Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on August 26, 2008, 07:27:00 pm
-
If you're NOT a US citizen, please don't vote here - vote in the thread for non-US citizens (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,56057.0.html). ;)
-
I bet everyone on this site will go democrat.
-
IF I vote, it will be for Obama. No one else except the top two have a chance, and McCain is honestly too crazy for my tastes.
-
I know of at least 2 who will vote for MCCain.... but I think most of us will go Obama.
-
Once again, I'm not thrilled with any of the choices, but I have to go with Obama over McCain. McCain is certainly a hero and should be admired for that, but I don't see him as a good leader in this day and age (I see him as being from an earlier, simpler era). The US and the world are in for a huge bunch of trouble in the coming years, and I don't know if anyone who chooses to seek power will be equipped to handle the issues that they'll face, but I think the republicans have had their shot and screwed it up enough that the democrats should get a go. We're probably all ****ed either way though.
-
Much as I like what Obama preaches, it's rather vague. McCain is much less so, but has probably blown his chance at the election.
-
hey, where is snuffleupagus?
-
I vote for "Don't give a crap".
-
A joke option would be good so we (non-US people) can see the poll results without having to corrupt the results.
-
A joke option would be good so we (non-US people) can see the poll results without having to corrupt the results.
What do you think the Nader option is for? :drevil:
-
I actually voted for Nader in the other poll...
-
I hope no one cares that I'm not actually allowed to vote in the US election.
-
Yes. We care big time. Our life is complicated enough as it is, we don't need the opinion of someone who can not register to vote. That's WAY too much for us to handle. It would be like the end of the world.
-
I bet everyone on this site will go democrat.
He don't know me very well, do he? :p
-
mccain
-
Mccain's doing better than Nader now... at any rate
-
I still want snuffleupagus.... :(
-
Go Go John Mcain force!
More wars for the win ;)
-
Snuffleupagus = Nonchalant / Neutral vote?
-
Snuffleupagus = mandatory option on any HLP poll ever
-
Snuffleupagus = Nonchalant / Neutral vote?
No.
Seriously. No.
-
Ooookay.
/me has voted for neutrality again.
-
More wars for the win ;)
I thought that since you'd experienced war you'd be a bit different but I guess this means I don't need to be tactful when talking about guns and gory anymore.
-
I think he was expressing disapproval for John McCain, through use of ironic humor.
-
:rolleyes: would have been more appropriate than ;) there I think.
-
More wars for the win ;)
I thought that since you'd experienced war you'd be a bit different but I guess this means I don't need to be tactful when talking about guns and gory anymore.
only when you go to war is when you realize that its often necessary. seriously the world would be a better place if there were more wars. it stimulates unstable regimes to topple (and for stable ones to become unstable) :D
most people cant see past their hippieness.
-
In the eternal words of Maddox, "Shut up, you pussies; war kicks ass."
-
Well, some people like going to war, and some prefer it to be peaceful...but I see little difference between unstable peace and war itself. They're pretty close if you ask me.
-
Well, one kills a few people every now and then, and one kills a whole bunch of people all the time
-
McCain. I could give a list of reasons why i like McCain, and why I dislike Obama, but what would be the point? The people on this site have already decided and nothing I say would sway you. Besides I don't want to get into anymore political arguments then I already do. All I have to say is let the better man(McCain ;)) win.
-
Obama.
If only because I have it on reasonably good authority Palin is an intelligent design proponent.
-
Yeah, Palin has killed any chance of a McCain vote from me.
-
After all, if McCain wins she has a fairly good chance of becoming president before the term is up. :nervous:
-
Have I ever mentioned how much the idea of having John McCain in office frightens me? Well, what frightens me even more is that 1/3 of the American population in these forums actually want the guy elected.
Maybe I'd better start looking to live in Australia.
-
You could try going into detail as to exactly why he frightens you. And I could potentially return the favor by going into detail about how an Obama presidency slightly frightens me. :p
-
One word. Hatemonger. Vague, yes, but so very explanatory.
-
One word. Hatemonger. Vague, yes, but so very explanatory.
I'm not seeing much of an explanation, but to each their own, I guess. Can I fire back with something like "flowery, substance-less prose," or something along those lines? :p
-
A Vice President that wants creationism taught in science class is enough to turn me away. :)
-
cdesign proponentist!
It's a transitional fossil, even.
-
John Mccain reminds me of Kerry...all his spouting of "I was in Vietnam and i've got a purple heart."
Edit: Maybe they are the same person....or at least so similar that it's hard to distinguish them....
-
I'm still neutral. :p
-
I'm still neutral. :p
And we still don't care.
-
John Mccain reminds me of Kerry...all his spouting of "I was in Vietnam and i've got a purple heart."
Edit: Maybe they are the same person....or at least so similar that it's hard to distinguish them....
yes but unlike kerry, he got to stay at the hanoi hilton for awhile, where he got the club gitmo treatment. so he understands, directly the cost of war. id never want someone running a war who was never in a war, who never had to deal with the pleasure of being shot at, captured, and tortured.
.One word. Hatemonger. Vague, yes, but so very explanatory.
i hope youre refering to obama, i, as a hate monger, know my own kind, and i can tell you that mccain isnt one of us. obama on the other hand, well, hes one of those black people who wants "redemption" (its called the civil ****ing war, bloodiest conflict in american hiostory!) for years of slavery (and a slave he never was), and so he wants to bog down society with more affirmative action, taking more money away from hard working white americans and giving it to lazy black thugs who collect welfare and deal drugs (all my drug dealers were all black :D). anyway i do admire respectable black people who have made successful lives for themselves despite the issues with living in a "white dominated society". but when i see somone dressed in fubu listinging to music about smoking crack and killing people and complaining because their welfare check got cut, makes me wonder if it would just be better if they stop being self absorbed children and grow up like the rest of us have to. there are poor white people you know :hopping:
-
Choices. everyone has the ability to make a choice for the better and for the worse. You can Choose Mccain or you can choose Obama. I for one am choosing Obama. why? simply i want change and i'm curious as to see where obama and the democrats will take us.
-
Choices. everyone has the ability to make a choice for the better and for the worse. You can Choose Mccain or you can choose Obama.
if anyone doesnt understand that, then they are in the wrong thread
I for one am choosing Obama. why? simply i want change and i'm curious as to see where obama and the democrats will take us.
i still dont know what "change" is, im anxiously waiting for obama to reveal that. from what i can extrapolate, he wants to redistribute wealth in arbitrary ways and implement socialism. no thanks.
-
where do you get socialism from?
-
i still dont know what "change" is, im anxiously waiting for obama to reveal that. from what i can extrapolate, he wants to redistribute wealth in arbitrary ways
As opposed to the sensible from the poor to the rich method the republicans like?
-
i dont know where you get your propaganda from. they are both small government types.
-
John Mccain reminds me of Kerry...all his spouting of "I was in Vietnam and i've got a purple heart."
Edit: Maybe they are the same person....or at least so similar that it's hard to distinguish them....
yes but unlike kerry, he got to stay at the hanoi hilton for awhile, where he got the club gitmo treatment. so he understands, directly the cost of war. id never want someone running a war who was never in a war, who never had to deal with the pleasure of being shot at, captured, and tortured.
And I'd never want someone running a war who has received the kind of mental damage that a situation like that would cause.
.One word. Hatemonger. Vague, yes, but so very explanatory.
i hope youre refering to obama, i, as a hate monger, know my own kind, and i can tell you that mccain isnt one of us. obama on the other hand, well, hes one of those black people who wants "redemption" (its called the civil ****ing war, bloodiest conflict in american hiostory!) for years of slavery (and a slave he never was), and so he wants to bog down society with more affirmative action, taking more money away from hard working white americans and giving it to lazy black thugs who collect welfare and deal drugs (all my drug dealers were all black :D). anyway i do admire respectable black people who have made successful lives for themselves despite the issues with living in a "white dominated society". but when i see somone dressed in fubu listinging to music about smoking crack and killing people and complaining because their welfare check got cut, makes me wonder if it would just be better if they stop being self absorbed children and grow up like the rest of us have to. there are poor white people you know :hopping:
I see what you did there... but could have been better. 6/10.
-
i dont know where you get your propaganda from. they are both small government types.
On the economy, McCain says he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent instead of letting them expire, he would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, he would double the personal exemption for dependents, reduce the corporate tax rate, and offer a new research and development tax credit.
Before the tax cuts were signed President Bush was urged by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates, in the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts not to implement his tax cuts. Economists Peter Orzsag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes.
Yeah. He's all about helping the poor.
-
Hopefully The "Sheep" that follow McCain catch wind of whats going on before it's too late...
-
Funny that an a pro-Republican dominated forum I visit they call the pro-Democrats "sheep"...
-
sheep is a pretty popular word..
-
Funny that an a pro-Republican dominated forum I visit they call the pro-Democrats "sheep"...
If you pretend really hard you can almost believe they actually understood what it meant when they were called that before parroting it back at the Democrats. :p
-
I support McCain. I'm a Democratic Socialist, but I think how the Democratic party wants to implement Socialism is fundamentally wrong and very wrong for this time period.
-
I support McCain. I'm a Democratic Socialist, but I think how the Democratic party wants to implement Socialism is fundamentally wrong and very wrong for this time period.
Surely the sensible choice then would be to vote for someone who does support your politics even if that means spending it on a 3rd party who won't win rather than someone who is the very antithesis of them then?
-
If you pretend really hard...
...The Democrat supporters ain't sheep. :p
They call 'em sheep because of the 'why can't we get along' philosophy, that disagrees with my (and a couple other members' here) signature... IIRC the whole thing began here:
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/0726sheep.html
-
Somebody brought up an interesting point to me today. While we blame Bush for the economy, and doubtless he deserves to shoulder a good amount of it, in a very real sense we are forgetting that for the last couple of Congressional elections, we have had a Democratic congress. And put bluntly, the Executive Branch is in the driver's seat, but Congress navigates. At best, Congress has probably been engaged in sabotaging any serious efforts to deal with the situation since the campaign started months ago so the Democrats could take the presidency; at worst, they have an equal or greater share of the blame.
-
“Con" is the opposite of "pro," so "congress" must be the opposite of "progress."
And since we're at it, a couple quotes from Obama's website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ and the pages it links to):
President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009.
What he's trying to say, is that the wealthy payed Americans over $2.3 trillion bucks more than they would if they had to pay the money as taxes. He also doesn't like it when rich people buy services and products from poorer people. He thinks that it would be better to take the cash as taxes, and redistribute some of it with no work being done by those who recieve it. And this is the part I disagree most with socialism.
Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.
The problem with this thinking is that Germany agreed to not having tanks, subs and airplanes at the end of WW I. Guess what weapons they used to win the first 3 years of WW II.
There was also the Washington Treaty about limiting the size of battleships. Germany cheated on that, and Japan was working on the Yamato class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship), and had to withdraw from the treaty (like anyone would start a war over that...).
I'll find some more, and maybe a few from McCain's website tomorrow.
-
I support McCain. I'm a Democratic Socialist, but I think how the Democratic party wants to implement Socialism is fundamentally wrong and very wrong for this time period.
Surely the sensible choice then would be to vote for someone who does support your politics even if that means spending it on a 3rd party who won't win rather than someone who is the very antithesis of them then?
No it wouldn't be--because a vote to a socialist party will do absolutely nothing in national elections. If I were to vote for Obama--which I wouldn't--I would be expressing my support for his economic plan. If I vote for McCain, I would be expressing my support for more of the same--basically waiting until the right time and the right leader comes and then express my support for them.
-
The problem is, Bob-San, that we can't handle too much more of this borrow-and-spend economy that has been running the past 8 years. The size of the government has ballooned so much that it needs severe trimming before we can do things that'll cut tax revenue, like extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich (which have done nothing). At the very least, the Democrats will cut down on the war budget.
I'm just hoping that enough people realize that you can't increase spending without increasing taxation eventually. Simple addition shows that Republican economics is retarded.
Also, as a social liberal, Palin frightens me
-
sheep is a pretty popular word..
sheep can be fun
John Mccain reminds me of Kerry...all his spouting of "I was in Vietnam and i've got a purple heart."
Edit: Maybe they are the same person....or at least so similar that it's hard to distinguish them....
yes but unlike kerry, he got to stay at the hanoi hilton for awhile, where he got the club gitmo treatment. so he understands, directly the cost of war. id never want someone running a war who was never in a war, who never had to deal with the pleasure of being shot at, captured, and tortured.
