Page 5 of 34 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 500
Like Tree59Likes

Thread: Gingerbread Dojo #5 - dalem & zraver Sweep Some Legs

  1. #61
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    13,262
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    And this is "conservatives starve people" to you?
    Given what the conservatives were fighting to protect yes. Everything else aside, the advent of progressiveness with progressive things like pubic sanitation, public schools, mass immunizations, public roads, public health care has coincided with the greatest expansion of wealth ever seen. Kids no longer die by the bucket load of things like Typhus, diphtheria, polio. They can go to school becuase they don't have to work. Fire and building codes have cut down on the number of super deadly fires. People don't die of starvation in the US anymore and our chronic malnutrition is now too much of the wrong type of food not too little of any food at all. This is all reflected in a life expectancy that has nearly doubled in 100 years.

    Right. The rules about marriage are already set. Conservatives are trying to "protect" them.
    If the rules were set, why are we passing laws on marriage? The rules were not set, since the 14th Amendment prohibits unequal protections of the law.

    There is no evidence that two mommies or two daddies is better or worse for the kids.
    Yes there is

    Kids with Lesbian Parents May Do Better Than Their Peers - TIME

    That's one way to think about it. There are others, I guess, unless you're being all dogmatical about it.
    Now your trying to split hairs, but the fact remains those who identify as evangelical have the highest divorce rate.

    Those were all favored by conservatives?
    yes

    Or proven social benefits.
    Liberty isn't about what you can give to the nation, but what you can do becuase you want to do it without taking anything away from the nation. Imagine the tyranny of social benefitism if only those things perceived by whom ever held the gun proscribed every activity that did not accrue social benefit. Take a girl on a date: you can go give blood, volunteer at a shelter, pick up trash on the side of a highway. But no movies they glorify violence, no ice cream sugars bad for you, no dance clubs, no booze no cruises and mandatory curfews for all since sleep deprivation is linked to heart disease....

    I did? I doubt that very much. Regardless, your logic doesn't hold.
    your words- liberals, who shy away from things like simple love of country and tradition, "can-do", and "ideally the trigger break will come as a complete surprise".

    [quote]Well, over the last 40 years or so it's been the liberals and Democrats who dislike the military but love using it. Think President Clinton.[/quote

    Well except for Iraq x2, Kuwait x2, Iran, Grenada, Lebanon, Philippines, Honduras, Columbia, Nicarauga, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan..... just saying

    It's just a topic I'm not interested in and that I think is irrelevant. You want to talk about how you think people should be treated differently because of their genetic morphologies, and I don't.
    Not should, ARE and that is the problem, they should not be treated differently but are.

    Oh no! A kid might choose to feel ostracized! Oh nooooooooes! That aside, I think a plain old "moment of silence" is fair and appropriate and covers all the bases.
    Agreed, but that is not what has been happening.

    If you want to restate that as "dale believes that there have to be rules", I'd agree with it.
    Wether you beleive it or not, you support it. Of course there have to be rules, but discrimination is harmful when those rules serve no useful purpose.

    I'm curious - would you consider a zoning law a restriction of liberty?
    Depends.... rezoning a neighborhood and using imminent domain to seize the properties for below market value to then sell to developers- YES. Zoning out certain races- YES Keeping sex shops away from schools- NO.

    Sort of a rehash of the prior affair. I know that in your world, religions and moral and ethical codes are separate.
    That is what you asked for wasn't it? To refire the old debate. If ethics or morals are universal [they are not] then we don't need religion, if they are not universal then we dont need religion becuase they can be reached through other means.

    I actually think it's the only significant point we've brought up in all this sparring.
    which saddens me

    If you really think the only time I've shown honesty is the one time I've kindof agreed with your opinion, then why engage me at all?
    Because it appeared you were asking me too...
    I believe you are being honest about your concerns with racism, gay stuff, labor laws, etc. etc., regardless of whether I agree with your opinions. If you think that I'm being somehow disengenuous, either by ignorance or by design, then what's the point?
    its a dojo, I was trying to ruffle your feathers.

    I will delight in pointing out that this could be yet another entry in the list of things we discussed a year ago that make your positions relatively indistinguishable from those of liberals.
    yup

    1) you favor confiscatory taxation
    Actually I favor balanced taxation where people do not get over taxed for the benefits they receive.

    2) you dismiss the importance of gender distinctions
    where? I disagree that sex and gender are the same, but that is not the same thing as what you just claimed.

