot find it in myself to deny them that on any moral or intellectual grounds.
Regarding abortion, I was first for it then against it. I am still against it on ethical grounds. But, I do not see myself requiring that a government body in any way gets involved in its restriction, because I fear the damage they will do to freedoms will be overall worse than whatever good may come out of it.
Conservatives talk about how great America is, but many of them are for stopping immigration, and are fearful and dismissive of minorities. "America is great, but let's keep it to ourselves. You out there stay in your toilets and die. We are for freedom of labor and freedom of association, but not when it is our living standards on the line." That is inconsistent, some might say hypocritical and self-serving. Others perceive it as racist, likely falsely so.
Instead of spinning impossible tales about self-deportation, how about incorporating the illegals in society, so they get out of the shadows, make more money, pay taxes, and stop being second-class people preyed upon by both consumer and employer? The crushing majority are honest but desperate people wanting to pursue the American dream. What is so wrong with that? Let them legalize, let them do well for themselves. That is the only way to free them from the yoke of Democrats and racist demagogues.
-
We need to control our borders, but we also need to make it easier to immigrate *legally*. It'll never happen; both parties have too much vested interest in the current system. The Democrats are addicted to voter fraud and a permanent underclass, and the Republicans are addicted to cheap illegal labor that also keeps downward pressure on wages for US workers (except management, of course)
-
So republicans ought to become social liberals and endorse abortion and free contraception, and become fiscal liberals and tax and spend, and buy Latino votes with goodies and amnesty?
The world of mirrors is a trick of sly Democrat demagogues. They bait you to take a stand on every issue, so you can piss off as many people as possible. That way, they make a coalition of "Not You", and win consistently. Wouldn't it be smarter to focus on one or two fundamental issues and simply agree to disagree on the others?
If people are asked, "Do you believe in personal freedoms and independence from a corrupt inefficient tyrannical bureaucracy?", how many will say "no"? Accomplish this, then deal with the rest later. Otherwise, you get tricked over and over to work yourself up into a corner and lose consistently while believing in one's own moral superiority.
Why, then, a republican party? Just decommission it and have the ex-repubs join the demorat party.
The Republican party is dead. There are disjoint groups with incompatible agendas that occupy its corpse and try to define themselves inside it, while the leadership is stupid, senile, and completely out of touch with reality. The sooner the corpse dissolves, the better for everybody. Libertarianism will only get stronger as a result, and the Democrats will not have their Boogie man any more to scare people with into voting for them.
-
Ayup. "Conservatism" regarding social and economic interaction is a mere acknowledgment of reality and the "liberal" position an exercise in shifting who bears the consequences of actions taken.
How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality? I'd say the opposite is true. Let's look at some issues:
1) Military
Conservatives tend to be hawkish. They want a strong military. They want "nobody to mess with us". Some of them believe policing the world is a necessity and/or a duty. Reality: the country is broke. We cannot even afford maintaining what we have, let alone fight wars across the globe, nation-build, prop up various regimes, etc.
2) Gay marriage
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is unnatural. We decide what is natural and what is not. Reality: people don't give a *expletive deleted*it about your definitions or your bible or your ideas. They want to live their lives in peace and not be treated like trash or like second-class people. They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do.
3) Fiscal policies
Trickle-down economy works. Let's cut the taxes on the rich, so they spend more and invest more. And that will create jobs. Reality: how much the rich spend or invest will not be affected by even a few percent more or less in taxes. They have numerous loopholes and tricks to run circles around the system, while the middle class is denied upward mobility due to excessive taxation.
4) Religion
This is a Christian nation. The founders were Christian. We have Christian values. Reality: most people are secularists, agnostics, non-practicing this or that. We once were but we certainly are not a Christian nation. Not spiritually, not religiously, not ideologically.
Conservatism is increasingly a shrinking club of the elderly and the 40+ white male heterosexual. Both are endangered species.
-
CAnnoneer, everything you said has been said in the past, and then events prove what was said to be wrong.
-
CAnnoneer, everything you said has been said in the past, and then events prove what was said to be wrong.
Can you be more specific?
-
Not at this time of night (or morning).
-
I am a 40+ white male Christian heterosexual with three grad degrees, and I pretty much agree with Cannoneer's last few posts. A few niggles here and there, but certainly with the sentiment.
-
A basic form of freedom is freedom of association. Marriage is a form of association. Opposing gay marriage is denying gays that form of association.
False.
Reality: Freedom of association has never meant that government must officially recognize one's association. Homosexuals are perfectly free to associate by having their fake weddings, and living together in fake marriages, without government recognition. Their sexual and domestic affairs are their own private concern, and does not concern you, me, or the courthouse.
-
I am a 40+ white male Christian heterosexual with three grad degrees, and I pretty much agree with Cannoneer's last few posts. A few niggles here and there, but certainly with the sentiment.
If you only spot a "few niggles," then you need more degrees, prof.
-
Ayup. "Conservatism" regarding social and economic interaction is a mere acknowledgment of reality and the "liberal" position an exercise in shifting who bears the consequences of actions taken.
How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality?
Social interaction:
The general conservative position is to keep your pants on until you can manage the responsibility of the very obvious and predictable results of doing otherwise.
The liberal position is horrified at the thought that folks ought to discipline themselves and be responsible for their own actions. Therefore, they shift the consequences of sexual incontinence on to the taxpayers via welfare programs or inflict it directly on the child by killing it.
The combination of subsidy and consequence-shifting ensure more and more irresponsibility.
Economic interaction:
The tale is as old as the ant and the grasshopper. Go read it if you never have or have forgotten.
-
If you only spot a "few niggles," then you need more degrees, prof.
Yes, yes, we should all let our social and political beliefs be guided by the One True Way instead. Remind me again, is that One True Way the far right Republican party or the conservative Christian churches? Hard to tell the difference, sometimes.
-
False.
Reality: Freedom of association has never meant that government must officially recognize one's association. Homosexuals Heterosexuals are perfectly free to associate by having their fake weddings, and living together in fake marriages, without government recognition. Their sexual and domestic affairs are their own private concern, and does not concern you, me, or the courthouse.
I would think that a true libertarian would equally endorse this statement.
-
Yes, yes, we should all let our social and political beliefs be guided by the One True Way instead. Remind me again, is that One True Way the far right Republican party or the conservative Christian churches? Hard to tell the difference, sometimes.
Yawn.
I would think that a true libertarian would equally endorse this statement.
Then the true libertarian has gone soft in the head, solving problems that don't exist.
-
Fistful, let me ask you this: in your view, can someone support gay marriage and still be a good Christian?
-
Conservatives talk about how great America is, but many of them are for stopping immigration, and are fearful and dismissive of minorities. "America is great, but let's keep it to ourselves. You out there stay in your toilets and die. We are for freedom of labor and freedom of association, but not when it is our living standards on the line." That is inconsistent, some might say hypocritical and self-serving. Others perceive it as racist, likely falsely so.
Instead of spinning impossible tales about self-deportation, how about incorporating the illegals in society, so they get out of the shadows, make more money, pay taxes, and stop being second-class people preyed upon by both consumer and employer? The crushing majority are honest but desperate people wanting to pursue the American dream. What is so wrong with that? Let them legalize, let them do well for themselves. That is the only way to free them from the yoke of Democrats and racist demagogues.
Conservatives are for "stopping immigration?" :O :O
WRONG.
We're against ILLEGAL immigration.
How do you "incorporate" illegals into society? And -- dare I be so bold as to put forward another case -- if Mexicans can break the law, then why can't I? 14th amendment, you know.
Yeah I know, that's crazy.
But hey, so much is that these days. :'(
As far as self deportation is concerned, that may be a political loser if you're running for office, but it is real.
During the recent recession (which I argue we're really still in) many illegals ..."self deported" back to Mexico because jobs dried up and they thought their opportunities in their homeland would be better.
Also, stpped up deportation efforts have seemed to encourage some illegals to skadaddle.
The world of mirrors is a trick of sly Democrat demagogues. They bait you to take a stand on every issue, so you can piss off as many people as possible. That way, they make a coalition of "Not You", and win consistently. Wouldn't it be smarter to focus on one or two fundamental issues and simply agree to disagree on the others?
If people are asked, "Do you believe in personal freedoms and independence from a corrupt inefficient tyrannical bureaucracy?", how many will say "no"? Accomplish this, then deal with the rest later. Otherwise, you get tricked over and over to work yourself up into a corner and lose consistently while believing in one's own moral superiority.
The Republican party is dead. There are disjoint groups with incompatible agendas that occupy its corpse and try to define themselves inside it, while the leadership is stupid, senile, and completely out of touch with reality. The sooner the corpse dissolves, the better for everybody. Libertarianism will only get stronger as a result, and the Democrats will not have their Boogie man any more to scare people with into voting for them.
The republican party may have rethink its national agenda and how to present itself and to sell itself to many people but it's not dead.
Three fifths of the states have republican governors and we retain control of the House of Rep. About 350,000 votes in contested states is how Obama won a second term. That's 0.12% of the population.
As for "disjointed groups" the democrats have them too, the leadership is just better at keeping them covert and maintaining a smear of coherency. BUT, that works at the voting booth.
Conservatism will come back because it works. Liberalism/progressive will fail because it will run out of money. Either that or it will run out of credit and the lenders will stop lending as they either grow distrustful of us or run out of their own money.
Libertarianism will fail too, if it keeps trying to use the platform of "WE NEED TO LEGAALIZE DRUGS" to keep running on. The argument might have merit but Americans tend to reject it. Drug use is largely seen as entertainment for the failure class and it's like trying to sell a turd to someone who wants to buy a diamond.
-
CAnnonneer, you make blanket arguments that require research to refute. The burden should be on you (and others) to cite sources when saying that "the people want this" or similar statements. It's the same reason that DeSelby gets on my nerves.
Depending upon which poll you read, gay marriage is opposed by about 55% to 36% (source: University Polling Institute). Most "disinterested" polls show more opposition than support.
About three-quarters of Americans describe themselves as Christians (Pew Research).
Neo-con's favor military intervention, while traditional conservatives tend to be more isolationist (go read some books).
I'm still trying to find a neutral source for the effect on tax cuts on investment (although I recall articles from the past). The first 100 pages of Google results for searches on "tax cut effect on investments" and other phrases returns articles biased from both sides. I'll get back to you.
-
Fistful, let me ask you this: in your view, can someone support gay marriage and still be a good Christian?
What is the point of the question? What are you trying to learn from it?
"Gay marriage," as a political issue, has little connection to any specific religion. Politically, you should oppose the govt. recognition of homosexual "marriage" because it represents the triumph of a small group of ideologues (leftists, not homosexuals) to take an absurd idea and guilt people into giving it the force of law. Concurrently, 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."
-
How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality? I'd say the opposite is true. Let's look at some issues:
1) Military
Conservatives tend to be hawkish. They want a strong military. They want "nobody to mess with us". Some of them believe policing the world is a necessity and/or a duty. Reality: the country is broke. We cannot even afford maintaining what we have, let alone fight wars across the globe, nation-build, prop up various regimes, etc.
The military is not the biggest slice of the fiscal pie, traditionally it's been pretty small. Our big economic problem is entitlements.
In so far as policing the world and wanting "nobody to mess with us" is concerned, yes, as the Romans used to say, "Si vis Pacum, Parabellum," ~~ "If you wish to see peace, prepare for war."
As far as "policing the world" is concerned it is my unfortunate conclusion that we live in a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force. It abhors a power vacuum. Maintaining a strong military vigilance may be a pain in the wallet, and I agree it does present a certain hubris which is not particularly pleasant, but if we stop then another power will simply take over.
Are we prepared for that power to be Russia -- which is rebuilding its military? Or perhaps China -- which is building its military and navy?
We could defeat them fairly easily today but should current trends continue, in 20 or 30 years it will not be anywhere near as easy.
And, trust me, China will br throwing its weight around. Not necessarily through outright warfare; it won't have to.
2) Gay marriage
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is unnatural. We decide what is natural and what is not. Reality: people don't give a *expletive deleted* about your definitions or your bible or your ideas. They want to live their lives in peace and not be treated like trash or like second-class people. They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do.
Maybe....maybe not. Traditional marriage has always been the backbone of society as it allowed for reproduction and rearing of children in a generally safe and protected way. The biggest argument in favor of gay relationships I see is that there simply aren't enough gays to disrupt the "natural order of things."
That is not to say it couldn't happen.
Both Greece and Rome developed a profound lack of respect for traditional relationships (or lacked such respect from the onset if some historians are correct) and history records what happened to those cultures. However, homosexuality was more of a "symptom" of a far more serious disease in both those cultures. It was also more widely practiced then than it is today.
3) Fiscal policies
Trickle-down economy works. Let's cut the taxes on the rich, so they spend more and invest more. And that will create jobs. Reality: how much the rich spend or invest will not be affected by even a few percent more or less in taxes. They have numerous loopholes and tricks to run circles around the system, while the middle class is denied upward mobility due to excessive taxation.
In reality only about the top half of income earners pay an income tax. The higher the income the more is paid in taxes.
The top one per cent of income earners pay @ 39.89% tax revenues received by the govt.
The top five per cent pays @60.14%
The top ten per cent pays @70.79%
The top twenty five per cent pay 86.27% and the top half pay 97.01% of the tax revenues
(National Taxpayers Union & National taxpayers Union Foundation provide the stats)
The very rich can "always afford" a few higher percentage points added on their tax bills for very little gain by the government. Keep in mind that the top 1% of income starts at a yearly salary of $388,806.00 yearly.
That's three hundred thousand -- NOT million -- dollars there. Just sayin.'
What is very likely to happen is government will be hitting small business owners with a whopping new burden of taxes and regulations. It's already beginning; have you kept your eyes open? Already there are people being laid off.
Obamacare is going to hurt as well, as restaurants fire some employees and then move others down to part-time status in order to avoid the ramifications of St. Obama's wonderful new healthcare law, now firmly ensconced into American jurisprudence due to Justice Roberts' shenanigans and Obama's reelection.
The idea that taxing the very rich affects no one else is also a myth. During the 1990s a "luxury tax" was instituted on luxury items only "rich" people could afford -- like yachts. That tax nearly destroyed America's yachting industry as the malevelant rich people stopped buying yachts and began refurbishing the old yachts they already owned. The tax was quickly abandoned afterwards.
"Trickle-down" economics may be an old saw by now, but if you believe it doesn't work, I invite you to resign your present position and then go find a poor person and ask him to hire you. Even contemplating this excercise illustrates why "trickle down" works. It's the natural order of things. I've worked for a number of employers over the years and never, ever, for one worth less than me. Don't like that? Tough.
4) Religion
This is a Christian nation. The founders were Christian. We have Christian values. Reality: most people are secularists, agnostics, non-practicing this or that. We once were but we certainly are not a Christian nation. Not spiritually, not religiously, not ideologically.
Conservatism is increasingly a shrinking club of the elderly and the 40+ white male heterosexual. Both are endangered species.
MOST people are still believers. Secularism has caught on in the popular culture and is making inroads which will only be tolerable so long as it does not become overbearing.
Conservatism will eventually rebound even as it has taken a hit this cycle, because we won't be able to continue the spending spree we are currently on. The liberal spending spree will either destroy the nation, which will then be recoverable only through incredibly harsh CONSERVATIVE measures, or we'll grow the wisdom to put the system we have now in check and do it gradually, smartly and with a minimum of pain. Unfortunatly I have next to no hope this later will happen.
-
How exactly does conservatism acknowledge reality? I'd say the opposite is true. Let's look at some issues:
1) Military
Conservatives tend to be hawkish. They want a strong military. They want "nobody to mess with us". Some of them believe policing the world is a necessity and/or a duty.
So conservatives want:
a) a hawkish foreign policy - meh, possibly true. But "hawkish" is such a subjective term that it doesn't tell us much.
b) a strong military, and nobody to mess with us - Of course. Is that bad? Should we favor a weak military?
c) America to be the world's policeman - Reality: that has never been a distinctive of conservatism. "Globocop" has never been a policy position of either party; just a pejorative term that some people (of either party) use against other people (of either party), when they disagree on specific foreign policy issues.
Reality: the country is broke. We cannot even afford maintaining what we have, let alone fight wars across the globe, nation-build, prop up various regimes, etc.
Yeah, I'll go tell all of my conservative friends, because they all think the country is flush with cash. ;/
2) Gay marriage
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is unnatural. We decide what is natural and what is not. Reality: people don't give a *expletive deleted* about your definitions or your bible or your ideas. They want to live their lives in peace and not be treated like trash or like second-class people. They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do.
"We decide what is natural and what is not." ;/ Yeah, you've really got us pegged. Hint: When someone tells you that something is "unnatural," they are obviously telling you that it can NOT be decided by anyone.
"They believe they are equally worthy to partake in the joys and responsibilities of marriage even if they have sex very differently than you do." They also believe they are worthy to live off of your tax money. People tend to have stupid ideas, but what's your point?
3) Fiscal policies
Trickle-down economy works. Let's cut the taxes on the rich, so they spend more and invest more. And that will create jobs. Reality: how much the rich spend or invest will not be affected by even a few percent more or less in taxes. They have numerous loopholes and tricks to run circles around the system, while the middle class is denied upward mobility due to excessive taxation.
Reality: Excessive taxation, on any class of people, has never been a distinctive of conservatism. Quite the opposite, in fact. So why bring it up?
Reality: "Trickle-down" is another pejorative term; not something anyone actually claims to believe in.
Reality: If the wealthy aren't going to pay any of those high taxes, there is no reason to increase their tax rates. (And wasn't Romney promising to junk a lot of those exemptions, anyway? =| )
Reality: "Taking advantage of a loophole" is another way of saying "following the law."
4) Religion
This is a Christian nation. The founders were Christian. We have Christian values.
Reality: Other than the middle statement (which is partially true), that bears no relation to the actual views of conservatives.
-
False.
Reality: Freedom of association has never meant that government must officially recognize one's association. Homosexuals are perfectly free to associate by having their fake weddings, and living together in fake marriages, without government recognition. Their sexual and domestic affairs are their own private concern, and does not concern you, me, or the courthouse.
So, your marriage is "true" but theirs is "fake". Yours should be recognized by government, but theirs should not. You are better than them. Yeah, that is a very equitable, fair, and even-handed position. Good luck with that.
-
So, your marriage is "true" but theirs is "fake". Yours should be recognized by government, but theirs should not. You are better than them. Yeah, that is a very equitable, fair, and even-handed position. Good luck with that.
Better? I never said anything about better.
But, yes, it is fair. By marrying someone of the opposite sex, I am actually practicing marriage. People who don't want to be married (people who prefer to commit themselves to someone of the same sex) are doing their best to be unmarried. Government should recognize things that are, well, recognizably marriage-ish.
-
The idea that taxing the very rich affects no one else is also a myth. During the 1990s a "luxury tax" was instituted on luxury items only "rich" people could afford -- like yachts. That tax nearly destroyed America's yachting industry as the malevelant rich people stopped buying yachts and began refurbishing the old yachts they already owned. The tax was quickly abandoned afterwards.
The "trickle down" effect of that tax extended beyond the yachting industry to support industries. I remember it well, as yacht manufacturers cut their ad budgets. Ad agencies lost revenue and I did, too, as the yacht accounts I had didn't do as much photography.
If you want less of something, you make it more expensive. If you want fewer rich people, make it more expensive to be rich.
-
Tax the rich to feed the poor, until there are no rich no more!
-
Then the true libertarian has gone soft in the head, solving problems that don't exist.
How does the problem not exist? The gays exist and their grievances for equality and freedom exist. Dislike them if you will, but saying they don't exist is silly.
-
Conservatives are for "stopping immigration?" :O :O
NumbersUSA and similar organizations are very prominent in the argument. They flat out say they don't want more immigration, and not just illegal. They strike me as pretty conservative. They keep lobbing for stopping the importation of skilled labor, because native computer programmers cannot find jobs, for example.
How do you "incorporate" illegals into society? And -- dare I be so bold as to put forward another case -- if Mexicans can break the law, then why can't I? 14th amendment, you know.
Yes, incorporate them. Welcome them. Treat them as equals. Legalize them in exchange for them following the laws of the country, paying taxes, doing jury duty, etc. Like everybody else. Why is this hard to understand?
They went from hell through hell to come to America. I bet most believe in America more strongly than many natives.
During the recent recession (which I argue we're really still in) many illegals ..."self deported" back to Mexico because jobs dried up and they thought their opportunities in their homeland would be better.
Also, stpped up deportation efforts have seemed to encourage some illegals to skadaddle.
If some self-deport, that is fine. But when you get up and say that you will apply pressure for them to leave, what hispanics hear is something very different.
-
How does the problem not exist? The gays exist and their grievances for equality and freedom exist. Dislike them if you will, but saying they don't exist is silly.
Their "grievance" is not. They are free. They can start being equal anytime they wish.
-
The republican party may have rethink its national agenda and how to present itself and to sell itself to many people but it's not dead.
Reps lost not because of how they present themselves but because of who they are and what they believe in. That is another thing that absolutely stunning to me - all the talk in the media about how they have to "bribe" and "woo". Translation to me: We still think what we think, we keep our outdated attitudes, but we well buy and dupe people into voting for us. Except nobody is fooled anymore. That is why I talked about a profound soul-searching and redefinition of priorities and goals towards more freedom and less pettiness.
Three fifths of the states have republican governors and we retain control of the House of Rep. About 350,000 votes in contested states is how Obama won a second term. That's 0.12% of the population.
That is not going to last. It is only the beginning of a widening gap. If Reps remain the same, they will consistently lose and increasingly badly so from now on. This year was the watershed. It is downhill from now, all the way to marginalization and irrelevance.
As for "disjointed groups" the democrats have them too, the leadership is just better at keeping them covert and maintaining a smear of coherency. BUT, that works at the voting booth.
They do have their problems, but demographic changes work for further solidification for them, not disintegration. When the crazies die off like Biden and Kucinich (sp?), you see the new guard emerging the likes of Obambie. They will not fall apart. And they are shifting attention from gays and gun control to fiscal and ethnic issues. They are far smarter and more dangerous than you give them credit.
Conservatism will come back because it works. Liberalism/progressive will fail because it will run out of money. Either that or it will run out of credit and the lenders will stop lending as they either grow distrustful of us or run out of their own money.
Conservatism can only come back in prosperity. No poor country is conservative. If things start falling apart, I predict Venezuela, not Switzerland. Liberals can never run out of money. They simply blame it on others or take it from others.
-
Georgia.
That is all.
-
I would think that a true libertarian would equally endorse this statement.
This. Although IIRC Fistful does not claim to be libertarian?
Yawn.
Then the true libertarian has gone soft in the head, solving problems that don't exist.
Don't exist? When a gay man can't visit his husband (yes, I'm deliberately using that term) when he's dying in the hospital, because they "aren't really married", that's a problem that *DOES* exist. When a gay woman is not considered family for that same "reason" after her wife's death, and probate cuts her out from the resources she and her wife had, that's a problem that *DOES* exist. I'm sure there are other issues that more than a half-second's worth of thought would raise, but those two are IMO more than enough.
Yeah, I'd rather that government at all levels got its freaking nose out of the marriage business altogether. There's no REASON for it to be involved at all. But if it recognizes and validates and provides benefits for one group, then it needs to be equitable in doing so for ALL. Favoritism on the basis of sexual orientation is not a valid function of the government. Indeed, it would seem to me to be explicitly forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, applicable to government at all levels. How can it POSSIBLY be justified?
They don't deserve SPECIAL rights or treatment, but they do deserve EQUAL rights and treatment. And they don't currently GET them.