And I'd never want someone running a war who has received the kind of mental damage that a situation like that would cause.
for someone who is quite mentally disturbed, he seems to have been pretty successful in life. yes there are mentally disturbed rich people, we call them celebrities, oh and they're all hard left libs.
.One word. Hatemonger. Vague, yes, but so very explanatory.
i hope youre refering to obama, i, as a hate monger, know my own kind, and i can tell you that mccain isnt one of us. obama on the other hand, well, hes one of those black people who wants "redemption" (its called the civil ****ing war, bloodiest conflict in american hiostory!) for years of slavery (and a slave he never was), and so he wants to bog down society with more affirmative action, taking more money away from hard working white americans and giving it to lazy black thugs who collect welfare and deal drugs (all my drug dealers were all black :D). anyway i do admire respectable black people who have made successful lives for themselves despite the issues with living in a "white dominated society". but when i see somone dressed in fubu listinging to music about smoking crack and killing people and complaining because their welfare check got cut, makes me wonder if it would just be better if they stop being self absorbed children and grow up like the rest of us have to. there are poor white people you know :hopping:
I see what you did there... but could have been better. 6/10.
i coulda used more tact in my delivery, but since im nuke, and i believe the term "politically correct" is an oxymoron, i didnt, just to be n3kr0 :D
anyway the best for last.
i dont know where you get your propaganda from. they are both small government types.
On the economy, McCain says he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent instead of letting them expire, he would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, he would double the personal exemption for dependents, reduce the corporate tax rate, and offer a new research and development tax credit.
Before the tax cuts were signed President Bush was urged by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates, in the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts not to implement his tax cuts. Economists Peter Orzsag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes.
Yeah. He's all about helping the poor.
i dug out my 1040a form from last year. last year was the most profitable year ive ever had. i made $14,300 bucks that year. with deductions, i only had about $5560 in what the government considers taxable income. i was only required to pay $560 for income tax. i consider this fair. now mind you i worked mostly part time. less than 6 hours a day on average. to be frank, i slacked off the whole year. i dont recall what minimum wage is but i believe it could make at least 10000 a year. the first 2 years i worked, i didnt pay taxes at all. its not hard, all you have to do is go to work. and you will still be able to afford luxury items and live comfortably on minimum wage. income tax is not strangling me to death. of course my state has some of the lowest taxes in the usa, but still, i have never felt that my texes were too rediculously high so as to cause any serious damage to my lifestyle. there is no need for a minimum tax.
the taxes on the middle class are an order of magnitude greater than what i pay. so that makes the transition from working class to middle class rather difficult. but anyway i think tax laws need to be simplified. no class specific cuts, just a flat percentage, that seems the most fair way to tax the populace. higher taxes on the middle class make it harder to become middle class. and thats no good for the poor.
higher taxes on the rich and on businesses may seem appropriate, but when you consider that higher taxes on businesses tends to reduce wages and increase product cost. the vps sure as hell aint gonna take a lower share just because the taxes increase, so that comes back to the working and middle classes. taxing the rich works in sorta the same way, but less directly. as their funds become more taxed, so does their ability to fund new businesses and new jobs and higher wages for the workers of businesses they already own.
-
So against the argument of 450 economists you're giving me anecdotal evidence based on your own pay check? :lol:
No it wouldn't be--because a vote to a socialist party will do absolutely nothing in national elections. If I were to vote for Obama--which I wouldn't--I would be expressing my support for his economic plan. If I vote for McCain, I would be expressing my support for more of the same--basically waiting until the right time and the right leader comes and then express my support for them.
Voting for a 3rd party shows that there are votes floating around for those ideas. If you can show that there are enough votes for that then you'll get a change. Voting for McCain doesn't help that cause. It makes you indistinguishable from the other people who vote for him cause they like his policies.
For you, voting for McCain is like rearranging the furniture on a sinking ship with no lifeboats left. Voting Obama is like going down to the hold and knocking new holes in the side. The only sensible thing to do is to jump off and swim for one of the lifeboats you can see. You might not make it, but at least you tried.
-
I just read a survey this morning on my local newspaper. It looks like a majority of the world taking sides wants Barack Obama to be the next American president.
-
So against the argument of 450 economists you're giving me anecdotal evidence based on your own pay check? :lol:
The really crazy thing is he's doing it for a state that would, by definition, be benefiting from the nation's rising energy costs, because it doesn't really have much else to offer.
-
I don't think anecdotes with all the numbers are still anecdotes.
And since he writes the truth, he should have a beer at the cost of HLP.
At the very least, the Democrats will cut down on the war budget.
Let's see what Obama's website says:
From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/ :
Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.
...
Barack Obama believes we must get vitally needed equipment to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before lives are lost. We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines.
...
We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.
...
We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.
...
An Obama administration will restore American leadership on space issues, seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites. He will thoroughly assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best options, military and diplomatic, for countering them, establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets and accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack.
More soldiers, better equipped, more ships, more air power, and leadership on space issues. Not exactly saving money.
-
I don't think anecdotes with all the numbers are still anecdotes.
When the Conservatives brought in the poll tax a few years ago it ended up bringing Mrs Thatcher down cause it was considered to be hugely unfair by almost the entire population.
Yet you still could have found people who would have been better off under the system. What is important is how society as a whole is affected by a tax plan. You can always find someone who is better off.
While we're at it try looking up stuff before commenting on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Pay particular attention to (2).
-
And a beer for Karajorma...
However Nuke is in the poor group, and since I work 2 months a year, so am I. And we both seem not to be dying of starvation because the Govs took our cash as taxes. And we both agree that raising taxes as income grows isn't the best idea. Now you have 2 anecdotists (is that a word in English?) against 450 economists.
452 including Marx and Lenin.
Peter Orzsag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes.
And against that I say:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
The arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said,
"I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
"Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share,
then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.
- Author unknown
-
Instituting a tax cut led to wasting drinking time, arguing and finally violence.
You realise therefore that the best solution is not to have tax cuts in the first place? That way no one complains. :p
Furthermore instead of reducing the price if the barman had spent that $20 dollars on buying better beer everyone would be even happier than they were before. Congratulations on just proving socialism works Bengal Tiger! :wakka:
-
Wrong. Instead of reducing the price the barman would take the $19 for himself and spend $1 on someone else's beer who also fits in the poorest group. That way the drinkers would get $80 worth of beer, paying $100 and the barman would gain popularity, because he sponsors someone a beer everytime the guys come for a few drinks, and he'd also get a $19 bonus for his own expenses.
What everyone from outside the bar would know is that people who pay $100, get $100 worth of beer, and the barman spends his money to buy a poor man a drink.
And so everyone would see that socialism is fair, and it helps the poor a lot more than capitalism (hell, the government spends it's own money for them), and everyone begins to like it...
untill they are affected by it and find out that there's always someone poorer who gets more from the government, that it's their money that the gov spends.
And the next thing they notice, is that the poor-people-loving government drives in comfortable Volgas, while the poor people ride a bus, and they have a little Fiat.
That's true socialism.
And so with a flat tax rate, everyone would get the same 20% discount on beer, proving pure and true capitalism works even better than the current system with the socialist "take from rich, give to poor" thinking.*
Therefore capitalism works better. Funny how the same example can be used to prove completely opposite statements...
;)
* DISCLAIMER: Not that I do not support the idea of free beer, I just don't believe in the idea that someone who was slacking off at school, or is slacking off at work deserves to get one at the cost of those who work their @$$es off to make bigger cash.
-
Heheh, I like how people always cry that 'socialism' is going to give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells. I wonder who started that particular meme? It's become a conservative fallback, despite the almost total lack of empirical evidence. The 'welfare mom' seems to be pretty much a myth.
I tend to be pretty moderate, but I have to say, this kind of self-justifying thought process is a little offputting.
-
Wrong. Instead of reducing the price the barman would take the $19 for himself and spend $1 on someone else's beer who also fits in the poorest group. That way the drinkers would get $80 worth of beer, paying $100 and the barman would gain popularity, because he sponsors someone a beer everytime the guys come for a few drinks, and he'd also get a $19 bonus for his own expenses.
How is this a change from the first four getting free beer at the start?
untill they are affected by it and find out that there's always someone poorer who gets more from the government, that it's their money that the gov spends.
And the next thing they notice, is that the poor-people-loving government drives in comfortable Volgas, while the poor people ride a bus, and they have a little Fiat.
Socialism is taking people's money and spending it on yourself?
And so with a flat tax rate, everyone would get the same 20% discount on beer, proving pure and true capitalism works even better than the current system with the socialist "take from rich, give to poor" thinking.*
Therefore capitalism works better. Funny how the same example can be used to prove completely opposite statements...
If you ignore the facts and make up your own story.
-
Heheh, I like how people always cry that 'socialism' is going to give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells. I wonder who started that particular meme? It's become a conservative fallback, despite the almost total lack of empirical evidence. The 'welfare mom' seems to be pretty much a myth.
I tend to be pretty moderate, but I have to say, this kind of self-justifying thought process is a little offputting.
it's not conservatives that do it, it's Republicans. Republicans are not conservatives.
-
Thank you, you're right. I apologize. And not even all Republicans, I'm sure.
There are, of course, myths attributable to Democrats as well (the culture war, for instance -- this whole 'red state blue state' thing is a myth.)
-
i support mccain because hes moderate, i support palin because shes for small government (and shes a milf, but thats of secondary importance :lol: ). the two together seem to be perfect for running the us government. this seems to me a good reason to vote for the republicans this time around. the democratic party is in such bad shape that their relying on pop culture to sell the vote to young voters who are voting based on race, whether it be blacks voting for their own or self racist whites (wiggers) that think they need to redeem themselves for years of enslaving them. i find this strategy rather shallow. running for office is more than a popularity contest. if there was a black canidate who wanted the same things mccain and palin wanted, id vote for him or her.
what the two party system is really good at is creating oscillations. similar problem to what regularly smashes test pilots into the runway at extreme velocitys. you have 2 partys with alot of contrast. and both tend to push either hard left or hard right canidates, while most of the population wants someone in the middle. one party controls office for awhile, implementing policies, untill they get so many of their side's policies in that the country starts to break down. then some of the voters go to the other side and get the other party into office for awhile. they start undong some of the things the previous guy did and adding a few of their own, and the whole cycle repeats. its akin to pulling and pushing on the stick really hard trying to level the aircraft, and all youre really doing is making it even more unstable. this is where were at now, we had clinton and then bush. to break the oscillation we need to be more gentle on the controls. thats where mccain comes in.
-
452 including Marx and Lenin.
Neither of whom were economists. In fact, Marx was vehemently opposed in all his arguments to pretty much every economist ever to grace the Earth (and he particularly loved to pick on Adam Smith). Lenin, furthermore, wasn't an economist OR a Marxist. Marxism != Communism. In fact, Marx's theories are pretty much opposed to every form of practical Communism we've ever seen in government.
I love people who bring up Marx when talking about socialist government, because it demonstrates that they know precisely zilch about both Marx and socialism.
-
That's true socialism.
No that's the strawman you invented when your own argument came apart on you.
Do you not agree that if the barman did spend the extra $20 on better beer everyone would be better off?
In your example you're dealing with a corrupt government not a flaw in socialism.
I could make a similar half-baked example for capitalism where the system is being spoiled by corruption too. I could say that in the capitalist model the 10th man knows that the beer only cost $20 since he makes it and has done a deal with the barman to split the costs. Therefore the 10th man originally paid $59 but gets back $70 under the table while the barman keeps $10. I could then say that's a representation of the tax loopholes corporations use to get out of paying tax.
However I'm more interested in arguing about the system itself rather than aguing whether corruption can ruin it. Corruption can ruin any system whether capitalist, communist or socialist. In all 3 it needs to be stamped out. Trying to claim that "True" socialism is corrupt is stupid because it's just as easy to claim that "True" capitalism is corrupt and that argument gets neither side anywhere.
-
i support mccain because hes moderate,
Sadly, he isn't at all moderate.
i support palin because shes for small government (and shes a milf, but thats of secondary importance :lol: ). the two together seem to be perfect for running the us government.