    3) you believe that law and morality are ultimately separable
    Of course they are, if they were not then we could not have no-fault divorces for example.

    and now we can add a fourth:

    4) conclusions different than your own cannot be reached by means of reason
    Sure they can, pick an issue and lets reason it out.

    So, by that logic, killing a fetus because it's inconvenient for the mother to have a child is the same as killing a fetus because birthing it will kill the mother? The outcome is a dead fetus either way.
    No, like I said I judge by result, in the first example a person died so another would not have to grow up, in the second a person died to save the life of another.

    Labor, production; toMAYto, toMAHto.
    Nope... if a companies labor costs are 15% of the cost of production and the tax costs are 30% of the cost of production which will make a company move quicker- high labor costs or high tax costs?

    And you think they had conservatives fooled then, on immigration? And we can note that you basically agree that liberals are generally pro-illegals as compared to conservatives?
    I think they [leadership] are both generally pro-illegal but for different reasons.


    Then we agree, and you can stop prattling on about cheap labor and struggling margins, because the important part is that they are illegal.
    but conservative leaders don't see it this way, they are empowered by your votes.

    It's true that Republicans are whores for farm subsidies and need to get off the teat. The whole Tea Party movement grew out of conservative revulsion at TARP though. Which "explosion" in military spending are you talking about?
    Bush 43
    DOR likes this.

  2. #62
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,020
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I reject the whole pinko agenda and side with Dale.
    That's one.

    -dale

  3. #63
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    2,507
    "but conservative leaders don't see it this way, they are empowered by your votes." Are you suggesting that only Obama types are 'empowered by our votes' (I assume you too vote), or that only 'progressives' should be alowed to be empowered by OUR votes? Quite simply zraver the economics and results of it's application disprove your liberal theories. Both end in a form of despotism when taken to extremes but so does any extremism be it religious, racial or economic. Your form of political ideology seeks to disinherit the wealthier in favour of the poorer but this too is a form of despotism and sadly for you economicly it doesn't work; it just creates greater dependency. Thankyou but I chose free will.

  4. #64
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    13,262
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I trust not well meaning 'liberals' that tell me what I can and can't do. A fascist makes himself obvious and proclaims his (or her) brand brashly and with force thus they normaly come to brash and forceful ends for try to tell other people what to do for too long. The pinkos among us are a more like a creeping sickness that tell what you what you can/can't do for your own good. Thankyou very much but it's my life, it is my Divine Right in theological terms to chose whether to eat an apple - or to or wear a seatbelt when driving. I do NOT need a well meaning State of ANY proclaimed ideology telling me what I must do 'for my own good'. Ultra right wing and ultra left wing both no doubt think they are organising my life for the better; I beg to retain that right myself and if necessary I, like many others before me, will fight for this right.
    Great post and I agree with you with one caveat, those who engage in reckless disregard should either carry stupidity insurance or be allowed to die at the crash scene to spare the rest of us the cost of stitching them back together. Anything less is them using the power of the state to impose the cost of their misadventure on me and mine.

    When it comes to tax and the Governments of the West imposing more and more tax on the productive, private sector side, of our economies it has clearly failed. All that has been achieved is to create what in Britain we call a 'dependcy culture' where people live their whole lives on benefits. So as far as the post WW2 pinko experiment I consider this a failure that produced the opposite effect; those dependant on state handouts become a self created 'underclass'. Why? Because you have taken too much money out of the productive sector in the taxes for them to compete and create sufficient jobs. Obama and his job creation projects are essentialy just the end latest part of this pinko failure to recognise that robbing the rich to feed the poor doesn't work economicly. Government moeny comes from rich people and companies - from profit; it is wasted on creating jobs for the hell of it and that do not make a profit.
    Again great post, you won't find me arguing for a culture of dependency. I like the term safety ladder as opposed to safety net. Nets snare and entangle, ladders are a mobility tool. Things like student loans to help people maximize their talents, nutritional and medical supports for kids who are tomorrows workers, mandatory work hours for anyone on the dole even if its make work making big rocks into little rocks or digging and filling in holes, day care support, properly funded, focused and organized public schools, community health departments, pregnancy and well baby support to cut down on birth defects. Having child support payments go to mom and not the state on a sliding scsle the poorer the mom the more she keeps to a certain level and then benefits start falling off to zero.

    I don't support work free payments, or increasing payments based on the production of children. There needs be a cap on the number of children and on the number of dads. 3 kids, 1 dad unless the mother has married and divorced and then 2 dads regardless of how many times she goes down the isle. Any kids not from those dads doesn't get counted period. Dads who don't have real jobs need to be doing community service.

    if you want to eradicate poverty (which is a relative term anyway) stop taxing so much and let companies etc employ people.
    To a point both the Uk and US show what happens when capitalism is unrestrained. Your country hung children in Tyburn for staling bread.