-
The military is not the biggest slice of the fiscal pie, traditionally it's been pretty small. Our big economic problem is entitlements.
In so far as policing the world and wanting "nobody to mess with us" is concerned, yes, as the Romans used to say, "Si vis Pacum, Parabellum," ~~ "If you wish to see peace, prepare for war."
I'll get back to entitlements later. Let's focus on the military.
I am not saying let's be weak. I am saying how strong do we need to be? Why can't we just have a national military like the UK or Switzerland, defend our borders, and have a Pacific and an Atlantic fleet. Let somebody else police the world. Let them lose lives and treasure, and be hated everywhere. Why do WE have to do it? What we have now is global military, which as a nation we do not need at all.
If international corporations want major traffic lanes open, freedom of operation in hot regions, etc., let them pay for their own security force, not bribe politicians to send troops (national volunteers or mercenaries) on taxpayer coin.
As far as "policing the world" is concerned it is my unfortunate conclusion that we live in a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force. It abhors a power vacuum. Maintaining a strong military vigilance may be a pain in the wallet, and I agree it does present a certain hubris which is not particularly pleasant, but if we stop then another power will simply take over.
Are we prepared for that power to be Russia -- which is rebuilding its military? Or perhaps China -- which is building its military and navy?
We could defeat them fairly easily today but should current trends continue, in 20 or 30 years it will not be anywhere near as easy.
And, trust me, China will br throwing its weight around. Not necessarily through outright warfare; it won't have to.
And why do we care if Russia and China apply influence in their spheres? At least in some ways they are more capitalist than we are. USSR is gone and dead. Modern Russia is not communist, even if run by former KGBists. It is a corrupt state with its own problems. So is China. Again, if they want to waste coin and lives in remote toilets, let them do so.
Maybe....maybe not. Traditional marriage has always been the backbone of society as it allowed for reproduction and rearing of children in a generally safe and protected way. The biggest argument in favor of gay relationships I see is that there simply aren't enough gays to disrupt the "natural order of things."
That is not to say it couldn't happen.
I do not think there are any more gays today percentage-wise than there were 2,000 years ago. They are a few percent of the population, maybe as large as 10% by some estimates, if including bisexuals and ones still in the closet. I do not see how this can destabilize the modern family. The argument is particularly questionable considering some 50% divorce rates among the heterosexuals. Further, gays have children and rear them just fine. They use surrogate mothers or sperm donors or simply adopt. I do not see how abandoned children getting a loving family of gays to take care of them is worse than the child growing up in a home and the gays spending their lives childless.
Both Greece and Rome developed a profound lack of respect for traditional relationships (or lacked such respect from the onset if some historians are correct) and history records what happened to those cultures. However, homosexuality was more of a "symptom" of a far more serious disease in both those cultures. It was also more widely practiced then than it is today.
Rome existed for centuries after they developed the lack of respect for traditional relationships. May our own country be so lucky to exist another 500 years.
In reality only about the top half of income earners pay an income tax. The higher the income the more is paid in taxes.
The top one per cent of income earners pay @ 39.89% tax revenues received by the govt.
The top five per cent pays @60.14%
The top ten per cent pays @70.79%
The top twenty five per cent pay 86.27% and the top half pay 97.01% of the tax revenues
(National Taxpayers Union & National taxpayers Union Foundation provide the stats)
This only tells me that a change of taxes for them will impact the fed revenue disproportionately than one for the average person.
The very rich can "always afford" a few higher percentage points added on their tax bills for very little gain by the government. Keep in mind that the top 1% of income starts at a yearly salary of $388,806.00 yearly.
That's three hundred thousand -- NOT million -- dollars there. Just sayin.'
What is your point? If you are making 400k an year you are making the same as POTUS. The average voter makes about 50k. If you go and tell him, "Hey, I am not rich. The fed is taxing me too much already.", what will his reaction be? Most likely, "JFC, I barely live paycheck from paycheck supporting my family. Difficult to have much sympathy for you, buddy." I personally want ideally no more than 5% tax on everybody, but that is a different story. Here we are talking about what will fly with voters and how conservatives mishandle the issue.
What is very likely to happen is government will be hitting small business owners with a whopping new burden of taxes and regulations. It's already beginning; have you kept your eyes open? Already there are people being laid off.
Obamacare is going to hurt as well, as restaurants fire some employees and then move others down to part-time status in order to avoid the ramifications of St. Obama's wonderful new healthcare law, now firmly ensconced into American jurisprudence due to Justice Roberts' shenanigans and Obama's reelection.
I have no doubt that that is exactly what is going to happen. That is one of the reasons I abhor Obamacare. However, the tax issue remains mishandled, because the conservatives obstinately refuse to admit that there is an upper bound of income bracket that makes sense to protect. Sure, there are many small businesses that look wealthy to the average person, but employ many people, and will lay people off if taxes increase. But, there is an even further crust that is even wealthier, and does not give a *expletive deleted*it about even a large increase percentage wise. They are so rich personally and their assets are so protected, that to them it will make a small difference if any. Instead, the Reps got bogged down in a stupid argument about plumber Joe type outfits.
The idea that taxing the very rich affects no one else is also a myth. During the 1990s a "luxury tax" was instituted on luxury items only "rich" people could afford -- like yachts. That tax nearly destroyed America's yachting industry as the malevelant rich people stopped buying yachts and began refurbishing the old yachts they already owned. The tax was quickly abandoned afterwards.
If you do it like that, it will certainly not work. People find loopholes or simply readjust. But, I would also counter-argue that they just spent their money elsewhere or reinvested it, so while the yacht-makers lost business, others gained.
I do not want income tax for anybody. But, if there must be one, let's apply it fairly and intelligently. What is happening now is a joke. There are extremely rich people who pay lower rates than their secretaries. To them, the accumulation of wealth has become a surreal exercise. Conservatives say, don't touch them. The average person cannot take such a position seriously.
"Trickle-down" economics may be an old saw by now, but if you believe it doesn't work, I invite you to resign your present position and then go find a poor person and ask him to hire you. Even contemplating this excercise illustrates why "trickle down" works. It's the natural order of things. I've worked for a number of employers over the years and never, ever, for one worth less than me. Don't like that? Tough.
I personally have no problem with wealth. If you are smart and work hard and make billions, all the more power to you. Yeah, go ahead and hire people and generate prosperity. But you cannot seriously expect your employees to pay higher percentage taxes on their piddly income, when you use CPAs and a thousand loopholes, in the misguided self-validating surreal impetus to be even richer, faster.
MOST people are still believers.
Except they don't act like it, even if they are. I cannot tell them apart with a scorecard.
Secularism has caught on in the popular culture and is making inroads which will only be tolerable so long as it does not become overbearing.
They younger generations are more comfortable with secularism than with religion. There are concomitant consequences on the electorate.
-
Lower income brackets do NOT pay a greater percentage than upper. Even middle don't. If you look at actual EFFECTIVE tax rates, (the percentage of income paid in taxes) the effective tax rate rises with income.
Not only that, notwithstanding the fact dividend rates are below income rates, dividends are taxed TWICE (corporate taxes and then dividend taxes) meaning that 15% is actually closer to 45%, far higher than any of the income brackets. This means buffet is lying his ass off. Referenced to the source of the income, he pays a far higher effective tax rate than his secretary.
Using the argument that the rich pay less in effective tax rates just shows your ignorance.
-
^^^ Can you imagine the joys of a flat tax with accompanying simplified tax code? The IRS, tax lobbyists, tax advisers and tax lawyers would be a fraction of their current numbers. I am going to have to research, because it occurs to me to wonder if any contemporary industrialized nation has a flat tax now. To the Googles!
-
Lower income brackets do NOT pay a greater percentage than upper. Even middle don't. If you look at actual EFFECTIVE tax rates, (the percentage of income paid in taxes) the effective tax rate rises with income.
Not only that, notwithstanding the fact dividend rates are below income rates, dividends are taxed TWICE (corporate taxes and then dividend taxes) meaning that 15% is actually closer to 45%, far higher than any of the income brackets. This means buffet is lying his ass off. Referenced to the source of the income, he pays a far higher effective tax rate than his secretary.
Using the argument that the rich pay less in effective tax rates just shows your ignorance.
Warren Buffett doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to his own finances - riiiiight.
It is undoubtedly easier for the uber wealthy to manipulate the tax code to reduce their tax burden. Average joes can't get KPMG to create new financial products designed to shelter billion dollar holdings from taxation. Most people are lucky if their 1040 is filled out correctly.
-
^^^ Can you imagine the joys of a flat tax with accompanying simplified tax code? The IRS, tax lobbyists, tax advisers and tax lawyers would be a fraction of their current numbers. I am going to have to research, because it occurs to me to wonder if any contemporary industrialized nation has a flat tax now. To the Googles!
What we want is a simplified single tax system. Multi-Layer taxation only hides the tax burden and creates disincentives for economic growth.
It's quite simple, tax income at the personal level and that is it. For instance, I suggest the following:
1. Eliminate FICA and social security taxes by rolling them into normal income tax, including the employer contributions of both. Since both go to the general fund anyway, this will enable simplified entitlement reform.
2. Reduce corporate tax rates to a fixed 20% and implement a true territorial tax system. (repatriated income is only taxed at the foreign site, not again at US rates. This will massively encourage repatriation of funds and foreign investment. Allow capital expenses of any kind to be expensed rather than depreciated...this encourages growth and expansion.
3. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes. As capital gains are not indexed to inflation, and to do so would make the tax code EXTREMELY complex, and since they are a form of double taxation, they should be eliminated. Also, this will encourage investment and entrepreneurship.
4. Eliminate all dividend taxes ON DOMESTIC PROFITS they are already taxed at the corporate level, dividend taxes will be 20% on foreign profit dividends not taxed in point 2.
5. Eliminate estate tax.
6. Fix income taxes at 20% for all brackets with zero deductions, exemptions, etc. This includes the mortgage tax deduction, which is extraordinarily regressive and artificially encourages real estate investment at the expense of growth investment of capital. Qualified Business expenses (same rules as corporate, no depreciation , instant expensing) are the only exception, and only up to the income of the business)
This results in a net effective tax rate of about 18% of GDP.
As a note, with the SS and FICA roll-in, this is a net wash in income taxes relative to now for nearly ALL tax brackets (if anything, the lower brackets are better off). The fact these taxes are treated separately, and there is an employer match that is hidden and the SS contribution ends at $116k is the reason why the effective tax rates are far more level than the marginal rates would suggest.
This also maximally incentivizes economic growth, domestic competitiveness, foreign investment here, and actually reduces our apparent labor costs compared to other countries, it also maintains overall revenues at or near historic averages.
When I say all deductions and exemptions, I mean all.
Simple tax form:
Three input forms: W-2, a 1099 like contracting/sales income form, and a broker created foreign dividend form.
1040-new
Take income add 1099/dividend income, subtract business expenses, multiply by 0.20.
Withholding just as easy for a company. Increase all wages by ~6.5% to account for employer match, then withhold 20% of the new value.
There. Simple, just as, of not more "fair" than current, everyone pays at least something and economic growth is encouraged.
-
Warren Buffett doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to his own finances - riiiiight.
It is undoubtedly easier for the uber wealthy to manipulate the tax code to reduce their tax burden. Average joes can't get KPMG to create new financial products designed to shelter billion dollar holdings from taxation. Most people are lucky if their 1040 is filled out correctly.
Not what I said, implied, or even aludded to, AMD I'm getting really tired of your crap.
So I'll explain it AGAIN...try to keep up.
Buffet SAID he paid 15%, as that is the tax RATE on dividends, as effectively 99% of his "income" is B-H dividends. Since B-H also pays 35% corporate tax on any profits (profit divided by number of shares is dividend per share) so for each dollar in profit earned by B-H, $0.65 shows up per share as a dividend. Buffet then pays 15% tax on that, or about $0.095, leaving $0.455.
Now, his secretary likely earns lets say $200k in AGI (note, her salary is NOT taxed at the corporate level, asit is an expense, not profit) and thus pays $50k in taxes (33% of amount over $178k plus 43.5k), or about 25% effective tax rate.
Therefore, for every dollar AFTER TAXES that she takes home, the government has extracted $0.33 in taxes.
For buffet, for every dollar AFTER TAXES he takes home, the government has extracted $0.80 in taxes.
He therefore pays more taxes per dollar of take-home than ANY OF THE INCOME BRACKETS AT ANY LEVEL OF INCOME.
This is the fallacy I was referencing. It has nothing to do with hiding money in tax shelters or anything, it is intrinsic to the fact that we have a double-taxation system.
In other words, he is LYING and relying on folks like you who can't apply reason and math to parrot his talking points to fit his agenda.
There, do you get it now?
-
To be honest, I didn't read those posts past the first line. When you failed to explain how you wrote the tax code, or to reference how engineers are the best taxation system designers, or to tie in how drone pilots dont know anything about drones, I couldn't be sure of any value in the post. ;/
Seriously birdman, you think the tone might be a bit much lately?
-
To be honest, I didn't read those posts past the first line. When you failed to explain how you wrote the tax code, or to reference how engineers are the best taxation system designers, or to tie in how drone pilots dont know anything about drones, I couldn't be sure of any value in the post. ;/
Seriously birdman, you think the tone might be a bit much lately?
I'm just sick of attempting to debate things in a logical, critical thinking fashion with factual backup and sources if requested, and having points responded to in the fashion you did, by twisting the argument, building up strawmen, etc.
My tone? You know what? Screw you and your opinions of my tone.
Do you think your inane recycling of b$&@it arguments over and over is a bit much lately....or ever? I mean, I've only been here for like a year and a half and I've seen you make the same crap argument about 4600 times.
Yeah, you are right, I didn't write the tax code, but neither did you, and I don't see facts or suggestions from you.
You are also correct, engineers don't normally wrote tax code (don't see what that has to do with anything)...it's usually left up to self serving lawyers, which explains why it's as convoluted and as easily misunderstood as it is.
Oh, and on the drone pilot thing, KGB and I were talking past teach other, and I apologized for my reaction to him, because I did realize what happened. I will not, on the other hand, apologize to you.
Go ahead, Roll your eyes and sarcastically reference my previous posts again...it only proves you have nothing really to add to the argument other than your function as "troll".
Mods, go ahead, ban me, I dont give a crap anymore.
-
Using the argument that the rich pay less in effective tax rates just shows your ignorance.
The analysis about the double taxation is just a play upon math. Warren only pays capital gains. That is the bottom line to him. What the corporation pays is opaque to him. Taking into account corporations cook books and play a thousand games to show as little taxable income as possible, the 35% is a joke. It is not applied on revenue but on income. Get your effective taxable income close to zero and the 35% may as well be 1%. So, sorry, but I will have to trust Warren Buffet on this one.
Yet another well known public secret is many of the extremely rich just have their assets in trust funds and similar arrangements. Their real income is never touched, because it gets rolled over into the trust INDEFINITELY. They draw an allowance from it or against it, which is a small fraction of their actual income. That allowance is what they pay their taxes on, after numerous loopholes and tricks with deductions. So, a trust fund baby for example may be making over $1M per year in actual income, but live on say $200k. He will NEVER pay taxes on the difference.
-
The analysis about the double taxation is just a play upon math. Warren only pays capital gains. That is the bottom line to him. What the corporation pays is opaque to him. Taking into account corporations cook books and play a thousand games to show as little taxable income as possible, the 35% is a joke. It is not applied on revenue but on income. Get your effective taxable income close to zero and the 35% may as well be 1%. So, sorry, but I will have to trust Warren Buffet on this one.
Yet another well known public secret is many of the extremely rich just have their assets in trust funds and similar arrangements. Their real income is never touched, because it gets rolled over into the trust INDEFINITELY. They draw an allowance from it or against it, which is a small fraction of their actual income. That allowance is what they pay their taxes on, after numerous loopholes and tricks with deductions. So, a trust fund baby for example may be making over $1M per year in actual income, but live on say $200k. He will NEVER pay taxes on the difference.
Incorrect. Buffet doesn't SELL his shares in B-H, that would be stupid. His income is DIVIDENDS, hence my point. And since B-H is attempting to show a profit to its shareholders, they actually have to do so. When people talk about buffet's income, they (and he) are referring the dividends on his Berkshire Hathaway holdings. When he talks about his effective tax rates, he is referring to the taxes on his DIVIDENDS, which compose effectively all of his income. There isn't any hiding, as I said before, B-H is highly profitable, and since any money that goes to profits is also taxed as profits (all the "hiding" you refer to is done to reduce the portion of after earnings after expenses, but by DEFINITION, any money that gets distributed as dividends is taxed as corporate profits).
I believe you are misunderstanding my point.
EDIT: it was pointed out BH doesn't give a dividend. But their stock repurchase approach yields the same effective taxation when it is done as capital gains. So my point remains. Anyway.
-
Libertarianism will fail too, if it keeps trying to use the platform of "WE NEED TO LEGAALIZE DRUGS" to keep running on. The argument might have merit but Americans tend to reject it. Drug use is largely seen as entertainment for the failure class and it's like trying to sell a turd to someone who wants to buy a diamond.
Historically, we see the opposite trend. More and more states put measures to legalize pot. The wind is blowing in that direction. Old people and conservatives have been able to defeat it in the past, but their numbers are shrinking, and the younger generations are favorable to it. Do the math. Soon, the only deterrent to it will be the federal government, but as pressure mounts in the states, congressmen and senators will change their tune as well. Or they will die off. Or they will be voted out. It is just a matter of time. One of the reasons DEA is such a pointless waste for the most part.
-
CAnnonneer, you make blanket arguments that require research to refute. The burden should be on you (and others) to cite sources when saying that "the people want this" or similar statements. It's the same reason that DeSelby gets on my nerves.
I am sorry if I get on your nerves. I am expressing my opinions. I do not sell analysis and am not a paid political advisor. I base my opinions on the information I have and on my life experiences and knowledge of human nature. I do not need to prove anything. Look at my ideas and judge them against what you know.
Depending upon which poll you read, gay marriage is opposed by about 55% to 36% (source: University Polling Institute). Most "disinterested" polls show more opposition than support.
I do not believe polls. I believe voting results, demographic data, and historical analogies. Just because somebody asked 500 people a questionably worded list of questions gives me little confidence in predictive value. The sampling is never close to being statistically significant. Voting results and historical events are statistically significant.
About three-quarters of Americans describe themselves as Christians (Pew Research).
I bet most of those remember they are Christians chiefly around Easter and Xmas. Meaningless.
Neo-con's favor military intervention, while traditional conservatives tend to be more isolationist (go read some books).
Somewhat true, but who is in charge in the party? How many Reps strongly oppose wars and foreign interventions? How many speak up? How relevant they are within the party? What difference have they made?
-
Look at my ideas and judge them against what you know.
What you "know" and what you state may be the same, but just as with DeSelby, the facts are often at odds with what you state. I have a hard time letting blanket statements that are not true just get thrown around.
-
NumbersUSA and similar organizations are very prominent in the argument. They flat out say they don't want more immigration, and not just illegal. They strike me as pretty conservative. They keep lobbing for stopping the importation of skilled labor, because native computer programmers cannot find jobs, for example.
First, I don't think NumbersUSA necessarily represents all conservatives. Secondly, if skilled laborers are being imported and keeping native borne skilled laborers unemployed maybe that SHOULD be stopped. "Charity begins at home," says an old bromide. We are a nation of immigrants but why bring in immigrants if it's hurtful to our own people? An examination of the history of immigration in this country shows our policy has not always been open to everyone and at times we've shut out certain countries entirely.
It's one thing when both sides benefit but it's another to "cut our nose off to spite our face."
Yes, incorporate them. Welcome them. Treat them as equals. Legalize them in exchange for them following the laws of the country, paying taxes, doing jury duty, etc. Like everybody else. Why is this hard to understand?
They went from hell through hell to come to America. I bet most believe in America more strongly than many natives.
What do you tell the immigrants who spent years and lots of their hard earned money to come here legally? What you say sounds beneficent but it causes those who obey the law resentment and tells others who may want to do it legally there's absolutly no benefit to do so and every benefit to come illegally and thus we lose even more control over the border.
Sure the illegals "went through hell."
I've been to Caribbean Islands were I saw children running naked in dirt streets living in shanty huts made out of corrogated aluminum sidings and discarded plywood platforms, with sewage running down open ditches along the edges of those streets. Those kids weren't "going through" hell they were living there, and neither them or there parents had a snowball's chance in _____ of getting here unless they could swim across a sea and beat the sharks.
If some self-deport, that is fine. But when you get up and say that you will apply pressure for them to leave, what hispanics hear is something very different.
Sure, when you're running a campaign for office it's ... "un-politic" to talk about self deportation. It makes one sound like an insensitive uncaring lout solely after more political power to be used only to enrich one's own cronies.
Not that I've heard any of those democrat contenders who whine about how the immigrants coming here will inrich our country with greater diversity evince the slightest bit of concern over those Caribbean children running naked in their sewage besoted streets or how helping them will enrich us. :mad:
-
What you "know" and what you state may be the same, but just as with DeSelby, the facts are often at odds with what you state. I have a hard time letting blanket statements that are not true just get thrown around.
So, what are you saying then? Is it that in your view one must have a file of references and links before he posts any opinion, otherwise he pisses you off? Good luck with that.
-
First, I don't think NumbersUSA necessarily represents all conservatives. Secondly, if skilled laborers are being imported and keeping native borne skilled laborers unemployed maybe that SHOULD be stopped. "Charity begins at home," says an old bromide.
The reason why those software engineers could not get a job was because of the difference between their salary expectations and what the market value of their skill has become. That is a hard truth to swallow.
There was a time when software engineers were in great demand, while the available trained personnel was relatively scant. That drove up the remuneration. The dot com boom fueled that further. Well, we are way past that now. You can get a bunch of smart guys in India that will do an equal job for 45k an year, which by the way allows them to live quite well there. Welcome to globalization.
-
Reps lost not because of how they present themselves but because of who they are and what they believe in. That is another thing that absolutely stunning to me - all the talk in the media about how they have to "bribe" and "woo". Translation to me: We still think what we think, we keep our outdated attitudes, but we well buy and dupe people into voting for us. Except nobody is fooled anymore. That is why I talked about a profound soul-searching and redefinition of priorities and goals towards more freedom and less pettiness.
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.
That is not going to last. It is only the beginning of a widening gap. If Reps remain the same, they will consistently lose and increasingly badly so from now on. This year was the watershed. It is downhill from now, all the way to marginalization and irrelevance.
We'll see. Hope you polished your crystal ball. The death--knell of conservativism has been sounded before, and it was wrong then and is wrong now.
They do have their problems, but demographic changes work for further solidification for them, not disintegration. When the crazies die off like Biden and Kucinich (sp?), you see the new guard emerging the likes of Obambie. They will not fall apart. And they are shifting attention from gays and gun control to fiscal and ethnic issues. They are far smarter and more dangerous than you give them credit.
Conservatism can only come back in prosperity. No poor country is conservative. If things start falling apart, I predict Venezuela, not Switzerland. Liberals can never run out of money. They simply blame it on others or take it from others.
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.
-
I'll get back to entitlements later. Let's focus on the military.
I am not saying let's be weak. I am saying how strong do we need to be? Why can't we just have a national military like the UK or Switzerland, defend our borders, and have a Pacific and an Atlantic fleet. Let somebody else police the world. Let them lose lives and treasure, and be hated everywhere. Why do WE have to do it? What we have now is global military, which as a nation we do not need at all.
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.
If international corporations want major traffic lanes open, freedom of operation in hot regions, etc., let them pay for their own security force, not bribe politicians to send troops (national volunteers or mercenaries) on taxpayer coin.