Perfect for running it further into the ground.
this seems to me a good reason to vote for the republicans this time around. the democratic party is in such bad shape that their relying on pop culture to sell the vote to young voters who are voting based on race, whether it be blacks voting for their own or self racist whites (wiggers) that think they need to redeem themselves for years of enslaving them.
Wow, you're trying the people are going to vote for Obama only because he's black argument again. White people who vote for a black person are not 'self racist' no matter how many times you say they are. Somehow I think more people will be voting for McCain merely because he isn't black.
i find this strategy rather shallow. running for office is more than a popularity contest. if there was a black canidate who wanted the same things mccain and palin wanted, id vote for him or her.
It should be more than a popularity contest but it clearly isn't given Bush (if he did in fact win, of course).
-
what the two party system is really good at is creating oscillations. similar problem to what regularly smashes test pilots into the runway at extreme velocitys. you have 2 partys with alot of contrast. and both tend to push either hard left or hard right canidates, while most of the population wants someone in the middle. one party controls office for awhile, implementing policies, untill they get so many of their side's policies in that the country starts to break down. then some of the voters go to the other side and get the other party into office for awhile. they start undong some of the things the previous guy did and adding a few of their own, and the whole cycle repeats. its akin to pulling and pushing on the stick really hard trying to level the aircraft, and all youre really doing is making it even more unstable. this is where were at now, we had clinton and then bush. to break the oscillation we need to be more gentle on the controls. thats where mccain comes in.
You do realise that if a plane is pulling hard to the right you won't stabilise it by pulling more softly to the right?
By your own argument you should be supporting a centre-left politician not a centre-right.
-
Wow, you're trying the people are going to vote for Obama only because he's black argument again. White people who vote for a black person are not 'self racist' no matter how many times you say they are. Somehow I think more people will be voting for McCain merely because he isn't black.
This.
While I don't particularly mind McCain supports, I resent being told that I'm self-racist because I'm voting for a black person. You don't know what I think better than I do.
-
the democratic party is in such bad shape that their relying on pop culture to sell the vote to young voters who are voting based on race, whether it be blacks voting for their own or self racist whites (wiggers) that think they need to redeem themselves for years of enslaving them. i find this strategy rather shallow. running for office is more than a popularity contest. if there was a black canidate who wanted the same things mccain and palin wanted, id vote for him or her.
Wait, let me understand this, you find the democrats strategy shallow, but you'd vote for a black person if they had the same policies as McCain instead of McCain?
Tell me when the irony catches up with you.
-
I'll start with this:
Heheh, I like how people always cry that 'socialism' is going to give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells. I wonder who started that particular meme? It's become a conservative fallback, despite the almost total lack of empirical evidence. The 'welfare mom' seems to be pretty much a myth.
I tend to be pretty moderate, but I have to say, this kind of self-justifying thought process is a little offputting.
Here are my answers (the stuff in italics is my comment), underlined fragments are highlighted by me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Poland
Over the coming years, private industry was nationalised, the land seized from the pre-war landowners and redistributed to the peasants, and millions of Poles were transferred from the lost eastern territories to the lands acquired from Germany.
...
The next stage of Polish history began in December 1970. Gomułka's government had decided to prop up the failing economy by suddenly announcing massive increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs. (sell $80 of beer for $100; also raising prices because people didn't earn enough)
...
Gierek's plan for recovery was centered on massive borrowing, mainly from the United States and West Germany, to re-equip and modernise Polish industry, and to import consumer goods to give the workers some incentive to work. While it boosted the Polish economy, and is still remembered as the "Golden Age" of communist Poland, the obvious repercussion in the form of massive debt is still felt in Poland even today.
...
A new wave of strikes undermined Gierek's government, and in September Gierek, who was in poor health, was finally removed from office and replaced as Party leader by Stanisław Kania. (The Party had a meeting where they decided who will be the next Polish leader, people were later informed via newspapers and TV) However Kania was unable to find an answer for the fast-eroding support of communism in Poland. (people were informed that they get price rises without pay rises, who'd support that?) Labour turmoil led to the formation of the independent trade union Solidarity (Polish Solidarność) in September 1980, originally led by Lech Wałęsa. In fact Solidarity became a broad anti-communist social movement ranging from people associated with the Roman Catholic Church, to members of the anti-communist left. By the end of 1981, Solidarity had nine million members, a quarter of Poland's population and three times as many as the PUWP (Polish United Worker's Party, aka the Commies) had.
On December 13, 1981, the government leader, Wojciech Jaruzelski, who had become the party's national secretary and prime minister that year, became supposedly fearful of Soviet intervention and started a crack-down on Solidarity. He declared martial law in Poland, suspended the union, and temporarily imprisoned most of its leaders. The government then banned Solidarity on October 8, 1982. Martial law was formally lifted in July 1983, though many heightened controls on civil liberties and political life, as well as food rationing, remained in place through the mid- to late-1980s.
...
All estates over 0.5 km² in pre-war Polish terrotories and all over 1 km² in Regained territories were nationalised without compensation. In total, 31,000 km² of land were nationalised in Poland and 5 million in the Regained Territories, out of which 12,000 km² (that leaves 19k km²) were redistributed to peasants and the rest remained in the hands of the government. (which was the $19 for the barman, and $1 for the other poor drinker in my story; this as well as nationalisation of factories which is in other fragments)
...
Nationalization also began in 1944, with the government taking control of German industries in Regained Territories. As nationalization was unpopular, the communists delayed the nationalization reform until 1946, when after the 3xTAK referendums (if you read the article, you'll find out the referendums' result was the one the Party wanted, and not the one the people voted) they were fairly certain they had total control of the government and could deal with eventual public protests. However some semi-official nationalisation of various private non-German industries had begun back in 1944.
In 1946, all enterprises with over 50 employees were nationalised, with no compensation to Polish owners.(For General Battuta's "give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells.")
...
During the Gierek era, Poland was already becoming increasingly capitalistic due to its Western money borrowing. The fact that the West would no longer give Poland credit meant that living standards began to sharply fall again as the supply of imported goods dried up, and as Poland was forced to export everything it could, particularly food and coal, to service its massive debt, which would reach US$23 billion by 1980. By 1978, it was therefore obvious that eventually the regime would again have to raise prices (that means the politicians, not the market, decided what cost how much) and risk another outbreak of labor unrest.
...
During the chaotic Solidarity years and the imposition of martial law, Poland entered a decade of economic crisis, officially acknowledged as such even by the regime. Rationing and queuing became a way of life, with ration cards (Kartki) necessary to buy even such basic consumer staples as milk and sugar.(this is the '80s, it is peace time, the US looked like that or better in WW II) Access to Western luxury goods became even more restricted (The gov had Volgas- OK, that's Eastern but whatever; the people had Fiats, and the poorer had bus tickets), as Western governments applied economic sanctions to express their dissatisfaction with the government repression of the opposition, while at the same time the government had to use most of the foreign currency it could obtain to pay the crushing rates on its foreign debt.[1]
In response to this situation, the government, which controlled all official foreign trade, continued to maintain a highly artificial exchange rate with Western currencies. The exchange rate worsened distortions in the economy at all levels, resulting in a growing black market and the development of a shortage economy.[2] The only way for an individual to buy most Western goods was to use Western currencies, notably the U.S. dollar, which in effect became a parallel currency. However, it could not simply be exchanged at the official banks for Polish złotys, since the government exchange rate undervalued the dollar and placed heavy restrictions on the amount that could be exchanged, and so the only practical way to obtain it was from remittances or work outside the country. An entire illegal industry of street-corner money changers emerged, similar to pimping. The (Cinkciarze) gave clients far better than official exchange rates and became wealthy from their opportunism, albeit at great risk of punishment--which, however, was greatly diminished by widescale bribery of police.
...
After several years of the situation continuing to worsen, during which time the communist government unsuccessfully tried various expedients to improve the performance of the economy—at one point resorting to placing military commissars to direct work in the factories — it grudgingly accepted pressures to liberalize the economy.
If anyone feels that I've manipulated the article to show socialism as something more evil than it really was, feel free to read the whole thing. Also read about Russia, Ukraine and all the other USSR and it's satellite countries.
And there are many people in the world that want communism or socialism, because capitalism generates fights when a few guys get drunk and want to be payed for drinking more. :p
Do you not agree that if the barman did spend the extra $20 on better beer everyone would be better off?
Well they'd be better off if the rich guy never payed the most for the beers, and everyone had a $10 price before the discount, and a $8 after.
They'd also be better off if they chose to get more expensive beer after a discount, so I agree with that.
What I don't agree with is when the barman (or government) chooses for the customer (or citizens), because people know what they themselves want, but not what others do.
-
You've linked to a page about a communist state. If you don't know the difference between communism and socialism you really shouldn't be participating in this thread since you obviously don't know enough about the subject to have a sensible opinion on it.
-
My view is socialism in a capitalist nation should be to benefit those that are less fortunate. I don't support universal health care since I think that would be a major blow to our nation's current system. Sure everyone can go to the hospital whenever they want, but those that may be critically ill will be stuck on a waiting list instead of seeing an oncologist for weeks or months. That and the private doctors that do appear will not be backed by insurance--meaning they either are out-of-practice or you spend decades paying them for a one-time service.
-
I appreciate your careful effort, Bengal_tiger, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Obama's tax plan doesn't involve anything more than rolling back the Bush tax cuts and giving a tax break to the middle and lower-class portions of the economic spectrum anyway, so the debate is pretty much moot. Most of his health care policy revolves around cutting waste, not increasing spending.
-
The term Communist state originated in the West during the Cold War. It was coined to describe the form of government adopted by several countries in Eastern Europe and East Asia who followed the political model of the Soviet Union. These countries were ruled by parties which typically used the name "Communist Party of [country]." Since the separation of Party and State became very blurred in those countries, it seemed logical to name them "Communist states," by analogy with the Communist parties that ruled them.
Communists however dispute the validity of the term Communist state. Within Marxist theory, world communism is the final phase of history at which time the state would have withered away[4] and therefore "communist state" is a contradiction in terms under premises of this theory. Current states are either in the capitalist or socialist phase of history - making the term "socialist state" preferable to Communists[citation needed] - and the role of the Communist Party (i.e. the vanguard party) is to pull a nation toward the communist phase of history.
And so, Karajorma, I know more/less what I'm talking about, however you use Western naming, and I use Eastern. Here's something closer to a real communist state in my books than Poland was during the Cold War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
And about what Westerns call socialism... it still has a long way to go to reach what was happening in the Eastern Block, but any step in it's general direction is a bad idea for me, unless it's only to make sure the unemployed won't starve to death, lying sick somewhere on the street. Everyone has the right to live, to visit a doctor, and to have firemen and policemen service him/her, but if you want more, work for it and buy it.
PS As for Obama's tax increase for the rich, what happens when a company owner has to pay higher taxes, but doesn't want to have his standards of living lowered, so he fires a worker to save cash on his salary, and makes the rest work harder a bit to compensate? Call him a selfish pr***, but business is business, not charity.
And so again the poorer people will get f***ed, and the rich may not even feel the difference. What are Obama's ideas to prevent such scenarios?
McCain's idea is to lower corporate tax, which is (at least based on his knowlage, never checked myself) second highest in the world.
Same thing with the idea to tax Big Oil to give Americans cash for gas... what if the oil companies raise the price at the pump to compensate for the bonus 180 bln USD they'd have to pay in taxes? (number based on 180M people in production age in the US x 1000 USD each as Obama tax bonus)
McCain's idea is to have gas tax free during the summer when prices are highest, making prices drop by the 15% or whatever the tax is, and Big Oil won't complain about being a cash resource, so it won't have to increase the $/gal even further.
Also both politicians seem to know that moving to other energy sources and taking measures to lower the consumption of those already used is important, and I agree with that fully.
-
And so, Karajorma, I know more/less what I'm talking about, however you use Western naming, and I use Eastern. Here's something closer to a real communist state in my books than Poland was during the Cold War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
And about what Westerns call socialism... it still has a long way to go to reach what was happening in the Eastern Block, but any step in it's general direction is a bad idea for me, unless it's only to make sure the unemployed won't starve to death, lying sick somewhere on the street. Everyone has the right to live, to visit a doctor, and to have firemen and policemen service him/her, but if you want more, work for it and buy it.
The problem is that you're confusing theoretical terms with practical reality.