    I reject the whole pinko agenda and side with Dale.
    If you reject the pinko agenda, how can you side with Dale?

    "but conservative leaders don't see it this way, they are empowered by your votes." Are you suggesting that only Obama types are 'empowered by our votes' (I assume you too vote), or that only 'progressives' should be alowed to be empowered by OUR votes?
    Never said that at all, was merely pointing out that American conservatives have about as much affinity to liberty as Stalin did.

    Quite simply zraver the economics and results of it's application disprove your liberal theories. Both end in a form of despotism when taken to extremes but so does any extremism be it religious, racial or economic. Your form of political ideology seeks to disinherit the wealthier in favour of the poorer but this too is a form of despotism and sadly for you economicly it doesn't work; it just creates greater dependency. Thankyou but I chose free will.
    wait what?

    In case you missed it here is zraver's economic plan (assuming I had the power to implement it)

    No corporate income taxes at the federal level and only what regulatory fees and use taxes are needed to fund actually necessary regulations and uses. Things like worker safety, highway maintenance, down stream discharges, consumer protection and sensible uniform standards and weights stuff like that.

    Fair trade- we open our massive market in direct correlation to how open our trading partners is opened to us.

    Balanced application of tariffs to protect jobs without long term disadvantaging consumers.

    Properly direct use tax revenues into the uses they are meant to support. gas tax money being sued for nature trails and rail roads are junk.

    Personal taxes based on the amount of benefit received. A person making $40,000 is using a lot less government services on average than someone making $4 million. I would do this principally though taxing the flow of money. for amounts at the median income of below a flat rate of 10 cents on the dollar every time a dollar spent. For persons with income and investments amounts over that the same 10 cents on the dollar spent and 1 cent on the dollar moved. Sell shares worth 1 million ad flip them into new shares the government gets 1 percent or $20,000 dollars ($10,000). Since money males money and long term investments tend to pay off best this will hopefully reduce speculation which leads to bubbles thus promoting stability. It also means that since no one lives forever the money eventually gets taxed. It will hopefully also cut down on stock options and golden parachutes since there would be no difference between paying a CEO with a dollar or a stock.

    No estate taxes, since I am taxing the movement of money I don't need huge end of life wealth grabs

    No foreign lobbying or foreign interest lobbying.

    No government ponzi schemes, repeal medicare part D, phase out social security as a trust fund and switch it to an inheritable interest bearing familial fund.

    Now care to tell me why it wont work?

  5. #65
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    2,507
    No no you're blinding me with numbers, I beg to 'plead a Tankie' (sozzled) for now.

  6. #66
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,020
    (Note some snips for length.)

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Given what the conservatives were fighting to protect yes.
    No. Equating the reduction of a social program or the attempt to avoid an artificial floor for wages with a Five Year Plan or a Great Leap Forward is ridiculous.

    Everything else aside, the advent of progressiveness with progressive things like pubic sanitation, public schools, mass immunizations, public roads, public health care has coincided with the greatest expansion of wealth ever seen. Kids no longer die by the bucket load of things like Typhus, diphtheria, polio. They can go to school becuase they don't have to work. Fire and building codes have cut down on the number of super deadly fires. People don't die of starvation in the US anymore and our chronic malnutrition is now too much of the wrong type of food not too little of any food at all. This is all reflected in a life expectancy that has nearly doubled in 100 years.
    That's quite a list. In your world conservatives were against all of those things then? (How far back are we stretching this whole thing anyway? "Public sanitation" or not as a comparative? Really?)

    If the rules were set, why are we passing laws on marriage? The rules were not set, since the 14th Amendment prohibits unequal protections of the law.
    "Norman, coordinate!" People are turning to the law as a last resort to protect their tradition against the actions of small numbers of activists who refuse to read their dictionaries.

    "May". Even the editor who came up with the title understands that the study showcased wasn't conclusive.

    Now your trying to split hairs, but the fact remains those who identify as evangelical have the highest divorce rate.
    I'm not splitting hairs, I'm showing a different interpretation.

    and before that bans on inter-racial marriage,
    As I undertand it anti-miscegnation laws were fairly universal here in the 18th and 19th centuries. I'm ignorant of the history of their repeal or any challengers or supporters.

    segregation,
    In the timeline where most of us are from, it was the Republicans who pushed Civil Rights legislation and the Democrats who resisted it.

    opposing contract reform, opposing level billing for rail roads, opposing cartels, opposing trust busting... its a long history of anti-liberty acts by the nations conservatives.
    Actually those things are a long list of very broad topics - I'm not aware of any conservative vs. liberal interpretation of any of them.