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.
And why do we care if Russia and China apply influence in their spheres? At least in some ways they are more capitalist than we are. USSR is gone and dead. Modern Russia is not communist, even if run by former KGBists. It is a corrupt state with its own problems. So is China. Again, if they want to waste coin and lives in remote toilets, let them do so..
We OUGHT to care because their influence is likely not benign and is not under our control. Ours is. Modern Russia is not communist but that hasn't made them into a benign republic, the country is still run by thugs and rife with corruption.
China has adopted some capitalist trappings in order to expand but politically they're just as red communist as they ever were and it's naive to consider what they're doing "wast(ing) coin and lives in remote toilets."
I do not think there are any more gays today percentage-wise than there were 2,000 years ago. They are a few percent of the population, maybe as large as 10% by some estimates, if including bisexuals and ones still in the closet. I do not see how this can destabilize the modern family. The argument is particularly questionable considering some 50% divorce rates among the heterosexuals. Further, gays have children and rear them just fine. They use surrogate mothers or sperm donors or simply adopt. I do not see how abandoned children getting a loving family of gays to take care of them is worse than the child growing up in a home and the gays spending their lives childless.
No one knows the % of gays in Rome or Greece back then. Furthermore one shouldn't necesssarily conflate homosexuality with homosexual behaviour.
True that the heterosexual divorce rate of 50% is off-putting, but a large part of that is due to more liberal divorce laws.
Rome existed for centuries after they developed the lack of respect for traditional relationships. May our own country be so lucky to exist another 500 years.
500 Years? My, you're quite the optimist ..... our downfall will have nothing to do with gay issues. It will have to do with our fiscal cupidity.
This only tells me that a change of taxes for them will impact the fed revenue disproportionately than one for the average person.
What is your point? If you are making 400k an year you are making the same as POTUS. The average voter makes about 50k. If you go and tell him, "Hey, I am not rich. The fed is taxing me too much already.", what will his reaction be? Most likely, "JFC, I barely live paycheck from paycheck supporting my family. Difficult to have much sympathy for you, buddy." I personally want ideally no more than 5% tax on everybody, but that is a different story. Here we are talking about what will fly with voters and how conservatives mishandle the issue.
My point was that while Obama claims that only the top income earners will be paying higher taxes, his definition of "rich" reaches down into the area of small business owners, a point I clarified in subsequent paragraphs.
I have no doubt that that is exactly what is going to happen. That is one of the reasons I abhor Obamacare. However, the tax issue remains mishandled, because the conservatives obstinately refuse to admit that there is an upper bound of income bracket that makes sense to protect. Sure, there are many small businesses that look wealthy to the average person, but employ many people, and will lay people off if taxes increase. But, there is an even further crust that is even wealthier, and does not give a *expletive deleted* about even a large increase percentage wise. They are so rich personally and their assets are so protected, that to them it will make a small difference if any. Instead, the Reps got bogged down in a stupid argument about plumber Joe type outfits.
I don't see anything wrong with conservatives defending "plumber Joe" type outfits -- they're far more common and more easily identified with by the common man than the uppercrust rich people some think ought to be fair game for confiscatory taxation.
As for trying to protecting an "upper bound of income bracket" the reason to protect them is to keep them. They have the money and the where-withal to pack up and leave America and some are doing so and taking their corporations with them. These people -- if you listen to them -- will tell you it is now easier to start companies in a Communist country than America.
This condition should shame every American. It isn't what we should want and it will severely hurt us in the future if this condition is allowed to continue.
If you do it like that, it will certainly not work. People find loopholes or simply readjust. But, I would also counter-argue that they just spent their money elsewhere or reinvested it, so while the yacht-makers lost business, others gained.
Not too many; Monkeyleg entered a post here explaining how a lot more businesses were hurt by the luxury tax than just the yacht makers.
I do not want income tax for anybody. But, if there must be one, let's apply it fairly and intelligently. What is happening now is a joke. There are extremely rich people who pay lower rates than their secretaries. To them, the accumulation of wealth has become a surreal exercise. Conservatives say, don't touch them. The average person cannot take such a position seriously.
Geeesh. :facepalm: The secretaries VS. the boss arguement AGAIN. :facepalm: Let me point out that if the "Boss" is invested in the company he is probably taking profits from a portfolio and is thus subject to "capital gains" tax which is currently at about 15%. If viewed as a strict percentile rate next to his secretary's tax, which is more likely an income tax it certainly will look like the secretary is paying more. But the smaller % of the Boss's much much larger income will very likely be a far greater amount in dollars than his lower-paid secretary.
This idiot's canard was thrown about all too wildly this past election cycle and it has sickened me. People don't get it. They buy into it, sure, because it sounds horrible and greedy and feeds the damned politicians' class warfare scenario all too well.
I personally have no problem with wealth. If you are smart and work hard and make billions, all the more power to you. Yeah, go ahead and hire people and generate prosperity. But you cannot seriously expect your employees to pay higher percentage taxes on their piddly income, when you use CPAs and a thousand loopholes, in the misguided self-validating surreal impetus to be even richer, faster.
There are no longer the "thousand loopholes" you imagine. Fifty, sixty years ago, when the top nominal income tax rate was about 91% there actually was, and because of that those people in that incometax bracket usually paid an average of about 30% of their income in taxes --- A LOWER RATE THEN WHAT WE'RE DEBATING TODAY BY EITHER THE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT PLANS.
Except they don't act like it, even if they are. I cannot tell them apart with a scorecard.
They younger generations are more comfortable with secularism than with religion. There are concomitant consequences on the electorate.
Both the above are more likely fads that will alter as time goes by. You ought not need or use a scorecard .... they don't always work so well. ;)
-
Welcome to globalization.
Studies show that people who complain about globalization are usually sexual predators.
-
This. Although IIRC Fistful does not claim to be libertarian?
Depends on how the term is defined.
Don't exist? When a gay man can't visit his husband (yes, I'm deliberately using that term) when he's dying in the hospital, because they "aren't really married", that's a problem that *DOES* exist. When a gay woman is not considered family for that same "reason" after her wife's death, and probate cuts her out from the resources she and her wife had, that's a problem that *DOES* exist. I'm sure there are other issues that more than a half-second's worth of thought would raise, but those two are IMO more than enough.
In the first case, yeah, hospitals could probably change some of their policies. That has nothing to do with marriage (or fake marriage) though. In the second case, we're just pretending that two women can be married. That is obviously an absurd claim. If one person feels such a strong attachment to another person, and their relationship doesn't fit the definition of marriage, they should make other arrangements. They shouldn't whine when the government doesn't recognize as marriage what is not recognizable as a marriage. Once again, a little rational thought would help, here. And, yeah, we could loosen up the laws for non-traditional folks to make arrangements. But it shouldn't be based on their private sexual practices that have no effect on society.
Yeah, I'd rather that government at all levels got its freaking nose out of the marriage business altogether. There's no REASON for it to be involved at all.
Sigh. Emotion is outrunning reason again. Having government recognize marriage has mostly worked, so far. It makes things easier; clarifies matters for the legalities like which kid belongs to who, and so on. Could we figure out some other way? Perhaps, but let's find a better reason, than mollycoddling a small group of very confused people who think they are entitled to things to which they have no serious claim.
But if it recognizes and validates and provides benefits for one group, then it needs to be equitable in doing so for ALL. Favoritism on the basis of sexual orientation is not a valid function of the government. Indeed, it would seem to me to be explicitly forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, applicable to government at all levels. How can it POSSIBLY be justified?
They don't deserve SPECIAL rights or treatment, but they do deserve EQUAL rights and treatment. And they don't currently GET them.
;/ Marriage itself, not the law, favors heterosexuality. Because it is a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals have always been welcome, legally. (To marry those of the opposite sex, like everyone else. See, equality and fairness.)
-
Studies show that people who complain about globalization are usually sexual predators.
:laugh: I see what you did there.
-
Depends on how the term is defined.
The definitions at http://www.lp.org/faq, http://www.libertarianism.com/, http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html, and http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/libertar.htm seem to me to be workable. There are certainly others (I try to adhere to L. Neil Smith's Zero-Aggression Policy, seen at http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html, and consider that a working definition).
Your expressed positions in certain matters, notably the ones in this thread, certainly do not support the notion that you are a libertarian.
In the first case, yeah, hospitals could probably change some of their policies. That has nothing to do with marriage (or fake marriage) though. In the second case, we're just pretending that two women can be married. That is obviously an absurd claim. If one person feels such a strong attachment to another person, and their relationship doesn't fit the definition of marriage, they should make other arrangements. They shouldn't whine when the government doesn't recognize as marriage what is not recognizable as a marriage. Once again, a little rational thought would help, here. And, yeah, we could loosen up the laws for non-traditional folks to make arrangements. But it shouldn't be based on their private sexual practices that have no effect on society.
:facepalm: Seriously? We use the word 'marriage' these days (for DECADES now, even!) for such things as putting words to music, the construction of a perfect sports car, and the melding to two or more generic objects in any of a variety of ways - and the public and private union of two human beings who deeply love one another and consider themselves part of one another does *NOT* qualify for that word IYO???
I just don't even know what else to say to such a breathtaking display of ignorance and bigotry.
Sigh. Emotion is outrunning reason again. Having government recognize marriage has mostly worked, so far.
And Mussolini allegedly made the trains run on time. ;/ Just because something can be said to have "worked", for certain values of the word, doesn't make it right.
It makes things easier; clarifies matters for the legalities like which kid belongs to who, and so on. Could we figure out some other way? Perhaps, but let's find a better reason, than mollycoddling a small group of very confused people who think they are entitled to things to which they have no serious claim.
John and Mike don't deserve the same treatment under law as every other citizen of the United States? Jenna doesn't deserve to sit by Karen's side as she draws her last breath in the hospital? They don't deserve to inherit the home and property they spent years building up together with their spouses? They don't deserve EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES with respect to their spouses as you do to yours? Simply because they love someone whose sex organs are in the same places as their own?
Again, I simply don't know how to respond to this.
;/ Marriage itself, not the law, favors heterosexuality. Because it is a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals have always been welcome, legally. (To marry those of the opposite sex, like everyone else. See, equality and fairness.)
Bullshit. And you KNOW IT.
If the situation were reversed, would you be satisfied to be "free" to marry another man you did not and could not love, or "live in sin" with a woman you did? Would you be satisfied to have a heterophobe family strip away from you everything you and your wife built together, after her death (which you couldn't be there for, because of them and because of legally-permitted discrimination against those "unnatural straights"?), because that was "fair and equal treatment" permitted under the law?
No?
Then those words you're using, "equality" and "fairness"? They don't mean what you think they mean.
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.
-
Incorrect. Buffet doesn't SELL his shares in B-H, that would be stupid. His income is DIVIDENDS, hence my point. And since B-H is attempting to show a profit to its shareholders, they actually have to do so. When people talk about buffet's income, they (and he) are referring the dividends on his Berkshire Hathaway holdings. When he talks about his effective tax rates, he is referring to the taxes on his DIVIDENDS, which compose effectively all of his income. There isn't any hiding, as I said before, B-H is highly profitable, and since any money that goes to profits is also taxed as profits (all the "hiding" you refer to is done to reduce the portion of after earnings after expenses, but by DEFINITION, any money that gets distributed as dividends is taxed as corporate profits).
I believe you are misunderstanding my point.
Just to niggle... Berkshire-Hathaway has never paid a dividend and has no plan to.
-
>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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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 (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=35450.msg711689#msg711689), but even in ancient Greece where male homosexual relationships were the norm and expected, "marriage" was only between men and women.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :rofl:
-
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." [popcorn]
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. [tinfoil] [popcorn]
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."
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
;/
It doesn't seem like you have that hard a time with it...
Do you know what a blanket statement is?
-
Do you know what a blanket statement is?
Not exactly. :P
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 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.
-
Not exactly. :P
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
Not exactly. :P
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.
-
>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...
-
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/
-
Ronny either knows exactly what I'm talking about, or he's a complete idiot. And I know he's not an idiot.
The SEIU goons beating Tea Party protestors, Chris Matthews crying racism, any Democrat member of congress crying racism... you can't go one day without some conservative being labeled a racist. Hell, my best friend calls me a *expletive deleted*ing Nazi.
-
Heh... most of my liberal friends don't try labeling me with derogatory terms anymore.
A fringe benefit of some of my stances, so to say
-
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/racist-370103-white-dog.html
The money-quote: On the matter of those racist dog whistles all these middle-age white liberals keep hearing, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it very well: "The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it's intended for somebody else," he wrote. "The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog."
-
The money-quote: On the matter of those racist dog whistles all these middle-age white liberals keep hearing, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it very well: "The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it's intended for somebody else," he wrote. "The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog."
Yeah, I think that was my favorite as well.
I am a little disappointed in all those dog whistles, though. I mean a whole Republican campaign intended to secretly reach my inner Republican Klucker, and I didn't even understand it? What a shame. =(
-
Ronny either knows exactly what I'm talking about, or he's a complete idiot. And I know he's not an idiot.
The SEIU goons beating Tea Party protestors, Chris Matthews crying racism, any Democrat member of congress crying racism... you can't go one day without some conservative being labeled a racist. Hell, my best friend calls me a *expletive deleted* Nazi.
Not much of a friend. I've started carving any true believers out of my life. Don't need em.
-
Not much of a friend. I've started carving any true believers out of my life. Don't need em.
If I did that, I would have very, very few friends, and wouldn't speak to many relatives. I'm from Wisconsin, home of Russ Feingold.
-
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.
I understand your argument. On paper you are right: yes, investor income is taxed twice - first on the corporate level, then on the individual level. Also, yes, salaries are expense, therefore subtracted before applying tax on the corporate level. So, on paper, employees are taxed only once - on the individual level. But, this does not mean employees are not taxed twice in reality. I think this is the part that I have so far failed to get across.
Let's take an example from real life. My wife works in the corporate world. Their company's leadership tightens all belts there are to make the company look as profitable as shareholders and investors expect it to be. That bottom line is achieved by slashing the work force, driving the remaining force even harder, refusing to match retirement plans, and giving only token increases in salary, if any. The taxes the company has to pay are part of that bottom line. If the company paid less in tax, they could give employees more pay and better working conditions, while still achieving the performance the investors expect. So, corporate taxes DO affect employee's individual effective tax burden. You can say that technically the above paragraph is true, but the bottom line is different.
Now, let's look at the psychological side of things as well. Average Joe likely does not know tax structure or spends much time thinking about effective tax burden and such. What he knows is some money is coming his way and the gov takes a chunk of it. He also knows investor Bob has some money coming to him, and the gov takes a chunk of it. He is not happy to know percentage-wise he may pay more than Bob who makes more money in absolute terms. When somebody shows up on TV and tries to convince Joe that it is in Joe's best interest to cut further breaks to Bob, Joe will turn off at best.
-
I understand your argument. On paper you are right: yes, investor income is taxed twice - first on the corporate level, then on the individual level. Also, yes, salaries are expense, therefore subtracted before applying tax on the corporate level. So, on paper, employees are taxed only once - on the individual level. But, this does not mean employees are not taxed twice in reality. I think this is the part that I have so far failed to get across.
Let's take an example from real life. My wife works in the corporate world. Their company's leadership tightens all belts there are to make the company look as profitable as shareholders and investors expect it to be. That bottom line is achieved by slashing the work force, driving the remaining force even harder, refusing to match retirement plans, and giving only token increases in salary, if any. The taxes the company has to pay are part of that bottom line. If the company paid less in tax, they could give employees more pay and better working conditions, while still achieving the performance the investors expect. So, corporate taxes DO affect employee's individual effective tax burden. You can say that technically the above paragraph is true, but the bottom line is different.
Now, let's look at the psychological side of things as well. Average Joe likely does not know tax structure or spends much time thinking about effective tax burden and such. What he knows is some money is coming his way and the gov takes a chunk of it. He also knows investor Bob has some money coming to him, and the gov takes a chunk of it. He is not happy to know percentage-wise he may pay more than Bob who makes more money in absolute terms. When somebody shows up on TV and tries to convince Joe that it is in Joe's best interest to cut further breaks to Bob, Joe will turn off at best.
You counter your own argument. IF there were no corporate taxes, yes, employees could be paid more, but then that money would only be singly taxed as income. Correspondingly, in that case, dividends would also only be taxed singly, and buffets argument would be correct.
HOWEVER, in the current real world (and not on paper) company revenue that goes to wages is ONLY taxed at the personal income level, while PROFIT (revenue minus expenses) is taxed at the corporate level and that profit whether realized as stock repurchase or dividends is ALSO taxed at the personal level. Meaning BY DEFINITION buffet's point isn't true.
I realize what you are saying, but my basic point that in the current tax regime a dollar that buffet earns is taxed twice, while a dollar his secretary earns is taxed once is entirely accurate. You are making the argument that if corporate taxes were eliminated, his dollar would be taxed once, and at a lower rate.
Your argument is entirely accurate, as 2 minus 1 is indeed 1, however, IN THE CURRENT TAX REGIME your point is invalid.
-
Maybe I can illustrate with a personal example.
I'm a corporation. A one man corporation.
If I have $10,000 unspent at the end of the year, I'll pay 15% federal corporate tax (the rate on a profit that low) and a 5.5% state corporate tax. That money is then "retained earnings", as it's already been taxed. I can pay myself a dividend with that money in the following year, but I'll have to personally pay a tax on the dividend.
If I cut myself a bonus check for $10,000, I pay federal, state and FICA taxes on that money. I would then loan it back to the corporation after the first of the year, and then each month have the corporation repay the loan in increments, rather than take a salary for those months. In doing so, the money is only taxed once.
-
Your argument is entirely accurate, as 2 minus 1 is indeed 1, however, IN THE CURRENT TAX REGIME your point is invalid.
I am not defending Buffet. I cannot say what was going on in his head and do not know what his motivations are.
I am trying to explain how things look to Average Joe. Mitt made the same argument at least once during the debates. Average Joe did not buy it. Mitt lost. That goes also to the argument that Mitt was strong on the economy. I'd say he was strongest on the economy, but that does not mean he was strong on the economy.
-
Maybe I can illustrate with a personal example.
I'm a corporation. A one man corporation.
If I have $10,000 unspent at the end of the year, I'll pay 15% federal corporate tax (the rate on a profit that low) and a 5.5% state corporate tax. That money is then "retained earnings", as it's already been taxed. I can pay myself a dividend with that money in the following year, but I'll have to personally pay a tax on the dividend.
If I cut myself a bonus check for $10,000, I pay federal, state and FICA taxes on that money. I would then loan it back to the corporation after the first of the year, and then each month have the corporation repay the loan in increments, rather than take a salary for those months. In doing so, the money is only taxed once.
Interesting. I am not a CPA, but the first thing that I would think about is to loan the 10k from the company to yourself as a private citizen. Then it is investment or inventory or something, so it will not be taxed for your corporation. Then after the first, waive the loan and write it off as a loss. There must be something preventing you to do this though. Don't do it.
-
If I did that, I would have very, very few friends, and wouldn't speak to many relatives. I'm from Wisconsin, home of Russ Feingold.
I hear you, but friends today may be collaborators tomorrow. It is not paranoid to recognize that the amount of spite in this body politic is going to create useful targets in the future. And the authorities need to get their leads from somewhere; count on someone close to do his duty and provide the information.
-
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... 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 didnrant't stop them.
I grant that they would be able to, but I do not see why they would. And I do not see how that affects us, even if they did. There are a lot of pieces missing from the argument.
Nazi Germany is a very poor comparison for China. For one, the Nazis were driven by an extreme ideology, desire to unite all ethnic Germans, and (perceived) lack of space. China does not have such ideology, they do not have territories out there to claim, except for Taiwan, and they got all the space they need. If anything, they are facing a looming severe economic and demographic crisis that will occupy them internally for at least a couple of decades.
Finally, to put it bluntly, there is nothing we can do about it militarily anyway. Our country is broke. We are a debtor nation. We cannot maintain our current military assets appropriately, let alone continue a global stance.
Even if we had the money, technology has turned against us. Capital ships cost billions of dollars. Anti-ship cruise missiles and cavitation torpedoes cost a tiny fraction of that. A full-scale conventional encounter will see our fleet on the bottom. We can bully smaller backward nations and whack pirates, but going up against another modern state close to shore is suicidal.
I will grant the China is and will be an economic adversary. But the way to combat that is to be strong economically as well. We cannot bully them, and if we are strong economically and technologically, they will not be able to bully us either.
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.
I do not understand what you are saying here. How does the corporation having mercs hunt pirates allow it to get their hands on taxpayer money?
-
I'd explain to you why Romney lost, but it would be like explaining a Tina Turner concert to Helen Keller.
While resenting the allusion to a deafblind, I'd like to know why.
-
Interesting. I am not a CPA, but the first thing that I would think about is to loan the 10k from the company to yourself as a private citizen. Then it is investment or inventory or something, so it will not be taxed for your corporation. Then after the first, waive the loan and write it off as a loss. There must be something preventing you to do this though. Don't do it.
You'd be amazed. For instance, deferring paying a salary that is contracted (with the employee's permission) effectively amounts to a loan from person to corporation. The following year, if the employee forgives the loan, it shows up as a loss to the person, effectively negative income. Interestingly enough, as far as I know, this is actually legal, and I have had legitimate, audited accountants implement such a process when I owned a small startup company that couldn't pay all it's salaries...in effect my K-1 earnings were negative, which offset gross income from other sources.
It's a legitimate way to depict personal investment into a company--you are in effect loaning your time (valued at some salary) to a entity, and then writing off the loan--on the personal tax side, it provides a legally auditable way to quantify the "investment loss". Of course, you can't do this for an extended period, AND you can't do this if the company is actually profitable, as any profits counter-act the loss, meaning it would appear you had no wages and were paid only in dividends, which is ILLEGAL (because you don't hve any payroll taxes on the dividends)--you must be paid a reasonable salary, and it must be a legitimate business.
Anyway, YMMV, and talk to an accountant, there are a lot of caveats to the above and it requires very special circumstances.
-
Look for more nuanced republicans in 2014 & 2016.
I hope you are right, but I fear nobody can nuance himself out of a deep, solid, dead-end.
-
If that is true, and I'm not really buying into it, then we're only going to be digging our grave even deeper.
Yes, that is what I predict will happen under Bambie & co., unless there is a discontinuity event. My hopes are the folks predicting a US oil production boom are correct. The resulting prosperity will be claimed as an accomplishment of the Fearless Leader, but after folks cash their checks and figure out what the government is taking, they will switch to conservatism. However, without a discontinuity event, we are going downhill, fast.
-
Classic. We got here by "nuance." Wasn't that John Kerry's favorite word? Nuance means you plebes are too f'g stupid to understand why we rule and you obey. Please.
Republicans will say and do anything, nuanced or otherwise, to reflect the insanity of the times if it gets them elected. If you start with a people bent on serfdom it doesn't matter what letter you put after the name of the people who will gladly help them get there.
-
If that is true, and I'm not really buying into it, then we're only going to be digging our grave even deeper.
Yes, that is what I predict will happen under Bambie & co., unless there is a discontinuity event. My hopes are the folks predicting a US oil production boom are correct. The resulting prosperity will be claimed as an accomplishment of the Fearless Leader, but after folks cash their checks and figure out what the government is taking, they will switch to conservatism. However, without a discontinuity event, we are going downhill, fast.
Look for more nuanced republicans in 2014 & 2016.
I hope you are right, but I fear nobody can nuance himself out of a deep, solid, dead-end.
Do you realize for much of my life the democrats held congress? I have seen these epitaphs being written before. "It's the end of conservatism." "The days of the republican party are over." It was HORRIBLE after Nixon left office. We had two rather incompetent presidents afterwords -- the second one especially so.
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... 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.
.
I grant that they would be able to, but I do not see why they would. And I do not see how that affects us, even if they did. There are a lot of pieces missing from the argument.
Nazi Germany is a very poor comparison for China. For one, the Nazis were driven by an extreme ideology, desire to unite all ethnic Germans, and (perceived) lack of space. China does not have such ideology, they do not have territories out there to claim, except for Taiwan, and they got all the space they need. If anything, they are facing a looming severe economic and demographic crisis that will occupy them internally for at least a couple of decades.
Finally, to put it bluntly, there is nothing we can do about it militarily anyway. Our country is broke. We are a debtor nation. We cannot maintain our current military assets appropriately, let alone continue a global stance.....
You don't see how closing down trade routes would affect our econmy? Good grief. Historians will hash out the reasons why.
As for the allusion to Nazism, I suggest you get a book called Hitlerland by Andrew Nagorski and read it; it recounts how two economic downturns fed Germany's Nazi Party's rise to power and the subsequent WW2. They had "looming economic and demographic crises" as well -- and that is what helped feed their powerlust. China has, already, the totalitarian government, so the rest ought to be so easy "a caveman could do it."
Maintaining a strong military is NOT what is killing us economically. It's the entitlement society that doing that. Should we somehow magically get that pert under control the military expenditures won't kill us.
However I have already dealt with how realistic it is to believe we're going to cure our entitlement addiction . . . . .
-
Maintaining a strong military is NOT what is killing us economically. It's the entitlement society that doing that. Should we somehow magically get that pert under control the military expenditures won't kill us.
However I have already dealt with how realistic it is to believe we're going to cure our entitlement addiction . . . . .
And Democrats say that maintaining a strong military is what is stopping us from having a strong domestic policy with great healthcare and social services.
We don't need either the $700 billion military budget or the $725 billion social security budget or the $835 billion medicare budget.
It doesn't take 2 dozen aircraft carriers to police the world. Or dozens upon dozens of US air force and army bases all over the world. We are going to repeat history... we are the Romans, we are the Spaniards, we are the Brits. It's economic colonialism rather than governmental, but still the same thing.
The problem is the "don't touch the military!" defendants butting heads with the "don't touch the social services!" defendants.
Whack 'em both. Or they'll get whacked involuntarily.
You do realize there is an ARMY OF ACCOUNTANTS that has MORE POWER than the combined might of all US ARMED FORCES annual expenditures FOR 20 YEARS with a financial hammer over this country's head, right?
-
And Democrats say that maintaining a strong military is what is stopping us from having a strong domestic policy with great healthcare and social services.
They're wrong. The reason why we don't have great healthcare is too much government involvement in it. Look for this situation to drastically worsen as Obamacare gets a greater toehold and goes on a fullbore tilt.
As for social services, that isn't supposed to be what this country is about.
We're not going to be the world's "policeman" in the coming decades.
The unintended consequences from this will be unthinkable, horrible, and even devastating.
But no one seems to be able to get their heads around that.
I guess we think this world is just one big happy family....... [tinfoil]
-
They're wrong. The reason why we don't have great healthcare is too much government involvement in it. Look for this situation to drastically worsen as Obamacare gets a greater toehold and goes on a fullbore tilt.
As for social services, that isn't supposed to be what this country is about.
We're not going to be the world's "policeman" in the coming decades.
The unintended consequences from this will be unthinkable, horrible, and even devastating.
But no one seems to be able to get their heads around that.
I guess we think this world is just one big happy family....... [tinfoil]
The Brits were the world's policeman back in the 18th century. ;/
We didn't need them to protect us... from them. And we didn't need some mythical 3rd party super-liberator-nice-guy-worlds-policeman Nation to save us from the Brits, either. We found our own liberty. The rest of the world can do the same. The big reason most of our "nation building" attempts fail is because those countries don't WANT the governments we put in place for them. It's wasted blood, and wasted treasure, borrowed from an army of accountants that have no love of our liberty.
-
+1
Health requires civilization, not barbarism. Something lost on most liberals who have never been close to war.
-
Do you realize for much of my life the democrats held congress? I have seen these epitaphs being written before. "It's the end of conservatism." "The days of the republican party are over." It was HORRIBLE after Nixon left office. We had two rather incompetent presidents afterwords -- the second one especially so.
I am too young to remember those years. However, the demographic and cultural arguments stand. I do not see how Reps can attract young people, minorities, and women, with the current menu. Taking into account the younger generations and minorities will be an increasing part of the electorate, gaining their support is the only way to remain politically relevant.
You don't see how closing down trade routes would affect our econmy? Good grief. Historians will hash out the reasons why.
I should have qualified to say "affect negatively long-term". Yeah, sure it will affect us, but we are sitting on a continent of resources, and likely a large amount of now extractable oil. We have relatively easy communication with another continent (South America) and if we keep a meaningful Atlantic fleet, also with Africa, and Europe. The Pacific distances are just too great. Why do we need to stick our noses in Asia and vie with China there?
Cut routes are not necessarily a bad thing. Look at the major examples in history. The Ottomans cut off land trade to the Orient. So, Europeans built ocean going ships, circled Africa, and discovered the Americas. I think that worked out pretty well for the Europeans. Not so much for the Ottomans. Similarly, the USSR essentially cut off itself and Eastern Europe from the rest of the world. The free societies of the West ultimately won the Cold War not by military superiority but through the nuclear deterrent, superior technology, and stronger economy.
The only real problem in terms of resources is China sits on some rare earths, which are needed in high-tech devices. We'll just have to find a technological way around it, if needed.
it recounts how two economic downturns fed Germany's Nazi Party's rise to power and the subsequent WW2. They had "looming economic and demographic crises" as well -- and that is what helped feed their powerlust. China has, already, the totalitarian government, so the rest ought to be so easy "a caveman could do it."
First off, the economic crisis simply pushed traditional parties out of the way to allow the Nazis access to power. The economic crisis did not prompt expansionism. Nazi Germany was doing pretty well economically before the war, although some historians maintain it would have been unsustainable. Expansionism had purely ethnic and political reasons, although Nazis talked about running out of space, which modern intensive agricultural methods would have solved. If anything, they had a lot of young population before WW1, which got culled in the war, then another smaller boom preceding WW2.
In contrast, China has the opposite demographic crisis - aging population. Because of one-child policy over decades, they are looking at a demographic heavily skewed towards the aging side. They will have to find a way to provide for those people or face upheavals. You can't fight wars with seniors, so this supports my thesis better. Furthermore, the economic crisis is one of planned economy and empty cities, when artificially boosted capacity outstrips domestic demand. No matter what happens, they cannot sustain that, unless they bomb their own cities, so they can rebuild them.
Maintaining a strong military is NOT what is killing us economically. It's the entitlement society that doing that. Should we somehow magically get that pert under control the military expenditures won't kill us.
Normally, maybe. But for the past 11 years, military spending has been by far the bigger culprit.
Entitlements, however, are things that I promised to go back to. So, riddle me this. Reps are supposed to be fiscally conservative, yet they support Medicare and Medicaid, and I almost constantly see AARP ads in California about how "I am a senior, and a voter, so don't you be touching my drugs or benefits, or I kick your bum politician butt out of office." As a guy below 40, I look at this and just shake my head knowing those things cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and add to the national debt that will affect the second half of my life.
-
I am too young to remember those years. However, the demographic and cultural arguments stand. I do not see how Reps can attract young people, minorities, and women, with the current menu. Taking into account the younger generations and minorities will be an increasing part of the electorate, gaining their support is the only way to remain politically relevant.
If these groups believe they are going to get--and more importantly, hold--what they most desire with the current leftist agenda they are sadly mistaken. Perhaps they will find that their much-desired sexual freedom will be the ONLY freedom left to them in the world that's a-building, enjoyed furtively behind locked doors with a hostile and unsafe and fragile reality outside the barred window.
-
I am too young to remember those years. However, the demographic and cultural arguments stand. I do not see how Reps can attract young people, minorities, and women, with the current menu. Taking into account the younger generations and minorities will be an increasing part of the electorate, gaining their support is the only way to remain politically relevant.
I should have qualified to say "affect negatively long-term". Yeah, sure it will affect us, but we are sitting on a continent of resources, and likely a large amount of now extractable oil. We have relatively easy communication with another continent (South America) and if we keep a meaningful Atlantic fleet, also with Africa, and Europe. The Pacific distances are just too great. Why do we need to stick our noses in Asia and vie with China there?
Cut routes are not necessarily a bad thing. Look at the major examples in history. The Ottomans cut off land trade to the Orient. So, Europeans built ocean going ships, circled Africa, and discovered the Americas. I think that worked out pretty well for the Europeans. Not so much for the Ottomans. Similarly, the USSR essentially cut off itself and Eastern Europe from the rest of the world. The free societies of the West ultimately won the Cold War not by military superiority but through the nuclear deterrent, superior technology, and stronger economy.
The only real problem in terms of resources is China sits on some rare earths, which are needed in high-tech devices. We'll just have to find a technological way around it, if needed.
First off, the economic crisis simply pushed traditional parties out of the way to allow the Nazis access to power. The economic crisis did not prompt expansionism. Nazi Germany was doing pretty well economically before the war, although some historians maintain it would have been unsustainable. Expansionism had purely ethnic and political reasons, although Nazis talked about running out of space, which modern intensive agricultural methods would have solved. If anything, they had a lot of young population before WW1, which got culled in the war, then another smaller boom preceding WW2.
In contrast, China has the opposite demographic crisis - aging population. Because of one-child policy over decades, they are looking at a demographic heavily skewed towards the aging side. They will have to find a way to provide for those people or face upheavals. You can't fight wars with seniors, so this supports my thesis better. Furthermore, the economic crisis is one of planned economy and empty cities, when artificially boosted capacity outstrips domestic demand. No matter what happens, they cannot sustain that, unless they bomb their own cities, so they can rebuild them.
Normally, maybe. But for the past 11 years, military spending has been by far the bigger culprit.
Entitlements, however, are things that I promised to go back to. So, riddle me this. Reps are supposed to be fiscally conservative, yet they support Medicare and Medicaid, and I almost constantly see AARP ads in California about how "I am a senior, and a voter, so don't you be touching my drugs or benefits, or I kick your bum politician butt out of office." As a guy below 40, I look at this and just shake my head knowing those things cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and add to the national debt that will affect the second half of my life.
The trouble with all this is the "we" you posit. You think that "we" is going to prosper under the circumstances you offer here?
And youth does not ensure a strong and thriving culture or civilization. It might just constitute a first-rate pool of slaves. Remember that "seniors," with their aged limbs but eternally young technology, can press The Button and exterminate untold numbers of youngsters with the flick of a wrist.
-
The Brits were the world's policeman back in the 18th century. ;/
We didn't need them to protect us... from them. And we didn't need some mythical 3rd party super-liberator-nice-guy-worlds-policeman Nation to save us from the Brits, either. We found our own liberty. The rest of the world can do the same. The big reason most of our "nation building" attempts fail is because those countries don't WANT the governments we put in place for them. It's wasted blood, and wasted treasure, borrowed from an army of accountants that have no love of our liberty.
OK. Get ready for rule by countries that have no love of liberty. :facepalm:
-
OK. Get ready for rule by countries that have no love of liberty. :facepalm:
I'm already experiencing that, it isn't going to get better either IMHO.
People aren't going to vote for liberty when they can't even define what liberty means.
-
I am too young to remember those years. However, the demographic and cultural arguments stand. I do not see how Reps can attract young people, minorities, and women, with the current menu. Taking into account the younger generations and minorities will be an increasing part of the electorate, gaining their support is the only way to remain politically relevant.
I should have qualified to say "affect negatively long-term". Yeah, sure it will affect us, but we are sitting on a continent of resources, and likely a large amount of now extractable oil. We have relatively easy communication with another continent (South America) and if we keep a meaningful Atlantic fleet, also with Africa, and Europe. The Pacific distances are just too great. Why do we need to stick our noses in Asia and vie with China there?
Cut routes are not necessarily a bad thing. Look at the major examples in history. The Ottomans cut off land trade to the Orient. So, Europeans built ocean going ships, circled Africa, and discovered the Americas. I think that worked out pretty well for the Europeans. Not so much for the Ottomans. Similarly, the USSR essentially cut off itself and Eastern Europe from the rest of the world. The free societies of the West ultimately won the Cold War not by military superiority but through the nuclear deterrent, superior technology, and stronger economy.
The only real problem in terms of resources is China sits on some rare earths, which are needed in high-tech devices. We'll just have to find a technological way around it, if needed.
First off, the economic crisis simply pushed traditional parties out of the way to allow the Nazis access to power. The economic crisis did not prompt expansionism. Nazi Germany was doing pretty well economically before the war, although some historians maintain it would have been unsustainable. Expansionism had purely ethnic and political reasons, although Nazis talked about running out of space, which modern intensive agricultural methods would have solved. If anything, they had a lot of young population before WW1, which got culled in the war, then another smaller boom preceding WW2.
In contrast, China has the opposite demographic crisis - aging population. Because of one-child policy over decades, they are looking at a demographic heavily skewed towards the aging side. They will have to find a way to provide for those people or face upheavals. You can't fight wars with seniors, so this supports my thesis better. Furthermore, the economic crisis is one of planned economy and empty cities, when artificially boosted capacity outstrips domestic demand. No matter what happens, they cannot sustain that, unless they bomb their own cities, so they can rebuild them.
Normally, maybe. But for the past 11 years, military spending has been by far the bigger culprit.
Entitlements, however, are things that I promised to go back to. So, riddle me this. Reps are supposed to be fiscally conservative, yet they support Medicare and Medicaid, and I almost constantly see AARP ads in California about how "I am a senior, and a voter, so don't you be touching my drugs or benefits, or I kick your bum politician butt out of office." As a guy below 40, I look at this and just shake my head knowing those things cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and add to the national debt that will affect the second half of my life.
China has the , IIRC, the largest standing army on the face of the planet. What they lack is any realistic way of projecting it, but they will be able to project themselves into the Western Pacific more and more over the next decade or two.
Again I recomend Nagorski's book about Hitler. The other political parties were not so much pushed aside by the economic crises they were traunced by Hitler's national socialist movement, usually though those parties wound up being their own worst enemy.
Cutting trade routes is not going to be a good thing for us despite how europe reacted to what the Ottomans did.
Such an act might prompt a war. It won't, of course, under Obama -- he'll simply apologize. [tinfoil]
There were demographic and cultural arguments made back in Nixon's day too. They changed. Everyone has a tendency to draw straight-line projections and assume this will pan out in time, but that isn't always true.
Certainly, getting the younger electorate on board is important, but it is important to educate them that we can no longer be an entitlement society without bringing it down on our ears. We just can't afford it any longer.
That's going to be a hard case to sell.
-
I'm already experiencing that, it isn't going to get better either IMHO.
If you think what we have now is what I mean by "countries that have no love of liberty" then you have no idea in the world what real tyranny really is.
People aren't going to vote for liberty when they can't even define what liberty means.
True. But those peoples' idea of what liberty is is what leads to "countries that have no love of liberty." We're not there yet.
-
Fifth largest. The PRC hasn't had the single largest since they watched the worlds fourth largest get disassembled in 28 days back in 1991.
-
Fifth largest. The PRC hasn't had the single largest since they watched the worlds fourth largest get disassembled in 28 days back in 1991.
I stand corrected. It's still pretty good size and plenty ruthless -- ask the Dali Llama.
-
They know what liberty is: it's that tingling at the frontier of their nerve-endings.
-
They know what liberty is: it's that tingling at the frontier of their nerve-endings.
Okay.... I'll keep that in mind. :lol:
-
I stand corrected. It's still pretty good size and plenty ruthless -- ask the Dali Llama.
I normally hate being the red pen type, but mispelling this one always irks me.
Dalai Lama
Unrelated to this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb9%2FLlama_lying_down.jpg%2F250px-Llama_lying_down.jpg&hash=f3adbf3056ee6afb856f056d7f28861253e3684a)
-
I normally hate being the red pen type, but mispelling this one always irks me.
Dalai Lama
Unrelated to this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb9%2FLlama_lying_down.jpg%2F250px-Llama_lying_down.jpg&hash=f3adbf3056ee6afb856f056d7f28861253e3684a)
Thanks....I knew I was spelling it wrong but had ZIP idea what was correct. I apologize for your irkinessisity. ;)
-
I am too young to remember those years. However, the demographic and cultural arguments stand. I do not see how Reps can attract young people, minorities, and women, with the current menu. Taking into account the younger generations and minorities will be an increasing part of the electorate, gaining their support is the only way to remain politically relevant.
You keep saying that the GOP has to abandon its principles to stay relevant. What is the point of keeping the brand alive, while killing everything it stands for? Why not just switch allegiance to the Dems, which clearly have the branding and marketing you think it should aim for?
Ok, first let me ask if there is some part of the Republican Party that future demographics will support, and why do you think young people/immigrants will support that, and not the other things?
-
If you think what we have now is what I mean by "countries that have no love of liberty" then you have no idea in the world what real tyranny really is.
True. But those peoples' idea of what liberty is is what leads to "countries that have no love of liberty." We're not there yet.
Regarding tyranny, the framework is in place, the institutions are in place, all that is needed is a little more time. Once those who have vague memories of what this country was supposed to stand for have shaken off their mortal coil the rest is just history.
History, written by the statists who will continue to mold the impressionable minds with their version of history. The true history will go down the memory hole with liberty and truth, swooooosh!
We are so far gone they are already rewriting history in real time. We watch it happen in the MSM, the stories they choose, the narratives they weave and the blatant lies they tell right to our faces.
Truth? What is truth?
-
Regarding tyranny, the framework is in place, the institutions are in place, all that is needed is a little more time. Once those who have vague memories of what this country was supposed to stand for have shaken off their mortal coil the rest is just history.
History, written by the statists who will continue to mold the impressionable minds with their version of history. The true history will go down the memory hole with liberty and truth, swooooosh!
We are so far gone they are already rewriting history in real time. We watch it happen in the MSM, the stories they choose, the narratives they weave and the blatant lies they tell right to our faces.
Truth? What is truth?
Ok, I guess it's all over with. I'll sell my guns and burn my books ...my more, um, "tendentious" books and welcome our new overlords. [popcorn]
:police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police: :police:
-
Unfortunately I don't have any guns to sell, they were all lost in a tragic boating accident :P
-
Truth?
God is on the side of the better hackers.
-
Truth?
God is on the side of the better hackers.
THREAD DRIFT! :P
-
CAnnonneer, I'm sorry you don't like my analogy. It was the best I could come up with in my sleep-deprived state.
To answer your question, though, there are a whole slew of reasons why Romney lost, but conservatism isn't one of them.
First, Romney's history in Massachusetts worked against him with the conservative base. He was considered "Obama-lite", as so many here have referred to him. By the time he was able to articulate his conservative ideology--whether it was real or not--it was too late.
Second, the Obama campaign defined him early, painting him as a rich guy only looking to help his rich buddies. This wasn't true, and has never been true of Romney (his charitable contributions and charitable works show him to be much more compassionate than Obama will ever be). Nevertheless, Obama was able to embed that image of Romney in the public's mind.
Third, Romney's personality doesn't excite people. He didn't ignite passions. When he responded to Obama's "you didn't build that" remark, he showed passion for the first time in his campaign.
Fourth, Romney was being too nice. He was up against a campaign that would do anything to win (witness Benghazi), and Romney was using gentleman's rules. He should have used that third debate to politely call Obama out as a liar, and worse.
Obama also bought votes by pandering to various parts of the Democrat base, giving all of them something paid for by taxpayers. He used jealousy and class warfare to incite hatred on a level I don't think I've seen before. Obama ran one of the most vicious campaigns in political history. The constant charges of racism, the urgings to his followers to "get revenge", the smearing of primary candidates like Herman Cain, the outright lies, and the complicity of the media in covering up a scandal bigger than Watergate make this election one that will be viewed for decades as an example of the worst in politics.
Edited to add: A huge reason Obama won is that people know that painful cuts are necessary to keep our country from turning into Greece. Obama made people think that the necessary cuts will be made, but somebody else will feel the pain. When Romney spoke, those same people came away knowing they'd have to give up one or more of their public handouts.
Conservative ideology is never out of date. It's what this country was built on. Progressivism is a relatively new concept, and it's had to be disguised over the years in order to reach the point where it is now unremarkable that half the population is demanding that the other half give them significant portions of the fruits of their labor. It's almost a given that those who pay nearly all of the taxes are painted as villains, and portrayed as not giving their "fair share" when the other half pays no share. (Of course, those at the top of the progressive ladder get a pass on their wealth, no matter how it was accumulated. Joe Kennedy the Irish gangster, John Kerry the Gigolo, George Soros and Warren Buffet, crooked players both of them, get a pass).
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.
To the contrary, progressivism can only be maintained in a prosperous society, unless the people are content to live in misery (see USSR). You can't get blood from a turnip. As the economy worsens, conservatism is the only alternative to bankruptcy, whether the 50% feeding at the public trough like it or not.
-
What is commonly called progressivism is not relatively new. New name, old ideas.
State enforced collectivism run by an elite oligarchy is as old as human history.
-
What is commonly called progressivism is not relatively new. New name, old ideas.
State enforced collectivism run by an elite oligarchy is as old as human history.
This is so. "Conservatism" is the actual progressivism/liberalism.
-
I normally hate being the red pen type, but mispelling this one always irks me.
Dalai Lama
Unrelated to this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb9%2FLlama_lying_down.jpg%2F250px-Llama_lying_down.jpg&hash=f3adbf3056ee6afb856f056d7f28861253e3684a)
If I ever own a llama I'm naming it Dalai. :laugh:
-
Progressivism as we now know it is the product of the Marxists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, with their ideas being embraced by the Progressive Party born in WI, codified into laws by Wilson and Roosevelt, made en vogue by the Kennedy's and celebrities, and now exposed for all to see by Obama. It's not the same as the serfdom of the Middle Ages.
-
Progressivism as we now know it is the product of the Marxists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, with their ideas being embraced by the Progressive Party born in WI, codified into laws by Wilson and Roosevelt, made en vogue by the Kennedy's and celebrities, and now exposed for all to see by Obama. It's not the same as the serfdom of the Middle Ages.
Except that it is.
-
Progressivism as we now know it is the product of the Marxists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, with their ideas being embraced by the Progressive Party born in WI, codified into laws by Wilson and Roosevelt, made en vogue by the Kennedy's and celebrities, and now exposed for all to see by Obama. It's not the same as the serfdom of the Middle Ages.
...and the end result is the oligarchs (government elites and crony capitalists) tend their human farm(s) using collectivist schemes repeating the same patterns found in history. Keeping the farm animals fed, happy and well taken care of has increased productivity!
The crony capitalist welfare state is modern feudalism.
-
It is except that the people really do have the ability to vote their "masters" out of office. They don't do it, though. They just trade their freedom for Obamaphones.
-
Yeah, there are some big differences, Monkeyleg. Broad brush-strokes sometimes have their uses.
-
The end is depressingly the same regardless of the means.
-
It is except that the people really do have the ability to vote their "masters" out of office. They don't do it, though. They just trade their freedom for Obamaphones.
Do read about the barriers to entry our policritters have erected regarding elective office. Also, anti-spoils-sytem and similar laws ensure the bureaucracy can not be touched by the electorate.
Is one living in a market economy when 100% of the fruits of one's labors are taken by people with guns? Or is that just a slave economy with numeric window dressing? How about when we can not effectively influence nearly 100% of those with gov't power who influence our lives?