Examples of socialism at work include: Sweden, Norway
Examples of communism at work include: There are no countries which have adopted a theoretical model of communism (because communism presupposes the end of the nation-state model).
Examples of states which are Communist in name only but function as dictatorships: China, North Korea
It's just like the USA is NOT a capitalist country. The USA has a semi-capitalist market structure, but the amount of regulation and social re-distribution takes it well outside of an actual capitalist model.
You're using theoretical sociological/philosophical terms to describe the state of things as they are, and reality doesn't conform to the models. rather, countries should be examined as they function as opposed to trying to peg them into a category into which they do not actually fit.
Socialism, as it operates in countries like Norway and Sweden which approximate a functioning socialist system, works extremely well. Norwegians enjoy one of, if not the, highest standards of living of any country, and the socioeconomic gap is less than other comparable nations.
You can't even begin to reference the Eastern Bloc prior to 1989 as models of socialism OR communism, because they weren't. They were models of how corruption of political ideology can create one of the most despotic systems of government this planet has seen. Lenin, arguably the founder of the system practically known as Communism, wasn't a Marxist or a communist. Mao wasn't either. Both twisted an existing sociophilosophical theory set into a political ideology in order to structure a government. If you read Marx (and I have, extensively) you'll find that he never believed the social change to what he called communism would occur in Russia or China - he believed the social restructuring would assert itself in Britain or Germany.
EDIT: And using Wikipedia as reference material is not a good idea - the articles are only as good as the people who contributed to them. While it's useful for background material for your own reading, structuring a debate based on material from Wikipedia will get you laughed out of any serious academic discussion.
-
And that's before we get to the fact that I was saying that the example proved socialism worked in what he refers to as the Western meaning of the word. Therefore making everything Bengal Tiger said after my comment moot.
-
Kuwait:
Exports $59.57 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.)
Imports $17.74 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.)
That is 42 billion bucks earned internationally
Sweden:
Exports $176.5 billion (2007 est.)
Imports $157.2 billion (2007 est.)
That's plus 19 billion
Norway:
Exports $122.6 billion (2006 est.)
Imports $59.9 billion (2006 est.)
62 billion $ more worth of exported goods than imported
USA:
Exports $1.149 trillion (2007 est.)
Imports $1.985 trillion (2007 est.)
836 billion bucks more for imported goods than they made on exported goods......
Socialism, (...) works extremely well.
And it costs, so if you have tens of billions every year out of international trade, you have more money than you need to spend, and you can afford socialism. But if you make over 800 billion debt in 1 year, I think it's wise for a nation to encourage producing more to export more and import less, therefore it should stay away from socialism.
But then again, I might be wrong...
And about wikipedia quotes- I chose Poland because I already know the facts, and I'm pretty sure there was no bull in the article.
-
Mercantilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism) went out of fashion in the 18th century.
-
I'll do my 'homework' in economics, and I'll write something later.
A beer for Rian.
Edit: What is a fact is that the US debt is too big, and it's growing. Another fact is that socialism costs about 60% of people's salaries in Sweden (in taxes and stuff), so it is expensive.
-
I'll do my 'homework' in economics, and I'll write something later.
A beer for Rian.
Edit: What is a fact is that the US debt is too big, and it's growing. Another fact is that socialism costs about 60% of people's salaries in Sweden (in taxes and stuff), so it is expensive.
The problem is that nobody seems to care. From what I've heard, the US has a big loan to the World Bank and they're in no hurry to repay it.
-
The problem is that nobody seems to care. From what I've heard, the US has a big loan to the World Bank and they're in no hurry to repay it.
Our leaders think the second coming of christ and the end of the world will make paying back their loan pointless. Why bother?
-
And it costs, so if you have tens of billions every year out of international trade, you have more money than you need to spend, and you can afford socialism. But if you make over 800 billion debt in 1 year, I think it's wise for a nation to encourage producing more to export more and import less, therefore it should stay away from socialism.
But then again, I might be wrong...
You're assuming a nation's wealth is dictated by its import/export ratio. It's not.
If the US operated on a tax scale designed to collect the most from the people and businesses which can afford to pay the most and using that to fund a socialized system, they could balance the books. The United States, as it currently stands, has one of the widest socioeconomic gaps in the world. This is in part due to the fact that large businesses are taxed relatively little compared to what they could be taxed, while the fees for social services (in particular, health care) sit well above the level low-income families can afford. Businesses get all kinds of tax breaks and deals which individuals - particularly the middle class which are the bracket who actually pay the most into the tax system - do not get.
EDIT: Fixed now that I've seen it =)
-
that large businesses are taxed relatively little compared to what they could be taxed
How much more should US corporations get taxed? A company in Iowa with over 18 1/3 million $ taxable income gets taxed at 51%. And that rate is second only to Saudi Arabia's corporate tax.
-
that large businesses are taxed relatively little compared to what they could be taxed
How much more should US corporations get taxed? A company in Iowa with over 18 1/3 million $ taxable income gets taxed at 51%. And that rate is second only to Saudi Arabia's corporate tax.
They may get taxed at that rate, but with the tax breaks they are afforded through various programs none of them actually pay out at that level. It's the numbers game.
-
We're all at best educated amateurs here. None of us can make a strong argument -- not me, not BengalTiger, nor anyone else -- without a serious examination of the economic facts and the opinions of experts.
I am disturbed by the widening gap between rich and poor in this country.
-
They may get taxed at that rate, but with the tax breaks they are afforded through various programs none of them actually pay out at that level. It's the numbers game.
All I know is the %, if you know about those programs, feel free to post a link or something, where we could read about it.
P.S. Beer for Gen. Battuta.
-
Ryan, you've got a syntax error in your second-last post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,56058.msg1138696.html#msg1138696).
-
I'm freaked out about Palin being next in line for president if/when McCain croaks.
-
All I know is the %, if you know about those programs, feel free to post a link or something, where we could read about it.
There are ones based on employment practices, public works,charity donations, environmental safety...I'm really quite shocked you didn't even think of them, or that you didn't know of them. It almost stretches my credulity to the point of charging with willful ignorance.
Also, as you cited a company with a tax rate in a particular state it is quite meaningless, as you did not cite federal tax rates.
-
I'm voting for Alec Baldwin.
-
Interesting fact reported by the LA Times.
When Palin was a Mayor, hers was the only city in the state which charged rape victims for their forensic kit tests. It took the passing of a state law to make them do otherwise.
-
When Palin was a Mayor, hers was the only city in the state which charged rape victims for their forensic kit tests. It took the passing of a state law to make them do otherwise.
You have to be ****ing kidding me!
EDIT : Evidently not (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rapekits12-2008sep12,0,2717050.story).
Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the campaign of Palin and John McCain, said that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test
So she's just incompetent at managing her police department then?
-
I am:
- Not bothering to read the thread.
- Voting McCain.
- Now going to get back to actually working at work.
-
I support McCain because I oppose abortion.
-
How long you been a us citizen Karajorma :p
*crud now i've broken the thread too :(
-
Only the poll is for US citizens. Anyone can comment. :)
-
I support McCain because I oppose abortion.
There's logic. I'll vote for a candidate based on one single minor issue while ignoring the fact that there are dozens of more important policies which the candidates differ on which could very well change the course of my nation's history.
Please note: I'm not attacking your choice of vote necessarily, just the logic in how you would make it.
-
I support McCain because I oppose abortion.
There's logic. I'll vote for a candidate based on one single minor issue while ignoring the fact that there are dozens of more important policies which the candidates differ on which could very well change the course of my nation's history.
Please note: I'm not attacking your choice of vote necessarily, just the logic in how you would make it.
To me, abortion is perhaps the largest issue. Over thirty-six million abortions have been performed in the ~13,000 days since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. To me, 2770 abortions performed daily is disgusting and perhaps the worst genocide possible. That's my opinion--and my opposition to the mass abortion trend, not only in the USA, makes that the single most-important issue to me. You disagree--great. Vote on what you consider most important.
-
But they're not people, just potential people.
Think of all the lives of rape victims, teenage girls, and financially unstable people that could have been ruined by those babies. Think of how unfortunate the lives of those babies would have been. They're better off not having existed.
-
The thing is, McCain may try to make abortions illegal, but he’s not going to prevent them from happening. When abortion is illegal, people turn to shady, back-alley providers and home “remedies” rather than legitimate doctors. And people die, because allowing an unwanted cell-wad to turn into an unwanted child is more terrifying than the risk of infection, internal injury, and death from a procedure that should be safe and accessible.
There were abortions before Roe v. Wade. There are abortions in countries where abortion is illegal. Many of them involve jamming coat hangers into the uterus, or deadly poisons. (yes, one of the ‘options’ for people without legal recourse to abortion is to poison the carrier to the point where her body rejects the fetus in favor of its own survival)
The way to prevent abortion is not to make the procedure itself illegal, but to prevent the circumstances that make it necessary. Comprehensive sex education and better access to contraception are the real answer, but McCain and his cronies doesn’t have the foresight to see that this is the case. They’d rather criminalize people who are often too desperate to care.
-
Let's try not to turn this into a debate on abortion itself. A debate on the policies of the various parties is fine but I'd rather this doesn't devolve into a debate on whether it is right or wrong.
Rian : I don't believe McCain will try to ban abortions. 12 years of Republican government under Reagan and Bush Snr didn't ban them. Eight years under Bush Jnr (arguably a much more fundamentalist than McCain) didn't ban them. I doubt that McCain would try either.
And that is why I feel it's foolish to vote for a politician based on their opinion about abortion. You could have said the exact same thing about voting for Bush but AFAIK nothing done in the last 8 years of the Bush presidency has brought the abortion rate down. The biggest drop in the abortion rate since '73 actually occurred during Clinton's presidency (Although I'm not saying that's due to his policies). Voting for McCain won't do a thing to decrease the abortion rate. In fact the short-sighted abstinence-only sex ed programs that Bush instituted will probably lead to a rise in them whoever wins. A policy that McCain will probably continue.
If you want to bring the abortion rate down voting for a a politician who favoured better sex ed would probably have more of an effect than giving it to McCain just because he says he is against it. If his policy on abortions might have an effect then you can say it's worth voting for the man over but his policy will be just to say that it's wrong while doing little to stop it just like both Bush's and Reagan.
-
I disagree. They're people, especially as our usable tech increases so that a child can be saved earlier out of the womb. If you don't want a kid or there's a problem, adoption is a better option in my opinion. As for other people desperate--I'm not saying 100% ban for rape and incest victims and for those situations that mother and child will die. To say NO 100% is also wrong.
We need to do more than limiting abortion--that's true. I'm saying that the vast, VAST majority of abortions are unnecessary. Banning it won't stop abortions from happening illegally--but we need the institutions to help these people that are scared or are unable to care typically for the result of their mistake.
Anyways--that's what I base my decisions on. If there's a democrat that doesn't support abortion and I like at least some of their policies and positions, I'll vote for them. If they're pro-choice I'll probably vote against them. That's me--cast your support for who you feel is right.
-
Fortunately for you, Karajorma, most of the US electorate is unlike Bob-san: abortion is not a big issue.
The vast majority of voters select their candidates based on security and economy. Furthermore, the vast majority of US voters agree on most issues. There is a broad, moderate consensus in the States that simply isn't represented in politics.
The 'culture wars', and the great divide over abortion, are largely a myth.
I had a political scientist tell me, baldly, that 'this election, nobody cares about abortion.' 2004 was supposed to be some kind of referendum on abortion and the 'moral lifestyle', but almost nobody voted on those criteria. Odd how it gets so much press time.
-
It gets press time cause if the Republicans pay it lip service they can scoop up a few votes and look good to the Christian Right (who care more about other issues but who don't mind hearing it).
-
The morality of abortion is subjective, and IMHO it's not up to the government to force this kind of morality on people. Have it legal, and the people who find it immoral can attack the problem at its source, as opposed to just whining about the fact that it's legal. Getting angry at the government for it isn't going to solve the problem, or even make it better.
I'd much rather have a president who knew how to effectively lead the nation rather than have a president that just happened to share some of my beliefs. If the president knew how his actions would affect the nation, then he could be a much, much better president than if he just focused on the things he thought were right. IMHO, issue-focused election = bad, leadership-focused election = good.
EDIT: BTW, the world is quite over-populated. Just so you know...
-
I may be throwing grease on the fire here, but there is substantial, valid peer-reviewed research demonstrating that legalized abortion has a significant impact on LOWERING the overall crime rate.