    Liberty isn't about what you can give to the nation, but what you can do becuase you want to do it without taking anything away from the nation. Imagine the tyranny of social benefitism if only those things perceived by whom ever held the gun proscribed every activity that did not accrue social benefit. Take a girl on a date: you can go give blood, volunteer at a shelter, pick up trash on the side of a highway. But no movies they glorify violence, no ice cream sugars bad for you, no dance clubs, no booze no cruises and mandatory curfews for all since sleep deprivation is linked to heart disease....
    The gay marriage thing again. I already agreed that conservatives are agin' it. To you that's oppression, to me that's simply understanding a dictionary.

    your words- "can-do", and "ideally the trigger break will come as a complete surprise".
    Note that the phrase "liberals, who shy away from things like simple love of country..." is not the same as the phrase "...liberals don't love their country.". Seeing them next to each other now, do you want me to explain the difference or do you get my meaning?

    Well, over the last 40 years or so it's been the liberals and Democrats who dislike the military but love using it. Think President Clinton.
    Well except for Iraq x2, Kuwait x2, Iran, Grenada, Lebanon, Philippines, Honduras, Columbia, Nicarauga, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan..... just saying
    Here the key phrase would be "...dislike the military but love using it."

    Not should, ARE and that is the problem, they should not be treated differently but are.
    Your racism thing again.

    Wether you beleive it or not, you support it. Of course there have to be rules, but discrimination is harmful when those rules serve no useful purpose.
    Just because you disagree with their purpose does not mean they have no purpose.

    Depends.... rezoning a neighborhood and using imminent domain to seize the properties for below market value to then sell to developers- YES. Zoning out certain races- YES Keeping sex shops away from schools- NO.
    Okay, your choices seem pretty arbitrary. To me any zoning law is a restriction of liberty, and since I accept the need for zoning laws I therefore accept the need for some restrictions on liberty. EVERY law, in fact, is a restriction of liberty, so a society not in anarchy understands and accepts that some minimal level of constraint of liberties is necessary and required.

    I don't think any of that makes me a Stalin.

    That is what you asked for wasn't it? To refire the old debate. If ethics or morals are universal [they are not] then we don't need religion, if they are not universal then we dont need religion becuase they can be reached through other means.
    Can be, but historically have not been.

    which saddens me

    Because it appeared you were asking me too...

    its a dojo, I was trying to ruffle your feathers.
    You must have been to some weird dojos. I'll rephrase my question in the form of a question:

    With my responses, do you think that I'm being somehow disengenuous, either by ignorance or by design?

    Actually I favor balanced taxation where people do not get over taxed for the benefits they receive.
    Which for an income tax is a "progressive" tax. In terms of straight percentages, that's not "balanced".

    where? I disagree that sex and gender are the same, but that is not the same thing as what you just claimed.
    No, that's pretty much the same.

    Of course they are, if they were not then we could not have no-fault divorces for example.
    This was actually a great learning point for me in our otehr discussion. I finally understood why you have to have so many rules in place. In your world no moral reasons exist to constrain behaviors, so legal reasons must exist in their place. Makes perfect sense.

    Sure they can, pick an issue and lets reason it out.
    Oh, that's what I'm trying here but you seem to be rather immune to outlooks other than your own.

    No, like I said I judge by result, in the first example a person died so another would not have to grow up, in the second a person died to save the life of another.
    But the outcome was the same - a dead fetus. A live mother. You said you "judge by outcome". If that's true how can one choice be better or worse?

    Nope... if a companies labor costs are 15% of the cost of production and the tax costs are 30% of the cost of production which will make a company move quicker- high labor costs or high tax costs?
    Fair point - let's reduce both the price of labor here AND corporate taxes.

    I think they [leadership] are both generally pro-illegal but for different reasons.
    Leadership maybe, but conservatives in general are not pro-illegal and liberals in general are.

    Bush 43
    If you look at percentages military spending didn't "explode" at all under Bush 43.

    -dale

  7. #67
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,570
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Out of curiosity who did they include for poverty. Just Americans or illegals and recent immigrants as well.
    Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations

    Undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens.
    Because all residents of the United States living in households are represented in the sample of households interviewed by the CPS, undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens are probably included in CPS data. Because the CPS makes no attempt to ascertain the legal status of any person interviwed, these individuals cannot be identified from CPS data.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    2,507
    "No. Equating the reduction of a social program or the attempt to avoid an artificial floor for wages with a Five Year Plan or a Great Leap Forward is ridiculous." Counter productice long term.