-
Do read about the barriers to entry our policritters have erected regarding elective office. Also, anti-spoils-sytem and similar laws ensure the bureaucracy can not be touched by the electorate.
I know very well about the barriers. I've mentioned before that I worked several years on the campaign of a good, decent, real conservative, real constitutional candidate. He finally was elected to the state senate. To do so, he had to challenge a Republican incumbent in the primary. This ticked off the Republican establishment because they then had to spend money in what was otherwise a safe seat.
Once elected, he went after the rigged system that allowed gas taxes to go up every year without the legislature having to vote on an increase. The bill was sent to his committee, but the majority leader wouldn't allow him to schedule a vote in his own committee. A Milwaukee talk show host had his audience hit the Capitol with a barrage of phone calls. The majority leader finally caved, legislators were pressured to vote to repeal the automatic increase, and it was signed into law.
The majority leader told my friend not to expect any help in the upcoming election, and he got none. A Democrat won.
If there were more candidates like him (because of people willing to help candidates like him), we could actually have an honest government somewhere in the US. It's possible. Likely? No, not with things as they are.
-
Progressivism as we now know it is the product of the Marxists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, with their ideas being embraced by the Progressive Party born in WI, codified into laws by Wilson and Roosevelt, made en vogue by the Kennedy's and celebrities, and now exposed for all to see by Obama. It's not the same as the serfdom of the Middle Ages.
In fairness to progressives, many of their ideas have American roots in Thomas Jefferson, and much of American progressivism that's had any success at all at the polls would better be described as Jeffersonian than Marxist.
Jefferson's loathing for bankers and mercantile policy are readily apparent in the chain of American politicians you listed there. Example here: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=217&division=div1 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=217&division=div1)
And http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=243&division=div1 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=243&division=div1)And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
Of historical interest and since IP law is likely to become a hot topic in this term, I thought I'd toss out Jefferson on patents: Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=218&division=div1 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=218&division=div1)
-
If these groups believe they are going to get--and more importantly, hold--what they most desire with the current leftist agenda they are sadly mistaken. Perhaps they will find that their much-desired sexual freedom will be the ONLY freedom left to them in the world that's a-building, enjoyed furtively behind locked doors with a hostile and unsafe and fragile reality outside the barred window.
Sorry, but the above is just a representative example of conservatives blaming the electorate for being too stupid to understand what they are voting for. My counteradvice is figure out what motivates the voter segments, give them what is reasonable/acceptable, get elected, effect changes.
It is very easy to point to some dumb POS like the Obamaphonist and say "they are all like that". Sure, there is a relatively small underclass like that and they will NEVER be conservative. But there are large masses of electorate that are not at all like that and they still voted for Obama, for completely different reasons. If you understand their aspiration and include its achievement in your program, then you can convert them to your side, win elections, and make a difference on far larger issues. In my mind, with a more reasonable stance on immigration, gay rights, and abortion, the election would have been a cakewalk even with such fatally flawed candidate as Romney. The issues of liberty and anti-statism are far bigger in the long run than the other three.
-
The trouble with all this is the "we" you posit. You think that "we" is going to prosper under the circumstances you offer here?
By "we" I mean the USA. What do YOU mean by "we"? If your meaning is the same, why wouldn't the USA prosper under those circumstances, together with South America, Europe, and parts of Africa? If China wants another cold war, they are welcome to it. They will lose. But I am 99% sure that is not what is going to happen. China is driven by far different motivations than the USSR or Nazi Germany. They want riches and influence, not war.
And youth does not ensure a strong and thriving culture or civilization. It might just constitute a first-rate pool of slaves. Remember that "seniors," with their aged limbs but eternally young technology, can press The Button and exterminate untold numbers of youngsters with the flick of a wrist.
Sorry to say, but most of your postings seem to be refracted through the prism of your mistrust for hispanics. Yeah, there are bad apples among them, just like any other group, but the crushing majority are just like you and me, just browner and shorter. Most, once in America, AND doing well for themselves, abandon traditional ties and assimilate culturally and economically. Keeping them as an underclass, extraditing them, bullying them, keeping them in the shadows underpaid and abused, is just pushing them inward and into enclaves, and ultimately radicalizing them. They did not come here hoping to live in a ghetto functionally similar to whatever toilet they came from. Deny them the American dream, and you WILL get what you fear. Ironic but true.
-
China has the , IIRC, the largest standing army on the face of the planet. What they lack is any realistic way of projecting it, but they will be able to project themselves into the Western Pacific more and more over the next decade or two.
They are building up their fleet as well. The difference is theirs is strategically modern because it is new. We only have a significant advantage in deep waters far from shore, because the carrier groups have a good shot at running security for the cardboard motherships. In coastal waters, we are toast. Security is impossible there due to cruise missiles and cavitation torpedoes. To project power in the West Pacific, China can certainly hug shore and numerous islands. They won't take Hawaii, but they do not need Hawaii. But all of this is just intellectual gaming. It will never come to it for a slew of political and economic reasons.
Again I recomend Nagorski's book about Hitler. The other political parties were not so much pushed aside by the economic crises they were traunced by Hitler's national socialist movement, usually though those parties wound up being their own worst enemy.
The traditional parties bore the smear of "the stab in the back", which Hitler astutely used against them. More importantly, they did not have a solution to the social problem, because they could not adjust their ideology to allow for a solution. That is why the two major parties in Germany were the communists and the nazis. They did offer such solutions, similar but not the same. Critically, notice both were statist, socialist parties. That is very revealing. In a huge crisis, the populace DID NOT switch to conservatism. They went socialist and statist. A huge lesson to remember and quite relevant to the discussion here. Notice also this happened in one of the most civilized and cultured countries in Europe.
Cutting trade routes is not going to be a good thing for us despite how europe reacted to what the Ottomans did.
Actually, I would welcome it. It means manufacturing coming back to the US. More jobs, more prosperity, more independence, weaker international corporations, higher employment, more American pride, less internationalism, less military spending, no foreign nation building.
There were demographic and cultural arguments made back in Nixon's day too. They changed. Everyone has a tendency to draw straight-line projections and assume this will pan out in time, but that isn't always true.
True. That is why I allowed for discontinuity events, e.g. the oil boom or some other source of prosperity. But, barring that, we are stuck with linear projections, and the outlook is grim. Ergo, my urge to re-examine stances and adjust the menu accordingly.
Certainly, getting the younger electorate on board is important, but it is important to educate them that we can no longer be an entitlement society without bringing it down on our ears. We just can't afford it any longer.
That's going to be a hard case to sell.
I think there are many more fiscal conservatives among the younger electorate than given credit. However, most are disgusted and appalled by the current conservative menu on social issues. Those are a huge anchor around the neck for Republicans and a great boon to Dems. Let's not kid ourselves - that is where this election was lost for the most part.
-
Ok, first let me ask if there is some part of the Republican Party that future demographics will support, and why do you think young people/immigrants will support that, and not the other things?
In an environment of prosperity, the average person will turn to fiscal conservatism because he then sees the government as the taxman taking his money away, not a social safety net or provider of services. So, that part they do and will support. However, I do not see them supporting any of the social conservatism, ever again. Ergo, what I proposed as strategy for going forward.
-
In fairness to progressives, many of their ideas have American roots in Thomas Jefferson, and much of American progressivism that's had any success at all at the polls would better be described as Jeffersonian than Marxist.
Jefferson's loathing for bankers and mercantile policy are readily apparent in the chain of American politicians you listed there. Example here: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=217&division=div1 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=217&division=div1)
And http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=243&division=div1 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=243&division=div1)
Of historical interest and since IP law is likely to become a hot topic in this term, I thought I'd toss out Jefferson on patents: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=218&division=div1 (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=218&division=div1)
Umm... those are not "progressive" principles. That is, unless you can find any progressives opposed to CENTRAL banking, which is what Jefferson there is decrying. Not private banking, but central banking that allows the government to run up a debt. ("to be paid by our posterity")
And the second issue, though some progressives may oppose the current copyright and patent law, is most definitely not the sole realm of progressives- evidenced by the fact that it is the one place you and I find common ground.
-
To answer your question, though, there are a whole slew of reasons why Romney lost, but conservatism isn't one of them.
He may not be sufficiently conservative to you and some Republicans, but he was too conservative for the average voter. My guess is, he was a mediocre waiter of a crappy menu. The restaurant now chides him for the mediocrity of his service, instead of looking at the menu and firing the cook.
First, Romney's history in Massachusetts worked against him with the conservative base. He was considered "Obama-lite", as so many here have referred to him. By the time he was able to articulate his conservative ideology--whether it was real or not--it was too late.
I have no doubt that this is true. However, the only way this could have affected the election is if those conservatives stayed home because of it. That would mean they would rather have Fearless Leader for another 4 years with its horrible consequences on the country than Romney. That attitude would be insane, suicidal, and unpatriotic.
Second, the Obama campaign defined him early, painting him as a rich guy only looking to help his rich buddies. This wasn't true, and has never been true of Romney (his charitable contributions and charitable works show him to be much more compassionate than Obama will ever be). Nevertheless, Obama was able to embed that image of Romney in the public's mind.
I believe both things are true. He is a good person who genuinely gave a ton of money to charity. I'd like to have a beer with him any day and get to know his family. Bambie is a POS next to him. However, it is also true that Romney is a rich capitalist, who would have helped his buddies. He simply would have been Bush III, just smarter and more soft-spoken. And the reason is, he got backed by the Republican leadership, who are thoroughly corrupt, and the public knows it. What they do not realize as much is that the Dems are equally corrupt, they just have different PACs to mooch off of.
If I were Romney, I'd just counter with: " Yes, I am rich and successful and proud of it. I did not get rich by political corruption like my opponent, but by my labor and smarts. I am what is right with American and he is what is wrong. You have a clear choice."
Third, Romney's personality doesn't excite people. He didn't ignite passions. When he responded to Obama's "you didn't build that" remark, he showed passion for the first time in his campaign. Fourth, Romney was being too nice. He was up against a campaign that would do anything to win (witness Benghazi), and Romney was using gentleman's rules. He should have used that third debate to politely call Obama out as a liar, and worse.
True. But, it goes back to my comment about the restaurant blaming the waiter. Also, voters did not care about Benghazi, because they did not understand it. I saw FOX trumpeting about it all the time before the elections, but what they shouted was questions, not answers. They should have spent more time and more money on figuring out what happened, then present it to the public. Same goes for the Republican party. They all went collectively soft in the head. Why didn't the R congressmen summon Billary and Petraeus to testify at the end of September or in early October?
Obama also bought votes by pandering to various parts of the Democrat base, giving all of them something paid for by taxpayers. He used jealousy and class warfare to incite hatred on a level I don't think I've seen before. Obama ran one of the most vicious campaigns in political history. The constant charges of racism, the urgings to his followers to "get revenge", the smearing of primary candidates like Herman Cain, the outright lies, and the complicity of the media in covering up a scandal bigger than Watergate make this election one that will be viewed for decades as an example of the worst in politics.
True. But they can only smear you badly, if they take a truth and twist it. They do not have to work hard to portray conservatives as racists when there is a clear disdain for the underclass (which racially is mostly blacks and some hispanics), there is the immigration stance of no reconciliation but deportation and self-deportation. It also does not take much effort to portray conservatives as bigots with the stance on gay marriage. The class struggle is also easy to fuel when the party does think in terms of the 47% all the time. Romney was just honest to say it. Many conservatives think it, and the voter knows it.
-
By "we" I mean the USA. What do YOU mean by "we"? If your meaning is the same, why wouldn't the USA prosper under those circumstances, together with South America, Europe, and parts of Africa? If China wants another cold war, they are welcome to it. They will lose. But I am 99% sure that is not what is going to happen. China is driven by far different motivations than the USSR or Nazi Germany. They want riches and influence, not war.
Sorry to say, but most of your postings seem to be refracted through the prism of your mistrust for hispanics. Yeah, there are bad apples among them, just like any other group, but the crushing majority are just like you and me, just browner and shorter. Most, once in America, AND doing well for themselves, abandon traditional ties and assimilate culturally and economically. Keeping them as an underclass, extraditing them, bullying them, keeping them in the shadows underpaid and abused, is just pushing them inward and into enclaves, and ultimately radicalizing them. They did not come here hoping to live in a ghetto functionally similar to whatever toilet they came from. Deny them the American dream, and you WILL get what you fear. Ironic but true.
I grew up around Hispanics, and, I'm guessing, you didn't, so I know firsthand the good and not so good points about the culture. Actually, since you bring it up in an accusatory manner, I will note here that there are things about "latino" culture I respect and see future strength in, but they may not be the things you generalize about. They are hardworking, adaptive, and family-oriented, and the way the world is going their propensity for tribalism and making do with what they have will avail them well against the fragmented non-latino culture I see developing. But if you look hard at the statistics regarding in-wedlock birth rates and educational attainments, even in the second and third generation, you will see a less sanguine picture as far as fitting into today's America (for what that's worth). Most of the newer latinos are bringing with them what they knew in Mesoamerica, with all that implies. If you want to see rainbows because they are young and have, for now, a high birthrate, enjoy.
My point is you are positing an America in terms of unity that no longer exists and whose former strengths are waning. Our welfare state reflects that change, not just the machinations of Progressives. We have a people who want a welfare state, not just a welfare state foisted on them. And I repeat, extolling youth for its own sake is a bit naive. There are a lot of young people in Africa and the Middle East who live in, surprise, abject poverty, so youth per se is no guarantee of anything.
I gather from your nom de 'net that you are, like me, from California...? If the lesson of what's happened here is lost on you, I don't know what to say to you.
***
For the record, I don't blame latinos for illegal immigration, I blame stupid Anglos. We have the situation we desired.
-
...............The traditional parties bore the smear of "the stab in the back", which Hitler astutely used against them. More importantly, they did not have a solution to the social problem, because they could not adjust their ideology to allow for a solution. That is why the two major parties in Germany were the communists and the nazis. They did offer such solutions, similar but not the same. Critically, notice both were statist, socialist parties. That is very revealing. In a huge crisis, the populace DID NOT switch to conservatism. They went socialist and statist. A huge lesson to remember and quite relevant to the discussion here. Notice also this happened in one of the most civilized and cultured countries in Europe.
It has been said that Germans were too well conditioned to take orders ..... [popcorn]
You really need to read Nagorski's book!
Maybe you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to debate you on this, but it seems anyone who seems as knowledgeable as you would be even more interested in this book, as it offers direct insights from Americans who were living in Germany during this period. Most of these people knew Hitler or atleast met him, or others in the high command. I think you would really enjoy this book. It's fascinating and frightening at the same time.
Cutting trade routes is not going to be a good thing for us despite how europe reacted to what the Ottomans did.
Actually, I would welcome it. It means manufacturing coming back to the US. More jobs, more prosperity, more independence, weaker international corporations, higher employment, more American pride, less internationalism, less military spending, no foreign nation building.
Only in the long run ...if then. In the short run it would be very very disruptive.
I would like to bring a lot of manufacturing back to America but I don't think this is the way.
I think there are many more fiscal conservatives among the younger electorate than given credit. However, most are disgusted and appalled by the current conservative menu on social issues. Those are a huge anchor around the neck for Republicans and a great boon to Dems. Let's not kid ourselves - that is where this election was lost for the most part.
Every time I hear this I keep thinking I'm being told that the GOP has to surrender it's position on social issues to the liberal if they wish to gain the support of the youth.
If they do, they will only lose their older base, which will go elsewhere.
IMO the GOP needs to do a better job of presenting the case for their stand on the disputed issues. I think people can be educated.
But I could be wrong.
-
Every time I hear this I keep thinking I'm being told that the GOP has to surrender it's position on social issues to the liberal if they wish to gain the support of the youth.
If they do, they will only lose their older base, which will go elsewhere.
IMO the GOP needs to do a better job of presenting the case for their stand on the disputed issues. I think people can be educated.
But I could be wrong.
Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.
All they have to do is relinquish Statism. The authoritah-fetish for telling people what they HAVE to do, rather than restraining government from the things it is NOT ALLOWED to do.
Sticking to Constitutional wars (rather than executive order police actions) and Constitional powers (over-reaching of DHS) would do a LOT for the GOP to woo those younger voters.
Romney was all gung-ho for another war in the sandbox and ready to let the DHS have free reins on electronic and physical transportation. In some ways, I'm glad Obama won. He's at least staying out of mideast wars, if for the wrong reasons (he's doing it to deliberately harm the US due to his anti-colonial brainwashing from his father and anti-capitalist feelings, while a Paulian perspective on it would restrain us to deliberately increase the honor in the wars we DID legitimately participate in after a Congressional declaration, as well as gauge true support from the population via Congressional elections after Congress did vote for/against war.)
-
They are hardworking, adaptive, and family-oriented, and the way the world is going their propensity for tribalism and making do with what they have will avail them well against the fragmented non-latino culture I see developing.
All true. But, tribalism has been a characteristic of every new wave of immigrants. Anglos, Dutch, French, Irish, Germans, Jews, Chinese, Italians, Russians, Koreans, etc. all stuck together initially, then opened up and assimilated. The fragmented non-latino culture is the free, color-blind society at large. I think you fear their tribalism will allow the latinos to gain concessions from the rest by means of voting en bloc. That is not necessarily a bad thing. To them, it is a defensive measure. Keep pushing them down, and they will defend themselves. Ease the pressure, and they will open up and fragment, just like everybody else.
I suspect what you fear is unlimited tidal immigration, an open border, which allow such a mass of newcomers that instead of assimilating, they change the local culture too much and colonize, or reconquer, put it as you will. That indeed is a problem, so I do believe that borders need to be secured. But that cannot be done without simultaneously allowing a path to legalization for those who are already here, combined with some form of guest worker program. There is just way too much economic pressure and political and demographic realities to get anything different done.
But if you look hard at the statistics regarding in-wedlock birth rates and educational attainments, even in the second and third generation, you will see a less sanguine picture as far as fitting into today's America (for what that's worth).
Jorge does not need to be a rocket scientist to assimilate. Pay him fairly for a job well done and he will buy a big TV, a barbeque, a small house some place in the hinterland, and he will take care of his three kids. If those kids are satisfied with the lifestyle, it is all cool. If they want better, they have to study harder. None of this prevents them from living full and fulfilling lives as Americans. That is not that much different than Average Anglo Joe does anyway.
Most of the newer latinos are bringing with them what they knew in Mesoamerica, with all that implies.
If what they had there were any better than what we can offer, they would not have left. If we make it so that they got nothing to look forward to other than what they brought, then yes, they will turn L.A. into Mesoamerica. But then we get what we deserve, don't we?
My point is you are positing an America in terms of unity that no longer exists and whose former strengths are waning.
In the context of the talk about China, if evil China does emerge as a military adversary, I think the country can unite just as it did in facing Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. I think you may have lost faith in the good in people and in America. The same can be regrettably said about many posters here. Yes, leftist demagogues have done a lot of damage over the decades, but curiously such always shut the hell up and run for their burrows when the big enough threats emerge.
Our welfare state reflects that change, not just the machinations of Progressives. We have a people who want a welfare state, not just a welfare state foisted on them.
There are SOME people that want it. Most people just want steady decent employment and to be left the hell alone. When they are under economic pressure, they naturally become more susceptible to statist propaganda, because they are afraid. When prosperity hits, nobody pays attention to demagogues, because everybody is too busy spending and enjoying themselves. It is just human nature.
And I repeat, extolling youth for its own sake is a bit naive. There are a lot of young people in Africa and the Middle East who live in, surprise, abject poverty, so youth per se is no guarantee of anything.
Show me where I have extolled youth for its own sake. What I say instead is youthful groups are the future voters. That is a neutral statement.
I gather from your nom de 'net that you are, like me, from California...? If the lesson of what's happened here is lost on you, I don't know what to say to you.
I have lived in Southern California for most of my life. What happened here is uncontrollable immigration interfering with assimilation, as several industries and leftist demagogues work in parallel to help the process for their own ends. The answer to it is not frowning and name-calling and passive-aggressive racism as adopted by many Republicans and/or conservatives, but the system of measures I have mentioned in this thread and above.
-
Actually, I think, at this point, we will ALL be in "gangs" in the America that is coming, and maybe that's just the way it has to be, neither good nor bad.
I think a lot of what we think is American is just the manifestation of the technological society of the last century ramifying. The nuclear family, 25 per cent of the country being single people, especially females--these things are not the future, they are social and cultural aberrations that in my view are dead-ends except in some genetically tweaked sf future. In a world where you can't trust "government" and/or the financial mafia people will trust those they know best, love them, hate them, or control them. We are going to go local for survival.
-
Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.
All they have to do is relinquish Statism. The authoritah-fetish for telling people what they HAVE to do, rather than restraining government from the things it is NOT ALLOWED to do.
Sticking to Constitutional wars (rather than executive order police actions) and Constitional powers (over-reaching of DHS) would do a LOT for the GOP to woo those younger voters.
What makes you think that younger voters prefer a smaller or more Constitutional government?
A lot of people on this board seem convinced that a majority can be built on a small-government party that ignores, or capitulates on, social issues. Where is the evidence for it?
Or where is the evidence that social issues help the Dem party?
-
Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.
All they have to do is relinquish Statism. The authoritah-fetish for telling people what they HAVE to do, rather than restraining government from the things it is NOT ALLOWED to do.
Sticking to Constitutional wars (rather than executive order police actions) and Constitional powers (over-reaching of DHS) would do a LOT for the GOP to woo those younger voters.
Romney was all gung-ho for another war in the sandbox and ready to let the DHS have free reins on electronic and physical transportation. In some ways, I'm glad Obama won. He's at least staying out of mideast wars, if for the wrong reasons (he's doing it to deliberately harm the US due to his anti-colonial brainwashing from his father and anti-capitalist feelings, while a Paulian perspective on it would restrain us to deliberately increase the honor in the wars we DID legitimately participate in after a Congressional declaration, as well as gauge true support from the population via Congressional elections after Congress did vote for/against war.)
"Romney was all gung-ho for another war in the sandbox...." ??? Huh? What? I mssed him wanting to engage in another war.
Yea there was/is concern over Iran but I don't recall Romney stating he'd start a war with them.
So far as Iran getting nukes is concerned, if Iran wants a nuke it will eventually get one. Maybe Israel can stop them ...but their program is pretty well decentralized and the important parts are underground and well bunkered.
To stop Iran from getting a nuke, it would be necessary to go to war, and I just don't see that happening (with our involvement).
Israel is going to have to cope with a nuclear Iran in the future .... which may mean a really interesting war between Iran & Israel.
-
To the contrary, progressivism can only be maintained in a prosperous society, unless the people are content to live in misery (see USSR). You can't get blood from a turnip.
Progressivism emerged as an answer to the poor working conditions of late 1800s. For every Frick there is a Teddy Roosevelt, and vice versa. They are the opposite faces of the same coin. Progressivism is just the milquetoast version of communism and nazism, on the social question. But, some of the concerns are quite legitimate. All you need to do to destroy your enemy is to take away the legitimacy basis of his demagogic argument. Saying his argument is evil nonsense without addressing its legitimate basis is fighting a losing battle. That is what the conservatives have been doing for the past 100 years.
As the economy worsens, conservatism is the only alternative to bankruptcy, whether the 50% feeding at the public trough like it or not.
Unfortunately, world history provides numerous examples to my point in the last 100 years:
1) Crushed by military defeat and ruined economy, Imperial Russia turned republican conservative in Feb 1917. In less than an year, in Nov 1917, the bolsheviks overturned that state and remained in power for the next 80 years.
2) In similar circumstances, Italy turned fascist in 1920s and stayed so until external defeat prompted a coup d'etat.
3) Crushed by reparations and the Great Depression, the Weimar Republic abandoned conservatism for socialism. It so happened that the right-wing socialists were somewhat more competent than the left-wing socialists, so the world saw Nazi Germany instead of Red Germany emerge.
4) Post-war ruined Britain kicked out Winston Churchill, the man that saved them from Hitler, and voted in the socialists.
5) Many Eastern European countries, having seen the last of communism, but in deep crisis of economic restructuring, turned corrupt statist crony capitalist, not limited government conservative, due to poverty.
The only counterexample I can think of is the UK electing Margaret Thatcher, but that was after decades of proven mismanagement by the socialists. So, yes, if we have several more terms of Obambians, perhaps a Thatcher will emerge, but I would not hold my breath.
-
Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.
Er, not so much. Marrieds, more likely. Singles, not so much. Single women even less so.
Given the political demography data I have seen, socially conservative folk are more likely to hold classically liberal political philosophies than any randomly selected person under age 35. (Statistically speaking, a greater correlation between social conservatism & classical liberalism than between the general population & classical liberalism.)
Actually, I think, at this point, we will ALL be in "gangs" in the America that is coming, and maybe that's just the way it has to be, neither good nor bad.
"In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."
----Lee Kuan Yew, first PM of Singapore
That paradigm is what is at work with all racial groups in America, save one. The problem with third-world immigration and tolerating race-based political organizations is it allows for a critical mass to form and Lee Kuan Yew's statement to come true. Future opposition to the final (rather obvious) development will be opposed in terms of "racism," but the real concern will be how the political spoils are divided once 100% of what was America gets with LKY's program.
That ^^^ is at the national level. LKY is already in effect at the local level in the more, ah, "vibrant" metro areas.
I see this occurring in real time in Dallas, where the Big Three are the mexicans, blacks, and whites. The last couple decades, the white & black coalition has been teamed up against the mexicans.
1. The whites(1) get control of downtown development all the way up north, to include most business ordinances. They play the part of the goose/golden egg and essentially want to be left alone enough to do business.
2. Blacks control the rest of the city (territory-wise).
3. Blacks get most the political patronage jobs.
4. Self-proclaimed black leaders get HUGE cash infusions by white political machines. HUGE.
5. White politicians vote along with all blacks regarding anything in the black controlled areas. This results in massive corruption in city gov't, very rich black politicians, and large corruption scandals every 10-15 years in the black political class.
6. Mexicans punch below their weight (population-wise) due to many of them being illegal and being shut out by the B/W coalition.
[The quickest way to get a handle on this is to study the career of John Wiley Price. A great place to start is the local alternative newspaper the Dallas Observer & Jim Schutz's writings.]
Does all that ^^^ make you feel uncomfortable? Grow up, that is sausage being made, that is reality in the big city. That is what is coming to America as a whole.
(1) White in this context means "affluent whites." Poor white trash, working class, and lower middle class whites are SOL and don't get a say in Dallas City/County gov't. Like many of America's metro areas, the working & middle classes have been squeezed out into the suburbs.
To sum up: culture and demography.
Let either one get out of whack and classical liberalism has no chance.
-
And Thatcher, given the overall culture prevailing today in the U.K., was an aberration.
(See you at Angeles. :))
-
What makes you think that younger voters prefer a smaller or more Constitutional government?
A lot of people on this board seem convinced that a majority can be built on a small-government party that ignores, or capitulates on, social issues. Where is the evidence for it?
You can read some of the voter distribution analyses that have emerged since the election. One of the big miscalculations in the Romney camp is they looked at the number of registered independents and thought that those would swing for them. Some indeed did. But what the advisors failed to see is that most of those voters were the same ones that were previously registered as Republicans. I do not see the old guard doing that. Older people are just too set in their opinions. This means it was demonstratively younger Republicans that did it. If they were happy with the menu, why did they leave the restaurant?
Or where is the evidence that social issues help the Dem party?
Dems carried 75% of the latino votes who are supposed to be relatively traditional, catholic, anti-gay, and anti-black. How can you rationally explain this other than by the immigration issue?
Dems carried the young women voters by a large margin. Does it make sense that it can have something to do with abortion?
And I also have a perfect personal anecdote to share on this. My wife and I are friends with the family of her colleague M. The family is typical white middle-class suburban successful two-income nice folk. They have one teenage daughter and a couple of cats. The husband is libertarian. The wife is independent/apolitical. They make good money even for the area and pay over 75k in income taxes per year. There is no practical fiscal reason why they should ever consider voting for Bambie. I expected them to vote libertarian or simply not vote. Instead, M voted for Bambie. I asked why? The answer was "because I have a teenage daughter and I want her to have reproductive rights."
-
He may not be sufficiently conservative to you and some Republicans, but he was too conservative for the average voter. My guess is, he was a mediocre waiter of a crappy menu. The restaurant now chides him for the mediocrity of his service, instead of looking at the menu and firing the cook.
I have no doubt that this is true. However, the only way this could have affected the election is if those conservatives stayed home because of it. That would mean they would rather have Fearless Leader for another 4 years with its horrible consequences on the country than Romney. That attitude would be insane, suicidal, and unpatriotic.
I believe both things are true. He is a good person who genuinely gave a ton of money to charity. I'd like to have a beer with him any day and get to know his family. Bambie is a POS next to him. However, it is also true that Romney is a rich capitalist, who would have helped his buddies. He simply would have been Bush III, just smarter and more soft-spoken. And the reason is, he got backed by the Republican leadership, who are thoroughly corrupt, and the public knows it. What they do not realize as much is that the Dems are equally corrupt, they just have different PACs to mooch off of.
If I were Romney, I'd just counter with: " Yes, I am rich and successful and proud of it. I did not get rich by political corruption like my opponent, but by my labor and smarts. I am what is right with American and he is what is wrong. You have a clear choice."
True. But, it goes back to my comment about the restaurant blaming the waiter. Also, voters did not care about Benghazi, because they did not understand it. I saw FOX trumpeting about it all the time before the elections, but what they shouted was questions, not answers. They should have spent more time and more money on figuring out what happened, then present it to the public. Same goes for the Republican party. They all went collectively soft in the head. Why didn't the R congressmen summon Billary and Petraeus to testify at the end of September or in early October?
True. But they can only smear you badly, if they take a truth and twist it. They do not have to work hard to portray conservatives as racists when there is a clear disdain for the underclass (which racially is mostly blacks and some hispanics), there is the immigration stance of no reconciliation but deportation and self-deportation. It also does not take much effort to portray conservatives as bigots with the stance on gay marriage. The class struggle is also easy to fuel when the party does think in terms of the 47% all the time. Romney was just honest to say it. Many conservatives think it, and the voter knows it.
I find points where we're actually in agreement, and then other points in this post and other posts of yours that make me too tired to respond. ;) Let me just reply to your last point by saying that the Republican party isn't racist, or at least is much less racist than the Dem's. Republicans have all sorts of minorities appointed to high-level positions based upon their qualifications. Where Democrats have minorities appointed to high-level positions, it's usually because of their status as minorities (witness one Eric Holder, a second-rate legal hack who happens to be black). The immigration stance isn't borne of disdain, it's borne of respect for the law. Gay marriage? Opposition to it is based upon gay marriage being counter to nature and/or religion. And, yes, Romney was honest in talking about 47%, but he was stupid to say it.
In your very last post you seem to imply that Republicans need to support the Democrat approach to immigration and abortion (and other issues) if they're to win. If that's the case, why should they be Republicans at all? Why not just be Democrats?
-
As the economy worsens, conservatism is the only (good) alternative to bankruptcy, whether the 50% feeding at the public trough like it or not.
Unfortunately, world history provides numerous examples to my point in the last 100 years:
1) Crushed by military defeat and ruined economy, Imperial Russia turned republican conservative in Feb 1917. In less than an year, in Nov 1917, the bolsheviks overturned that state and remained in power for the next 80 years.
2) In similar circumstances, Italy turned fascist in 1920s and stayed so until external defeat prompted a coup d'etat.
3) Crushed by reparations and the Great Depression, the Weimar Republic abandoned conservatism for socialism. It so happened that the right-wing socialists were somewhat more competent than the left-wing socialists, so the world saw Nazi Germany instead of Red Germany emerge.
4) Post-war ruined Britain kicked out Winston Churchill, the man that saved them from Hitler, and voted in the socialists.
5) Many Eastern European countries, having seen the last of communism, but in deep crisis of economic restructuring, turned corrupt statist crony capitalist, not limited government conservative, due to poverty.
........
Not to much of that turned out very well did it? -- except for the Omited part where Thatcher took over.
BTW the terms "right wing socialist/left wing socialist" sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Socialism is leftwing. IIRC the dichotomy was between "national socialism" and "international socialism." Both are leftwing idologies.
-
Dems carried 75% of the latino votes who are supposed to be relatively traditional, catholic, anti-gay, and anti-black. How can you rationally explain this other than by the immigration issue?
Mexicans voted 47% with the last anti-illegal alien initiative in California, a larger proportion than GWB got the same year. Immigration is a REALLY BIG DEAL with mexican political/ethnic leadership types, for obvious reasons. With your average mexican, not so much.
[FTR Caesar Chavez, back in the day, was against illegal immigration because he understood that new illegal alien labor undermined his efforts to unionize migrant farm workers and raise their wages.]
Mexicans vote with the Democrats because the Dems are the party of big gov't welfare spending and ethnic/racial solidarity. Free money from gov't trumps any residual traditional values.
Dems carried the young women voters by a large margin. Does it make sense that it can have something to do with abortion?
More to do with the marriage gap and cultural degradation (leading to falling marriage rates and mass bastardy).
Gender Gap = 3.8%
Marriage Gap = 21.4%
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-gop-s-other-problem-marriage-gap-huge-in-2012-but-marriage-declining
We’ve all heard about the Gender Gap, but it’s dwarfed by the Marriage Gap, which gets practically no MSM attention. Just as importing poor, unskilled foreigners boosts the ranks of Democratic voters in the long run, so does the decline of the American marriage.
(https://www.vdare.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fullsize/images/James_Fulford/image001_0.png)
(https://www.vdare.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fullsize/images/James_Fulford/image003.png)
Lots and lots of chewy data. Do read the whole article.
-
In your very last post you seem to imply that Republicans need to support the Democrat approach to immigration and abortion (and other issues) if they're to win. If that's the case, why should they be Republicans at all? Why not just be Democrats?
Because I think the really dangerous and ruinous force is a government out of control. Immigration, gay rights, and abortion are tiny potatoes compared to the monstrous elephant of an intrusive corrupt statist government. The real fight is to keep that monster in check, before it grows so powerful that it crushes us as individuals with rights. It is a tool that should serve us as citizens, not allowed to become a monster that enslaves us. All the rest is just a diversionary tactic among statists on both left and right in the political spectrum.
The Republicans still have a chance to be the party of small government, because their ideology is not yet incompatible with it. Dems are gone. Their ideology is based on using the government as big and strong as possible, as a "beneficent" force. They would NEVER want a small government. They cannot even wrap their head around it. Whatever anarchists and social malcontents that lurk among them are insignificant and will be purged when the time comes. The Republicans have the resources and the structure that can be used to avert disaster, if course is adjusted. The hope is small, but there is hope.
-
BTW the terms "right wing socialist/left wing socialist" sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Socialism is leftwing. IIRC the dichotomy was between "national socialism" and "international socialism." Both are leftwing idologies.
Sorry but that is not true. Look at the economic structure of Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union. They are both socialist movements, on which we agree. Nazis are nationalist, communists are internationalist, on which we agree. But, Nazis are definitely not leftist economically speaking. Leftists want to nationalize and control all means of production, because that is what Papa Marx teaches. Nazis want a strong private industry that treats workers well. They both solve the social problem but their attitude to capitalism is markedly different.
Caveat: Rohm was leftist, and a nazi, but he got shot for it. That kind of ended the discussion within the party.
-
Sorry but that is not true. Look at the economic structure of Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union. They are both socialist movements, on which we agree. Nazis are nationalist, communists are internationalist, on which we agree. But, Nazis are definitely not leftist economically speaking. Leftists want to nationalize and control all means of production, because that is what Papa Marx teaches. Nazis want a strong private industry that treats workers well. They both solve the social problem but their attitude to capitalism is markedly different.
Caveat: Rohm was leftist, and a nazi, but he got shot for it. That kind of ended the discussion within the party.
The "strong private industry" would be overseen and controled by the Nazi Party.
That is actually closer to fascism. But Hitler himself called his party the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Both were actually leftist/statist.
Author Balint Vaszonyi in "America's Thirty Years War" goes into a great dissertation of this.
-
You can read some of the voter distribution analyses that have emerged since the election. One of the big miscalculations in the Romney camp is they looked at the number of registered independents and thought that those would swing for them. Some indeed did. But what the advisors failed to see is that most of those voters were the same ones that were previously registered as Republicans. I do not see the old guard doing that. Older people are just too set in their opinions. This means it was demonstratively younger Republicans that did it. If they were happy with the menu, why did they leave the restaurant?
Dems carried 75% of the latino votes who are supposed to be relatively traditional, catholic, anti-gay, and anti-black. How can you rationally explain this other than by the immigration issue?
Dems carried the young women voters by a large margin. Does it make sense that it can have something to do with abortion?
And I also have a perfect personal anecdote to share on this. My wife and I are friends with the family of her colleague M. The family is typical white middle-class suburban successful two-income nice folk. They have one teenage daughter and a couple of cats. The husband is libertarian. The wife is independent/apolitical. They make good money even for the area and pay over 75k in income taxes per year. There is no practical fiscal reason why they should ever consider voting for Bambie. I expected them to vote libertarian or simply not vote. Instead, M voted for Bambie. I asked why? The answer was "because I have a teenage daughter and I want her to have reproductive rights."
I'll give you that last bit. It's anecdotal, and doesn't mean much, except that your friends are easily swayed by media hype.
On the other points, you're just assuming that social issues turn off the voters, instead of the Santa Clause bennies offered by the Dems. Looks like you need to dig into that distribution analysis you mentioned, so you can test your theories.
-
Sorry but that is not true. Look at the economic structure of Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union. They are both socialist movements, on which we agree. Nazis are nationalist, communists are internationalist, on which we agree. But, Nazis are definitely not leftist economically speaking. Leftists want to nationalize and control all means of production, because that is what Papa Marx teaches. Nazis want a strong private industry that treats workers well. They both solve the social problem but their attitude to capitalism is markedly different.
Caveat: Rohm was leftist, and a nazi, but he got shot for it. That kind of ended the discussion within the party.
Fascism & Nazism are fruit off the same socialist tree as Soviet Communism.
"You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me."
----Benito Mussolini
“We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores.”
----Benito Mussolini
“Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics.”
----Benito Mussolini
“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.”
----John T. Flynn
"Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"
----Adolf Hitler
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
----Adolf Hitler
"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods."
----Joseph Paul Goebbels
The reason Nazism and Fascism are nowadays considered "right wing" is simply because Stalin declared them so. Communism/Fascism/National Socialism recruited from the same pool and had such similar beliefs, Stalin wanted to interject more daylight between them (however artificial). Up to that point, Fascism and National Socialism were both called/considered variants of socialism in marxist/communist writings.
IOW, you are still buying the Soviet propaganda.
-
The "strong private industry" would be overseen and controled by the Nazi Party.
That is actually closer to fascism. But Hitler himself called his party the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Both were actually leftist/statist.
{to roo_ster as well}
Overseen yes, controlled to some extent. They remained in the hands of industrialists, the likes of Krupp, Porsche, etc. Nazis simply wanted to make sure that military production was coordinated. They supplied it with resources and even slave labor later. But they did not own it. And they did not go after large private property or any significant tools of production. They essentially said, "figure it out, we just want the weapons, with these specs". They even had competitions for government contracts for various large items, e.g. most of the tank production. They did harness capitalism to their goals but they neither nationalized it nor stifled it. Yes, they were fascists as defined by Mussolini, but if our definition of a leftist is a milktoast Marxist, they absolutely were not, because Marx focuses on added value stolen by capitalists and tools of production ideally going to workers.
Communists did make very strong effort to differentiate themselves from the fascists, especially after Spain, and of course the beginning of Barbarossa. But just because they did that does not mean ALL distinction is artificial.
If you are not convinced, look at Rohm & co. Rohm believed Hitler was too moderate, that the nazi revolution was not over with gaining power. He wanted to hack at nobles, bourgeois, personal property, and by extension industrialists, as well as absorb the Reichswehr into the S.A. he commanded. It even looked feasible, taking into account several million armed brownshirts vs 100k regular army. So, Hitler cut a deal with the army and the industrialists to halt further revolutionary steps and disband the brownshirts, in exchange for their support. To stop the revolution, he shot Rohm and his pals. Now Rohm was a nationalist leftist. But he is the historical dead end in the nazi party. Hitler survived him, so what we define as nazism must be the non-Rohm, non-leftist version.
-
It may be non Rohm but it is still leftist. Leaving the trappings of indivual wealth and private owned industry under a command economy is still leftism.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
----Adolf Hitler
That's a pretty telling statement right there.
This reminds me of an argument I got into with someone who was an athiest and claimed Hitler was doing what he did to advance Catholocism. :O When I asked him how he could think that, he replied that Hitler had been borne into a Catholic family.
Well, that was true but irrelevant to Hitler's motivations as an adult.
I asked him if he could, under his theory, reconcile it with one of Hitler's more well-known quotes dealing with religion; "You cannot be a good Christian and a good German at the same time."
He couldn't. I think possibly he might have reconsidered his theory since.
I don't know why I included that here other than it was an amusing sideline. [popcorn]
-
I'll give you that last bit. It's anecdotal, and doesn't mean much, except that your friends are easily swayed by media hype.
Anecdotes are worthless as a statistical info, but they illustrate a point. M is not alone in her worries. The sentiment resonates with large swaths of voters, particularly younger women and the parents of such. It is real.
That is something to think about also in terms of causality. I think the conservative recipe is "If you can't be responsible about it, don't have sex." It sounds pretty reasonable. What it does not take into account is human nature and the cultural changes. Previously, the recipe worked not because women were more willing or capable of implementing it per se, but because there were cultural norms that inhibited sex before marriage. Now those are gone, and are not coming back. Furthermore, cultural norms have changed regarding lateral conditions that make sex or loss of control more likely, such as alcohol and other recreational drugs. Throw in the usual low self-esteem and insecurities, and you get much more sex and much less cultural inhibition. This means far more unwanted pregnancies. There is some counterbalance provided by relatively safe and inexpensive contraceptives, but even they are not 100% secure, and they certainly require responsibility and unimpeded judgment to use. Both are weaker due to cultural changes.
So, my point is unless you can dial back the culture, you cannot expect the recipe to be effective under the new conditions.
-
The quote is indeed telling, but I am almost sure it is from Mein Kampf, and thus early, revolutionary Hitler. Hitler of 1935 would have never said that, or likely even thought it.
-
Because I think the really dangerous and ruinous force is a government out of control. Immigration, gay rights, and abortion are tiny potatoes compared to the monstrous elephant of an intrusive corrupt statist government. The real fight is to keep that monster in check, before it grows so powerful that it crushes us as individuals with rights. It is a tool that should serve us as citizens, not allowed to become a monster that enslaves us. All the rest is just a diversionary tactic among statists on both left and right in the political spectrum.
The Republicans still have a chance to be the party of small government, because their ideology is not yet incompatible with it. Dems are gone. Their ideology is based on using the government as big and strong as possible, as a "beneficent" force. They would NEVER want a small government. They cannot even wrap their head around it. Whatever anarchists and social malcontents that lurk among them are insignificant and will be purged when the time comes. The Republicans have the resources and the structure that can be used to avert disaster, if course is adjusted. The hope is small, but there is hope.
We seem to agree on so much until we get into specifics. ???
Immigration, abortion, and gay rights have to do with culture, which has everything to do with society and government. We're not at the point we are because of some Darwinian devolution of the human species. We're here because of changes to the culture (the Great Society programs, etc), which destroyed traditional family structures and values, leading more people to feed at the government trough.
The Nazi's, by the way, were socialists, every bit as much as the Soviets. Hitler couldn't nationalize industry as he wanted to, as the political timing wasn't right, and he had more pressing issues--the Final Solution, war, etc. If the Nazi's had won WWII, I'm certain they would have nationalized all industry. He struck a compromise by letting the capitalists keep their businesses, but produce what the government wanted.
As for Republicans and Hispanics, I think this portion of a column by Pat Buchanan does a good job of explaining:
...What explains the GOP wipeout among Asian-Americans? Folks of Korean, Chinese and Japanese descent have a legendary work ethic, are academic overachievers, and are possessed of an entrepreneurial spirit. They should be natural Republicans.
But Mitt also has a point.
Consider America's largest, fastest-growing minority.
Hispanics constituted 10 percent of the electorate, up from 7.5 in 2008. But Mitt got only 27 percent of that, the lowest of any Republican presidential candidate.
This, we are told, was because of Mitt's comment about "self-deportation" and GOP support for a border fence and sanctions on employers who hire illegals. If only we embrace the Dream Act and provide a path to citizenship -- amnesty -- the GOP's problem is solved.
The Republican capacity for self-delusion is truly awesome.
Set aside the idealized Hispanic of the Republican consultants' vision. What does the real Hispanic community look like today?
Let us consider only native-born Hispanics, U.S. citizens.
According to Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which analyzed Census Bureau statistics from 2012:
-- More than one in five Hispanic citizens lives in poverty.
-- One in four Hispanic-American men 25 to 55 is out of work.
-- More than half of all Hispanic women 25-55 are unmarried.
-- Half of all Hispanic households with children are headed by an unmarried woman, and 55 percent depend on welfare programs.
These numbers do not improve with time, as they did with the Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish and German immigrants who poured into the United States between 1890 and 1920. Third-generation Hispanics do worse than second-generation Hispanics in all the above categories.
This is a huge community being sucked into the morass of a mammoth welfare state. Consider a typical Hispanic household with children.
It is headed by an unmarried women who receives food stamps and public housing or rent supplements to feed and house her children.
Her kids are educated free from Head Start to K-12 and fed by school breakfast and lunch programs. Should they graduate high school, Pell Grants and student loans are there for college.
For cash, mom gets welfare checks. If she takes a job, she will receive an earned income tax credit to supplement her income. If she loses her job, she can get 99 weeks of unemployment checks.
For health care, there is Medicaid and Obamacare. And like 45 percent of all Hispanic households, she has no federal income tax liability.
Why should this woman vote for a party that will cut taxes she does not pay, but reduce benefits she does receive?
Rename Romney's gifts "government services," writes Aaron Blake citing a Washington Post poll, and one discovers that 67 percent of Latinos favor "a larger government with more services."
These are big government people. And why should they not be?
According to Heather Mac Donald, writing in National Review, a 2011 survey found that California Hispanics by four to one objected more to the GOP on class-warfare grounds -- the party "favors only the rich," Republicans are "selfish" -- than to the GOP stand on immigration.
Writes Mac Donald: California's Hispanics will likely prove more decisive in passing Proposition 30, to raise state income taxes to 13.3 percent, the highest level in the nation, than to Obama's victory.
Nor is this unusual. Populist programs to stick it to the rich have always had an appeal south of the border.
There are 50 million Hispanics in America today. California is lost to the GOP. Nevada and Colorado are slipping away. Arizona and Texas are next up on the block.
With the U.S. Hispanic population in 2050 projected to reach 130 million, the acolytes of Karl Rove have their work cut out for them.
-
...There were cultural norms that inhibited sex before marriage. Now those are gone, and are not coming back.
Says who? And if social conservatism is dead, why isn't fiscal conservatism equally dead? Or constitutionalism? We've had three election cycles focused on economic matters. Fiscal conservatism lost 2 out of 3. Strict construction isn't polling too well, either, if the reelection of Obama is any indication. Pardon me for thinking that you're just seeing what you want to see, regardless of the data.
And your anecdote is still worthless. We all know that such voters exist. Your whole argument is based on numbers, and anecdotes don't provide those.
-
Immigration, abortion, and gay rights have to do with culture, which has everything to do with society and government. We're not at the point we are because of some Darwinian devolution of the human species. We're here because of changes to the culture (the Great Society programs, etc), which destroyed traditional family structures and values, leading more people to feed at the government trough.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc3%2F37_Lyndon_Johnson_3x4.jpg%2F220px-37_Lyndon_Johnson_3x4.jpg&hash=51a40f2af2cf62113e64663a019bc10291348697)
-
Says who? And if social conservatism is dead, why isn't fiscal conservatism equally dead?
Because people still overwhelmingly believe in private property. If you want proof, try to take something that is not yours, even from the greatest redistributors out there.
However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.
Or constitutionalism? We've had three election cycles focused on economic matters. Fiscal conservatism lost 2 out of 3. Strict construction isn't polling too well, either, if the reelection of Obama is any indication. Pardon me for thinking that you're just seeing what you want to see, regardless of the data.
Constitutionalism is dead as well. It does not matter what it says, when any two-bit supremo grande enchilada can write an opinion to rewrite it any way he and his friends see it. Sticking to the constitution thus has proven pointless and it will be pointless. What is not pointless is to implement its spirit in a political and governing strategy that can work, as well as reinforce its values in the society.
And your anecdote is still worthless. We all know that such voters exist. Your whole argument is based on numbers, and anecdotes don't provide those.
Numbers are pointless if you ignore them, fistful. Why is Bambie leading by such margin among women, specifically young single women? What is your explanation other than abortion? Will you be willing to hold that explanation to the same degree of proof that you expect of mine?
-
Bambie
I've seen you do this repeatedly. At first I had to think of who you even meant. Not only is it not one of the "standard" ones in regular parlance, the ones in regular parlance aren't terribly clever and actually debase any criticism of the man (or allow it be redirected to "racism"). Please abide by forum rules when it comes to nicknames of policritters.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11378.0
-
I've seen you do this repeatedly. At first I had to think of who you even meant. Not only is it not one of the "standard" ones in regular parlance, the ones in regular parlance aren't terribly clever and actually debase any criticism of the man (or allow it be redirected to "racism"). Please abide by forum rules when it comes to nicknames of policritters.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11378.0
Fair enough. I thought it was a clever allusion to a cartoon character. In some people's eyes, criticizing Obama is like hurting Bambi.
Never mind. Obama it is then.
-
Why is [Obama] leading by such margin among women, specifically young single women?
They think he's hawt. ;/
[popcorn]
-
Anecdotes are worthless as a statistical info, but they illustrate a point. M is not alone in her worries. The sentiment resonates with large swaths of voters, particularly younger women and the parents of such. It is real.
That is something to think about also in terms of causality. I think the conservative recipe is "If you can't be responsible about it, don't have sex." It sounds pretty reasonable. What it does not take into account is human nature and the cultural changes. Previously, the recipe worked not because women were more willing or capable of implementing it per se, but because there were cultural norms that inhibited sex before marriage. Now those are gone, and are not coming back. Furthermore, cultural norms have changed regarding lateral conditions that make sex or loss of control more likely, such as alcohol and other recreational drugs. Throw in the usual low self-esteem and insecurities, and you get much more sex and much less cultural inhibition. This means far more unwanted pregnancies. There is some counterbalance provided by relatively safe and inexpensive contraceptives, but even they are not 100% secure, and they certainly require responsibility and unimpeded judgment to use. Both are weaker due to cultural changes.
So, my point is unless you can dial back the culture, you cannot expect the recipe to be effective under the new conditions.
"Dialing back the culture" is exactly what is going to happen. Everything you have described is a product of the island of peace and prosperity most Americans have enjoyed since WW II. Unfortunately we have burned through the amassed capital, financial and moral, that made that possible. How many of these kids are going to end up as Chinese houseboys and Islamic harem girls? I know you think that is crazy, impossible, far out, but history has a way of defeating our comfortable extrapolations.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc3%2F37_Lyndon_Johnson_3x4.jpg%2F220px-37_Lyndon_Johnson_3x4.jpg&hash=51a40f2af2cf62113e64663a019bc10291348697)
And what do the pigs do when the trough is...empty?
Well, not all pigs are created equal.
-
They remained in the hands of industrialists, the likes of Krupp, Porsche, etc.
Junkers, for example, lost his factory because he was an anti-Nazi.
Krupp 'owned' the company but did not control production and retained a very small share of the profits (which is how he was not convicted at Nurnberg).
Unfortunately we have burned through the amassed capital, financial and moral, that made that possible.
No. America will continue to become wealthier, and crime will continue to decline. I am eady to bet money on my specific predictions. If you believe in your views, you should be ready to bet on yours.
-
They think he's hawt. ;/
[popcorn]
I wonder if young single women ever really consider what grounds their safety and freedoms...? It's not other single women or most of the men they seem, post-Pill, to find useful.
-
Junkers, for example, lost his factory because he was an anti-Nazi.
Krupp 'owned' the company but did not control production and retained a very small share of the profits (which is how he was not convicted at Nurnberg).
No. America will continue to become wealthier, and crime will continue to decline. I am eady to bet money on my specific predictions. If you believe in your views, you should be ready to bet on yours.
Wealthier per capita or just in toto? Same distribution of wealth? Or will America just seem wealthier than a socialist globe even more stagnant economically than the future U.S.A.?
If crime declines it will be because a) the criminal class is aging and probably quite unfit; b) the police state--aka the land of a billion cameras and improved forensic science--will make freestyle criminality increasingly difficult. Of course we will all be criminals at that point, so who cares?
-
Junkers, for example, lost his factory because he was an anti-Nazi.
So, he did not lose it because he was an evil capitalist industrialist. Anti-Nazis tended to lose more than property in Hitler's Germany.
Krupp 'owned' the company but did not control production and retained a very small share of the profits (which is how he was not convicted at Nurnberg).
IIRC, they did try to get him, but he somehow slunk away. And the concern was bombed out and bankrupted anyway. As other examples, the Porsche brothers did pretty well and were nicely politically connected. IG Farbenindustrie and other chemical concerns also did rather well.
-
However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.
I don't think this would have worked out any better for someone in 1912 as it would now. The biggest difference is the 1912 woman would be more likely to slap you. [popcorn]
-
Quote from: CAnnoneer
However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.
and those same women probably want government to pay for their contraception or abortion.
If one decides to have the child, she wants government to help her raise her child, from feeding, daycare, educating and on and on.
-
Fair enough. I thought it was a clever allusion to a cartoon character. In some people's eyes, criticizing Obama is like hurting Bambi.
I didn't get it, either. But it's a very interesting point. To a lot of people (particularly, the establishment press) any criticism at all is some kind of outrageous insult. He's not just another politician, you see. He's their light-bringer, or whatever. ;/
Says who? And if social conservatism is dead, why isn't fiscal conservatism equally dead?
Because people still overwhelmingly believe in private property. If you want proof, try to take something that is not yours, even from the greatest redistributors out there.
However, people no longer believe it is anybody's business what they do with their genitals and with whom. Again, if you want proof, go tell a woman where, how, and with whom she can have sex, and what contraceptives she should use if she is not looking to start a family right now.
Thank you for proving my point. I ask for evidence, and you give me speculation. You give me your odd idea of what social conservatism is about,* to make it seem like something outdated, but with no evidence that social conservatism is actually declining as a political force. Nor do you give me any reason why it can't make a comeback.
If the last election indicates that Americans want social liberalism, it also indicates (I think much more reliably indicates) that Americans want a centrally-managed, heavily-regulated economy. You talk as if the one can be reversed, and the other cannot. You don't seem to have a good reason why, other than it fits your own politics. You claim that the massive tide of immigrants (the crushing majority of them, in your phrase) can be assimilated into middle-class free marketeers. Yet you deny the possibility that young people can be assimilated into the same view on social issues that many of their parents and grandparents hold. What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?
Numbers are pointless if you ignore them, fistful. Why is Bambie leading by such margin among women, specifically young single women? What is your explanation other than abortion? Will you be willing to hold that explanation to the same degree of proof that you expect of mine?
Ignore them? Who's ignoring them? I'm the one asking for them. You're the one not using them to support your point in a meaningful way, after making claims about what the numbers indicate.
You think young women vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with their lady parts. You think Hispanics vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with whether other Hispanics can immigrate more or less easily. Did it never occur to you that perhaps most young women just want a large, comfortable social safety net, just like most Hispanics do, just like most blacks do, just like a lot of white men do?
Now maybe those groups vote the way they do for the reasons you've stated. I'm just asking you to give me a reason to believe it.
*If social conservatism, in American politics, had anything to do with telling people what they can or cannot do in the bedroom, you might have a point. But you are talking about the sort of social conservatism (anti-birth control laws, anti-sodomy laws) that even social conservatives don't currently adhere to. So maybe your analysis makes sense IF social conservatives want to go back to that sort of thing. Where is the evidence that they do?
Social conservatism in American politics today consists of restricting or outlawing abortion, keeping homosexuality in the realm of private behavior (not govt.-endorsed behavior), and those are the only two that seem to be major issues right now. The rest amount to a few odds and ends, like getting public school teachers to stop hassling students for reading the Bible, and maybe getting to keep the Christmas manger scene on the county square.
-
I don't think this would have worked out any better for someone in 1912 as it would now. The biggest difference is the 1912 woman would be more likely to slap you. [popcorn]
My point is in 1912 you would not have to tell her, because society already conditioned her to a certain norm. Today, she does not hold to that norm and there is no conditioning left, so you must tell her if you want any chance for behavioral modification, and then the response would be rather vociferous and telling.
Here is another way to think about it. If you want your politician to be anti-abortion, try being anti-abortion in the company of average women. See what happens. If you do not want to be in that situation, why do you expect your politician to fare any better?
My personal observations are that except for the religious, women are overwhelmingly for having access to abortion, even if they themselves do not expect to need it or even think they can do it. To the modern woman, that access is a component of her basic freedoms as an individual, no matter if she ever expects avail herself of it.
-
Oh there's still conditioning going on .... it's just that it's not being done by the same people as it was 100 years ago .... :angel:
-
You claim that the massive tide of immigrants (the crushing majority of them, in your phrase) can be assimilated into middle-class free marketeers.
It has been my observation that people become more conservative as they succeed and have higher income, because they get hit by higher taxes. When you make nothing, you pay nothing. When you make more, you pay more. Ergo, latinos that get economically successful will likely turn fiscally conservative when their pocket starts hurting and they do not need the safety net. Where is the break in logic here? What kind of proof do you need?
Yet you deny the possibility that young people can be assimilated into the same view on social issues that many of their parents and grandparents hold. What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?
I deny it because I do not see the mechanism of it. Show me a mechanism for it, and I shall change my stance. By the way, I will likely feel far more comfortable in the 1950s America than I feel in today's milieu, so I don't think I have the personal beef in it that you suspect I do.
Ignore them? Who's ignoring them? I'm the one asking for them. You're the one not using them to support your point in a meaningful way, after making claims about what the numbers indicate.
roo_ster posted data just on the previous page. Assertions about advantage are based on news articles analyzing the election results. You do not need me to go get you an article about it.
You think young women vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with their lady parts. You think Hispanics vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with whether other Hispanics can immigrate more or less easily. Did it never occur to you that perhaps most young women just want a large, comfortable social safety net, just like most Hispanics do, just like most blacks do, just like a lot of white men do?
If abortion is not the issue, why are married women so much more skewed for Romney and the single women are skewed the other way? Do married women feel that much more secure and in no need of a safety net in today's world of underwater mortgages, high divorce rates, bad economy, and need for two-income households? If the difference is purely economic, they must be. But, I think the more likely explanation is that single women are sexually active without marriage, so they want to escape hatch of abortion if something goes wrong. A married woman by contrast knows that with her husband at her side, one more baby will likely be manageable, and besides they don't sleep around, get high, and get drunk every Friday and Saturday. Which explanation is more likely, yours or mine?
*If social conservatism, in American politics, had anything to do with telling people what they can or cannot do in the bedroom, you might have a point. But you are talking about the sort of social conservatism (anti-birth control laws, anti-sodomy laws) that even social conservatives don't currently adhere to. So maybe your analysis makes sense IF social conservatives want to go back to that sort of thing. Where is the evidence that they do?
Social conservatism in American politics today consists of restricting or outlawing abortion, keeping homosexuality in the realm of private behavior (not govt.-endorsed behavior), and those are the only two that seem to be major issues right now. The rest amount to a few odds and ends, like getting public school teachers to stop hassling students for reading the Bible, and maybe getting to keep the Christmas manger scene on the county square.
fistful, I do not see how anybody can oppose gay marriage if he/she does not consider gays somehow inferior, perverse, or damaged. If that is the view of them, then it comes exactly from thinking that there is a right way to have sex, in the right combination of parts and numbers. Everything else is wrong. Therefore, it is okay to treat them like *expletive deleted*it and deny them equal rights under the law. That is my perception of the conservative stance. Call me wrong, but I am not alone. Not by a very long shot.
-
CAnnoneer, he already stated that they have the "same protection": they can get married to anyone of the opposite sex they wish. Remember?
;/
>What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?<
Which basically sums up the vast majority of America: the assumption that "the real majority thinks like me".
And honestly, is the true root of the folks that are against gays having the right to the same protection as straights
-
My personal observations are that except for the religious, women are overwhelmingly for having access to abortion, even if they themselves do not expect to need it or even think they can do it. To the modern woman, that access is a component of her basic freedoms as an individual, no matter if she ever expects avail herself of it.
Here's a question for you to consider given that women are slightly more likely to be pro-life than men... is "the average woman" likely to be religious?
Because I have no problem being anti-abortion in the presence of the average woman I know.
Now you are likely to point out my sample is not random... perhaps you may wish to consider that criticism of your own argument.
-
CAnnoneer, he already stated that they have the "same protection": they can get married to anyone of the opposite sex they wish. Remember?
;/
>What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?<
Which basically sums up the vast majority of America: the assumption that "the real majority thinks like me".
And honestly, is the true root of the folks that are against gays having the right to the same protection as straights
Bullshit. I politely answered your insults in this thread previously, I'll not do so again.
I am opposed to the special rights for homosexuals because:
1) the main purpose of government recognition for homosexual unions is to use the power of the state against Christians. (Probably conservative Jews, too.)
2) no societal benefit is envinced by the union of homosexuals that compares to the benefits of a heterosexual union.
3) we've been screwing around with traditional marriage for 50 years because we think we know better and every time we have it has been worse for society.
4) societal experimentation should be done at a state by state level so my state doesn't get screwed by what California does, but the homosexual union supporters want to use one state's folly to impose it upon the rest
5) homosexuals already have all the benefits they claim to want in civil unions in several States. If the "benefits" were the whole purpose of wanting to call their relationship a marriage, why were civil unions not enough?
6) homosexuals are already using the power of the state to force acceptance, first amendment be damned.
Of course, it must be because I think the majority is just like me and not that I fear the tyranny of the majority being used against me and those like me.
-
It has been my observation that people become more conservative as they succeed and have higher income, because they get hit by higher taxes. When you make nothing, you pay nothing. When you make more, you pay more. Ergo, latinos that get economically successful will likely turn fiscally conservative when their pocket starts hurting and they do not need the safety net. Where is the break in logic here? What kind of proof do you need?
I deny it because I do not see the mechanism of it. Show me a mechanism for it, and I shall change my stance. By the way, I will likely feel far more comfortable in the 1950s America than I feel in today's milieu, so I don't think I have the personal beef in it that you suspect I do.
It has been the observation of many, that people who start families become more conservative. See? We can both propose mechanisms.
roo_ster posted data just on the previous page. Assertions about advantage are based on news articles analyzing the election results. You do not need me to go get you an article about it.
:facepalm: YOU need to show them, if you want your argument to be convincing. You've posted a whooooooole lot of words the past few days, to get start getting reticent now.
If abortion is not the issue, why are married women so much more skewed for Romney and the single women are skewed the other way? Do married women feel that much more secure and in no need of a safety net in today's world of underwater mortgages, high divorce rates, bad economy, and need for two-income households? If the difference is purely economic, they must be. But, I think the more likely explanation is that single women are sexually active without marriage, so they want to escape hatch of abortion if something goes wrong. A married woman by contrast knows that with her husband at her side, one more baby will likely be manageable, and besides they don't sleep around, get high, and get drunk every Friday and Saturday. Which explanation is more likely, yours or mine?
The stated economic reasons are also reasons why a married woman would want abortion to be available. Or a married man. Being legally joined to another person can also alleviate the desire for a govt. safety net.
fistful, I do not see how anybody can oppose gay marriage if he/she does not consider gays somehow inferior, perverse, or damaged. If that is the view of them, then it comes exactly from thinking that there is a right way to have sex, in the right combination of parts and numbers. Everything else is wrong. Therefore, it is okay to treat them like *expletive deleted* and deny them equal rights under the law. That is my perception of the conservative stance. Call me wrong, but I am not alone. Not by a very long shot.
Okay? ??? I'm aware that about half of America is as confused as you are. But again, why do I care what you think about social conservatism's chances, when you don't know what it is, or what our positions actually amount to?
FWIW though, CAnnoneer, you bring more thought and facts to the discussion than most of the usual "social issues are killing the GOP!!Eleventy!" folks do.
-
"Answered my insults"? Funny... don't recall any note from a mod, telling me I had stepped out of line.
Will admit that I forgot one word in my previous post: "many". "... true root of many the folks that are against gays having the right to the same protection as straights". My bad
>I am opposed to the special rights for homosexuals because:<
How is this "special rights"? Seriously: it's about "the same rights"
>1) the main purpose of government recognition for homosexual unions is to use the power of the state against Christians. (Probably conservative Jews, too.)<
Persecution complex? Although I'll agree: taken with a bunch of other factors, I can see how y'all might feel that way
>2) no societal benefit is envinced by the union of homosexuals that compares to the benefits of a heterosexual union.<
And what societal benefit is there to Spoon and I having our relationship recognized by the state? There's a slew of benefits for us, but where does society get anything out of it?
>3) we've been screwing around with traditional marriage for 50 years because we think we know better and every time we have it has been worse for society.<
Example?
>4) societal experimentation should be done at a state by state level so my state doesn't get screwed by what California does, but the homosexual union supporters want to use one state's folly to impose it upon the rest<
Full faith and credit*. No state should be able to violate the rights of a group of people without due process, nor offer one group of people rights or privileges barred to another.
>5) homosexuals already have all the benefits they claim to want in civil unions in several States. If the "benefits" were the whole purpose of wanting to call their relationship a marriage, why were civil unions not enough?<
How many states allow such? And how many states have been trying to get constitutional amendments to define marriage as "one man, one woman"?
And remember: I'd be fine removing "marriage" from all civil discourse, and having everyone going for the strictly secular bond to get a civil union
>6) homosexuals are already using the power of the state to force acceptance, first amendment be damned.<
You referring to "hate speech" and "hate crimes"?? If you are, I'm right there with you, actually.
>Of course, it must be because I think the majority is just like me and not that I fear the tyranny of the majority being used against me and those like me<
I think I already addressed this...
*Couple of times, I've suggested the "Full Faith and Credit Act" as the ultimate legislative spectator sport. Basically, one bill that would switch the marriage license to a civil union contract (good between any 2 or more consenting adults), and conversely grant national reciprocity to CCW. Theory being, you would get to watch both sides melt down about the same bill. And it would NEVER pass (if it even made it to the floor)
-
*Couple of times, I've suggested the "Full Faith and Credit Act" as the ultimate legislative spectator sport. Basically, one bill that would switch the marriage license to a civil union contract (good between any 2 or more consenting adults), and conversely grant national reciprocity to CCW. Theory being, you would get to watch both sides melt down about the same bill. And it would NEVER pass (if it even made it to the floor)
That's because the only winners in such an arrangement would be individual liberty, and no one actually capable of proposing/implementing/honoring such a bill gives a rat'sass about that.
-
*Couple of times, I've suggested the "Full Faith and Credit Act" as the ultimate legislative spectator sport. Basically, one bill that would switch the marriage license to a civil union contract (good between any 2 or more consenting adults), and conversely grant national reciprocity to CCW. Theory being, you would get to watch both sides melt down about the same bill. And it would NEVER pass (if it even made it to the floor)
I like that, actually. Any two consenting adults should be able to contract to cohabitate and take care of each other without sex having anything to do with it. They are siblings? No problem. It's not a marriage; that's a religious covenant and the purview of the church. The state shouldn't even be licensing marriage at all.
-
There are problems with my suggestion, though.
First is the obvious: you'd have the Far Right blow up about "Oh NOES, TEH GHEYS!!!!!". At the same time, the Far Left would blow over "Oh NOES, TEH GUNZ!!!".
You would also see the Left agitating against the Civil Union portions, because that would eliminate the social wedge between gays and other conservatives (yes, I'm serious). You would also have some on the right opposing the reciprocity portion to maintain the gun owner wedge...
-
That's because the only winners in such an arrangement would be individual liberty, and no one actually capable of proposing/implementing/honoring such a bill gives a rat'sass about that.
That pretty much sums it up, unfortunately. Politicians do not want to expand liberties, or even solve problems. They prefer perpetual gangrenous problems, so that they can keep getting re-elected by promising to solve them. When they fail, they blame it on the other side of the aisle.
-
Allow me to quote your insult:
You DON'T have to deal with the repercussions of your principles here, unless and until yourself or someone close to you is raped, and has to deal with the fallout...
I made sure to be unfailing polite after that callous claim, given you have absolutely no idea how close some of us may be to deal with the fallout.
Now as to your other points:
>How is this "special rights"? Seriously: it's about "the same rights"
No, it's about "the same benefits". Governmental recognition is not a "right". Hence, it is special.
>Persecution complex? Although I'll agree: taken with a bunch of other factors, I can see how y'all might feel that way
So I'm just making it all up cause I'm paranoid... except, WAIT, you agree... but only after accusing me of being paranoid.
>And what societal benefit is there to Spoon and I having our relationship recognized by the state? There's a slew of benefits for us, but where does society get anything out of it?
You and Spoon form the basis for a family, the best (scientifically proven!11!1!1) circumstances for creating a stable environment for the raising of children. Children raised in a home without both a mother and father are more likely to: earn less, end up in jail, be addicted to drugs, end up on welfare. Now, you can argue that we ought to restrict the benefits of being married to parents who are married. However, the benefits exist because at the time the government instituted them, marriage and child-bearing were nearly inextricable. They are less closely related now, but the legacy benefits remain. Now, because individuals have no clue as to the original purpose of the benefits, they think they have no reason but bigotry. Much the same as...
>Example?
No fault divorce. It was claimed at the time that children would be far better off if mommy and daddy got a divorce rather than fighting all the time. Of course, there were no studies on this, simply what people "felt" would be better.
Since then, we've found that, no, children do FAR BETTER when mommy and daddy stay together rather than divorce even if they do argue. (Prior to "no fault divorce", the divorce that required cause would of course accept abuse as cause, in addition to infidelity and other such reasons.)
Today, the argument is: kids are strong, they will adjust. Of course they will, but we ought to set up rules that are in the best interest of raising children that will be well-adjusted. (And, please, don't accuse me of meaning something other than the characteristics I already mentioned.)
>Full faith and credit*. No state should be able to violate the rights of a group of people without due process, nor offer one group of people rights or privileges barred to another.
Yes, to some extent. There is, however, a limit, given the vast number of things recognized by one state and not another. Given this is a matter of some import that creates a great deal of argument, federalism is the better option. (Which is ALWAYS my preference.)
>How many states allow such? And how many states have been trying to get constitutional amendments to define marriage as "one man, one >woman"?
>And remember: I'd be fine removing "marriage" from all civil discourse, and having everyone going for the strictly secular bond to get a civil >union
The constitutional amendments are attempts to prevent the use of the judiciary to make changes against the will of the voters. My point was not about the number of states that allow such, but about the number of states that already have civil unions that still have significant pressure to grant "marriage" to homosexual unions. If it was only the same benefits, why does the push still exist? (Which goes back to point 1)
>You referring to "hate speech" and "hate crimes"?? If you are, I'm right there with you, actually.
I am. Not solely, though. I am referring to the "free exercise of religion" as well. I would likely not have a problem providing a service for a homosexual couple any more than I would for a couple living together. However, I have no right to dictate to the conscience of other Christians who feel they cannot rightly, to pick a specific example, photograph a homosexual "wedding" because it would violate their conscience and encourage sin.
And given how many so-called libertarians I've seen argue that you give up your right to exercise your religion if you open a business, I am very unlikely to believe the supporters of homosexual unions would allow any businessperson to exercise their religion openly (just do it in the privacy of your home and don't bring it out where other people can see it!)
-
>I made sure to be unfailing polite after that callous claim, given you have absolutely no idea how close some of us may be to deal with the fallout.<
If someone close to you has had to deal with that issue, I apologize. I was using "you" as a generic...
Now as to your other points:
>How is this "special rights"? Seriously: it's about "the same rights"
No, it's about "the same benefits". Governmental recognition is not a "right". Hence, it is special.
Ok... I'll grant you the term. You're still talking about a special benefit for one group of people vis another
>Persecution complex? Although I'll agree: taken with a bunch of other factors, I can see how y'all might feel that way
So I'm just making it all up cause I'm paranoid... except, WAIT, you agree... but only after accusing me of being paranoid.
All I meant there was that I could see how, given a bunch of other things that have been said and done, a Christian might feel that anything that defies their value system is "targeted".
And, for some gays, I might even agree that this is what they're doing. But the majority of them that I know just want to have the same protections
>And what societal benefit is there to Spoon and I having our relationship recognized by the state? There's a slew of benefits for us, but where does society get anything out of it?
You and Spoon form the basis for a family, the best (scientifically proven!11!1!1) circumstances for creating a stable environment for the raising of children. Children raised in a home without both a mother and father are more likely to: earn less, end up in jail, be addicted to drugs, end up on welfare. Now, you can argue that we ought to restrict the benefits of being married to parents who are married. However, the benefits exist because at the time the government instituted them, marriage and child-bearing were nearly inextricable. They are less closely related now, but the legacy benefits remain. Now, because individuals have no clue as to the original purpose of the benefits, they think they have no reason but bigotry. Much the same as...
If that's the case, then those protections shouldn't extend to Spoon and I, as there is no chance of us having children. So... inequality
>Example?
No fault divorce. It was claimed at the time that children would be far better off if mommy and daddy got a divorce rather than fighting all the time. Of course, there were no studies on this, simply what people "felt" would be better.
Since then, we've found that, no, children do FAR BETTER when mommy and daddy stay together rather than divorce even if they do argue. (Prior to "no fault divorce", the divorce that required cause would of course accept abuse as cause, in addition to infidelity and other such reasons.)
Today, the argument is: kids are strong, they will adjust. Of course they will, but we ought to set up rules that are in the best interest of raising children that will be well-adjusted. (And, please, don't accuse me of meaning something other than the characteristics I already mentioned.)
Odd... I haven't seen any such evidence. And I have seen anecdotal that the inverse is often true, for couples that can't get along...
>Full faith and credit*. No state should be able to violate the rights of a group of people without due process, nor offer one group of people rights or privileges barred to another.
Yes, to some extent. There is, however, a limit, given the vast number of things recognized by one state and not another. Given this is a matter of some import that creates a great deal of argument, federalism is the better option. (Which is ALWAYS my preference.)
Oddly enough, I would usually prefer states to decide things. In this case, I think the feds would be the proper forum
>How many states allow such? And how many states have been trying to get constitutional amendments to define marriage as "one man, one >woman"?
>And remember: I'd be fine removing "marriage" from all civil discourse, and having everyone going for the strictly secular bond to get a civil >union
The constitutional amendments are attempts to prevent the use of the judiciary to make changes against the will of the voters. My point was not about the number of states that allow such, but about the number of states that already have civil unions that still have significant pressure to grant "marriage" to homosexual unions. If it was only the same benefits, why does the push still exist? (Which goes back to point 1)
How many states allow civil unions, with the same force of law as a marriage license? Honestly asking, as I don't know.
>You referring to "hate speech" and "hate crimes"?? If you are, I'm right there with you, actually.
I am. Not solely, though. I am referring to the "free exercise of religion" as well. I would likely not have a problem providing a service for a homosexual couple any more than I would for a couple living together. However, I have no right to dictate to the conscience of other Christians who feel they cannot rightly, to pick a specific example, photograph a homosexual "wedding" because it would violate their conscience and encourage sin.
When I owned my own business, there was a sign on the wall: "We reserve the right to refuse a customer for any reason". I fully believe this is the way things should be.
And given how many so-called libertarians I've seen argue that you give up your right to exercise your religion if you open a business, I am very unlikely to believe the supporters of homosexual unions would allow any businessperson to exercise their religion openly (just do it in the privacy of your home and don't bring it out where other people can see it!)
It's possible. The flip side of the "I must have my nose in your business, and control what you do/say/think" attitude present on both sides
-
There are problems with my suggestion, though.
First is the obvious: you'd have the Far Right blow up about "Oh NOES, TEH GHEYS!!!!!". At the same time, the Far Left would blow over "Oh NOES, TEH GUNZ!!!".
You would also see the Left agitating against the Civil Union portions, because that would eliminate the social wedge between gays and other conservatives (yes, I'm serious). You would also have some on the right opposing the reciprocity portion to maintain the gun owner wedge...
This just came on Pandora, I thought of this thread:
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
And given how many so-called libertarians I've seen argue that you give up your right to exercise your religion if you open a business, I am very unlikely to believe the supporters of homosexual unions would allow any businessperson to exercise their religion openly (just do it in the privacy of your home and don't bring it out where other people can see it!)
And I gotta say... you're not a Libertarian at all if you believe in using the force of the State to compel compliance from others, where their "unwanted" behavior has no demonstrable victim. Libertarians believe in free association and free choice, including the choice to be discriminatory in your market dealings and alienate customers that you don't want to associate with.
-
I like that, actually. Any two consenting adults should be able to contract to cohabitate and take care of each other without sex having anything to do with it. They are siblings? No problem.
Now that is something I've brought up before. I have no problem with a legal set-up that helps people in non-traditional arrangements (sexual or otherwise) to manage their affairs more easily. Just don't base it on non-reproductive sexual activities (since they don't affect others) or claim that it's marriage.
It's not a marriage; that's a religious covenant and the purview of the church.
While technically true, this statement ignores whole swaths of human beings and human history. It is like saying that governments shouldn't deal with murder or lying, because those are religious issues. As we know, marriage is a social and legal institution just as much as a religious one.
-
If that's the case, then those protections shouldn't extend to Spoon and I, as there is no chance of us having children. So... inequality
Stranger things have happened, and not necessarily with medical assistance. Marriage has never been conditional on whether people will have children together; just the idea that they might. Two people who aren't even of the opposite gender, though? That's a whole 'nother kettle of kittens.
-
Same sex couples can adopt. You now have your "whole other kettle of kittens"
From what I've seen of the gays insisting on the term "marriage", they fall into a few different categories:
a) feel that the difference in terms = inequality
b) are rabble rousing for political gain (see above, "wedge issue")
c) actually do like playing pudding stick, and causing trouble with Christians and other conservatives
None of which really has any bearing on the discussion. But realized it hadn't been addressed...
-
I like that, actually. Any two consenting adults should be able to contract to cohabitate and take care of each other without sex having anything to do with it. They are siblings? No problem. It's not a marriage; that's a religious covenant and the purview of the church. The state shouldn't even be licensing marriage at all.
This is the opinion I have been expressing for a while now. The problem I see currently is by the government extendeding certain things to heterosexual marriages, they have by definition not extended those things to other unions. In the vein of "a government powerful enough to give you anything, is a government powerful enough to take everything", I don't believe there should be special government aspects to ANY union. With the exception of tax effects, which I see as NOT an incentive (currently it discourages folks who have upper-middle class incomes from getting married, just to make it easier for lower incomes to do so--an attempt to encourage stable low income households who procreate, but the same could be said for tax credits and deductions for children, which are far more specific and reasonable, after all, while children are required for a growing population, childless couples typically reduce expenses when cohabitating), the remainder of the government benefits are easily covered by a power of attorney or other legal documentation--a marriage or other union "corporation" in effect--covered by free association inalienable rights.
Anything else is effectively forcing others to approve your union on a personal basis. An individual or other entity rejecting a power of attorney can be litigated under current law.
So why not remove government from the union business entirely, that way it is truly equal under the law, and everything left is your right of free association.
-
One of the reasons we've lost the "young" is that since WW II we've systematically built our economy on shopaholic women, both single and married, and teenagers. This was the work of men, pretty much all white men, who believed that not only was satisfying needs the most important thing in God's universe but inventing some would help God along a bit...while enriching themselves. We see the results of this ongoing brainstorm all around us, but of course since we "love" these women and kids and continue to enable and empower them we have blinded ourselves to the consequences.
Wonder why a fraction of one per cent of your young men actually serve in the military why Call of Duty II can sell $400 mlllion of fantasy in 24 hours???
Enjoy. Your culture is dying.
-
Wonder why a fraction of one per cent of your young men actually serve in the military why Call of Duty II can sell $400 mlllion of fantasy in 24 hours???
Enjoy. Your culture is dying.
I bet most of the CoDII players are too young, too old, or too out of shape to serve in the current military. In a large conflagration, conscription will almost certainly be introduced, the standards will be precipitously lowered, and many of them will be shipped to basic training and then to wherever they are needed. So, their current lack of service is not bothersome to me.
I actually find the success of games like CoD and Halo to be encouraging for the present and the future. The kid that blasts aliens with a plasma rifle in Halo today or the inevitable evil nazis in CoD with a Garand, will likely want a real gun or two when he grows up. That is why the liberals periodically complain loudly about violent and realistic (haha) videogames. They know those work against them. It also means the younger generation is not yet completely pussified that their natural urges for physical confrontation remain present even if redirected or sublimated into videogaming.
-
Governmental recognition is not a "right".
ON the contrary: enforcing and recognizing contracts is one of the few proper functions of government.
-
2) no societal benefit is envinced by the union of homosexuals that compares to the benefits of a heterosexual union.
It is not the proper role of government to manipulate the behavior of individuals to derive 'benefits', whether the benefits are 'equality', 'promoting domestic industry', or 'encouraging people to have children'.
-
It is not the proper role of government to manipulate the behavior of individuals to derive 'benefits', whether the benefits are 'equality', 'promoting domestic industry', or 'encouraging people to have children'.
Yes, the benefits argument is weak, sorry. Even if we stipulated it, it still cannot be used to justify denying marriage to gays. For one, it is pretty easy to see the societal benefit of allowing it:
1) a bunch of gay people that are now unhappy about their treatment will be made happy and can concentrate their energies and funds on other things
2) demagogues will stop using this issue to rile up their respective chunks of the electorate, so it may instead focus on more vital issues
3) simplification of regulations and legal issues, e.g. for rights of patients, inheritance, etc.
4) save costs on parallel legal initiatives, grass roots campaigns, and state propositions back-and-forths
5) one less thing Dems can attack Reps on
6) one less thing Reps can go on national TV and say something suicidal about
-
I bet most of the CoDII players are too young, too old, or too out of shape to serve in the current military. In a large conflagration, conscription will almost certainly be introduced, the standards will be precipitously lowered, and many of them will be shipped to basic training and then to wherever they are needed. So, their current lack of service is not bothersome to me.
I actually find the success of games like CoD and Halo to be encouraging for the present and the future. The kid that blasts aliens with a plasma rifle in Halo today or the inevitable evil nazis in CoD with a Garand, will likely want a real gun or two when he grows up. That is why the liberals periodically complain loudly about violent and realistic (haha) videogames. They know those work against them. It also means the younger generation is not yet completely pussified that their natural urges for physical confrontation remain present even if redirected or sublimated into videogaming.
Well, you put a positive spin on an obsession with the vicarious, I'll give you that. The point is that games of this kind can only exist in a world where the realities on which RKBA is grounded are slowly but surely evaporating in a mass culture created by people who don't like guns or, for that matter, men. I grant you that many young men are deep down looking for an outlet for their masculinity, but if you have ever looked at Assassin's Creed or Grand Theft Auto you know this ain't the path we want civilized practicioners of RKBA to be taking. This is the mentality of Hamas hooligans, not American patriots.
-
And yet, more and more people in the United States own guns - while gun accidents are declining in absolute numbers, showing modern Americans are far more responsible gun owners than their fathers and grandfathers. While are at it, gun murders are also in freefall, showing once more how modern Americans are less violent and better gun owners than their fathers and mothers.
More and more states are adopting sensible gun laws. Freedom is on the march, Longeyes.
Indeed, I am ready to bet good money that by the end of the next 4 years, at least one US state will have expanded gun rights even further.
-
"Freedom is on the march, Longeyes."
I have put that in my wallet for future inspiration, Micro.
But where is it marching? Look, this is just more proof that we are now culturally and wlll be, eventually, quite literally (at least) two countries.
What we lack in reality we recreate in fantasy. But maybe my real point is that, bouncing off William Blake, too many of our fantasies are in fact created by others, often with the worst of motives, not the result of a real, personal, grounded connection with existential reality. Do you think Call of Duty was created by combat veterans?
-
It'd be a bit hard to find a WW2 veteran who hasn't retired yet AND works in the gaming industry.
But this is irrelevant. Frankly, so far we need less and less people to fight our wars (as a proportion of population). Most men and women will never (thank god) experience combat of any kind.
So fantasy is going to be a major way for future generations to fulfil whatever need for violence a healthy individual has (and he undeniably has one). This is a good thing. I vastly prefer game-war to real war.
-
I am not justifying war. On the other hand I am not justifying fantasy life either.
Maybe I would put it to you this way: he who controls the fantasy world controls the actual war that is going on. You don't need guns to have a war. Look around you in the United States. We had a war and we lost it.
For every call of duty there is a grand theft auto, or haven't you noticed?
-
Same sex couples can adopt. You now have your "whole other kettle of kittens"
When you said you couldn't have kids, I thought you were talking about that medical issue you have brought up before. If so, you either refuted your own argument, or changed the subject. Anyhoo, it doesn't explain how it should suddenly be perfectly obvious that marriage isn't about heterosexuality. Because we could assign an orphan to a single person. Or a corporation. Or a research laboratory. Or a church.
Why do you want corporations to be able to reclassify themselves as marriages? And why are you trying to revive the Oneida Community? :P
-
Why do you want corporations to be able to reclassify themselves as marriages? And why are you trying to revive the Oneida Community? :P
Eschatologically misinformed socialism falls flat. Ware-liy we ought to approach such notions. I do not cut followers of them much slack and wish they would put a fork into it and stop spooning out such foolishness.
-
Gosh, I hit a nerve there. I thought the most objectionable thing about them was the complex marriage thing. With the cult leader getting first dibs on every bride's "honor."
-
Gosh, I hit a nerve there. I thought the most objectionable thing about them was the complex marriage thing. With the cult leader getting first dibs on every bride's "honor."
(Psssst... Oneida is also a silverware company.)
-
Groan.
-
I was wanting to say this before the last holiday time-out, so I'd better get it out before Christmas.
A fatal flaw with these plans to ditch social conservatism in favor of a socially-neutral, economics-only libertarianism (or whatever) is that it fails to take into account the "mainstream media," the education establishment, and the other machinery of left-wing indoctrination. Because the problem with the GOP is not their platform, or the social views of people like Romney or Todd Akin. The problem is that any challenger to the Democratic Party, whether GOP, Libertarian Party, or other, will be misrepresented, and their views demonized.
Look at how the "War on Women" began. George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney, from the clear, blue sky, whether states could ban contraception.1 Was there any indication, from any quarter, that Mitt Romney or the Republican Party were interested in banning contraception? Not that I'm aware. The left simply wished to make this an election issue. Next, they went on to the Catholic institutions, and continued to fabricate the myth that Republicans wanted to take away contraception.
Then, as soon as the election is over, GQ magazine interviews Marco Rubio. Now, you might think they'd want to ask him about his expected presidential bid, or about other issues relevant to the presidency of the United States. But they made sure to ask him how old the Earth is.2
And it's not just two cases. It's a whole history of the last few decades, in which a short-lived "Southern Strategy" forever tars the Republican Party, but a hundred years of violence and intimidation of black Americans leaves no stain on the Democratic Party.
So it doesn't matter whether you rid the GOP of the social conservative "baggage," or create a new party from the ground up. In neither case will the opposition party be in control of its image, or what its platform is perceived to be, or who it supposedly hates. That will be taken care of by left-wing image-makers who have demonstrated no scruples about smearing candidates (and parties) in the most blatant fashion.
So your sex-positive, pro-choice libertarian party will be anti-woman, if it doesn't support the next Lilly Ledbetter Act, or want to force Catholic institutions to provide condoms.
It will be racist, if it doesn't support reparations, or isn't fully supportive of affirmative action.
It will be anti-gay, if it won't force bakeries to make cakes for homosexual weddings, etc.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKWij_v4Twk
2. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/marco-rubio-muses-gq-earths-age-hip-hop/story?id=17761631#.UM6NAJVtjcs
-
That is a VERY good point, fistful.
Actually, some of that could be solved by a candidate, when asked one of these "ringer" questions, looking at the reporter and asking "What the hell are you talking about?"
I've heard a number of folks say the Republicans aren't "playing hardball" with the Democrats. Which is true. But they also have to do the same with the press, not allowing them to frame everything for soundbites that make the Right look like a bunch of ignorant savages...
-
That is a VERY good point, fistful.
Actually, some of that could be solved by a candidate, when asked one of these "ringer" questions, looking at the reporter and asking "What the hell are you talking about?"
Oh, absolutely. I think any opposition party is going to have to train their candidates to do that. Though the press can still spin that. They can choose to downplay the spurious line of questioning and just make it into "Candidate X won't answer questions!!"
Also, that won't work when the left decides to actually make the non-issue an issue. That's what happened in the contraception debate. Romney didn't really play along with the Stephanopoulos's question, but it didn't really matter. Because the next step was to make a ban on contraception into an issue, when it hadn't been one in, what, decades? And they didn't even have to get Republicans to discuss any such ban. They just had to instigate a controversy about who's going to pay for some people's contraception, and then spin it the way they wanted it.
-
That is a VERY good point, fistful.
Actually, some of that could be solved by a candidate, when asked one of these "ringer" questions, looking at the reporter and asking "What the hell are you talking about?"
I've heard a number of folks say the Republicans aren't "playing hardball" with the Democrats. Which is true. But they also have to do the same with the press, not allowing them to frame everything for soundbites that make the Right look like a bunch of ignorant savages...
Or simply be really clear: "I don't believe it's any of the federal government's business to deal with {marriage, sexuality, contraception, etc}". The problem with attempting to spin the real libertarian viewpoint is the vast majority of people DON'T believe it is the government's business.
Perhaps we need the Manchurian candidate conservative (the converse of Obama, Lieberman, etc)...take some liberal sleeper, groom them for years, have them publicly reject everything conservative, get elected and go full on libertarian. Basically, what Obama did in 2008, run on a centrist, bridge the gaps, but still liberal platform, then go hog wild once elected. Perhaps the same "damage" to the progressive state can be done that he did to the liberty state.
-
Or simply be really clear: "I don't believe it's any of the federal government's business to deal with {marriage, sexuality, contraception, etc}". The problem with attempting to spin the real libertarian viewpoint is the vast majority of people DON'T believe it is the government's business.
??? What makes you say that the vast majority (not a simple majority, but a vast one) believe govt. has any business in the three areas you stated? That wouldn't seem to be true, even for contraception. The Democrats just won an election on the idea that government should force employers to provide contraception.
Perhaps we need the Manchurian candidate conservative (the converse of Obama, Lieberman, etc)...take some liberal sleeper, groom them for years, have them publicly reject everything conservative, get elected and go full on libertarian. Basically, what Obama did in 2008, run on a centrist, bridge the gaps, but still liberal platform, then go hog wild once elected. Perhaps the same "damage" to the progressive state can be done that he did to the liberty state.
I presume you want them to run as a Democrat. They couldn't be elected as a Republican.
-
Also, Jerome Corsi has just started floating the idea that Eric Holder will be the next Dem. candidate. I guess he's thinking what I'm thinking.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eric-holder-for-president-in-2016/
-
Now that's a *expletive deleted*ing nightmare scenario if ever there was one.
[barf]
-
I have to agree with RKL. I think I'd rather have Clinton
-
Back in the early 80's I ran with a real libertarian crowd that was also very [tinfoil]
As some years went by I lost my paranoia and sense of imminent doom. It seemed to me that there was a lot of institutional momentum and that our fears while real would take a lifetime to be implemented. After a while I just stopped thinking about those things and went along living my life. 9/11 kind of woke me back up.
I'm just astonished how quickly things seem to be going south. It is hard to believe I may actually have to witness the unraveling of our country.
This ship isn't going to get turned around, time to man the lifeboats and prepare to survive the sinking of the ship of state.
-
Also, Jerome Corsi has just started floating the idea that Eric Holder will be the next Dem. candidate. I guess he's thinking what I'm thinking.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eric-holder-for-president-in-2016/
Ride a crisis to Glory and peter principle your way to the top.
-
Also, Jerome Corsi has just started floating the idea that Eric Holder will be the next Dem. candidate. I guess he's thinking what I'm thinking.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eric-holder-for-president-in-2016/
Well, it makes sense given that the "paradigm" looks more and more like South Africa every day.
-
Back in the early 80's I ran with a real libertarian crowd that was also very [tinfoil]
As some years went by I lost my paranoia and sense of imminent doom. It seemed to me that there was a lot of institutional momentum and that our fears while real would take a lifetime to be implemented. After a while I just stopped thinking about those things and went along living my life. 9/11 kind of woke me back up.
I'm just astonished how quickly things seem to be going south. It is hard to believe I may actually have to witness the unraveling of our country.
This ship isn't going to get turned around, time to man the lifeboats and prepare to survive the sinking of the ship of state.
I've had the same sense. I think we are seeing the progression accelerate geometrically post 9/11, along with rapid technological and demographic shifts, whereas pre-9/11 is was happening in lesser increments. Smaller changes have widened the floodgates so that a trickle is becoming a torrent. Shorthand: the frog gradually got comfy, and the water temp is rising rapidly to a boil...
-
Avalanches build up a huge number of fragile "nodes" prior to collapse. Instability is all around us. I think that is what we are seeing.
-
Cory Booker?
http://politicker.com/2012/12/cory-booker-is-keeping-his-options-open-online/