The argument is not that you should abort, but rather that if fewer babies are born into social circumstances in which they are heavily disadvantaged and unsupported, fewer people grow up and become involved in the types of crime which are heavily correlated to extremely low socioeconomic status.
To me, that says you're better off voting for someone who believes in comprehensive sex education and a system in which people do not destroy their financial existence merely trying to pay for things like their next meal or adequate medical support.
-
It gets press time cause if the Republicans pay it lip service they can scoop up a few votes and look good to the Christian Right (who care more about other issues but who don't mind hearing it).
Yes, this.
I may be throwing grease on the fire here, but there is substantial, valid peer-reviewed research demonstrating that legalized abortion has a significant impact on LOWERING the overall crime rate.
The argument is not that you should abort, but rather that if fewer babies are born into social circumstances in which they are heavily disadvantaged and unsupported, fewer people grow up and become involved in the types of crime which are heavily correlated to extremely low socioeconomic status.
To me, that says you're better off voting for someone who believes in comprehensive sex education and a system in which people do not destroy their financial existence merely trying to pay for things like their next meal or adequate medical support.
Also this.
Lastly, Michelle Obama is a very smart woman. (http://www.blogher.com/fighting-equal-pay) Whether or not you agree with the Obama campaign, I hope that everybody agrees with the sentiment in that post.
-
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/portrayal_of_obama_as_elitist
:D
-
I don't believe McCain will try to ban abortions. 12 years of Republican government under Reagan and Bush Snr didn't ban them. Eight years under Bush Jnr (arguably a much more fundamentalist than McCain) didn't ban them. I doubt that McCain would try either.
The Bush era has, however, seen considerable erosion of reproductive freedoms. Pharmacies are now permitted to refuse to stock or dispense emergency contraception, and a number of states have recently attempted to pass regulation restricting access to abortion. Also, there was an attempt to pass legislation that would have protected health care providers who refused to perform abortions or provide referrals.
This could be seen as the beginning of a trend, which I suspect McCain would continue. McCain has voted repeatedly to restrict access to abortion. He voted in favor of the Federal Abortion Ban, which criminalized certain abortion procedures. He has also voted to confirm a number of anti-choice nominees to the Supreme Court and other courts, and if he continues this pattern, it could lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned. (a PDF document detailing his anti-choice voting record can be found here (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf).)
He has also opposed measures that would have reduced the need for abortions through improved access to birth control and education. I don’t think I need to elaborate on the hypocrisy of this position, especially since it’s already been pointed out in this thread.
I disagree. They're people, especially as our usable tech increases so that a child can be saved earlier out of the womb. If you don't want a kid or there's a problem, adoption is a better option in my opinion. As for other people desperate--I'm not saying 100% ban for rape and incest victims and for those situations that mother and child will die. To say NO 100% is also wrong.
We need to do more than limiting abortion--that's true. I'm saying that the vast, VAST majority of abortions are unnecessary. Banning it won't stop abortions from happening illegally--but we need the institutions to help these people that are scared or are unable to care typically for the result of their mistake.
Anyways--that's what I base my decisions on. If there's a democrat that doesn't support abortion and I like at least some of their policies and positions, I'll vote for them. If they're pro-choice I'll probably vote against them. That's me--cast your support for who you feel is right.
The vast majority of abortions (approaching 90%) are performed within the first trimester. No matter what the technology, these fetuses are not sufficiently developed to think, feel, or survive outside the womb. Most later-term abortions occur in exactly the emergency situations you have described.
I’m curious: given a choice between a pro-choice candidate who supports programs (comprehensive sex education, improved access to contraception) that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions, and a candidate who is ideologically opposed to abortion but favors policies that have consistently been proven ineffective, do you still find the anti-choice candidate more appealing?
-
The emergency situation I outlined took place at 13 weeks--about at the beginning of the second trimester. As I said--I don't support a 100% ban on abortion since I feel it's the medical solution to a medical problem. The largest problem I have with abortion as it exists now is that the vast majority of abortions are a medical solution to a person's lack of integrity, in my opinion. You made the mistake--and so long as it's not fatal to yourself they should carry the baby to term. The youngest baby delivered alive was just short of 22 weeks.
Anyways--in the situation you outlined of pro-life with ineffective sex ed v. pro-choice with effective sex ed? I'd vote for a third-party candidate to say that I am disillusioned with the government.
-
Say there are no third-party candidates. Would you simply not vote?
-
Say there are nay third-party candidates, to be sure. Would ye simply not vote?
Write-in ballots are always available in US elections.
-
For the sake of argument, say you must choose between one of the two.
-
Depends partially on the other issues. As it is, I have more influence voting for a pro-life senator or congress(wo)man than I do voting for a pro-life president & vice-president. But yes--I think Carl the Shivan would be an excellent write-in ballot.
-
It amuses me immensely that all incidences of “he” in my previous post (referring to McCain) have become “The ornery cuss.”
Also, I think that’s a dodge.
-
Depends partially on th' other issues. As it is, I have more influence votin' fer a pro-life senator or congress(wo)hearty than I do votin' fer a pro-life president & vice-president. But aye--I think Carl th' Shivan would be an excellent write-in ballot.
What if the two candidates are otherwise identical, in every way? This is a philosophical question, after all.
-
Depends partially on th' other issues. As it is, I have more influence votin' fer a pro-life senator or congress(wo)hearty than I do votin' fer a pro-life president & vice-president. But aye--I think Carl th' Shivan would be an excellent write-in ballot.
What if th' two candidates are otherwise identical, in every way? This 'ere is a philosophical question, after all.
In that sort of case I'd vote for the pro-life candidate. It's more a long-term "investment". The recent decades have, in my opinion, shown a great decrease in the intelligence and integrity of America's youth. Kids will be kids. You should know the risk. I don't think abortion should be the answer for a woman who forgot a condom or let the guy get away without a condom. Having sex in the first place with just a condom enough.
-
Take a look at the original scenario?
I’m curious: given a choice betwixt a pro-choice candidate who supports programs (comprehensive sex education, improved access t' contraception) wot have been proven t' reduce th' number o' abortions, an' a candidate who is ideologically opposed t' abortion but favors policies wot have consistently been proven ineffective, do ye still find th' anti-choice candidate more appealin'?
So, even knowin' wot yer chosen candidate's policies are less effective at preventin' unwanted pregnancies, ye'd vote fer wot scurvey dog?
On account o' it seems like everythin' ye just said contradicts wot. Ye said 'I'd vote pro-life, on account o' I think people aren't well-enough educated about birth control an' preventin' pregnancy, which is somethin' this 'ere pro-life candidate will only make worse.'
In wot sort o' case I'd vote fer th' pro-life candidate. It's more a long-term "investment". The recent decades have, in me opinion, shown a great decrease in th' intelligence an' integrity o' America's youth. Kids will be minnows. And hoist the mainsail! Ye should know th' risk. I don't think abortion should be th' answer fer a wench who forgot a condom or let th' hearty get away without a condom. And swab the deck! Havin' sex in th' first place with just a condom enough.
Furthermore, you're wrong. Abortion rates are at the lowest level since 1974. Teen pregnancies are down significantly. 54% of abortions are from women who used contraceptives properly (not because contraceptives are unreliable but because they do have a 1% failure rate.)
How does this fit in with the narrative of abortion you've constructed?
-
Take a look at th' original scenario?
I’m curious: given a choice betwixt a pro-choice candidate who supports programs (comprehensive sex education, improved access t' contraception) wot have been proven t' reduce th' number o' abortions, an' a candidate who is ideologically opposed t' abortion but favors policies wot have consistently been proven ineffective, do ye still find th' anti-choice candidate more appealin'?
So, even knowin' wot yer chosen candidate's policies are less effective at preventin' unwanted pregnancies, ye'd vote fer wot scurvey dog?
On account o' it seems like everythin' ye just said contradicts wot. Ye said 'I'd vote pro-life, on account o' I think people aren't well-enough educated about birth control an' preventin' pregnancy, which is somethin' this 'ere 'ere pro-life candidate will only make worse.'
In wot sort o' case I'd vote fer th' pro-life candidate. It's more a long-term "investment". The recent decades have, in me opinion, shown a great decrease in th' intelligence an' integrity o' America's youth. Kids will be minnows. An' hoist th' mainsail! Ye should know th' risk. I don't think abortion should be th' answer fer a wench who forgot a condom or let th' hearty get away without a condom. An' swab th' deck! Havin' sex in th' first place with just a condom enough.
Furthermore, ye're wrong. Abortion rates are at th' lowest level since 1974. Teen pregnancies are down significantly. 54% o' abortions are from women who used contraceptives properly (not on account o' contraceptives are unreliable but on account o' they do have a 1% failure rate.)
How does this 'ere fit in with th' narrative o' abortion ye've constructed?
It comes to this: I disagree with your stance. A pro-choice candidate with stronger sex education is still half the opposite of the current situation. Right now we have abortion legal but weak sex ed. Obviously that's not the situation I'd like it to be. Abortion, being legal, has been turned into an after-the-fact "quick fix". While it may be true, there has only been a 35-40% cut in abortion rates since the high in 1980. It is typically a safe procedure with less than half a percent of cases having complications. However, approximately a quarter of American pregnancies will end in abortion.1 (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp333pd.html)
Now then--what we do need to do is improve the effectiveness of sex education. One of the ways I think this can be accomplished is more effective and reality-centric approaches starting in junior high school. However, the exposure to sex though education and through culture have long reaches towards promoting it. My view is that the reality of situations will provide sufficient education. By eliminating the choice of aborting a pregnancy in the vast majority of cases, it is my opinion that you also bring the realities of sex to bear. I feel the youth of this country have become disconnected to the realities of the world.
Now then--sex ed can be as encompassing as you want, but there will still be no reality to back up the messages if the negative consequences don't hit. Abortion is one side of this: a youth is unlikely to find out they have a permanent STD for several years, if not longer. And abortions tend to eliminate the infant-consequence. Abstinence is often the best choice, though that starts with families reconnecting to reality more than the state trying to educate young men and women. No doubt, illegal abortions can and will still be performed, and these are dangerous. However, the government's primary way to prevent this is policing. You do something blatantly illegal and you may very well face the consequences.
I feel I have been "cured" of disconnection with reality from my upbringing. One of the facts I have to deal with is I have a half-brother whom is 3 months my junior. From this and numerous other things, I have connected to reality on a one-to-one level and walk away from it with strong convictions and integrity.
-
You're arguing for better sex ed, then making an argument for sex ed that promotes abstinence. Teen pregnancy rates recently increased for the first time in years as a result of abstinence-only sex education.
Studies suggest that teenagers who take abstinence pledges are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex; furthermore, almost all teenagers who take such pledges break them within three or four years.
I agree that strong sex education is the right way to do things. However, banning abortion is not the way to drive the point home. Please refer to Rian's earlier posts for an explanation as to why.
-
My opinon is it IS the right way to drive it home. Pregnancy is the only consequence most kids see when ****ing around. Having abortion readily available minimizes this risk: kids can go **** around and then just abort before anyone knows the better.
-
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/portrayal_of_obama_as_elitist
:D
That was amazing
-
My opinon is it IS the right way to drive it home. Pregnancy is the only consequence most kids see when ****ing around. Having abortion readily available minimizes this risk: kids can go **** around and then just abort before anyone knows the better.
No one will ever tell you that abortion is an easy or convenient solution, unless it’s an anti-choicer trying to incite outrage. It is expensive, it is inconvenient, it can be painful, and for most people it is an emotionally weighty decision. I would call that consequence enough for a lack of caution, especially since it can and does still occur when both parties have been prudent and used protection.
The alternative you advocate – for a young woman to bear an unwanted child for nine months of her life, enduring social stigma, hormonal fluctuations, nausea, back and leg pain, among many more symptoms and innumerable inconveniences, as well as the risk that she will be unable to finish school as a result of this ordeal and will subsequently live in poverty – is not a fair consequence. All these symptoms almost exclusively affect the female, when her partner is just as responsible for the predicament. What good is a consequence that only affects half the target population?