  9. #69
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    13,262
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    (Note some snips for length.)

    No. Equating the reduction of a social program or the attempt to avoid an artificial floor for wages with a Five Year Plan or a Great Leap Forward is ridiculous.
    I am arguing the conservative v progressive which is a timeline from roughly 1880 forward.

    That's quite a list. In your world conservatives were against all of those things then? (How far back are we stretching this whole thing anyway? "Public sanitation" or not as a comparative? Really?)
    see above


    "Norman, coordinate!" People are turning to the law as a last resort to protect their tradition against the actions of small numbers of activists who refuse to read their dictionaries.
    what exactly are they protecting THIER tradition from? gay's marrying has about as much impact on your marriage as some woman in Idaho wearing pink or blue instead of white.


    "May". Even the editor who came up with the title understands that the study showcased wasn't conclusive.
    You said there was none.

    I'm not splitting hairs, I'm showing a different interpretation.
    By redefining group membership arbitrarily instead of letting people self select.


    As I undertand it anti-miscegnation laws were fairly universal here in the 18th and 19th centuries. I'm ignorant of the history of their repeal or any challengers or supporters.
    Generally only in existence in the South, the rest of the country had other reasons to not pass such laws.

    In the timeline where most of us are from, it was the Republicans who pushed Civil Rights legislation and the Democrats who resisted it.
    Ahh, but I am talking conservative v liberal, not Republican v Democrat.

    Actually those things are a long list of very broad topics - I'm not aware of any conservative vs. liberal interpretation of any of them.
    want some?

    The gay marriage thing again. I already agreed that conservatives are agin' it. To you that's oppression, to me that's simply understanding a dictionary.
    So if I print a dictionary will you be for it?

    Note that the phrase "liberals, who shy away from things like simple love of country..." is not the same as the phrase "...liberals don't love their country.". Seeing them next to each other now, do you want me to explain the difference or do you get my meaning?
    You made the comment, why don't you explain it


    Here the key phrase would be "...dislike the military but love using it."
    By love using it, whats the standard? the number of uses per president averaged out?

    Your racism thing again.
    Not mine, its real.

    [quote]Just because you disagree with their purpose does not mean they have no purpose.[/quotre]

    so what is the purpose of sentencing imbalances?

    Okay, your choices seem pretty arbitrary. To me any zoning law is a restriction of liberty, and since I accept the need for zoning laws I therefore accept the need for some restrictions on liberty. EVERY law, in fact, is a restriction of liberty, so a society not in anarchy understands and accepts that some minimal level of constraint of liberties is necessary and required.

    I don't think any of that makes me a Stalin.
    Its where you place the level

    Can be, but historically have not been.
    Disagree, look the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment various UN protocols...

    You must have been to some weird dojos. I'll rephrase my question in the form of a question:

    With my responses, do you think that I'm being somehow disengenuous, either by ignorance or by design?
    Normally no, but even if you were it wouldn't matter to me. But sometimes, yes I do think so.

    Which for an income tax is a "progressive" tax. In terms of straight percentages, that's not "balanced".
    straight or flat percentages ie regressive taxes are not balanced.

    No, that's pretty much the same.
    So is nurse a gender role or a sex role?

    This was actually a great learning point for me in our otehr discussion. I finally understood why you have to have so many rules in place. In your world no moral reasons exist to constrain behaviors, so legal reasons must exist in their place. Makes perfect sense.
    what rules?

    Oh, that's what I'm trying here but you seem to be rather immune to outlooks other than your own.
    talking to yourself? I mean look at the flippant answers to racism and gay marriage by you. Or how you call a regressive tax balanced, or prefer a dictionary definition of a malleable institution over reasoned debate.

    But the outcome was the same - a dead fetus. A live mother. You said you "judge by outcome". If that's true how can one choice be better or worse?
    The outcome was not the same, in one a life was saved, not so in the other.

    Fair point - let's reduce both the price of labor here AND corporate taxes.
    heres a chance to reason- what will be the likely outcome of reducing both? If labor gets so cheap the workers cannot buy what they make, where is the market?

    Leadership maybe, but conservatives in general are not pro-illegal and liberals in general are.
    They keep voting them in- deeds over words.

    If you look at percentages military spending didn't "explode" at all under Bush 43.
    It doubled while he was in office to over $600 billion a year by 2007, more than doubled by the time he left office.