And the fact is that none of the current anti-choice candidates support a sensible sex-education and family planning program. They oppose many safe, effective birth control options nearly as vehemently as they do abortion. The educational programs they endorse feed young people blatantly false information, (that condoms don’t work, for example, when in fact they do in the vast majority of cases) and withhold the facts that they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or disease. Abstinence may indeed be the best option for many people, but for others it isn’t, and for those who do not choose abstinence there must be other options, and they must know what those options are.
When unwanted pregnancies no longer occur, there will be no need for abortion. But no anti-choice candidate is going to address this root cause rather than criminalizing what I would call the inevitable outcome.
-
Exactly. Bob-san, what you're essentially saying is this: "We have a huge flu problem! Let's criminalize going to the doctor, because if people see how sick they could get, they'll wash their hands and maintain good quarantines!"
Do you understand this? Abstinence-only sex ed does not prevent kids from having sex. It just makes them more likely to get pregnant.
If you want teenage pregnancy rates to drop, then you have to teach people how to not get pregnant.
I understand that you're not going to change your mind, but I think it's because you dislike sex itself. You seem to think that abstinence is somehow connected to 'strong convictions and integrity', and earlier in the thread you remarked that women should face consequences when they allow their male partner to go ahead without a condom.
It seems that there are deeper issues here than simple moral objections to abortion.
-
The Bush era has, however, seen considerable erosion of reproductive freedoms. Pharmacies are now permitted to refuse to stock or dispense emergency contraception, and a number of states have recently attempted to pass regulation restricting access to abortion. Also, there was an attempt to pass legislation that would have protected health care providers who refused to perform abortions or provide referrals.
This could be seen as the beginning of a trend, which I suspect McCain would continue. McCain has voted repeatedly to restrict access to abortion. He voted in favor of the Federal Abortion Ban, which criminalized certain abortion procedures. He has also voted to confirm a number of anti-choice nominees to the Supreme Court and other courts, and if he continues this pattern, it could lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned. (a PDF document detailing his anti-choice voting record can be found here (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf).)
He has also opposed measures that would have reduced the need for abortions through improved access to birth control and education. I don’t think I need to elaborate on the hypocrisy of this position, especially since it’s already been pointed out in this thread.
I think you're missing my point here. I'm basically arguing on a more pragmatic level than you and Battuta are (although I agree with you).
Bob-san wants to vote for McCain on the grounds that he's against abortion. I believe that rather than taking the route you are taking it's more sensible to point out that that a vote for McCain won't do anything to lower the number of abortions.
When Bush was elected you had arguably the most fundamentalist Christian that the White House has seen in years and a Republican Congress. What happened? What anti-abortion laws were passed? IIRC the only one was the partial-birth law which can be avoided simply by carrying out another procedure. I doubt any laws McCain (who is supposedly a moderate according to those people voting for him) will pass will make a serious dent in the number of abortions that could be carried out. But let's be generous and say it does. The question is, will that balance out the increased number of abortions that will be carried out due to the inevitable increase in unwanted pregnancies. And quite frankly it won't.
You're welcome to argue with Bob-san over his belief that an America without abortions would have more responsible teenagers in it but it misses the point. McCain isn't going to ban legal abortions anyway! Arguing about that simply clouds the most important point, which is that a vote for McCain is a vote for more abortions.
That and that alone should be reason enough for Bob-san to not vote for McCain. If he is serious about "ending the genocide" as he calls it he should be voting for a pro-sex-ed candidate until the teen pregnancy rate is much lower and only then think about banning abortions. Voting for McCain is a half-assed choice if that's your goal.
-
No one will ever tell you that abortion is an easy or convenient solution, unless it’s an anti-choicer trying to incite outrage. It is expensive, it is inconvenient, it can be painful, and for most people it is an emotionally weighty decision. I would call that consequence enough for a lack of caution, especially since it can and does still occur when both parties have been prudent and used protection.
Calling me Anti-Choice is a nice way to continue this. Anyways: tangible consequences are, again in my opinion, enough of a reason to not have sex or to try to protect ones-self while in the deed. If you encounter those consequences--it's your own damned fault. I do not see stupidity in action as an excuse. What you're doing right now, in my opinion, is undermining your own argument. Every pro-life speaker I've heard has agreed that abortion is often an emotionally scarring process. However, a "next-morning" pill is a quick and easy way to try to skip out on the consequences. As part of my pro-life view, I do not support a "next-morning" pill through pharmacies. If you need the pill because criminal sexual activity occurred recently, then you should go through the police department and file a report. At the end of that report, you have the option of taking a pill. I'm not saying we should ban drug birth control either, as it's often a necessity for the medical well-being of young ladies.
The alternative you advocate – for a young woman to bear an unwanted child for nine months of her life, enduring social stigma, hormonal fluctuations, nausea, back and leg pain, among many more symptoms and innumerable inconveniences, as well as the risk that she will be unable to finish school as a result of this ordeal and will subsequently live in poverty – is not a fair consequence. All these symptoms almost exclusively affect the female, when her partner is just as responsible for the predicament. What good is a consequence that only affects half the target population?
It's her fault. You can always say "no". A direct result of sex is pregnancy. Disconnection with reality often distorts that view: if you **** around, you may very well become pregnant. It's a serious choice, and people should treat it as such. The youth of America are often disconnected from reality: reconnect and it is my opinion that you deal with issues regarding youth. Teen pregnancy, no matter what the rate, is why I am personally against abortion. You start at one place, and the rest will fall into line. So yes--if she goes and ****s around and comes home pregnant, she should have to face the actual consequences of her actions instead of moseying around them. It's part of the "No, it can't happen to me!" phenomenon: it'll never happen, and if it does there's a fast and easy way to dodge reality.
And the fact is that none of the current anti-choice candidates support a sensible sex-education and family planning program. They oppose many safe, effective birth control options nearly as vehemently as they do abortion. The educational programs they endorse feed young people blatantly false information, (that condoms don’t work, for example, when in fact they do in the vast majority of cases) and withhold the facts that they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or disease. Abstinence may indeed be the best option for many people, but for others it isn’t, and for those who do not choose abstinence there must be other options, and they must know what those options are.
The current system, in my opinion, will work if the consequences become real. I do think we need to rethink our approach to sex education. Even so, exposure brings acceptance. Acceptance will result in most sex ed. classes ultimately failing. That's basic, advanced, abstinence, or any other really. And there are other options: I went through an abstinence program and they still hammer the points down. 1) Having sex is risky: pregnancy isn't the only consequence. 2) If you're being pushed to have sex, odds are it's abusive. 3) Condoms can make it safer, but no method is 100% successful. 4) You live with the consequences of your actions.
When unwanted pregnancies no longer occur, there will be no need for abortion. But no anti-choice candidate is going to address this root cause rather than criminalizing what I would call the inevitable outcome.
My opinion is the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies is self control. When you realize the consequences you can stop the problem. Pro-choice won't accept that either: you instate reality. Abortion was created as a medical solution for medical problems: not as a medical solution for wide-spread social problems.
Anyways--I've also remarked that the best vote against abortion is with a senator or a congress(wo)man. Voting for a pro-life president won't do much. On the other hand, I think this election we should be taking a much closer look at the vice president as well: and I support Palin's views against abortion, though she will have to give up some of the details if she, as president (be it from McCain's inabilit to preside or a future election), wishes to get any legislation through. For that reason--I'm more than willing to keep track of candidates votes and ensure my support is added to those I most support in policy, avoiding the hype machine. And what you're missing is the fundamental point still: it is my opinion that this genocide can be greatly scaled down by bringing reality to those most likely to **** around. You make a mistake and you live with the consequences. They'll have sex anyways--though connecting consequence and action together will lower that rate. Again, in my opinion.
-
Then surely the solution is to give teenagers an education that leads to less mistakes? And Abstinence-only is not that education.
-
It's her fault. You can always say "no"
RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE
-
I prefer calling it surprise sex.
-
I'm glad abortion exists, else I'd have spent several years watching a severely disabled child being killed by their own body.
As for abortion, if you think you are going to stop young people from having sex by banning contraceptives and abortion then you are, I'm afraid, seriously out of touch, all you will end up with is a vast and sharp increase in one-parent families, teenage parents and abandoned children, with no-one willing to adopt them. People wont stop having sex because of the risk of getting pregnant, reproduction is genetically encoded into all of us.
Personally, I think it's more about 'making more Americans' than protecting young people, but that's my own opinion.
-
It's her fault. You can always say "no". A direct result of sex is pregnancy. Disconnection with reality often distorts that view: if you **** around, you may very well become pregnant. It's a serious choice, and people should treat it as such. The youth of America are often disconnected from reality: reconnect and it is my opinion that you deal with issues regarding youth. Teen pregnancy, no matter what the rate, is why I am personally against abortion. You start at one place, and the rest will fall into line. So yes--if she goes and ****s around and comes home pregnant, she should have to face the actual consequences of her actions instead of moseying around them. It's part of the "No, it can't happen to me!" phenomenon: it'll never happen, and if it does there's a fast and easy way to dodge reality.
Your argument boils down to “sluts deserve what they get.” Your perspective penalizes female sexuality while allowing the male to escape untouched. If you can’t see the profound injustice of this, then I’m done talking to you.
-
Then surely the solution is to give teenagers an education that leads to less mistakes? And Abstinence-only is not that education.
I think abstinence-only is the best approach for most people. However, having the consequences present strengthen the education.
It's her fault. You can always say "no"
RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE
Reread what I wrote.
I'm glad abortion exists, else I'd have spent several years watching a severely disabled child being killed by their own body.
As for abortion, if you think you are going to stop young people from having sex by banning contraceptives and abortion then you are, I'm afraid, seriously out of touch, all you will end up with is a vast and sharp increase in one-parent families, teenage parents and abandoned children, with no-one willing to adopt them. People wont stop having sex because of the risk of getting pregnant, reproduction is genetically encoded into all of us.
Personally, I think it's more about 'making more Americans' than protecting young people, but that's my own opinion.
I've never said ban contraceptives. I oppose abortion. My definition of when life in the womb begins isn't the instant that the sperm fertilizes the egg. My opinion is successful implantation. Anyways--as I've said as well, adoption is a better step than trying to raise a child. In economic terms, the demand for children through adoption is much greater than the supply of children available for adoption. And yes, reproduction is coded into all of us... but somehow (by your own logic), we only began as a species then in the last ~60 years. Mhmmm...
It's her fault. You can always say "no". A direct result of sex is pregnancy. Disconnection with reality often distorts that view: if you **** around, you may very well become pregnant. It's a serious choice, and people should treat it as such. The youth of America are often disconnected from reality: reconnect and it is my opinion that you deal with issues regarding youth. Teen pregnancy, no matter what the rate, is why I am personally against abortion. You start at one place, and the rest will fall into line. So yes--if she goes and ****s around and comes home pregnant, she should have to face the actual consequences of her actions instead of moseying around them. It's part of the "No, it can't happen to me!" phenomenon: it'll never happen, and if it does there's a fast and easy way to dodge reality.
Your argument boils down to “sluts deserve what they get.” Your perspective penalizes female sexuality while allowing the male to escape untouched. If you can’t see the profound injustice of this, then I’m done talking to you.
I don't think either sex should have the experimentation en masse socially acceptable.
-
Okay, Bob, I'm sorry, but you're about to get blasted. Please take a few deep breaths after reading in case you're upset.
It's her fault. You can always say "no". A direct result of sex is pregnancy. Disconnection with reality often distorts that view: if you **** around, you may very well make someone pregnant.
Ah, okay, you think it's the woman's fault. I was nodding in agreement with you earlier in the thread*. But now you've shown your true colors.
It takes two to have sex. You can't blame one of them and ignore the other. If you do so, you're espousing a sexist view, since you are not granting equal volition and responsibility to both sexes.
Bob-san, answer this question directly: why is it the woman's responsibility to say yes or no? Is the following statement invalid:
It's his fault. He can always say "no." A direct result of sex is pregnancy. Disconnection with reality often distorts that view: if you **** around, you may very well become pregnant.
It seems to me that you don't really care much about abortion. You're scared of female sexuality and you want it tamed and controlled. This is a not an uncommon fear, whether conscious or subconscious, among men. It's a prevalent theme in every culture of the world and we have only just begun to overcome it.
By the way, it's all right to come out and use the term 'slut' instead of just coming up with creative other ways to say it. Honesty is a virtue.