  10. #70
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,020
    Generic Conservatives Bad, Liberals Good

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    I am arguing the conservative v progressive which is a timeline from roughly 1880 forward.
    Okay, but I still think your equivalency is silly.

    want some?
    Not really. But if you must, you must.

    Military

    You made the comment, why don't you explain it
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem
    Note that the phrase "liberals, who shy away from things like simple love of country..." is not the same as the phrase "...liberals don't love their country.". Seeing them next to each other now, do you want me to explain the difference or do you get my meaning?
    Sure thing. Liberals (over the last 50 years or so) tend to focus on things America has done wrong as opposed to things that America has done right, and therefore view a base acceptance of this country's moral and geopolitical primacy as foolish and naive. That does not mean that they cannot or will not "love their country" but it does mean that is is not as reflexive for them, as a group, than it is for someone of a more conservative bent.

    I could cut the same turn of phrase for conservatives - "conservatives, who shy away from things like societal change for change's sake" would not be the same as "conservatives see all societal change as negative."

    See the differences there?

    By love using it, whats the standard? the number of uses per president averaged out?
    My point is that both sides love using it, but today's liberals generally hold the military and military service in contempt.

    Gay Stuff

    what exactly are they protecting THIER tradition from? gay's marrying has about as much impact on your marriage as some woman in Idaho wearing pink or blue instead of white.
    They argue that raising a lesser relationship to the status of traditional hetero marriage devalues the latter.

    You said there was none.
    Correct, there is not. The example you pointed to doesn't rise into the category of evidence.

    By redefining group membership arbitrarily instead of letting people self select.
    Parsing differently, yes.

    So if I print a dictionary will you be for it?
    Once you sell a few million copies of your dictionary, sure.

    Racism

    Generally only in existence in the South, the rest of the country had other reasons to not pass such laws.
    From what I picked up after a quick skim, they were in place in the original colonies.

    Ahh, but I am talking conservative v liberal, not Republican v Democrat.
    Are not most conservatives Republican?

    Rules

    just because you disagree with their purpose does not mean they have no purpose.
    so what is the purpose of sentencing imbalances?
    So we move from rules in general to your "sentencing imbalances" in specific. The rules about crack vs. normal coke exist because people believe that crack is worse. If the result is more blacks in jail then that's a result not a purpose.

    Its where you place the level
    You said that stifling liberty makes me Stalin. I don't think zoning laws make me a commie. I think the same thing about reasonable CCW laws too.

    Disagree, look the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment various UN protocols...
    UN protocols don't mean shit. The DoI and Constitution are full of references to a god and creator as the source of all morality and rights and laws.

    So is nurse a gender role or a sex role?
    Neither - it's an occupation.

    what rules?
    Rules on allowable income, allowable speech, allowable failures and allowable successes.

    talking to yourself? I mean look at the flippant answers to racism and gay marriage by you. Or how you call a regressive tax balanced, or prefer a dictionary definition of a malleable institution over reasoned debate.
    I can explain any position you hold in terms of your own reason, facts, opinions, and conclusions. I can understand and accept your versions of all of those without necessarily condoning or agreeing with any of them.

    You simply dismiss any position, conclusion, or opinion of mine as unreasoned and unsupportable.

    The outcome was not the same, in one a life was saved, not so in the other.
    We're focusing on two different lives here. You assign primacy to the adult, I assign such to the fetus.

    Understanding of the Opposition

    Normally no, but even if you were it wouldn't matter to me. But sometimes, yes I do think so.
    If true why would you say that that one answer was an exception of "honesty" from me?

    Economics

    straight or flat percentages ie regressive taxes are not balanced.
    Then the debate is about what the word "balanced" means in terms of taxes, yes?

    heres a chance to reason- what will be the likely outcome of reducing both? If labor gets so cheap the workers cannot buy what they make, where is the market?
    So in your construction wages decrease, cost of production decreases, but prices do not?

    It doubled while he was in office to over $600 billion a year by 2007, more than doubled by the time he left office.
    The percentages didn't double.

    Politics

    They keep voting them in- deeds over words.
    I guess that's why McCain won, why Ben Nelson is going to run again, and the like? Republican pols (and some Dems) see that the conservative bloc, wisely or unwisely, has begun to and will likely continue to vote based on their ideals.

    -dale

  11. #71
    New Member
    Join Date
    29 Dec 11
    Location
    In My Basement.
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    My problems with the Right, and the Left, my view, Stalin.

    The Right seems to feel letting people starve is natural and OK.
    The Left seems to think getting people hooked on government handouts is OK
    Why not provide a social safety ladder instead of a net
    Stalin engineered the Holodomir- point to the right

    The Right gets all bent out over marriage and thins its sanctified by God.
    The Left thinks the bedroom is a public space
    Why not simply let non-related adults marry who they want.
    Stalin was anti-God but was also anti-gay half point to each.

    The Right loves guns and a big military
    The Left hates guns and a big military
    The founders loved guns and hated a big military
    Stalin loved a big military point to the right

    The Right denies racism is a problem
    The Left thinks its still 1950
    The collars have been removed, but some roadblocks still exist


    The Right believes in intelligent design and wants prayer in school
    the Left doesn't want us to believe at all
    lets leave religion out of it, either for or against.
    Stalin didn't want us to beleive either point to the left

    The right praises liberty and funds the drug war
    The left praises civil rights and funds the drug war
    Neither liberty nor civil rights are served by prohibition
    Stalin talked about a workers paradise but internal crackdowns- half point to each.

    The Right doesn't want gays in the military
    The Left wants to use the military to ease social acceptance
    Lets stop sheet sniffing, be glad of anyone serving the MISSION of nat'l def.
    Stalin hated gays but also used the army to glue the nation together- half point to each.

    The Right says all abortion is murder
    The Left says no abortion is murder
    Life begins at conception but sometimes real reasons exist to take that life.
    Stalin was pro-life, until you were born point to the right

    The Right loves free trade with our enemies.
    The Left loves free trade with our enemies.
    Lets use our market to further our nations benefit.
    Stalin traded with his enemies half point to each

    The Right loves cheap labor
    The left loves free votes
    America is for Americans and those we invite in.
    Stalin loved free labor and didnt allow votes, point to the right

    The Right screams Islam is out to get us.
    The Left screams Christians are out to get us
    I scream Congress is out to get us.
    Stalin claimed everyone is out to get us half point to each.

    The Right loves the tea party drawing the social security check
    The left wants to give the occupy protestors welfare
    I'm trying hard enough to feed my children without feeding others.
    Stalin had his apparatchiks, half point to each

    Final score

    Right 7
    Left 4.5

    The Right is closer to Stalin than the Left- ergo Dale is a commie
    I am still laffing about this notion of "letting people starve."

    Can you cite one case of this happening in The USA in modern times? Go ahead. Step up.

  12. #72
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    2,507
    zraver it seems to me that the central problem you (and others like you) must answer is this state enforced 'redistribution of wealth'. Why should the state continue to try to enforce this when everything suggests that in fact it's counter productive?

  13. #73
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    13,262
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    zraver it seems to me that the central problem you (and others like you) must answer is this state enforced 'redistribution of wealth'. Why should the state continue to try to enforce this when everything suggests that in fact it's counter productive?
    First, everything does not suggest its counter productive, in fact there is a lot that suggests it is very productive. The unproductive parts need reform or cancellation but to imply everything is a non starter.

    Redistribution of wealth implies taking it from someone who makes it and giving it to someone who does not. How exactly is better wages redistribution since the workers make the product? The other problem with the term is social goods. You can't make wealth without borrowing/ leaning on social goods. Social goods are everything from public schools, roads, water treatment plants, the power grid, emergency services etc. So if a social program seeks to increase the value of a social good ie student aid for college students, or nutritional supports for grade school kids in poorer family, job training programs etc how are they redistribution since the money spent is returned with better more productive workers and tax payers?

  14. #74
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    13,262
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    I am still laffing about this notion of "letting people starve."

    Can you cite one case of this happening in The USA in modern times? Go ahead. Step up.
    He's gone, but yes I can. During the great depression the government made bulk payments to landowners in the South to no plant cotton. By and large despite having promised to act as middlemen to disburse payments to their sharecroppers, the African American share croppers got nothing... they were literally left to starve and no amount of appeals changed anything.

  15. #75
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    13,262
    [QUOTE=dalem;853784]

    Military

    Sure thing. Liberals (over the last 50 years or so) tend to focus on things America has done wrong as opposed to things that America has done right, and therefore view a base acceptance of this country's moral and geopolitical primacy as foolish and naive. That does not mean that they cannot or will not "love their country" but it does mean that is is not as reflexive for them, as a group, than it is for someone of a more conservative bent.
    There are two ways to go about improving something. Add capability to an existing system or improve the capability of an existing system. Both require a hard look at what the system is designed to do and what it is actually doing. Liberal critique is far more patriotic in effect than a parade of flag wavers who accept what ever the government line is without question.