This thread has been very productive in peeling away the layers of narrative surrounding this issue and illuminating some of the fears at the core. I wonder when this fear of female sexuality first started haunting mankind. It probably has something to do with the fact that only females actually know who the father of a child was, and so males have an evolutionary incentive to try to control females.
EDIT: I see you're seventeen. That explains a lot! I had similar feelings when I was seventeen and still in that self-righteous virgin stage. I was even anti-abortion. You'll grow through it.
I'm sorry if I sounded harsh; I didn't realize this when I posted.
Please read the following links before posting again, Bob-san:
Abortion rates are the same whether or not abortion is legal (WHO study, published in Lancet.) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/)
I suspect that when you read this article you will try to suggest that a) because abortion rates are low in Africa, where abortions are frequently illegal and b) many women die of complications from abortion, abortions should be banned so as to keep women safe.
Please read the following paragraphs, excerpted from that article, carefully. You can also find this study covered on the New York Times, if for some reason you consider MSNBC untrustworthy.
Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.
In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe. The vast majority of abortions — 35 million — were in the developing world. And nearly 97 percent of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. Worldwide, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion.
...
“The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary. (Emphasis mine - Battuta.)
Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.
The study defined unsafe abortions as those performed either by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards.
...
Improving women’s health, experts said, means improving access to safe abortions. Some experts criticized the restrictions that often come with donor money. Funds from the U.S. government, for example, cannot be used in any health services associated with abortion.
The gist is this: improving legal access to safe abortions prevents unsafe abortions. Total abortion rates do not change. All that we can affect is whether women have safe or unsafe (frequently deadly) abortions. Once more: if you cut back on legal abortions, women will have more unsafe abortions, and the total number of abortions will remain the same. More women will die.
Please understand that this data utterly demolishes your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that banning abortion will lower abortion rates and make people more scared of pregnancy.
This is untrue. Instead, pregnancy rates remain the same, and illegal abortions increase.
Let me emphasize this one more time by re-quoting the article:
“The only way to decrease unsafe abortion is to increase contraception,” said Sharon Camp, president and chief executive officer of the Guttmacher Institute.
You are factually wrong. You will now attempt to interpret the article or data in a way that preserves your worldview, I assume. Perhaps you will claim that the research in question is biased, or that the media is misreporting it. Please review this as well:
Affective death spirals: something both you and I need to be aware of. (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/affective-death.html)
* I was nodding in agreement with the idea that preventing pregnancies is very important, even if I disagree with your methods (which are clearly not supported by peer-reviewed research, as linked just above.)
-
And yes, reproduction is coded into all of us... but somehow (by your own logic), we only began as a species then in the last ~60 years. Mhmmm...
Where did you get that idea from? There were ways of inducing a miscarriage in use thousands of years ago, they were extremely dangerous because women had to do it via a 'backstreet' technique, because men who were too bloody arrogant to see women as anything other than 'baby machines' were against abortion.
Basically, being anti-choice has exactly the same effect. Look at Prohibition, Abstention wouldn't work any better.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#History_of_abortion
-
How about I simplify this all to where it started. I am opposed to abortion as the result of my own values. I will vote for the candidate that I see fit, relying on my own values and the perceived values of each candidate. I think it is ethically wrong, I think morally it's a sin, philosophically that it's a dangerous purging of new ideas, biologically that it's the answer to only certain conditions, and as a result should be legally banned.
-
I see you have no response. You say abortion is a sin even when you have been shown that banning abortion leads to mutilation and death of women. I wish both women and babies could be saved, but when it is a choice between babies dying or women and babies dying -- the choice is clear.
Please read what I said carefully and consider it. Many people find their convictions changing over the years, and perhaps, as you grow, so will yours.
You have made it clear that many of your objections are based on things (i.e. fear of female sexuality) that will change as you grow. Once you are in a relationship, I hope that you will grow to respect and cherish everyone's right to physical sexual expression, instead of condemning female sexuality as 'sleeping around' while giving males a free pass.
I think we've both said everything we want to say, and if we get in a debate again anywhere on the forum, I'll begin it with a clean slate. Best of luck to you.
-
Yes, my wife was called a murderer and a sinner for having an abortion too.
I wont even bother to tell you my opinion of the people who shouted that, shouldn't think I need to. Suffice to say it convinced me of exactly why I stopped going to church. One minute it's forgiveness and 'God will judge us', the next minute it's 'you're going to burn in Hell because I say so'.
To quote Chief Sitting Bull, 'I like your Christians, I hope one day to meet one.'
-
I'm sorry to hear that, Flipside.
As a person raised (happily) Christian who later became an atheist but maintains warm feelings towards my own church, I do want to say that many churches are more tolerant, so if you ever find a place you do like, give it a shot.
-
Thanks. To be honest, some of my own family are devout Christians, I don't really begrudge them that, and some of the Vicars I have met have been genuinely nice people who were shocked and somewhat outraged when I told them about it, so I don't entirely hold Christians in contempt, but I do think too many of them see themselves as Judge, Jury and Executioner of 'Gods Will', whilst at the some time saying 'No-one can understand God's Will'. Except them, apparently.
-
How about I simplify this all to where it started. I am opposed to abortion as the result of my own values. I will vote for the candidate that I see fit, relying on my own values and the perceived values of each candidate. I think it is ethically wrong, I think morally it's a sin, philosophically that it's a dangerous purging of new ideas, biologically that it's the answer to only certain conditions, and as a result should be legally banned.
I notice you avoided the more pragmatic argument I made earlier though.
Go ahead though. Vote for McCain. Vote for more abortions. And if McCain does win and the abortion rates go up I'm sure you can find a way to blame liberals for it even though you were warned it would happen.
-
And as I said, my vote for a congress(wo)man or senator will be more effective in dealing with what I consider a genocide. Other than that, other issues important to me are typically supported by McCain more-so than Obama.
-
...except for the part where abortion rates stay the same whether abortion is legal or illegal...are you forgetting that?
Babies aren't an ethnic group, so it's just mass murder. :p Add it to biocide and xenocide as one of those crimes that humanity seems perfectly cool with!
Most human pregnancies spontaneously abort anyway, so we're not actually changing much.
Anyway, let's get back on topic.
-
Most human pregnancies spontaneously abort anyway, so we're not actually changing much.
Upwards of 98% I believe.
I guess that means all female bodies are sinners by definition. Oh well - ban women, problem solved. /sarcasm
-
Most human pregnancies spontaneously abort anyway, so we're not actually changing much.
Upwards of 98% I believe.
I guess that means all female bodies are sinners by definition. Oh well - ban women, problem solved. /sarcasm
Better still, make them wear full-body clothing and stone those that dare show a bit of leg, thus tempting the men.
Oh wait....
-
Upwards of 98% I believe.
In the interest of accuracy, I think that’s an exaggeration. The numbers I’ve heard are more like a third to a half, increasing with the age of the parents. It’s dangerous to conflate failure to implant with abortion, spontaneous or otherwise – this is the root of the (false) anti-choice claim that some birth-control methods, including Plan B, are abortifacients.
Beyond that, however, I agree with the sentiment of your post.
-
The UK Medical association says that the number of pregnancies that spontaneously abort are at least 50%, possibly higher, so Rian is correct.
It should also be noted that, by the definition that a fertilised egg is a life, as has been mentioned here before, every Roman Catholic that has ever used the Rhythm method is a mass-murderer.
-
Waaait, how?
-
Explain how you come to that conclusion, Flipside. Not having sex when the woman is fertile is somehow a sin? And do note that extramarital sex is considered a sin as it is, but natural family planning has been approved by the Vatican. And the Vatican is reconsidering the the use of contraceptives.
-
Because the rhythm method relies on any fertilised egg being ejected during menstruation, that's the purpose of the Rhythm method, a woman is fertile as long as the egg is in the womb, it works by reducing the chance of the egg attaching to the wall of the womb and thus growing into a foetus, but the egg is very often fertilised when it is ejected, it does this by saying 'have sex when the egg is in the menstrual canal', hence the 'Rhythm' part of the method.
http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355
Edit: Whilst there is a lot of contention in the matter, and, personally, I'd be happy seeing some kind of contraception, even one with a 1 in 5 failure rate, being used than none, I hope I am waking you up to the idea that people are tapdancing in a minefield when it comes to contraception/abortion and religion.
-
Then surely the solution is to give teenagers an education that leads to less mistakes? And Abstinence-only is not that education.
The thing is that teenagers like to go against the flow. You can put all the disadvantages of pre-marital sex in their face, and they'll still "get it on". I went out the other day, and I saw at least five teen couples. This, considering that I only went out for, what, two hours? :mad:
It's also why some idiots die because they think they can drive a car without a licence because they've played computer games and think they know it all.
-
Wait, what? How do you know those couples weren't completely abstinent, Androgeos?
If you start arguing against teen dating, you're getting a bit silly.
-
And a beer for the General.
Also, we already know everyones views on abortion, and some people's views on teen couples. Why not move on to ... gun control, nuclear energy or whatever else that the parties disagree on and hasn't been discussed yet?
And my 2 cents:
[2 cents]
In Poland abortion is legal when:
1. the mother's life is in danger due to pregnancy
2. the child will have major defects upon birth (ie be a living example of suffering)
3. the pregnancy is a result of rape
And I seem to agree with that.
[/2 cents]
-
We've been over gun control, which ended in flaming, massive stupidity, and me getting monkeyed :rolleyes:, so let's move on to
massive nuclear flame war energy
-
Someone (preferably from the "pro-life" side) care to explain to me why fertilized eggs that are a result of rape "aren't life" while those that aren't a result of rape "are"?
-
[sarcasm]Because their father is evil and deserves to burn with his unborn kid in eternal hellfire, duh[/sarcasm]
-
Because the rhythm method relies on any fertilised egg being ejected during menstruation, that's the purpose of the Rhythm method, a woman is fertile as long as the egg is in the womb, it works by reducing the chance of the egg attaching to the wall of the womb and thus growing into a foetus, but the egg is very often fertilised when it is ejected, it does this by saying 'have sex when the egg is in the menstrual canal', hence the 'Rhythm' part of the method.
http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355
Edit: Whilst there is a lot of contention in the matter, and, personally, I'd be happy seeing some kind of contraception, even one with a 1 in 5 failure rate, being used than none, I hope I am waking you up to the idea that people are tapdancing in a minefield when it comes to contraception/abortion and religion.
Not always is that correct. Anyways--there's plenty of time that there is no egg in the womb. Also, as has been said, there are more miscarriages than we think. I don't think that number is 98% (I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall. But anyways--the Rhythm Method is natural family planning: basically to ensure families can live without serious financial burden without abortion. Some couples use it, some don't. Anyways-it's really not tap-dancing in a minefield if you keep track of when things happen. Most information on natural family planning relies on constant awareness of the woman's typical cycles... not "fourteen days and pray".
-
Because the rhythm method relies on any fertilised egg being ejected during menstruation, that's the purpose of the Rhythm method, a woman is fertile as long as the egg is in the womb, it works by reducing the chance of the egg attaching to the wall of the womb and thus growing into a foetus, but the egg is very often fertilised when it is ejected, it does this by saying 'have sex when the egg is in the menstrual canal', hence the 'Rhythm' part of the method.
http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355
Edit: Whilst there is a lot of contention in the matter, and, personally, I'd be happy seeing some kind of contraception, even one with a 1 in 5 failure rate, being used than none, I hope I am waking you up to the idea that people are tapdancing in a minefield when it comes to contraception/abortion and religion.
Not always is that correct. Anyways--there's plenty of time that there is no egg in the womb. Also, as has been said, there are more miscarriages than we think. I don't think that number is 98% (I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall. But anyways--the Rhythm Method is natural family planning: basically to ensure families can live without serious financial burden without abortion. Some couples use it, some don't. Anyways-it's really not tap-dancing in a minefield if you keep track of when things happen. Most information on natural family planning relies on constant awareness of the woman's typical cycles... not "fourteen days and pray".
Even if it's not always correct, you are still talking about 1 in 5 attempts at it resulting in pregnancy.
http://www.womens-health.co.uk/rhythm.html
It also, as the article points out, provides zero protection against STD's etc. So this 'natural family planning' is actually a game of Russian Roulette both with your health and with your family planning.
Besides, as I said in the original post about the Rhythm method, 'If you believe that life begins with fertilisation.'
Oh, and by the way, part of the way that Contraceptive and 'morning after' pills both work is by preventing the Egg from attaching to the walls of the Womb by thinning the lining, so therefore they are fine?
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/contraceptivepills.htm
-
I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall.
So just to file away stuff for future discussions, you have no objections to the current research on foetal stem cells then?
-
I personally don't define pregnancy until the zygote attaches to the wall.
So just to file away stuff for future discussions, you have no objections to the current research on foetal stem cells then?
I have absolutely no objection to retrieving stem cells from medical "waste" and from adults. Harvesting from adults is, in my opinion, a top source as it's viable and based off the informed decision of the donor him/herself. Amniotic stem cells are also possible, though will effectively need closer supervision so that the fluid containing the stem cells is not contaminated. During a c-section this is also possible in some cases, though my opinion is that if it will interfere with the surgery or is not consented to by the mother, that it should not occur. In addition, cord blood contains hematopoietic stem cells, which I see as another source for treating human disease and is immensely helpful, and therefore should be banked publicly. In extension, I do not look too favorably on private banking, since donating cord blood should be used to save lives. In my opinion, it is invasive and ethically wrong to harvest embryonic stem cells. My basic definition of when life begins is based upon the fact that, in current practice, a zygote that does not attach to the wall of the woman's uterus will be ejected by menstruation.
-
So you are okay with Plan B and similar morning-after pills? They just prevent that attachment from occuring.
Also, are ectopic pregnancies not real people since they don't attach to the uterine wall?
Something like half of zygotes that do attach to the wall spontaneously abort anyway.
By the way, if there was a male contraceptive, would you take it? What about if you had to choose between a vasectomy for yourself or a tubal ligation for your partner -- which one would you prefer?
The whole stem cell issue looks ready to die, anyway, since it looks like scientists are learning how to convert ordinary cells into stem cells.
-
So you are okay with Plan B and similar morning-after pills? They just prevent that attachment from occuring.
Also, are ectopic pregnancies not real people since they don't attach to the uterine wall?
Something like half of zygotes that do attach to the wall spontaneously abort anyway.
By the way, if there was a male contraceptive, would you take it? What about if you had to choose between a vasectomy for yourself or a tubal ligation for your partner -- which one would you prefer?
The whole stem cell issue looks ready to die, anyway, since it looks like scientists are learning how to convert ordinary cells into stem cells.
Plan B and morning-after pills are not something I support. I guess you can say naturally or biologically, I'm alright with natural processes aborting a zygote prior to attachment. When you start going and chemically inhibit the development of the fetus' placenta, I have a problem with it. The only time I see Plan B and morning-after pills alright is in the wake of criminal sexual activity. As I said before: I don't think they should be easily obtainable and support Christian pharmacies that refuse to stock them. If you want that type of pill, go to the police department, file a report, and then opt to take a Plan B or morning-after pill. As I said before: if she wants that route, file a police report. If it was rape they need to do the vaginal swab and have it sent to a lab, basically as protecting for rape victims and as a way to prosecute rapists.
And yes I realize the high percentage of zygotes that never attach or attach and then are ejected during menstruation. I think biologically that's fine: but I don't like targeted forcing of miscarriage or other forms of abortion. And yes: there will be a good amount of "typical" miscarriages, and that not every abortion is adding, in my opinion, a death to the count. Many of those (at least a decent percent: maybe not even 20%) would have ended in a normal miscarriage.
Anyways--on the topic of male contraceptives in the form of vasectomy or tubal ligation ("tubes tied"), I would prefer neither route. If necessary, I would converse with whomever my opposite would be and have their take at it. I personally find a vasectomy a scary thought, much as I'd expect a woman to find tubal ligation a scary thought. Really--I have never been on that topic before, so I don't have a particular take. And in the future, when rearing one or more children becomes a financial burden, there may be other options. So, until I am faced with the actual situation I will find it difficult to take a stance for myself or for my partner.
Anyways--I've already been faced with many of the other topics discussed, so I have an opinion on those. Perhaps that opinion will change in the future. And anyways--I do hope the stem cell issue is resolved. Science is moving forward on that issue: there are new and less questionable methods of obtaining stem cells. In research, embryonic stem cells is just one source and is the most contested, as many scientists in the field had come to the conclusion that it's a single source and that there are other sources. Adult stem cells is a better process, as is cord blood and even the attempt through amniotic fluid. There are 3 more sources of similar material, so I think it better that we harvest stem cells from waste or through adult donation.
-
Someone (preferably from the "pro-life" side) care to explain to me why fertilized eggs that are a result of rape "aren't life" while those that aren't a result of rape "are"?
Or are you one of those types that disagree with anything that's unnatural?
-
If you were raped, Bob-san, how easy do you think it would be to calmly report it and make an appointment for an anal swab? Not as easy as you're probably imagining right now.
The shame of rape is an acknowledged and monumental problem to the prosecution of rapists. So many people (men and women alike, but mostly women) just don't come forward unless coaxed. People still blame themselves for being raped, tragic as it is.
-
If you were raped, Bob-san, how easy do you think it would be to calmly report it and make an appointment for an anal swab? Not as easy as you're probably imagining right now.
The shame of rape is an acknowledged and monumental problem to the prosecution of rapists. So many people (men and women alike, but mostly women) just don't come forward unless coaxed. People still blame themselves for being raped, tragic as it is.
Well that's up to the "system" to figure out how to "coax" these people to the open. I don't have answers for every crisis: but I do have views on some.
-
It's also up to us. Most rape is social rape -- date rapes and rapes by family members.
If we say things like 'it's her fault. She got what she deserved for sleeping around,' whether with regard to pregnancy or rape (both situations that people need to come forward about), then we're going to scare off the people who need our help.
We need to make sure women, in particular, aren't ashamed to talk about the situations they were in.
I have had close friends told that they are 'dressed to be raped' or that they act in a way that makes them deserve rape. These kind of signals prevent rape victims from coming forward.
-
Of course, if you want to be truly cold-bloodedly logical about it, you would argue that abortion should be banned because we're in a state of negative population growth...
-
And if you wanted to be truly religious about it, you could say that every child that is aborted is promised a place in heaven, and therefore we are doing them a favour ;)
-
And if you wanted to be truly religious about it, you could say that every child that is aborted is promised a place in heaven, and therefore we are doing them a favour ;)
unless you believe in original sin.
I, however, don't think anything has a soul, and I'm perfectly fine with abortion and sex without consequences and all that. I pretty much don't care about a fetus/baby until it starts thinking for itself. If it's killed before it's self-aware, then nothing is harmed.
that said, I wrap it up when needed, and I take precautions so such FALCON PUNCHING doesnt need to be done.
So, couple nights ago my religious ex (who is engaged to my buddy) was messing with my drunk friend, putting ripped up pieces of paper and peanut M&Ms in his drink, asking him why he doesn't believe in god, and telling him that I'm evil and that I don't have a soul, shortly after i tell her to stop messing with him and putting stuff in his drink. I just thought that this was important to add that religion and morals don't go together.
-
Exactly, to be honest, I was just showing how, with two posts, you can turn the entire position on abortion on it's head and still give justifiable reasons for it ;)
I'm strongly in favour of contraceptives, purely because it means you can avoid abortion. I don't believe Abortion should be used as a contraceptive, not only is that silly, it's dangerous, and Abstention is exactly the same, silly and dangerous, because it doesn't work, and it won't ever work, wanting it to work won't change that, preaching fire and brimstone won't either, never has.
So yep, wrap it up and have fun, and if God exists, just remind Him that He designed Testosterone, Oestrogen and all those other goodies that make us behave that way, frankly, any God that dumps that lot on teenagers and then expects them to behave is a sadistic git, and I wouldn't want anything to do with Him anyway.
-
Of course, if you want to be truly cold-bloodedly logical about it, you would argue that abortion should be banned because we're in a state of negative population growth...
I wasn't aware that we were on the run from the Cylons.
-
Of course, if you want to be truly cold-bloodedly logical about it, you would argue that abortion should be banned because we're in a state of negative population growth...
I wasn't aware that we were on the run from the Cylons.
Little did you know...
But seriously, most Western world countries are only in a state of population growth via immigration.
-
But seriously, most Western world countries are only in a state of population growth via immigration.
It must be the falling birth rate. Such a price to pay for widespread education, eh? :blah:
-
Actually, it's more fuelled more by the cost of raising those families.
-
But seriously, most Western world countries are only in a state of population growth via immigration.
Fine with me.
-
But seriously, most Western world countries are only in a state of population growth via immigration.
Fine with me.
Agreed, what we need to work on right now is not numbers, but distribution.
-
Immigrants tend to have more children and die younger due to their poorer upbringing. Sounds like it sorts itself out.
-
<lion king> And so the glorious circle of life continues. </lion king>
-
Much as I like what Obama preaches, it's rather vague. McCain is much less so, but has probably blown his chance at the election.
no.. it's really not
but only the vague stuff makes good soundbites
-
Obama.
If only because I have it on reasonably good authority Palin is an intelligent design proponent.
and thinks that women should have to pay for their rape kit, then carry the baby to term fathered by their rapist
-
One word. Hatemonger. Vague, yes, but so very explanatory.
I'm not seeing much of an explanation, but to each their own, I guess. Can I fire back with something like "flowery, substance-less prose," or something along those lines? :p
no.. because it would be an inaccurate statement
-
Somebody brought up an interesting point to me today. While we blame Bush for the economy, and doubtless he deserves to shoulder a good amount of it, in a very real sense we are forgetting that for the last couple of Congressional elections, we have had a Democratic congress. And put bluntly, the Executive Branch is in the driver's seat, but Congress navigates. At best, Congress has probably been engaged in sabotaging any serious efforts to deal with the situation since the campaign started months ago so the Democrats could take the presidency; at worst, they have an equal or greater share of the blame.
those democratic congress (single, 2006->present) didn't make the changes to law, and don't have to executive powers to appoint inept do-nothings to enforcement positions, that bush's first 6 years of republican house and senate and his being president give the republicans
-
(a bunch of posts)
I got news for you bro - Trickle Down Economics don't work
never have
never will
the entire idea is fallacious
-
For some reason, whenever I read about Palin, I think of the literary explanation of the 'Scouring of the Shire' from LoTR.
Fighting the 'Big' enemy is all well and good, but at the end of the day, you have to go home, and you have to make sure that it is a home worth going to, sometimes you have to fight for that. The coalition went into Iraq to install (in their definition) freedom of Speech and Human Rights, particularly for women, whilst, at home, those very Rights are at risk of being slowly eroded. If McCain were Saruman, then Palin would be Wormtongue.
-
If McCain were Saruman, then Palin would be Wormtongue.
Ahahaha! Funny, but sadly half the country seems to see it the other way around (that the Dems are the bad guys, etc.)
-
I know, it's kind of odd, considering McCain/Palin is in favour of destroying natural habitats for the sake of industrialisation, which is precisely what Saruman/Wormtongue caused to happen in the Shire before the scouring ;)
-
So, Kazan, is there some reason you are mentally inable to condense that all into one post?
-
:lol:
Quintuple-post. I did that once.
-
He's too jaded and srs bsns to bother with post formatting. :p
-
In that case, can a moderator do it for him? :p
-
I'm just wondering why he bothered digging up a tongue-in-cheek comment of mine from three weeks ago in a thread I no longer give a damn about. :p
-
Voted for McCain. Tho i wont vote in this election. Only ones who have a chance are Obama and Cain. And they both suck.
-
Voted for McCain. Tho i wont vote in this election. Only ones who have a chance are Obama and Cain. And they both suck.
Well, they would. Politics gets in your head these days.
-
So I watched the first mccain/obama debate... McCain definitely won. Well, if you define winning as getting away with the most misrepresentation of the other candidate's plans/policies/voting record...
I was surprised Obama went on the offensive so early in the debate, actually.
-
(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/5945/mccainfn1.gif)
-
Given that I've heard that the McCain campaign actually went out and registered voteforthemilf.com that's probably not a joke. :p
-
You know she’s bad news when her own party starts undermining her credibility this way.
-
Well apparently they realised it was a bad idea after a while and redirected the site to Google instead of the official McCain website.
-
Given that I've heard that the McCain campaign actually went out and registered voteforthemilf.com that's probably not a joke. :p
i don't see how they'd know that it was the McCain campaign. it could be my dad for all i know... it's registered privately, and it could be any one of the democrats (or *gasp* republicans) in this country!
:)