    My point is that both sides love using it, but today's liberals generally hold the military and military service in contempt.
    care to support that? They often hold the huge amounts of military spending and a lot of shoot first kill em all generals in contempt, but generally not the military itself.

    Gay Stuff

    They argue that raising a lesser relationship to the status of traditional hetero marriage devalues the latter.
    How is it lesser? Lets use that reason thing we were talking about.

    Correct, there is not. The example you pointed to doesn't rise into the category of evidence.
    A long term monitoring study using scientific principles is not evidence? Newton would be proud...


    Once you sell a few million copies of your dictionary, sure.
    how many to you is a few million? If a few million is meant to indicate widespread social acceptance of the words definition... then you have a problem 53% of Americans something like 160,000,000 people think gay marriages should be valid according to Gallup. Those opposed to gay marriage are now a minority.

    Racism

    From what I picked up after a quick skim, they were in place in the original colonies.
    States not colonies please, most of the northern colonies and all of the new northern states were anti-slave.

    Are not most conservatives Republican?
    For now, but they often used to be Democrats

    Rules

    So we move from rules in general to your "sentencing imbalances" in specific. The rules about crack vs. normal coke exist because people believe that crack is worse. If the result is more blacks in jail then that's a result not a purpose.
    Reason depends on what is, not what people prefer is to be. Sentencing imbalances have done huge amounts of damage to the African American community for a crime that is substantially no different than a white guy selling coke.

    You said that stifling liberty makes me Stalin. I don't think zoning laws make me a commie. I think the same thing about reasonable CCW laws too.
    You and most conservatives favor programs that have more in common with Stalin than Stalin has in common with liberals. Though progressives conservative or liberal are the closest.

    UN protocols don't mean shit.
    There goes reason... So a set of shared if idelaistic human morals from across 180 some cultures and peoples with many times that religions, and non-religions can reach conclusions not much different from God based morals it don't mean shit?

    The DoI and Constitution are full of references to a god and creator as the source of all morality and rights and laws.
    God and Creator are not necessarily the same thing. But care to provide me any examples?

    Neither - it's an occupation.
    Exactly, gender is an occupation, sex is a physical attribute.

    Rules on allowable income, allowable speech, allowable failures and allowable successes.
    How many examples of conservative infringing on these things would you like?

    I can explain any position you hold in terms of your own reason, facts, opinions, and conclusions. I can understand and accept your versions of all of those without necessarily condoning or agreeing with any of them.

    You simply dismiss any position, conclusion, or opinion of mine as unreasoned and unsupportable.
    Then support them please, and use that reasoning. lay the argument out A to B to C....

    We're focusing on two different lives here. You assign primacy to the adult, I assign such to the fetus.
    which means one of us if off the mark. We both agree elective abortion is wrong. But when the mothers life is in danger, by extent the fetus is in danger and likely already dead anyway, as are any follow on kids who might have been born if we let mom go the way of the fetus.

    Understanding of the Opposition

    If true why would you say that that one answer was an exception of "honesty" from me?
    You never play devils advocate?

    Economics

    Then the debate is about what the word "balanced" means in terms of taxes, yes?
    Pretty much

    So in your construction wages decrease, cost of production decreases, but prices do not?
    In theoretical models they do, but the real world has too many variables. Right now the price of flat screen TV's is collapsing- why 2 reasons market saturation and consumers without the wherewithal to buy them. The problem feeds itself.

    The percentages didn't double.
    The dollars spent in 6 years did

    in 2000 the US spent 3% of GDP on the military. In 2007 that number grew to 4% from 300 billion to about 415 billion but that is before off budget war spending which is added drives total spending in 2007 to 600 billion. That spending in dollars doubled, but % of GDP didn't with economic growth from 1q 2001 to 1q 2007 of just 1.8 trillion (14% growth in 2005 inflation adjusted dollars for the period) The same increase in military spending- ie capped to growth would yield a budget of under 500 billion.

    Politics

    I guess that's why McCain won, why Ben Nelson is going to run again, and the like? Republican pols (and some Dems) see that the conservative bloc, wisely or unwisely, has begun to and will likely continue to vote based on their ideals.

    -dale

    Believe it when I see it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. McCain, Obama Sweep Potomac Primaries
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 15 Feb 08,, 00:45
  2. Terrorism raids sweep Toronto
    By ZFBoxcar in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 18 Sep 06,, 16:50
  3. Blair Government On Last Legs, Say Britons
    By Karthik in forum International Politics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11 May 06,, 22:16
  4. Prosthetic Legs Stolen...AGAIN!
    By THL in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Feb 06,, 17:09

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •