DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on October 20, 2008, 07:52:02 PM
-
Obama is going to win in a landslide.
I voted early today. When I got there, the man said it would be about an hour wait. So I said, what the hell, I'll wait. Three hours later I emerged from the voting booth. The turnout was huge. People were lined up out the front door and around the building. All four parking lots were full. Obama stickers were on every other car. It was more turn out than I've ever seen before. Not one person looked remotely Republican. When I voted in 04, you could tell it was probably 51% Republican, with a much lower turnout. This time, I couldn't make out any Republicans. Obama has this one, and I don't think it's even going to be close.
-
Obama is going to win in a landslide.
I voted early today. When I got there, the man said it would be about an hour wait. So I said, what the hell, I'll wait. Three hours later I emerged from the voting booth. The turnout was huge. People were lined up out the front door and around the building. All four parking lots were full. Obama stickers were on every other car. It was more turn out than I've ever seen before. Not one person looked remotely Republican. When I voted in 04, you could tell it was probably 51% Republican, with a much lower turnout. This time, I couldn't make out any Republicans. Obama has this one, and I don't think it's even going to be close.
Yep, this is what I see in my city and state.
Let's just pray we are going to experience positive changes.
Cindy
-
What does a Republican look like?
-
What does a Republican look like?
What does Obama look like, is the real question to ask? So many people, many of whom are/were republicans, are voting for Obama. I know several in my circle of friends.
Socialism just doesn't seem to bother people. OK, then all you rich people...start getting ready to share the wealth.
Hard work isn't going to be worth the effort...so why try?
-
What does a Republican look like?
What does Obama look like, is the real question to ask? So many people, many of whom are/were republicans, are voting for Obama. I know several in my circle of friends.
Socialism just doesn't seem to bother people. OK, then all you rich people...start getting ready to share the wealth.
Hard work isn't going to be worth the effort...so why try?
That socialism charge is such utter nonsense.
McCain voted for the 750 billion dollars that "shared the wealth" with the banks. Where were the charges of "socialism" when the banks and the insurance companies having the wealth shared with them?
Utter hypocrisy from those of you on the right.
I would submit that you guys are operating under a fallacy that the Obama plan calls for your "wealth" to be shared. You don't have any wealth. The top 5% have all the "wealth". The vulgar, disgusting, stolen wealth
-
What does a Republican look like?
What does Obama look like, is the real question to ask? So many people, many of whom are/were republicans, are voting for Obama. I know several in my circle of friends.
Socialism just doesn't seem to bother people. OK, then all you rich people...start getting ready to share the wealth.
Hard work isn't going to be worth the effort...so why try?
That socialism charge is such utter nonsense.
McCain voted for the 750 billion dollars that "shared the wealth" with the banks. Where were the charges of "socialism" when the banks and the insurance companies having the wealth shared with them?
Utter hypocrisy from those of you on the right.
I would submit that you guys are operating under a fallacy that the Obama plan calls for your "wealth" to be shared. You don't have any wealth. The top 5% have all the "wealth". The vulgar, disgusting, stolen wealth
But, Brass, if you were at that level of wealth, would you want to share the wealth?
Don't you see why it's not a good idea.
Why work towards a higher level of performance, if your "wealth" is going to go to those who really do not have to work as hard now because YOU are guarenteed "help" from the TOP folks.
Bottom line; middle income household families come out better under Obama.
High income families come out better under McCain.
But, be aware of the bait and switch. Does Obama want America to maintain a strong military?
I know he speaks highly of teachers, but so does McCain, for that matter...and it doesn't matter who is president on that issue. I realize that the act was set up for improvement, but damn it, I can't find one thing in the act to support what is happening to public schools across the country.
I will see how Obama makes our world best practices better when he is elected.
Brassie, I hate rhetoric, I do.
I dance swaying my skirt to the beat of the tune played across this nation --via media, spread of word, and inside evidence?
If a candidate is to be believed, I'll continue to dance sans the music.
But, Bush did a bad, bad thing. He turned Americans agasint not only Republicans, he turned them against keeping the nation secure.
Double whammy isn't a good thing. It's one thing to stand on the platform for national security,the rights of the unborn. IT's another to cram it down our throats. Tension has been the only buzz word I can think of to describe these past 8 years.
But, I worry about Obama's ability to make those "promises" come to fruition.
He'll win. We'll watch. I will continue to pray.
Ironically, I will not be praying along with those Christians who voted for Bush.
Let the earth come together. Bush pulled the planet apart for 8 years. I have never seen a rush for a newbie as I see now.
I have a hope that Obama will rise to the occasion---because he has something that Bush did not have;
Intelligence.
-
This entire "Share the wealth" bit is totally bogus.
McCain himself said he was against the Bush tacx cuts because they almost entirelu benefited the wealthiest people.
Only recently, when he craved the nomination and the money to run did he decide that the Bush tax cuts had somehow become fair and just.
But there SHOULD be a greater sharing of the wealth. When a CEO makes hundreds of times what a factory worker makes, that is unfair.
When all the increase in productivity goes to the execs, that's not fair.
When those AIG execs went out to California to a after the government bailed their sorry asses out with OUR TAX MONEY, that was unfair.
The pie will not grow forever. We cannot sustain a growth forever, The resources are just not there,
Time for the fatcats to share.
-
I guess if you don't want to invest in the infrastructure of the country, its schools, teachers, power grids, etc., you should move to a country with much more lax standards. Places where roads aren't safe, the water is dirty, the meat isn't inspected, the police are corrupt, no fire departments, and so on. Everyone who shared a mite of their tax dollars in years past didn't say, "Hey. I got mine, to hell with you." I'm sure some did, but it didn't seem to be so fashionable to come right out and say it.
And so we shouldn't say that either if we achieve a comfortable income. We are Americans. We do owe it to our country to leave it a little better than when we got here---or at least try to.
-
But, Brass, if you were at that level of wealth, would you want to share the wealth?
WITHOUT A DOUBT.
If I was worth a billion dollars, I wouldn't bitch about paying a larger share. In fact, I wish I WAS that rich so that I COULD PAY THAT MUCH.
A billionaire shouldn't be crying about losing a substantial amount of his money when that substantial amount lost leaves him still with more money than most countries' GDP's.
And how anyone in this forum can cry about billionaires losing a few mill to the betterment of the country is beyond. Do any of you honestly believe that you'll ever be that rich?
-
<<Socialism just doesn't seem to bother people. OK, then all you rich people...start getting ready to share the wealth. >>
You are so far from socialism, even with Obama as President, that it just boggles the mind that you worry about it. Obama has never advocated socialism.
What you are calling "socialism" is the idea of a graduated income tax (called a "progressive" income tax in the U.S.) which has been a fixture of the U.S. and Canadian income tax systems since at least the 1920s. Most of the world accepts the principle of taxation that the wealthier classes with the higher disposable income pay a larger percentage of that income in taxes than do the poorer classes.
Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. I believe Bernie Saunders of Vermont is the only self-proclaimed socialist senator in the U.S. Senate. For all intents and purposes the Socialist Party USA is dead, and only tiny splinter organizations such as the PLP (Progressive Labor Party,) the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) and the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization (USMLO,) the successor to the Marxist-Leninist Party, whose website is at http://www.usmlo.org/ (http://www.usmlo.org/) , play an active socialist role in the USA, but they have shrunk away to almost nothing since the late 1960s and early 1070s and confine themselves mostly to publishing and labour union infiltrating and organizing activities. Socialism in the U.S.A. at this point in time seems to be pretty much of a spent force.
-
Here in Northeast Florida it will be McCain by a wide margin. you see the occasional BHO pumper sticker but no signs. None.
In Ohio, at least in the suburbs of Cleveland it's McCain, but Cleveland itself is full of Black folk so I imagine it will go Obama. I'm willing to bet there will be more votes cast than voters in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland and some suburbs). That is if they can figure out the voting machines this time.
-
And how anyone in this forum can cry about billionaires losing a few mill to the betterment of the country is beyond. Do any of you honestly believe that you'll ever be that rich?
It's not about being that rich. It's about being that fair. I don't believe anyone should be taxed more percentage wise than another person. I don't believe anyone should be taxed less percentage wise than another person.
When they set millage rates they are set according to home value but everyone pays the same millage rate.
When you buy ground beef at the store you pay the same as a rich guy or a poor guy.
When you pay sales tax you pay the same as the rich guy or the poor guy.
The only tax that is tiered is the income tax and that is setup that way so congress can sell favors.
So the progressive tax is corrupt because those who legislate it are corrupted by the power that comes with setting those rates.
Why do you think the presidency is worth the price tag of close to a billion dollars?
Why do congressmen have reelection war chests of millions of dollars?
-
What does a Republican look like?
What does Obama look like, is the real question to ask? So many people, many of whom are/were republicans, are voting for Obama. I know several in my circle of friends. Socialism just doesn't seem to bother people. OK, then all you rich people...start getting ready to share the wealth. Hard work isn't going to be worth the effort...so why try?
That socialism charge is such utter nonsense.
Not when you look at his record & rhetoric. It's only nonsense to some hard core leftists who don't think he goes far enough. But for the rest of the country, it's a socialist agenda, very up front with the foundation of of wealth redistribution. And let's not forget the anti 1st amendment Fairness Doctrine, just itching to be put back in, as soon as the left has control
-
I would submit that you guys are operating under a fallacy that the Obama plan calls for your "wealth" to be shared. You don't have any wealth. The top 5% have all the "wealth". The vulgar, disgusting, stolen wealth
What makes it" vulgar "and what makes it" stolen "?
Do you think that that particular money would exist if someone had not made it?
-
<<When they set millage rates they are set according to home value but everyone pays the same millage rate.>>
That's because of a feeling that if you can't afford to live in a big house and pay the taxes on it, you should move to a smaller house or just rent a place. There are no equity issues involved other than the fairness that if you have more, you pay more. If you have more house, you pay more municipal tax on it.
<<When you buy ground beef at the store you pay the same as a rich guy or a poor guy.>>
That's because the butcher paid the same per pound to the wholesaler - - but the butcher doesn't just stock one kind of meat. The rich pay more for their filet mignon than the poor pay for their cheaper cuts.
<<When you pay sales tax you pay the same as the rich guy or the poor guy.>>
And that's the biggest criticism of the sales tax and why it's probably the most unpopular of all taxes. (Not that there are any really popular taxes!) It's basically a tax on the poor, the rich don't give a shit but it really eats into the poor man's budget and it's virtually unavoidable.
<<The only tax that is tiered is the income tax and that is setup that way so congress can sell favors.>>
That's the first time I've heard THAT argument. In Canada, the income tax began as the Income War Tax Act during WWI and was meant to be temporary, to end when the war was over. Its obvious purpose was to raise funds for the war. I don't know if the original tax was graduated, but it was certainly graduated (progressive or tiered) by the 1920s. Even the flat-tax advocates I've heard argue on the basis of fairness and simplification, not on nefarious influence-peddling. Where do you get this from?
<<So the progressive tax is corrupt because those who legislate it are corrupted by the power that comes with setting those rates.>>
I tell you frankly, that's the craziest argument I've ever heard on the subject. The unfairness of a flat tax rate is so obvious that it outshines any other solution but a graduated income tax. The principle is as old as the Biblical parable of the widow's mite and that principle must have been ancient wisdom by the time that Jesus articulated it in the parable.
<<Why do you think the presidency is worth the price tag of close to a billion dollars?>>
Your tongue was in your cheek as you typed that, wasn't it?
<<Why do congressmen have reelection war chests of millions of dollars? >>
For the most corrupt and venal reasons imaginable if that money came from the rich or other special interests, but surely there are many hundreds or even thousands of corrupt and venal things that a congressman can do for his donors, of which adjusting the income tax rates is only one.
-
Do you think that that particular money would exist if someone had not made it?
OF COURSE!
If say, McDonald's took half of the executive's salaries and paid that money to the flipping the burgers and frying the fires, would that money still exist? OF COURSE it would.
If Roger Smith's obscene and unwarrented huge raises were divided among the people making engines and assembling Buicks, woud that money still exist? Of course.
Rich CEO's do not invent money.
-
<<The only tax that is tiered is the income tax and that is setup that way so congress can sell favors.>>
That's the first time I've heard THAT argument. In Canada, the income tax began as the Income War Tax Act during WWI and was meant to be temporary, to end when the war was over. Its obvious purpose was to raise funds for the war. I don't know if the original tax was graduated, but it was certainly graduated (progressive or tiered) by the 1920s. Even the flat-tax advocates I've heard argue on the basis of fairness and simplification, not on nefarious influence-peddling. Where do you get this from?
It is notorious here , our income tax is loaded with loopholes such that the extremely wealthy pay little tax but keep many accountants busy .
<<So the progressive tax is corrupt because those who legislate it are corrupted by the power that comes with setting those rates.>>
I tell you frankly, that's the craziest argument I've ever heard on the subject. The unfairness of a flat tax rate is so obvious that it outshines any other solution but a graduated income tax. The principle is as old as the Biblical parable of the widow's mite and that principle must have been ancient wisdom by the time that Jesus articulated it in the parable.
You don't read Jesus much do you ? The Widow was poor and Jesus praised her for giving in greater purportion than the wealthy gave. The poor in the USA , if they work, might give more in purportion than some very wealthy provided you count the sales taxes that are more avoidable for the wealthy and FICA which is entirely avoidable for the very wealthy. It gets even worse if the Poor guy is a home or farm owner because when he sells his property (or dies)he is subject to the laws for taxing the rich temporarily.But without the rich guys ability to use accountants and specialised Lawyers.
-
I tried explaining this to Tee as well. It was like debating an asteroid, monolithic and WAY out there :-\
-
You don't read Jesus much do you ? The Widow was poor and Jesus praised her for giving in greater purportion than the wealthy gave. The poor in the USA , if they work, might give more in purportion than some very wealthy provided you count the sales taxes that are more avoidable for the wealthy and FICA which is entirely avoidable for the very wealthy. It gets even worse if the Poor guy is a home or farm owner because when he sells his property (or dies)he is subject to the laws for taxing the rich temporarily.But without the rich guys ability to use accountants and specialised Lawyers.
======================================================================
You still don't get it. The widow gave a paltry sum. It was insignificant when compared with the donations of the rich. It was ONLY when taken as a percentage of her net worth that it became meritorious in comparison with the percentage of net worth donated by the rich.
Why was it meritorious? Obviously because it represented the greater sacrifice.
Was it FAIR? Jesus didn't say that the widow's mite was fair to the widow. That would be absurd. The widow shouldn't have to sacrifice MORE than the rich.
The widow's mite parable provides a way to measure love, not fairness. But in making his point, Jesus implicitly assumes what we all know, that the measure of sacrifice (not of love or of fairness) is the cost to the donor. The effect that the sacrifice has on the donor.
The measure of the tax sacrifice, therefore, in terms of FAIRNESS, should be not the net sum of the donation, but the COST to the donor of making it. Fairness demands that all sacrifice equally. If the tax rate were set at 50% for example, many paying the tax would not be able to live, while the rich could continue on as before.
Therefore, in principle, a flat tax is unfair, unless it is set so low that nobody, not even the poorest, is unable to meet basic standards of living after paying it. This is patently absurd. The only fair way to raise the taxes needed is to graduate the rates and make the rich pay more.
-
You don't read Jesus much do you ? The Widow was poor and Jesus praised her for giving in greater purportion than the wealthy gave. The poor in the USA , if they work, might give more in purportion than some very wealthy provided you count the sales taxes that are more avoidable for the wealthy and FICA which is entirely avoidable for the very wealthy. It gets even worse if the Poor guy is a home or farm owner because when he sells his property (or dies)he is subject to the laws for taxing the rich temporarily.But without the rich guys ability to use accountants and specialised Lawyers.
======================================================================
You still don't get it. The widow gave a paltry sum. It was insignificant when compared with the donations of the rich. It was ONLY when taken as a percentage of her net worth that it became meritorious in comparison with the percentage of net worth donated by the rich.
Why was it meritorious? Obviously because it represented the greater sacrifice.
Was it FAIR? Jesus didn't say that the widow's mite was fair to the widow. That would be absurd. The widow shouldn't have to sacrifice MORE than the rich.
The widow's mite parable provides a way to measure love, not fairness. But in making his point, Jesus implicitly assumes what we all know, that the measure of sacrifice (not of love or of fairness) is the cost to the donor. The effect that the sacrifice has on the donor.
The measure of the tax sacrifice, therefore, in terms of FAIRNESS, should be not the net sum of the donation, but the COST to the donor of making it. Fairness demands that all sacrifice equally. If the tax rate were set at 50% for example, many paying the tax would not be able to live, while the rich could continue on as before.
Therefore, in principle, a flat tax is unfair, unless it is set so low that nobody, not even the poorest, is unable to meet basic standards of living after paying it. This is patently absurd. The only fair way to raise the taxes needed is to graduate the rates and make the rich pay more.
None of this giveing was forced , all of it was meritorious , but the Widow gave humbly and gave all she could have , so you have part of this right , Jesus found virtue in the love that this womans giveing represented , but you make a tremendous leap to apply Jesus's approval to the tax collector who would have taken the money .
-
And you still don't get it, Tee. It was the Widow's CHOICE to sacrafice more. Not some advocation that a 3rd party make "the rich" sacrafice at the same levels. Christianity has always been about inidividual choice and free will, and what's in their heart, and never about a 3rd party's (in this case, a zealous anti-christian's) perceptions of "fairness"
-
Do you think that that particular money would exist if someone had not made it?
OF COURSE!
If say, McDonald's took half of the executive's salaries and paid that money to the flipping the burgers and frying the fires, would that money still exist? OF COURSE it would.
If Roger Smith's obscene and unwarrented huge raises were divided among the people making engines and assembling Buicks, woud that money still exist? Of course.
Rich CEO's do not invent money.
CEO's could be hired for less , but board members of large companys seem to like to hire stars , which is a lot like hireing baseball stars ,they put themselves on auction and go where they are offered the best pay. Also like baseball stars if they prove to have great talent they can improve the fortune of the team.
Burger flippers are also had at auction , but an adequite burger flipper isn't hard to find so they make less money, giveing one more money doesn't necessacerily get you better burger flipping, but some restrants (Waffle house does this ) train masters of the grill and pay them a premium , they become the stock from which they choose managers.
At any rate if no noe flipps the burgers no money is made that way and that particular earning never comes into existance , the CEO's share is earned if he does his organisation of the company well and if he does it so well that they outcompete , then he is indeed worthy of the value of the improvement he causes , for a Ray Crock or a Warren Buffet this can be tremendous, but if they were not present would McDonalds have earned so much? or would Berkshire Hathaway even exist at all?
I don't know if Roger Smith's pay was justified by his work , but he did better than DeLorien who existed to show how bad an executive position could get run. I wondeer if the Board might have found someone better than Roger Smith , if they did what would they offer him in pay?
-
None of this giveing was forced , all of it was meritorious , but the Widow gave humbly and gave all she could have , so you have part of this right , Jesus found virtue in the love that this womans giveing represented , but you make a tremendous leap to apply Jesus's approval to the tax collector who would have taken the money .
============================================
You're still missing the point. Jesus wouldn't make ANY comment on the tax collector, because Jesus was commenting on the measure of the widow's love. There's no love involved in tax collecting, so naturally Jesus wouldn't have had anything to say about him.
I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm arguing from an assumption on which the parable was based, I'm not arguing from the main point of the parable.
The assumption was that the measure of the sacrifice is the impact it has on the donor. That's valid for all sacrifices, whether they be love-offerings, as the widow's was, or forced offerings, like the income tax.
Once you grant that the sacrifice demanded must be FAIR, that all must bear the burden equally, all the rest of my argument follows. A guy earning 20K and paying 50% sacrifices much more than a guy earning a million and paying 50% - - one guy loses his home and is out on the street, the other guy still has a pretty good life and can still afford a very nice home.
-
Do you think that that particular money would exist if someone had not made it?
OF COURSE!
If say, McDonald's took half of the executive's salaries and paid that money to the flipping the burgers and frying the fires, would that money still exist? OF COURSE it would.
If Roger Smith's obscene and unwarrented huge raises were divided among the people making engines and assembling Buicks, woud that money still exist? Of course.
Rich CEO's do not invent money.
I only barely understand how you job is done , yet I have confidence that what you do creates value.
If what you do earns you payment in exact purportion to the value it creates , congradulations that would be perfect fairness.
But it certainly would not be fair if it were up to me to determine what your payment should be , if I had to hire you the only way I could possibly decide how much would be to compare what you demanded with what another teacher might demand , it would certainly behoove me to learn the things that are signs of quality in teachers elese I may hire the cheaper teacher who might not have the ability to create the value of even that pay while not hireing the more capable teacher who might create greater value than the pay he demands.
-
None of this giveing was forced , all of it was meritorious , but the Widow gave humbly and gave all she could have , so you have part of this right , Jesus found virtue in the love that this womans giveing represented , but you make a tremendous leap to apply Jesus's approval to the tax collector who would have taken the money .
============================================
You're still missing the point. Jesus wouldn't make ANY comment on the tax collector, because Jesus was commenting on the measure of the widow's love. There's no love involved in tax collecting, so naturally Jesus wouldn't have had anything to say about him.
I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm arguing from an assumption on which the parable was based, I'm not arguing from the main point of the parable.
The assumption was that the measure of the sacrifice is the impact it has on the donor. That's valid for all sacrifices, whether they be love-offerings, as the widow's was, or forced offerings, like the income tax.
Once you grant that the sacrifice demanded must be FAIR, that all must bear the burden equally, all the rest of my argument follows. A guy earning 20K and paying 50% sacrifices much more than a guy earning a million and paying 50% - - one guy loses his home and is out on the street, the other guy still has a pretty good life and can still afford a very nice home.
I see the validity then in this more narrow definition , such s you are not claiming the approval of Jesus by misquoteing him.
But 50%!
Government isn't worth that much to anyone.
If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?
-
Once you grant that the sacrifice demanded must be FAIR, that all must bear the burden equally, all the rest of my argument follows.
Apples / Oranges. 1 doesn't lead to the other. You're perverting A to fit your B. Choice does NOT equal nor even lead to demand, especially when you're referring to sacrafice, which is largely applied to acts of free will. Simple as that
-
If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?
Waste and greed.
-
If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?
Waste and greed.
Yea , selah...
There probly is an objective and real value of government , I suppose to be a good bit less than what we are paying for it, but how can I get an objective measurement for what it is actually is worth?
-
But 50%!
Government isn't worth that much to anyone.
If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?
=================================================
That was a hypothetical example, plane. It works with 20% and it works with 35%. The point is, at some ridiculously low level (1/2 %) the tax won't hurt anyone and at some ridiculously high level (90%) it'll hurt all but the ultra-rich, but somewhere in between are rates that will hit the guy at the lower end of the income spectrum and impact his life while having a much lesser impact on the life of a guy $40K higher on the income scale.
-
>>And you still don't get it, Tee. It was the Widow's CHOICE to sacrafice more.<<
Which is why Jesus told the story. She gave MORE that she could afford because she WANTED to. So if the lefties want to give more than is asked from them by the government they certainly are free to do so. The problem is, not only to they force OTHER people to give at the point of a sword, but they also refuse to give like the woman in the story themselves. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Obama, don't give to charity, they TAKE it from others who are already giving to their church or charities.
But really, why are we even discussing Jesus and Christianity with a Godless Communist?
-
But 50%!
Government isn't worth that much to anyone.
If the Kingdom of God can be run on 10% why does a government of Human beings require so much more?
=================================================
That was a hypothetical example, plane. It works with 20% and it works with 35%. The point is, at some ridiculously low level (1/2 %) the tax won't hurt anyone and at some ridiculously high level (90%) it'll hurt all but the ultra-rich, but somewhere in between are rates that will hit the guy at the lower end of the income spectrum and impact his life while having a much lesser impact on the life of a guy $40K higher on the income scale.
It has the same negative effect on the economy in general no matter what strata does without it first.
The money left in the hands of the public serves the public , it should not be removed from there unless the government actually needs it for some thing that the people actually need the government to have.
-
>>And you still don't get it, Tee. It was the Widow's CHOICE to sacrafice more.<<
Which is why Jesus told the story. She gave MORE that she could afford because she WANTED to. So if the lefties want to give more than is asked from them by the government they certainly are free to do so. The problem is, not only to they force OTHER people to give at the point of a sword, but they also refuse to give like the woman in the story themselves. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Obama, don't give to charity, they TAKE it from others who are already giving to their church or charities.
But really, why are we even discussing Jesus and Christianity with a Godless Communist?
Because it is fun.
There really isn't much other reason.
I think in some minor way we exchange information and learn , in a small part we improve our ability to communicate , use logic and type , but ....
Trying to get anywhere like an epiphany in a contest of argument with the committed is certainly going to be a rare event.
So primarily it is for fun.
-
>>And you still don't get it, Tee. It was the Widow's CHOICE to sacrafice more.<<
Which is why Jesus told the story. She gave MORE that she could afford because she WANTED to. So if the lefties want to give more than is asked from them by the government they certainly are free to do so. The problem is, not only to they force OTHER people to give at the point of a sword, but they also refuse to give like the woman in the story themselves. Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Obama, don't give to charity, they TAKE it from others who are already giving to their church or charities.
And Tee's already on record at not refuting that Conservatives give far more than liberals (in general), and that libs tend to "give" when it becames mandatory via act of congress & taxation, and only when others are "giving" via mandate as well
His crux is that the "giving" isn't sincere enough, unless they're hurting financially after the fact (enter his perversion of the Widow's mite parable)
-
Americans Gave $97 Billion to Religion in 2006
COLUMN By NANCY BUXTON
HumanistNetworkNews.org
Aug. 1, 2007
"Americans continued to give more money to religion in 2006 than to any other organization or cause.
According to Giving USA Foundation Americans donated $295 billion in charitable contributions in 2006. About $97 billion went to religious organizations -- that is just a shade under one third of all charitable gifts. Last year, Americans gave $93 billion to religion.
Education was a distant second, receiving $41 billion (13.9 percent). Human Services received $29.6 billion (roughly 10 percent). Public-society benefit received $21.41 billion (7.3 percent) and health received $20.22 billion (6.9 percent). Arts, culture and humanities received $12.5 billion (4.2 percent) of the total, while the environment and animals received a total of $6.6 billion (2.2 percent).
Individuals are by far the biggest donors, giving 75.6 percent of the total, with bequest, foundations and corporations giving the remainder.
What about donations to Humanist Organizations?
This morning I called Sharon Bond, spokesperson for the Giving USA Foundation, and she confirmed that individual dononations to religion are still on the rise, but the overall percentage of gifts to religious organizations is actually shrinking as Americans give more to other causes.
Humanists are a small but growing segment of the population and we want our donations to grow accordingly. I think they will."
I think that is quite amazing that 75.6 percent was given by individuals.....prolly a lot of those use a 'short form' for their taxes and thus don't even take advantage of the tax deduction. The other 24.6 by the "haves" that would certainly be motivated by the tax break.
-
I think Americans giving to religion is no mystery and no evidence of good character. If anything it is a testament to the effectiveness of TV advertising on a semi-moronic public.
Churches today don't simply pass around a collection plate to the congregation to pick up their small bills and loose change. Multi-million dollar campaigns clog the airways with emotional appeals by preachers with choirs and bands to back up their shows and often the solicitation of "love offerings" is accompanied by the disguised sale of trinkets in the form of the tackiest imaginable knick-knacks (sculpture of two white hands joined in prayer that light up in the dark, "Whole-Bible" DVDs in twelve volumes, etc.) This isn't a case of spontaneous giving, it is TV-pitched appeals to the loneliest and most vulnerable of America's citizens, the elderly, the bed-ridden. Sending money to TV preachers has about as much to do with donating to real religion as flipping a coin into the Trevi Fountain.
-
Watches the point go sailing over Michael's head.
Once again, you stand in judgement giving the masses the pass of being responsible for their own actions. IF I chose to hand over my money to the Church, it would not be because they bombarded me with their holier than thou barrage of do gooder religious rhetoric but that I thought my money could be put to a good cause.
Personally I think that I am responsible for all of my actions, just like I think that you are responsible for yours. We all come into this world able to think our way through and long before we are sucked into the outside influences we have parents. Now before you run on with the falling through the cracks prattle let's just say that IF you are going to blame big daddy US government for not coddling those that cannot make it on their maybe you should blame the first government that failed them... their family.
BUT I digress, the point that I was really making is all programs whether they are Religious, big corporate moguls, or government start out gathering large funds that they allocate and adjudicate promising to help the needy and cure all social ills all the while driving the funds from the top down through a sift that is so tight very little makes it down to your so called needy.
I prefer to work hard and earn as much money as I can. I would love to be the greedy bastard that earned $250,000.00 a year. I promise you very little would go to the Church or some stupid social program that encourages the receiver to wait around for their hand out, their social fix, or anything else that let’s them rationalize that their fate rests in my hands. All that said, I am a very generous and charitable person. I make contributions to causes that I can see the benefit of... my neighbors that hit a tough spot, a family in my neighborhood that can use a hand up. I shop in my neighborhood and I support small business were ever I can. These are good causes, Michael. If I support my community it will thrive and the neighborhoods will benefit, the tax base will benefit, the Churches will benefit. These are all good things that I can truly feel a part of.
-
I don't see any problem with many of the churches. I have my bank account in a church credit union, which says they contribute to missions, where poor children are educated and the sick are cured. They are at least as good as any commercial bank, and are no into buying out other banks and such.
The mega churches tend to be monuments to the megapreachers that founded them.
-
Watches the point go sailing over Michael's head. Once again, you stand in judgement giving the masses the pass of being responsible for their own actions. IF I chose to hand over my money to the Church, it would not be because they bombarded me with their holier than thou barrage of do gooder religious rhetoric but that I thought my money could be put to a good cause. Personally I think that I am responsible for all of my actions, just like I think that you are responsible for yours.
Which unfortunately Cro, is a concept few on the hard left can grasp :-\ Enter --> those who "know better than you" Know where YOUR $$$ would be better spent
-
<<Once again, you stand in judgement giving the masses the pass of being responsible for their own actions.>>
That was an easy call. They're morons and the televangelists take advantage of them, and the government makes it easy for the evangelists because they get tax breaks as "religious" institutions. LMFAO. Religious? They're a business and everyone but their victims knows it.
<< IF I chose to hand over my money to the Church, it would not be because they bombarded me with their holier than thou barrage of do gooder religious rhetoric but that I thought my money could be put to a good cause.>>
Well, that's YOU. When was the last time you sent Brother Swaggart or Rev. Hagee a love-offering? Those stats don't reflect the giving habits of rational, sane Americans - - they represent the moronic actions of the dumbest and most vulnerable of the American people as they are fleeced mercilessly by phony religious con artists bilking them over public airwaves with government tax assists for being so "religious."
<<Personally I think that I am responsible for all of my actions, just like I think that you are responsible for yours. We all come into this world able to think our way through and long before we are sucked into the outside influences we have parents. Now before you run on with the falling through the cracks prattle let's just say that IF you are going to blame big daddy US government for not coddling those that cannot make it on their maybe you should blame the first government that failed them... their family. >>
Bullshit. I blame the government for failing their family AND for failing them.
<<BUT I digress, the point that I was really making is all programs whether they are Religious, big corporate moguls, or government start out gathering large funds that they allocate and adjudicate promising to help the needy and cure all social ills all the while driving the funds from the top down through a sift that is so tight very little makes it down to your so called needy. >>
Well, despite all the failings of the current government, "elected" as it is in a capitalist system under capitalist rules, it isn't clear to me that government revenues AREN'T distributed more generously than corporate revenues to the guys at the bottom of the pit. Corporate revenues are directed publically, lavishly and ostentatiously to the greater good of the corporate owners, as we know with private jets, private Caribbean and Greek islands, yachts, palaces, hookers and expense accounts. Ain't much left over for anyone. OTOH, if the politicians who oversee the collection of taxes for, say, education or health-care grants were to spend it on themselves as the corporate world does, there'd be a fucking revolution. It's nonsense to claim, as you do, that both government and business are equally bad in not allowing the money they take in to filter down. There is a huge difference between them, even when we are dealing with a government that depends on the corrupt corporate world for its lifeblood campaign financing.
<<I prefer to work hard and earn as much money as I can. I would love to be the greedy bastard that earned $250,000.00 a year. >>
Yeah, you and me both. So long as it didn't cost me time with my wife and family, or leisure time reading and listening to music and studying.
<< I promise you very little would go to the Church . . . >>
I hear ya, sister!
<< . . . or some stupid social program that encourages the receiver to wait around for their hand out, their social fix, or anything else that let’s them rationalize that their fate rests in my hands. >>
Hold on that's where I draw the line. If the government has a program to relieve poverty and suffering I am all for it and I'll pay more taxes gladly. I don't ask that it be guaranteed to work, either. Everything I do doesn't end successfully, so I don't ask that my government be infallible either. All I ask is that they do their best to evaluate the program before they execute, and determine to the best of their abilities that it has a reasonable chance of success.
<< All that said, I am a very generous and charitable person. I make contributions to causes that I can see the benefit of... my neighbors that hit a tough spot, a family in my neighborhood that can use a hand up. >>
I do what I can, but my own problems come first. That is the bottom line. Charity begins at home.
<< I shop in my neighborhood and I support small business were ever I can. >>
In theory, yeah. But if a big-ticket item is significantly cheaper at a big-box store, goodbye Mr. Neighbourhood Business. There's a balance of convenience and price and both are legitimate concerns. The only local businesses that I support unequivocally are restaurants and bookstores. I hate to see big-box bookstores drive out the little guy and I do what I can to stop it. And, given the choice, my wife and I always buy Ontario produce at the grocer's.
<<These are good causes, Michael. If I support my community it will thrive and the neighborhoods will benefit, the tax base will benefit, the Churches will benefit. These are all good things that I can truly feel a part of.>>
Can't argue with ya, cro. In theory, this is all to the good. Even the churches, provided that they are not agents of reaction.
-
"...It's nonsense to claim, as you do, that both government and business are equally bad in not allowing the money they take in to filter down. ..."
Oh?
Why should one think so , where is the evidence either way?
A National government changeing revolution is hard to stage , company leadership revolutions happen almost constantly .
Is it easyer to cover up wrongdoing and misappropriation with the power of a government office or a corporate one?
-
A National government changeing revolution is hard to stage , company leadership revolutions happen almost constantly .
Is it easyer to cover up wrongdoing and misappropriation with the power of a government office or a corporate one?
===========================================
MUCH easier to cover up such stuff in a corporation. Just witness what went on at Enron, Lehman Brothers, WAMU. One day they are great companies, the next day, they are deceased for all practical purposes.
The government has better systems for tracing where the money is going, and it tends to be more public. They can't arrest reporters doing an investigation on govt. fraud. If they catch thm going through thr records at some corporation, they get arrested, sued, fined and fired.
-
<<Why should one think so , where is the evidence either way?>>
The evidence is in the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Know any politicians who live at that level on public money? You know damn well you don't!
<<A National government changeing revolution is hard to stage , company leadership revolutions happen almost constantly .>>
BFD. Name one corporate "revolution" where the company got back one cent of what the former officers and directors pocketed.
<<Is it easyer to cover up wrongdoing and misappropriation with the power of a government office or a corporate one?>>
No contest. Corporate every time. Hopefully you read XO's post on that.
-
>>That was an easy call. They're morons and the televangelists take advantage of them, and the government makes it easy for the evangelists because they get tax breaks as "religious" institutions.<<
What you're seeing here is just how limited Mikey's, and the lefts, thinking is. It's probably why liberals are liberals in the first place. Mikey's thinking is limited to the stereotype he's been taught by the left, the television evangelist. He can't conceive anything else. So he dutifully repeats what he's learned, never even realizing what a small percentage of religious people these television evangelists actually represent.
It's the template at work. Again.
-
<<So he dutifully repeats what he's learned, never even realizing what a small percentage of religious people these television evangelists actually represent.>>
Doesn't matter what percentage of religious people the TV evangelists represent, they probably rake in the lion's share of all that money that the "good-hearted" American people supposedly donate to "religion."
IMHO, if you subtracted all the dough that went to the televangelists, American giving to "religion" wouldn't be nearly as impressive as you guys seem to think it is.
-
>>Doesn't matter what percentage of religious people the TV evangelists represent, they probably rake in the lion's share of all that money that the "good-hearted" American people supposedly donate to "religion."<<
Once again, your ignorance is showing. If you'd like, you can show me some evidence of this claim, otherwise please refrain from showing your ass.
It's the template, again.
-
A National government changeing revolution is hard to stage , company leadership revolutions happen almost constantly .
Is it easyer to cover up wrongdoing and misappropriation with the power of a government office or a corporate one?
===========================================
MUCH easier to cover up such stuff in a corporation. Just witness what went on at Enron, Lehman Brothers, WAMU. One day they are great companies, the next day, they are deceased for all practical purposes.
The government has better systems for tracing where the money is going, and it tends to be more public. They can't arrest reporters doing an investigation on govt. fraud. If they catch thm going through thr records at some corporation, they get arrested, sued, fined and fired.
Didn't several congressmen get caught with graft last few years?
The Republicans even were sent to jail , the democrats that stuffed their freezers with cold cash are gonna get reelected .
But when ENRON went to court even the big Democrats went to jail.
I think taken as a whole it is much easyer to correct corporate malfeasance than governmental.
And I have never seen any evidence that government is less prone to it than corperations.
-
LMFAO.... I know that is old chat room lingo but please...
For all of you anti government conspiracy nuts... corporate can do more than government? HA HA HA....wadda bout yer black helicopters.
EVERYONE can and does bend rules - the problem comes when there is no higher ground to judge the severity of said 'bend.'
The way I see it, we can equate harm to all - Catholic priests, Greedy corporate bastards and yes.... Congressmen that pad their coffers and are bought out by big interests. It is a good healthy mix...get over it
-
I have been told that there are 200,000 absentee ballots cast in my state which is going overwhelmingly McCain. And this should wipe out or at least nullify all of this early voting by Democrats.
So it seems we are not fucked after all.
-
Doesn't matter what percentage of religious people the TV evangelists represent, they probably rake in the lion's share of all that money that the "good-hearted" American people supposedly donate to "religion."
I'm not so sure about that Tee, wouldn't tithes be considered "giving to religion"? I give 10% of my net to the Church, I think 10% is the rate for Mormons too so Pooch would also give 10%. I'm not sure how different Catholic parishes handle that, Rich or JS could enlighten me on that, but when I was Catholic it was also 10%.
That adds up pretty quickly.
But I wouldn't do it if I didn't think it were worth something.
-
I'ver always worked under the 8 percent for the Church and 2 percent for other charities rule.
-
<<Didn't several congressmen get caught with graft last few years?>>
Yeah, they did. Why don't you try comparing the lifestyles of the crooked Congressmen with the lifestyles of the crooked executives? Then you'll KNOW who steals more.
Or try comparing the NUMBER of corporate crooks caught in the past five years with the number of crooked corporate executives. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
The concept that government steals more than private business is frankly ridiculous. I'm absolutely fascinated by the sheer ignorance of the American people. Where do you actually get your ludicrous ideas from? How would you account for the fact that everyone we know who has had surgery or treatment of major illnesses, ourselves included, has received excellent medical care and our life span is longer than the average American's life span, if "Big Government crooks" are robbing us blind?
How is it that YOUR government has had to fork over $700 billion to make good the losses of scoundrels in private industry with no comparable loss or theft from any government program or programs, and yet you are still maintaining the absurd fiction that private business is less wasteful than government??
Your crazy theories have absolutely no relationship to facts which are staring you straight in the face every time you turn on your TV's and yet you persist in babbling your crapulous nonsense about the evils of big government and the wonders of big business. It really does sound like the inmates have taken over the asylum. Engaging in debates like this sure solves one major problem for me: HOW was George W. Bush EVER elected to any public office anywhere in the U.S.?
-
I have been told that there are 200,000 absentee ballots cast in my state which is going overwhelmingly McCain. And this should wipe out or at least nullify all of this early voting by Democrats.
So it seems we are not fucked after all.
====================================
Why should absentee ballots be cast more for McCain than for Obama?
There is no reason to suppose this whatever, although you "have been told" it.
McCain is going down. Watch and see.
-
I have been told that there are 200,000 absentee ballots cast in my state which is going overwhelmingly McCain. And this should wipe out or at least nullify all of this early voting by Democrats.
So it seems we are not fucked after all.
====================================
Why should absentee ballots be cast more for McCain than for Obama?
There is no reason to suppose this whatever, although you "have been told" it.
McCain is going down. Watch and see.
McCain is going down. But who's in the Congress?
If we vote a man into office to sit up high and full of might. What does that really matter in the end....when the Congress makes or breaks a hell of a lot of what skips the beat in this nation.
I like Obama. I hope he can pull something together.
I also like McCain and Palin.
We have a lot of cleaning up to do because of that Bush.
Damn....not your Charilie Brown world anymore.
-
Why should absentee ballots be cast more for McCain than for Obama?
There is no reason to suppose this whatever, although you "have been told" it.
McCain is going down. Watch and see.
Republicans hold a lead in Florida among returned absentee ballots. According to numbers from the beginning of this week, more than 295,000 Republicans had returned absentee ballots compared to 199,800 Democrats and almost 76,800 Independents.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/democrats-lead.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/democrats-lead.html)
-----------
I have officially rescinded the "We're fucked" proclamation, and I now rate Florida as "Lean Republican."
-
Or try comparing the NUMBER of corporate crooks caught in the past five years with the number of crooked corporate executives. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
The relitive number caught could easily be misleading , there are many thousands more Bussinessmen than congressmen , and the rate at which they get caught relitive to one another doesn't tell you how relitively well they hide malfeasance.
Also the rules for Congressional obedience to the law are more lax , Congress isn't really passing the same test that Enron failed.
-
<<The relitive number caught could easily be misleading , there are many thousands more Bussinessmen than congressmen . . . >>
But it's not fair to count only congressmen and include all businessmen and women. There are plenty of politicians who are crooks and thieves who haven't yet made it into Congress. If Big Government is as big as you claim it is, surely there are lots more potential wrongdoers than are gathered in Congress.
<< . . . and the rate at which they get caught relitive to one another doesn't tell you how relitively well they hide malfeasance.>>
Well, in the absence of any hard evidence either way, I would have to assume that neither businessmen and women or politicians are any more skilled than the other at concealing their defalcations. Besides, a lot of people in Congress were in business beforehand, which makes them qualified in either category.
<<Also the rules for Congressional obedience to the law are more lax , Congress isn't really passing the same test that Enron failed.>>
That can't be. When businessmen steal big-time, they wind up with huge accourtrements of wealth, private jets and yachts, private islands in the Caribean, wild, lavish parties costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, $60,000 bottles of vintage wine, the whole nine yards. Poor old political crooks like Duke Cunningham don't get to live that large, never seem to hit that Nirvana level of larceny, their efforts are so paltry compared to business crooks.
And also the standard wasn't who steals more, but who wastes more. Theft is only a part of the waste. In the non-criminal area of waste, the businessmen win hands down over the polticians. There, your issue of laxness is stood on its head - - there are NO RULES on how much money a businessman can take out from his business. Every extravagance, every strip-club expense account, every limo ride is the "cost of doing business" or a personal life-style decision which at any level of government would be critically scrutinized and mercilessly exposed. Corporate jets are the norm, mansions and bigger mansions are to be expected - - a politician living that life, unless he marries into it like McCain or Kerry, is going to have his ass nailed to the wall.
I think, particularly in North America (except Mexico) and Western Europe, the amount of thievery and waste from government programs is pretty well kept under control, while no such controls exist in business. The fact that thousands of employees can be let go in hard times to "cut costs" indicates that in good times a lot of unnecessary "fat" is being carried on business payrolls. The existence of corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn was premised on the existence of waste in corporate targets, waste that could easily and quickly be trimmed by the raiders until the corporate assets could be sold off.
If you look at the food industry, for example, and factor in the cost of competition - - each breakfast cereal comes with its own multimillion dollar package of advertising and packaging and marketing which vastly exceeds the cost of the cereal in the box, you will begin to get some tiny glimpse of the wasteful ways of the capitalist system, which YOU pay for with every box of cornflakes that you eat, every gallon of gasoline that you burn, every drug that you or your insurer purchases.
Your MSM is corporate-owned, therefore it's no mystery why they zoom in gleefully on government waste and corruption, but leave almost totally unexamined the stupendous amount of waste that is programmed into the capitalist system. In fact, by sensationalizing only the overtly criminal side of capitalist waste, they isolate it effectively from the much larger waste and inefficiency of capitalism that is found, for example, in the price of every box of Cornflakes. You become aware, for example, of the lifestyle of Dennis Koslowski, but not of the owners of the General Foods empire, the media empires, the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc. People are making 400 times what you are making, but the only time you hear of it is when they step over the line into overtly criminal actions. But most of them are smart enough to stay within the bounds of the law where it's LEGAL to make 400 times more than you do.
Now I could easily envisage someone who is twice or even three times as smart or as hard-working as you or I, but I can't imagine someone ten times smarter or ten times more hard-working, yet there are routinely found in business and commerce men and women making ten times, twenty times or more what the average guy is earning. Why are they being over-compensated at this rate? The answer is, because they can get away with it. The PROFITS, generated by the business they are in, permit it. There is the reason for the waste and inefficiency right there, the profit system. The governments are not run for profit, the waste and inefficiency you find there are accidents or corruptions of the system, but, and especially in Western Europe, Canada and the U.S.A., they are the exceptions and not the rule. The profit system however is built into every purchase and sale that takes place under capitalism. THAT is why the wastage is much greater in business than it is in government.
-
As excellent explanation, Tee, and right on the money. Too bad it took so many long words to say it. The guys you need to convince do not like things in print: they prefer Rush ranting and raving and crumpling paper and banging his chubby fists on the table.
Here in Florida, a municipal water company pointed out that their water had to pass many inspections and had achieved a perfect rating, whereas bottled water was under far more lax rules. The next day, Nestle (owner of Zephyrhills, the biggest bottler of water in the state) was there with a lawsuit.
Most people do not understand that just letting a gallon of city water sit on the counter for an hour will remove all the chlorine taste. It is amazing how much people piss away on bottled water.
-
Most people do not understand that just letting a gallon of city water sit on the counter for an hour will remove all the chlorine taste. It is amazing how much people piss away on bottled water.
Faster if the aeration screen on your kitchen sink isn't all clogged up. If you keep that screen clean, the aerated water will release nearly all the chlorine within minutes.
-
Faster if the aeration screen on your kitchen sink isn't all clogged up. If you keep that screen clean, the aerated water will release nearly all the chlorine within minutes.
I can't taste the chlorine in my tap water, but others can.
Strangely, the same people who are the most fanatic about drinking only bottled water not only always use tap water for their ice cubes (the refrigerator does that for them), and think nothing of either the safety or the taste of ice water, freezes, flips and such made with tap water ice.
I have yet to meet anyone who uses Perrier or Fiji or even common Zephyrhills water for their ice cubes. I think this is akin to the 5-second rule: bugus, but we don't want to think about it, it hurts our brains.
-
Strangely, the same people who are the most fanatic about drinking only bottled water not only always use tap water for their ice cubes (the refrigerator does that for them), and think nothing of either the safety or the taste of ice water, freezes, flips and such made with tap water ice.
The refrigerators with ice makers typically have activated charcoal filters which removes the chlorine (and other chemicals that change the taste).
-
The refrigerators with ice makers typically have activated charcoal filters which removes the chlorine (and other chemicals that change the taste).
==================================
Even so, just freezing a tray of ice cubes results in ice that has no chlorine taste.
Most people that I know who insist on bottled water do so because they think it is cleaner or healthier for them, which is generally untrue. Most tap water in the US is as mineral-free and germ-free as bottled water.
The biggest drawbacks to bottled water are the price (exorbitant when compared to the cost of water from the faucet) and the fact that every bottle produces another bottle, made from petrochemicals, to a landfill somewhere. Even if they are recycled, they are not recycled as another bottle. Nestle suing a public water company for advertising that their water is as good as bottled is absurd. I really hope they lose a lot of money, because it is based entirely on greed.
-
Most people that I know who insist on bottled water do so because they think it is cleaner or healthier for them, which is generally untrue. Most tap water in the US is as mineral-free and germ-free as bottled water.
Bottled water is tap water from another city. Check out the label sometime - they all say something like "originates from public water sources" and then they usually filter it. But you can do the filtering yourself...
-
Bottled water is tap water from another city. Check out the label sometime - they all say something like "originates from public water sources" and then they usually filter it. But you can do the filtering yourself...
I know all of that. Zephyrhills has ads which suggest that their water comes from springs, deep in the Earth, but in reality, it is from a public water company that pumps it out of wells. Just like the wells most cities use.
But people who insist on bottled water do not see how their filtering could remove GERMS. Still, they do not worry about germs in ice. The main reasons for buying bottled water are irrational.
-
But people who insist on bottled water do not see how their filtering could remove GERMS. Still, they do not worry about germs in ice. The main reasons for buying bottled water are irrational.
A reverse osmosis system installed in their home would work for removing germs.
-
A reverse osmosis system installed in their home would work for removing germs.
==================================================================
I am sure that this is true, but I am also sure that whatever germs dwell in North Miami tap water are harmless, because I have been drinking it with them in it (if the chlorine did not turn them into small invisible germ corpses) for the past 30 years with no ill effect. Some germs are actually required for digestion, anyway.
We avoid kissing the dog, because we see where he puts his tongue. However, a dog can cure a wound by licking it with his tongue as well, and that is not taken into consideration, at least by modern people.
Besides, there are germs, and there are imaginary germs. Both are invisible. After the chlorine has killed maybe all the germs in the city tap water, there are still invisible imaginary germs in it. We all know that "you pay for what you get", so a bottle of Dasani water for 35¢ or so ($1.00 if cold and sold on the street) is clearly better than the same 10 oz. of water from the tap, because it cost so much more.
There used to be these swindlers who would run about offering to "test your water". They would add one solution, then another and lo and behold, it turned a nasty color and got all cloudy: UGH!
They never actually tested water run through their amazing $200+ filters, because they were not installed. The installer of course, knew nothing of the test.
Then there are the clowns who peddle "natural" vitamins at about twelve times what drugstore brands cost, but they are better because they are not "made of chemicals".
-
XO is right , this is a good post ,....
But I am compelled to quibble.
<<The relitive number caught could easily be misleading , there are many thousands more Bussinessmen than congressmen . . . >>
But it's not fair to count only congressmen and include all businessmen and women. There are plenty of politicians who are crooks and thieves who haven't yet made it into Congress. If Big Government is as big as you claim it is, surely there are lots more potential wrongdoers than are gathered in Congress.
Yes and we have special prisons for white collar crime where thetwo types mingle.<< . . . and the rate at which they get caught relitive to one another doesn't tell you how relitively well they hide malfeasance.>>
Well, in the absence of any hard evidence either way, I would have to assume that neither businessmen and women or politicians are any more skilled than the other at concealing their defalcations. Besides, a lot of people in Congress were in business beforehand, which makes them qualified in either category.
True that, also a lot of congressmen become businessmen and/ or lobbyists after their congressional career , we are really talking about the same guys both ways. The Congress is a collections of Former Class presidents and valdictorians , so are our Corporate boardrooms <<Also the rules for Congressional obedience to the law are more lax , Congress isn't really passing the same test that Enron failed.>>
That can't be. When businessmen steal big-time, they wind up with huge accourtrements of wealth, private jets and yachts, private islands in the Caribean, wild, lavish parties costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, $60,000 bottles of vintage wine, the whole nine yards. Poor old political crooks like Duke Cunningham don't get to live that large, never seem to hit that Nirvana level of larceny, their efforts are so paltry compared to business crooks.
Oh no Enron made up money from nothing , which isn't allowed for business , it kept multiple books which business is also not supposed to do. ,....Hmmm.. Hey Enron spent employees and investors money that should have been preserved and increased for their retirement . ... but of course Congress does that too.
And also the standard wasn't who steals more, but who wastes more. Theft is only a part of the waste. In the non-criminal area of waste, the businessmen win hands down over the polticians. There, your issue of laxness is stood on its head - - there are NO RULES on how much money a businessman can take out from his business. Every extravagance, every strip-club expense account, every limo ride is the "cost of doing business" or a personal life-style decision which at any level of government would be critically scrutinized and mercilessly exposed. Corporate jets are the norm, mansions and bigger mansions are to be expected - - a politician living that life, unless he marries into it like McCain or Kerry, is going to have his ass nailed to the wall.
Any idea how many Congressmen are millionaires? Did Bill Clinton make a million or three while he was a politician? In Business a leaner compeditor might take over your market or the FBI might audit your books , in Congress the competition is more limited and the FBI depends on you to sign their paychecks.
I think, particularly in North America (except Mexico) and Western Europe, the amount of thievery and waste from government programs is pretty well kept under control, while no such controls exist in business. The fact that thousands of employees can be let go in hard times to "cut costs" indicates that in good times a lot of unnecessary "fat" is being carried on business payrolls. The existence of corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn was premised on the existence of waste in corporate targets, waste that could easily and quickly be trimmed by the raiders until the corporate assets could be sold off.
"fat" being employees?
If you look at the food industry, for example, and factor in the cost of competition - - each breakfast cereal comes with its own multimillion dollar package of advertising and packaging and marketing which vastly exceeds the cost of the cereal in the box, you will begin to get some tiny glimpse of the wasteful ways of the capitalist system, which YOU pay for with every box of cornflakes that you eat, every gallon of gasoline that you burn, every drug that you or your insurer purchases.
Your MSM is corporate-owned, therefore it's no mystery why they zoom in gleefully on government waste and corruption, but leave almost totally unexamined the stupendous amount of waste that is programmed into the capitalist system. In fact, by sensationalizing only the overtly criminal side of capitalist waste, they isolate it effectively from the much larger waste and inefficiency of capitalism that is found, for example, in the price of every box of Cornflakes. You become aware, for example, of the lifestyle of Dennis Koslowski, but not of the owners of the General Foods empire, the media empires, the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc. People are making 400 times what you are making, but the only time you hear of it is when they step over the line into overtly criminal actions. But most of them are smart enough to stay within the bounds of the law where it's LEGAL to make 400 times more than you do.
Now I could easily envisage someone who is twice or even three times as smart or as hard-working as you or I, but I can't imagine someone ten times smarter or ten times more hard-working, yet there are routinely found in business and commerce men and women making ten times, twenty times or more what the average guy is earning. Why are they being over-compensated at this rate? The answer is, because they can get away with it. The PROFITS, generated by the business they are in, permit it. There is the reason for the waste and inefficiency right there, the profit system. The governments are not run for profit, the waste and inefficiency you find there are accidents or corruptions of the system, but, and especially in Western Europe, Canada and the U.S.A., they are the exceptions and not the rule. The profit system however is built into every purchase and sale that takes place under capitalism. THAT is why the wastage is much greater in business than it is in government.
This explans Wayne Gretsky being on the Wheaties box , but I can't imagine makeing half or a tenth or a hundredth as many goals against pro Hocky players myself , If you are a tenth the player Gretsky is you are a pretty good player.
As an Aircraft maintainer I feel usefull but my replacement is waiting at the gate with very nearly equal skill , my value as a worker is determined by the absolute availibility of my skill and its utility to the payer. The President is going to get more than eight times my pay even though we are both civil servants and I might could handle his job.
-
The President is going to get more than eight times my pay even though we are both civil servants and I might could handle his job.
Eight times, not 400 times.
-
The President is going to get more than eight times my pay even though we are both civil servants and I might could handle his job.
Eight times, not 400 times.
So we are really talking big league at $25000000.00 per anum.
Reminds me of Babe Ruth being asked by the press how he felt about makeing more than the President , he said
" I had a better year then the President ."
When you sell a used car it is actually worth esxactly no more than a buyer is willing to pay , but if you had a buyer who was willing to pay a whole lot would you refuse him?
I remember President Carter going to Poland with a poorly qualified translator , on that occasion it would have been worthwile to have paid a bit more for the sake of quality, If you were asked to perform translation on such an important occasion , what should that be worth?
-
When you sell a used car it is actually worth esxactly no more than a buyer is willing to pay , but if you had a buyer who was willing to pay a whole lot would you refuse him?
I would demand payment in cash, and I would examine the cash very carefully.
Accepting overpayment is not the problem. It is offering it that causes the problem.
-------------
Reminds me of Babe Ruth being asked by the press how he felt about makeing more than the President , he said
" I had a better year then the President ."
I do not consider Babe Ruth to be an expert on economics. Nearly everyone THINKS they are worth as much or more than you pay them.
=============================
I remember President Carter going to Poland with a poorly qualified translator , on that occasion it would have been worthwile to have paid a bit more for the sake of quality, If you were asked to perform translation on such an important occasion , what should that be worth?
I do not think that this person was chosen because they agreed to work for less. I think it was someone who was educated in the US, ad had a good knowledge of Poland, but whose Polish was learned from parents and grandparents who were essentially hicks who left Poland in the 1930's
Paying this person more would not have improved their performance. Once this problem was reported, Carter got another translator. No harm was done. The Republicans had it in for Carter and exaggerated everything about him that could be shown as a negative. They did the same to Clinton. It is what they do: they would rather shackle our presidents and denigrate them than allow the country to progress.
Juniorbush certainly needed better advice when he decided to invade Iraq. Of course, it is pretty clear that he ordered advice that could be used to justify the invasion. But paying the Neocons more would not have improved the quality of their advice.
-
"Juniorbush certainly needed better advice when he decided to invade Iraq. Of course, it is pretty clear that he ordered advice that could be used to justify the invasion. But paying the Neocons more would not have improved the quality of their advice."
.....
Bush has yet to admit that he made a mistake, yet I've heard so many confess to "bad advice".
That makes one wonder why the hell we even vote the way we do.....and by that I mean the constant fight Americans engage in over the personality, intelligence and reference points of one candidate or another.
Let's just vote for the King/Queen of the court to sit pretty, then demand that the decision making "court" be held to the highest standards. WEllll, we already have that capability as citizens, right?
Ooops,
WE ALREADY have THAT demanding voice.
Then why are we in this mess?
Perhaps it was all about the almighty $$ in the end.
-
OR....perhaps it was how best to provide security & defense to this country, including all the mistakes along the way, to that end
-
The Republicans had it in for Carter and exaggerated everything about him that could be shown as a negative. They did the same to Clinton. It is what they do: they would rather shackle our presidents and denigrate them than allow the country to progress.
I'm not so sure that is a strictly Republican trait.
-
OR....perhaps it was how best to provide security & defense to this country, including all the mistakes along the way, to that end
Well, Sirs, I really do want that to be the truth, down deep. I hate conspiracy theories even if they are about greed.
But, the advice to invade and the speed in which Bush invaded was just not well planned out.
He could have invaded the terrorist sacs instead of an entire nation....Sure, eventually, Iraq would have been invaded for the purpose of hunting down more terrorists. But to go to war the way we did was a "rush to judgement". Those mistakes, I am afraid are major blunders.
Bush's decision to invade and claim a victory so early in the game only opened the door to criticism. Not only the criticims that we read on the board and hear on the street, but now that decision has impacted a presidential election.
Who wants A FULL BLOWN war?
We are in a war for years to come and it's not all going to be about finding and killing terrorists. We are in an economics hell hole because of this war. That's scary.
There was nothing wrong with taking down Saddam, but to this day those mistakes along the way have yet to capture Bin Laden.
The source of the cancer was not Saddam. Now the fear of a relapse of the cancer of terrorism is on the minds of many, especially after a new president is elected. Just listen to Biden's statement ; "Obama will be TESTED"? We all know what he means. The inference is there. Will there be another attack on this country's soil?
So, those mistakes have set the world back--- not just the nation.
I don't see anything positive coming out on the nightly news about how the war has helped Iraqis' as Bush once claimed. I really don't believe that lack of "insight" to be the fault of the liberal media.
Face it, we just don't have enough proof that the war was a good idea, or that it has helped the nation of Iraq overall, or that the terrorists under Bin Laden have met their justice by the American war. Obama will be the next one to fall if he wins this election/or McCain for that matter---- if we are terrorized on our soil. So the cyclical effect continues all because of one stupid mistake.
Blunder and major flaw is more like it.
-
>>But, the advice to invade and the speed in which Bush invaded was just not well planned out.<<
13 months to quick for ya?
-
We are in a war for years to come and it's not all going to be about finding and killing terrorists. We are in an economics hell hole because of this war. That's scary.
I'm not sure the two factors are related.
Please expand your thoughts on this.
-
We are in a war for years to come and it's not all going to be about finding and killing terrorists. We are in an economics hell hole because of this war. That's scary.
I'm not sure the two factors are related.
Please expand your thoughts on this.
A war of economics because of the war in Iraq.
The cost of the war could have been avoided if the money was spent on necessary equipment and man power, for that matter ahead of time. So, the war will be fought in terms of economics, as I have heard.
Have you a different viewpoint on this, BT?
I'll hear ya out---if ya do?
-
I'm not sure the two factors are related.
Please expand your thoughts on this.
=====================================
The war in Iraq has cost and is costing $10 billion dollars a month. The American people are not being taxed to pay for this. The theory at the beginning of the war was that Iraq could pay for their invasion and the installation of a US-approved democracy out of their oil revenues, but this did not happen and It is being paid for by borrowing money from the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese. Interest must be paid on the loan.
If you were to charge an amount equivalent to one half your salary each and every month for six years to your credit cards, how long would it take before it became impossible for you to pay for your necessities?
It's a no-brainer. Paying for this expensive and needless war is at the root of the economic dilemma. No one trusts the US anymore, because we elected a dolt to be the most powerful man on the planet. No one trusts him, no one trusts the US, banks will not lend, businesses cannot operate without loans, and of course, house prices could not continue rising forever.
-
I'm not sure the two factors are related.
Please expand your thoughts on this.
=====================================
The war in Iraq has cost and is costing $10 billion dollars a month. The American people are not being taxed to pay for this. The theory at the beginning of the war was that Iraq could pay for their invasion and the installation of a US-approved democracy out of their oil revenues, but this did not happen and It is being paid for by borrowing money from the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese. Interest must be paid on the loan.
If you were to charge an amount equivalent to one half your salary each and every month for six years to your credit cards, how long would it take before it became impossible for you to pay for your necessities?
It's a no-brainer. Paying for this expensive and needless war is at the root of the economic dilemma. No one trusts the US anymore, because we elected a dolt to be the most powerful man on the planet. No one trusts him, no one trusts the US, banks will not lend, businesses cannot operate without loans, and of course, house prices could not continue rising forever.
ditto. ;)
especially the last paragraph!!
-
When you sell a used car it is actually worth esxactly no more than a buyer is willing to pay , but if you had a buyer who was willing to pay a whole lot would you refuse him?
I would demand payment in cash, and I would examine the cash very carefully.
Accepting overpayment is not the problem. It is offering it that causes the problem.
-------------
Reminds me of Babe Ruth being asked by the press how he felt about makeing more than the President , he said
" I had a better year then the President ."
I do not consider Babe Ruth to be an expert on economics. Nearly everyone THINKS they are worth as much or more than you pay them.
=============================
I remember President Carter going to Poland with a poorly qualified translator , on that occasion it would have been worthwile to have paid a bit more for the sake of quality, If you were asked to perform translation on such an important occasion , what should that be worth?
I do not think that this person was chosen because they agreed to work for less. I think it was someone who was educated in the US, ad had a good knowledge of Poland, but whose Polish was learned from parents and grandparents who were essentially hicks who left Poland in the 1930's
Paying this person more would not have improved their performance. Once this problem was reported, Carter got another translator. No harm was done. The Republicans had it in for Carter and exaggerated everything about him that could be shown as a negative. They did the same to Clinton. It is what they do: they would rather shackle our presidents and denigrate them than allow the country to progress.
Juniorbush certainly needed better advice when he decided to invade Iraq. Of course, it is pretty clear that he ordered advice that could be used to justify the invasion. But paying the Neocons more would not have improved the quality of their advice.
Offering more can help attract the better , in reality almost everything is in constant auction , big leage ball players are an excellent example of this , very skilled players get very high pay , notpaying them in purportion to their contribution would be cheating them , but you might argue that the groundskeepers are highly critical to playing a good game and janitors are critical to the crouds enjoyment of the game , yet groundskeepers and janitors don't have a hope of drawing the pay of a pitcher or placekicker in spite of their importance. The diffrence being how hard to find the skill is.
You do remind me of the fan who yelled at the highly payed player who erred, "For another Million would you CATCH the ball?!!!!"
-
The war in Iraq has cost and is costing $10 billion dollars a month. The American people are not being taxed to pay for this. The theory at the beginning of the war was that Iraq could pay for their invasion and the installation of a US-approved democracy out of their oil revenues, but this did not happen and It is being paid for by borrowing money from the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese. Interest must be paid on the loan.
...
It's a no-brainer. Paying for this expensive and needless war is at the root of the economic dilemma. No one trusts the US anymore, because we elected a dolt to be the most powerful man on the planet. No one trusts him, no one trusts the US, banks will not lend, businesses cannot operate without loans, and of course, house prices could not continue rising forever.
ditto. ;) especially the last paragraph!!
This of course is based on the OPINION that the war was "needless" and at the "root of the economic delimma", and that the President is a supposed "dolt". I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both.
So, no ditto from me
-
I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both.
Indeed, we should all be afraid of twisted logic that spouts such nonsense. Fighting wars on credit beggars the nations that fight them.
-
I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both.
Indeed, we should all be afraid of twisted logic that spouts such nonsense. Fighting wars on credit beggars the nations that fight them.
Oh?
WWII was more expensive by an order of magnitude , but I have recently been told that the US had a more robust economy in the wake of that war than this one.
-
I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both.
Indeed, we should all be afraid of twisted logic that spouts such nonsense. Fighting wars on credit beggars the nations that fight them.
Wasn't what would have been provided, but I'm sure whatever provided would have been properly twisted by the anti-war and/or anti Bush Nazis in order to completely skew the points & conclusions being made. SOP
-
I'm not seeing the war as the cause for the bursting of the housing bubble nor do i see it as the cause for shoddy paper being sold on Wall Street.
The war is financed by selling futures in tax receipts to those who believe that a good safe investment.
The housing market and the trading in sub primes was a riskier investment.
I don't believe XO nor Cindy have made their case, that the economic collapse is related to the war.
In fact a case could be made that the war forestalled the collapse by pumping billions into the economy on a monthly basis.
-
WWII was more expensive by an order of magnitude , but I have recently been told that the US had a more robust economy in the wake of that war than this one.
=================
WWII was followed by a tremendous demand for all manner of products that had been destroyed by the war in Europe and Japan and many, many other places. This war is not followed by a tremendous market anywhere.
There was a pretty serious economic crisis after WWII, by the way. Truman kept thousands of troops on bases because there were no jobs for them at home, and would not be until the industries could be retooled for civilian products. My uncle Wyatt spent two years in Hawaii just sitting around writing letters to every Congressman and Senator to let them come home.
I might well be that whoever told you this, told you wrong.
-
WWII was more expensive by an order of magnitude , but I have recently been told that the US had a more robust economy in the wake of that war than this one.
So we should end this one and get it over with so our economy can recover?
-
So we should end this one and get it over with so our economy can recover?
I believe XO staed WWII and the economy were not related as the economy had not fuly recovered for nearly two years after it was over.
Perhaps the absence of war prolonged the recovery period because govt spending was cut back.
-
I believe XO stated WWII and the economy were not related as the economy had not fully recovered for nearly two years after it was over.
Perhaps the absence of war prolonged the recovery period because govt spending was cut back.
=====================================================
In the last years of WWII, the government was damned near broke. The government commandeered the Iwo Jima flag raisers and paraded them all over the country in a drive to sell War Bonds. The government had no money to spend.
-
The war in Iraq has cost and is costing $10 billion dollars a month. The American people are not being taxed to pay for this. The theory at the beginning of the war was that Iraq could pay for their invasion and the installation of a US-approved democracy out of their oil revenues, but this did not happen and It is being paid for by borrowing money from the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese. Interest must be paid on the loan.
...
It's a no-brainer. Paying for this expensive and needless war is at the root of the economic dilemma. No one trusts the US anymore, because we elected a dolt to be the most powerful man on the planet. No one trusts him, no one trusts the US, banks will not lend, businesses cannot operate without loans, and of course, house prices could not continue rising forever.
ditto. ;) especially the last paragraph!!
This of course is based on the OPINION that the war was "needless" and at the "root of the economic delimma", and that the President is a supposed "dolt". I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both.
So, no ditto from me
Ok, Sirs, can you show me at least five of your countless?
-
"The war is financed by selling futures in tax receipts to those who believe that a good safe investment.
Well, then call off the dogs! We have a reason for war!
I never said that the war was the recent cause for the housing crisis or current problems.
I stated that the war cost way too much and that could have been avoided if Bush had not listened to his grand advisers.
-
We are in an economics hell hole because of this war. That's scary.
This is what you said.
Perhaps you could explain what you meant by economic hellhole.
-
This of course is based on the OPINION that the war was "needless" and at the "root of the economic delimma", and that the President is a supposed "dolt". I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both. So, no ditto from me
Ok, Sirs, can you show me at least five of your countless?
regarding the war:
1) NIE supported the conclusion Saddam had stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) CIA director concluded slam dunk on Saddam stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq for 4+years (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Iraq with both direct & indirect ties to miltant islamic terrorists (not sirs opinion....fact)
5) Weapon's Inspector David Kay stunned at how far Saddam had gotten on so many of his weapon's programs (not sirs' opinion....David Kay's)
*) Near unianimous support by both houses of Congress to undertake military operations against Iraq (not sirs' opinion....fact)
regarding the economic dilemma
1) Bush administration pushing importance of home ownwership and need to "make it easier to own a home" (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) GOP (including McCain) raising red flags at what was showing signs of trouble with Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, pushing for more regulatory oversight (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Democrats blocking every effort at increasing regulation oversight (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Housing bubble that everyone knew was going to burst at any time
5) Mortgage institutions being pushed to give mortgages to low income familes who would have otherwise not qualified for mortgages. Many of them variable rate (not sirs' opinion....fact)
Very little connecting the 2, I'm afraid Miss Cynthia, and many many more facts, numerous politicians & pundit deductions, commission investigations, and timelines not even applied that help dispell the notion of how supposedly "needless" the war was and how it's some central source of the "economic dilemma"
-
BT,
Can you explain the real reason we are in this economically sticky situation?
What about the dot com of the year 2000?
What is the reason we are in such an economic mess?
I want to learn from you here.
Please.
Cindy
-
We are in an economics hell hole because of this war. That's scary.
This is what you said.
Perhaps you could explain what you meant by economic hellhole.
Trillions of dollars in debt because of the war.
Can you help me understand what you think about why we are not in a bad state of affairs due to the war. I am all ears.
-
BT,
Can you explain the real reason we are in this economically sticky situation?
What about the dot com of the year 2000?
What is the reason we are in such an economic mess?
I want to learn from you here.
Please.
Cindy
Perhaps at a later time.
I am currently seeking answers to determine why you would link the war to the current economic hellhole.
Please show the relationship.
-
This of course is based on the OPINION that the war was "needless" and at the "root of the economic delimma", and that the President is a supposed "dolt". I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both. So, no ditto from me
Ok, Sirs, can you show me at least five of your countless?
regarding the war:
1) NIE supported the conclusion Saddam had stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) CIA director concluded slam dunk on Saddam stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq for 4+years (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Iraq with both direct & indirect ties to miltant islamic terrorists (not sirs opinion....fact)
5) Weapon's Inspector David Kay stunned at how far Saddam had gotten on so many of his weapon's programs (not sirs' opinion....David Kay's)
*) Near unianimous support by both houses of Congress to undertake military operations against Iraq (not sirs' opinion....fact)
regarding the economic dilemma
1) Bush administration pushing importance of home ownwership and need to "make it easier to own a home" (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) GOP (including McCain) raising red flags at what was showing signs of trouble with Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, pushing for more regulatory oversight (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Democrats blocking every effort at increasing regulation oversight (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Housing bubble that everyone knew was going to burst at any time
5) Mortgage institutions being pushed to give mortgages to low income familes who would have otherwise not qualified for mortgages. Many of them variable rate (not sirs' opinion....fact)
Very little connecting the 2, I'm afraid Miss Cynthia, and many many more facts, numerous politicians & pundit deductions, commission investigations, and timelines not even applied that help dispell the notion of how supposedly "needless" the war was and how it's some central source of the "economic dilemma"
So why are we rushing to vote for a liberal? Us meaning the nation at large.
Why have we not understood what you have printed here, Sirs, as a nation?
Why are we all hungry for change?
How can it be that the voters in this country are not privy to your information?
Seems to me that it's a no brainer..Why of course you're right. wow. ...oh my.....
Then why are we not rushing to applaud the past administration?
-
Trillions of dollars in debt because of the war.
How would the volume of US Treasury Bonds affect the finances of AIG, WAMU or GM?
-
BT,
Can you explain the real reason we are in this economically sticky situation?
What about the dot com of the year 2000?
What is the reason we are in such an economic mess?
I want to learn from you here.
Please.
Cindy
Perhaps at a later time.
I am currently seeking answers to determine why you would link the war to the current economic hellhole.
Please show the relationship.
There are indeed two hell holes.
I am not linking them to one another. If I implied such, my bad.
I believe that Clinton was at fault for much of the military cutbacks and thus the bad ass planning on the part of Bush. Bush should have had adviser who knew better, however.
You don't deny that we are in an economic mess?
I believe that we are in a mess for the housing crisis because of Clinton...and the push for war because of Bush/Clinton.
-
You don't deny that we are in an economic mess?
I don't believe my finances have been affected by the wall street foibles at all.
I'm as poor as i was before the dominoes started tumbling.
We haven't had a rash of foreclosures in town except for one or two flippers.
Water bills are still being paid on time, ie late notices have not increased.
No one in my circle has lost their job. Contractors who live nearby are staying busy.
Gasoline prices have had more of an effect on me than the Dow Jones.
Now don't get me wrong, because it hasn't affected me, doesn't mean it hasn't affected other people.
How has it affected you?
-
You don't deny that we are in an economic mess?
I don't believe my finances have been affected by the wall street foibles at all.
I'm as poor as i was before the dominoes started tumbling.
We haven't had a rash of foreclosures in town except for one or two flippers.
Water bills are still being paid on time, ie late notices have not increased.
No one in my circle has lost their job. Contractors who live nearby are staying busy.
Gasoline prices have had more of an effect on me than the Dow Jones.
Now don't get me wrong, because it hasn't affected me, doesn't mean it hasn't affected other people.
How has it affected you?
I've lost thousands on my 403B retirement plan.
Gas prices are now down.
I live in Albuquerque. I sit pretty on a hill in my own home, built just for me 8 years ago.
Price of Avocadoes, tomatoes, lemons and such have gone up.
Fear of retirement too early is on my mind, but not a reality...just a minor fear.
You are stating your life as an American, as am I.
So, we do not have it that bad-----and I pray we do not in the future.
It's the future that scares me.
I can't vote for Obama because of one key issue-----Abortion.
Period.
But Congress will pull all punches in all directions.
SO, are you saying that there is no reason to worry, BT?
Trillions of dollars in debt because of the war?
Millions of Americans in hot water---albeit not you ....nor me.??
Why do you support McCain(if you do)?
Why do you support Obama(if you do)?
Is it not the congress we should be concerned about for our future?
Did Bush make the right decision to go to war?
Why haven't you told me why your support Bush' decision to go to IRaq?
Ok, too many questions for now. But, I sure would like to hear more from you in terms of your understanding of the details of all of this.
You are a leader for this board. I hear more from Sirs than I do you.
Why?
-
SO, are you saying that there is no reason to worry, BT?
What good does it do to worry?
Prices always go up. The rate at which they rise can be troublesome but most of the rise is due to petroleum costs.
I haven't bought a store tomato in months. I grow my own.
Two things on the radar concern me. Energy independence ( and to me that means getting off the grid as much as possible) and water supply.
There is a trend here where people are buying 50cc scooters to get around town and up to the store etc.
There is also a mini market for moped conversions of old bikes.
Water consumption is down about 25% since the drought got bad.
It's about adaptability.
I'm not happy with either candidate. Palin intrigues me, but she isn't ready for prime time though if thrust into the spotlight i think she could rise to the occasion.
I don't think i will vote for pres this go round, unless something happens in the time remaining.
I'm not the leader of this board. I am a poster just like everyone else. I just hold the keys.
We have moderators who can override my decisions anytime they want.
-
SO, are you saying that there is no reason to worry, BT?
What good does it do to worry?
Prices always go up. The rate at which they rise can be troublesome but most of the rise is due to petroleum costs.
I haven't bought a store tomato in months. I grow my own.
Two things on the radar concern me. Energy independence ( and to me that means getting off the grid as much as possible) and water supply.
There is a trend here where people are buying 50cc scooters to get around town and up to the store etc.
There is also a mini market for moped conversions of old bikes.
Water consumption is down about 25% since the drought got bad.
It's about adaptability.
I'm not happy with either candidate. Palin intrigues me, but she isn't ready for prime time though if thrust into the spotlight i think she could rise to the occasion.
I don't think i will vote for pres this go round, unless something happens in the time remaining.
I'm not the leader of this board. I am a poster just like everyone else. I just hold the keys.
We have moderators who can override my decisions anytime they want.
Gosh, Bt....thank you!
God, I have new respect for you.
Ok, I used to grow my own tomatoes. The desert soil is too sandy. I have to grow them in pots. That's doable.
Ok, so the grid is the status quo for many of us in this country. It will change. Mark my words. We will see a positive change in this country, eventually.
There's always going to be room for inventive, intelligent folks.
Prices go up. and by darn, prices are going back down in my city as far as gasoline is concerned.
Remember when the "mad man on the stock market tube" told us that the price of milk is oftentimes more than the price of gasoline? So what's the big deal?
Well, he made sense in a way.
But, you all know more than I do about that bottom line---the price of petrol. I don't have that inside info.
I have seen women driving motor driven bikes to work around town. The trouble with that is what to do in WINTERTIME. But, hey, anything we can do to minimize polluting the air, god love those individuals.
Palin intrigues me, but she isn't ready for prime time though if thrust into the spotlight i think she could rise to the occasion.
BT, I think she is smart, in spite of the the media blitz against her. Fox has made a good point of finding her "gifts". MSNBC has done just the opposite.
as for voting; YOU can't be serious that you are not going to vote!?
But, hey that's your choice. I can understand that.
....hearing your take on things has been a good thing, BT.
....................................... remember this; my students would be proud of you for voting. ;)
Civic duty, my dear. Civic duty.
-
as for voting; YOU can't be serious that you are not going to vote!?
I didn't say i wasn't going to vote. I just won't voe the upticket race.
We have congressional, senatorial and county races to deal with.
-
as for voting; YOU can't be serious that you are not going to vote!?
I didn't say i wasn't going to vote. I just won't voe the upticket race.
We have congressional, senatorial and county races to deal with.
Ok good....
Thank you Bt for your insight and honesty.
I am a lightweight here, but I do appreciate learning more and having the opportunity to express my own knowledge and inquiry.
I think we will see that things will improve......
I also think that Bush had a rough patch to go through with 9-11, but he was a cowboy heading into war.
We need ONE ANOTHER imo. . . not government.
Hillary was right.....it takes a Village to Raise a Child.
-
Hillary was right.....it takes a Village to Raise a Child.
It takes a family to raise a child.
-
Hillary was right.....it takes a Village to Raise a Child.
It takes a family to raise a child.
Ah, but Bill, it takes more than a family....teachers are so very important to some of the children who are not born WITH.
It does take a Village to raise the child of this world.
It took parents to raise the children in my generation adn those before me.
But, this is, sadly, a different world.
Different is not something we should take for granted.
Different just IS.
-
No reason families can't make a comeback.
The only thing that may have changed in the last generation id the definition of family.
But the state is not family.
It is the caregiver of last resort.
-
No reason families can't make a comeback.
The only thing that may have changed in the last generation id the definition of family.
But the state is not family.
It is the caregiver of last resort.
Unfortunately, the state has had to take over more than we would want.
Free lunches/when mothers should be fixing those peanut butter sandwiches and orange slices.
So, are we saying here that the family needs a bit of raising?
It will take a depressive state to revitalize the family in the end, sadly.
-
This of course is based on the OPINION that the war was "needless" and at the "root of the economic delimma", and that the President is a supposed "dolt". I'm afraid I can provide countless examples of facts, timelines, & common sense that would provide an alternate position on both. So, no ditto from me
Ok, Sirs, can you show me at least five of your countless?
regarding the war:
1) NIE supported the conclusion Saddam had stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) CIA director concluded slam dunk on Saddam stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq for 4+years (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Iraq with both direct & indirect ties to miltant islamic terrorists (not sirs opinion....fact)
5) Weapon's Inspector David Kay stunned at how far Saddam had gotten on so many of his weapon's programs (not sirs' opinion....David Kay's)
*) Near unianimous support by both houses of Congress to undertake military operations against Iraq (not sirs' opinion....fact)
regarding the economic dilemma
1) Bush administration pushing importance of home ownwership and need to "make it easier to own a home" (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) GOP (including McCain) raising red flags at what was showing signs of trouble with Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, pushing for more regulatory oversight (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Democrats blocking every effort at increasing regulation oversight (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Housing bubble that everyone knew was going to burst at any time
5) Mortgage institutions being pushed to give mortgages to low income familes who would have otherwise not qualified for mortgages. Many of them variable rate (not sirs' opinion....fact)
Very little connecting the 2, I'm afraid Miss Cynthia, and many many more facts, numerous politicians & pundit deductions, commission investigations, and timelines not even applied that help dispell the notion of how supposedly "needless" the war was and how it's some central source of the "economic dilemma"
So why are we rushing to vote for a liberal? Us meaning the nation at large.
Because the country, by and large, has the attention span of an MTV commercial
Why have we not understood what you have printed here, Sirs, as a nation?
See above.....helped immeasureably by the 24/7 doom and gloom presentation of the MSM, and their near salivation at the feet of "the One"
Why are we all hungry for change?
See above
How can it be that the voters in this country are not privy to your information?
They are.....as I said, they're all FACTS. Try not to confuse "poll numbers" as negating the facts as they exist. They're not my opinions Miss Cynthia. The NIE really believed Saddam had WMD. The vast majority of the Global Intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMD. The previous administration, chalk full of Democrats believed Saddam not only had WMD, but was a distinct threat to the region, and by reach, a national security threat. So much of a threat that "Regime Change" was made an official policy position. It took 911 to wake us up to the threat of militant Islam, and with the connections Saddam had to terrroists very similar to those that perpetrated 911, would have made it a grave irresponsibility had he NOT gone into Afghanistan & Iraq
Now you can hate Bush's guts all you want, call him every name in the book, agree with every one of Xo's completely dumbed down assessments of Bush the dolt & Cheney the Evil manipulator. The facts are still there, the timeline of events will not go away. But you can ignore them to your heart's content, in order to burn Bush in effigy. Knock yourself out
-
But the state is not family.
It is the caregiver of last resort.
=============================================
Yes, I can agree with that statement, believe it or not. At least, for as long as we have to live in a capitalist society.
But AS caregiver of last resort, looking after the most helpless and vulnerable members of our society, do you want that caregiver - - who is all of us - - to be a penny-pinching, selfish and greedy skinflint or a loving and even generous protector?
-
But the state is not family.
It is the caregiver of last resort.
=============================================
Yes, I can agree with that statement, believe it or not. At least, for as long as we have to live in a capitalist society.
But AS caregiver of last resort, looking after the most helpless and vulnerable members of our society, do you want that caregiver - - who is all of us - - to be a penny-pinching, selfish and greedy skinflint or a loving and even generous protector?
How about a happy medium, Michael? I raised my children with a firm hand and taught them the word "rights" meant nothing more than responsibility. I don't want our children raised by a molly coddling Grandma who is afraid to let them struggle a bit.
-
1) NIE supported the conclusion Saddam had stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) CIA director concluded slam dunk on Saddam stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq for 4+years (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Iraq with both direct & indirect ties to miltant islamic terrorists (not sirs opinion....fact)
5) Weapon's Inspector David Kay stunned at how far Saddam had gotten on so many of his weapon's programs (not sirs' opinion....David Kay's)
*) Near unianimous support by both houses of Congress to undertake military operations against Iraq (not sirs' opinion....fact)
BUsh ordered up bogus "facts" to justify the invasion, which he and Cheney had been slavatying to do since they were selected.
Saddam had gotten NOWHERE with his WMD's. This was a smokescreen Saddam had created to scare away the Iranians.
Give up, you got nothing. No one believes this crap any more.
-
1) NIE supported the conclusion Saddam had stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
2) CIA director concluded slam dunk on Saddam stockpiles of WMD (not sirs' opinion....fact)
3) Weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq for 4+years (not sirs' opinion....fact)
4) Iraq with both direct & indirect ties to miltant islamic terrorists (not sirs opinion....fact)
5) Weapon's Inspector David Kay stunned at how far Saddam had gotten on so many of his weapon's programs (not sirs' opinion....David Kay's)
*) Near unianimous support by both houses of Congress to undertake military operations against Iraq (not sirs' opinion....fact)
BUsh ordered up bogus "facts" to justify the invasion, which he and Cheney had been slavatying to do since they were selected.
THAT again, would be your completely unsubstantiated OPINION. And the above FACTS trump your opinion every day of the week, I'm afraid to say
-
Your FACTS have the unvirtue of not being true.
Every day, fewer people believe them.
Juniorbush ordered up bogus crap and then kept harping on it.
-
...the state has had to take over more than we would want.
Maybe the parents shouldn't have abdicated so much of their responsibility to the state.
-
Maybe the parents shouldn't have abdicated so much of their responsibility to the state.
Too many parents think that the school has been appointed their babysitter. I had to walk to school every day, and from the sixth grade on, I had to fix my own lunches. I am not sure that I actually wore out three bicycles, but I did have three different ones, all bought for under $15 used.
-
Maybe the parents shouldn't have abdicated so much of their responsibility to the state.
Too many parents think that the school has been appointed their babysitter. I had to walk to school every day, and from the sixth grade on, I had to fix my own lunches. I am not sure that I actually wore out three bicycles, but I did have three different ones, all bought for under $15 used.
Days gone by, sadly.
I grew up right in the middle of the cold war era, the center of the century past had just ignited the flame of pollution with cars, factories, and such.....and yet, many families lived responsibly. What a paradoxical world in which we grew up.
I walked to school all my life, and took the bus to college.
Dessert for us was jello pudding, or a banana/orange. We were thrilled to enjoy a home made cake once in a while.
Of course the dinners were never McDonalds .....or any other fast food. The only fast food we had was another helping of mashed potatoes and gravy..."quick pass em on and make it FAST!
Ok, well, the life of many families today is healthier, tis true...but everything is fast-everything. No time to sit together and gab.
No time to redd up the table together.....no time for homework because the tv has taken over along with sports.
Then there are the little lives damaged by our cruel and nasty culture.
I have TWO BOYS----2~ this year who lost their fathers to MURDER......!! Shot, burned and placed in a trunk of a car. Both men put in the trunk of a car.....one killed last June, the other killed last month.
I teach a little girl who's mother kidnapped her twice!! TOOK her to Kentucky and back again only to sweep her off to St. Louis.
I have another student in my room who is neglected to the point of staying home alone with his big brother who beats him up! He's treated like a stray. Child protective service is doing what they can...but it aint much!
We, as teachers are the only ones who give the best care to that boy.
This time the village is the only thing he has!
Life has changed. Gluttony will either take over and explode...Honey, I blew up the Nation!
or.....
we can ALL start to help do our part to make it a better climate emotionally and economically
just a little more
baby steps, baby steps.
-
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2927.html (http://www.lifenews.com/nat2927.html)
This is the ony reason why I do not want to vote for Obama.
-
<<How about a happy medium, Michael? I raised my children with a firm hand and taught them the word "rights" meant nothing more than responsibility. I don't want our children raised by a molly coddling Grandma who is afraid to let them struggle a bit.>>
I have no problems with "rewards and perks have to be earned," although we sometimes gave in on that principle, and I think that with a little more firmness, we could have done a better job of raising strivers and highly-motivated over-achievers (our first is a real dynamo, the next two, more laid-back) but they've all done well, lead productive and interesting lives, and we're proud of them.
However, I did not mix up the concepts of "rights" with the earning of perks and rewards. We tried to teach our kids respect for everybody's basic human rights, the "worthy" as well as the "unworthy." Nobody has to "earn" basic human rights to life, food, shelter, medical care, dignity. The worst criminal does not deserve to be tortured. The laziest parasite has a right to life, food, shelter and basic medical care. The most irritating bastard on the planet deserves to be heard. Once you accept the principle that "rights mean nothing more than responsibility," you are starting down a trail where decisions will be made as to whose human dignity needs to be respected and whose does not.
One of the problems that I see with judgmentalism is that it's too easy - - you see some panhandling bum on the street - - it's all too easy to see the negatives in the guy, but who can see the back-story? - - the limited mental functioning, the early childhood abuse, the hopeless genetic hand he was dealt at birth, the fetal alcoholism syndrome, the beatings, the cruel or uncaring teachers, the perverted priests, the lack of just one caring person at some formative time who might have made a difference? We don't really know each other, much less the "bum" we condemn in the space of a few seconds.
-
I have another student in my room who get no care! He's treated like a stray.
We, as teachers are the only ones who give the best care to that boy.
This time the village is the only thing he has!
If that is the case he should be in foster care.
-
The laziest parasite has a right to life, food, shelter and basic medical care.
Why?
-
However, I did not mix up the concepts of "rights" with the earning of perks and rewards. We tried to teach our kids respect for everybody's basic human rights, the "worthy" as well as the "unworthy." Nobody has to "earn" basic human rights to life, food, shelter, medical care, dignity. The worst criminal does not deserve to be tortured. The laziest parasite has a right to life, food, shelter and basic medical care. The most irritating bastard on the planet deserves to be heard. Once you accept the principle that "rights mean nothing more than responsibility," you are starting down a trail where decisions will be made as to whose human dignity needs to be respected and whose does not.
One of the problems that I see with judgmentalism is that it's too easy - - you see some panhandling bum on the street - - it's all too easy to see the negatives in the guy, but who can see the back-story? - - the limited mental functioning, the early childhood abuse, the hopeless genetic hand he was dealt at birth, the fetal alcoholism syndrome, the beatings, the cruel or uncaring teachers, the perverted priests, the lack of just one caring person at some formative time who might have made a difference? We don't really know each other, much less the "bum" we condemn in the space of a few seconds.
Boy of boy did you feel like Evil Kneival on that leap?
I was not talking about the other guys rights... I was speaking to my children about their rights, as I see my rights. It is not my 'right' to do whatever I feel like whenever I feel like it. It is not my right to kick back and let somebody else take care of me and my family because I have misunderstood my own responsibilities.
I have never condemned anyone for having less than me, that said there are certainly times when I watch someone working harder at milking the system than actually trying to give themselves a hand up and not feel the need to bleed for them.
I am very confused about the last part about the poor babies being born to drunks and drug addicts. I have no problem helping any of those children whenever I can. (Though a thought here, those with fetal alcohol syndrome really are the walking dead. Too bad they cannot find some reversal on that. But I digress, liberals are all about the proverbial quick fix....pregnant and don't want it, abort. Down on your luck, stick your hand out. One thing about people that always do as you expect. Sooner or later the training wheels have to come off and people have to learn to stand up for themselves. I don't mind benefit programs as long as they are demanding that the benefactors are working hard at becoming self supporting. I wonder if you have figures on all of those poor babies in comparison to the total dole figures.
-
I do not think that there will be any difference in the number of abortions whether Obama or McCain is president. If McCain is elected, AND manages to appoint one or more anti-choice judges, then they could conceivably overturn Roe vs. Wade, and that would throw the issue back to the states. That is, however quite a few ifs. A few states might outlaw abortions altogether, but most people would simply go to another state or have an illegal abortion.
The goal should begin at making birth control easier to obtain.
-
The goal should begin at making birth control easier to obtain.
How hard is it to obtain now?
Should they be sold over the counter (if they aren't already) , like condoms?
-
How hard is it to obtain now?
Condums are readily available. For the Plan B pill, a prescription is required.
First, you have to see a doctor. That would cost around $50 minimum. Then you have to buy the pills, which are also not cheap.
Should they be sold over the counter (if they aren't already) , like condoms?
Of course!
-
I have another student in my room who get no care! He's treated like a stray.
We, as teachers are the only ones who give the best care to that boy.
This time the village is the only thing he has!
If that is the case he should be in foster care.
The system will probably provide such care if the mother wasn't in the picture at all.
So, she comes home late from work, ignores the child overall....but becasue she is on the home site, what can be done?
Child protective services makes home visits, assigns a social worker, but that's about it.
In the meantime, the boy gets fed at school, sent to the nurse for clean clothes, and the teachers pick up the pieces for this child.
The system isn't perfect...and I doubt, from what I've seen that it will improve any day soon.
-
Your FACTS have the unvirtue of not being true.
Yea, you caught me, Xo. I made up the quote Tenet went on record with. I am actually the NIE as well as was the sole vote to authorize military action, that Bush used. Yep, I'm so ashamed ::)
-
Finally!
You should be so ashamed of yourself!
-
LOL at letting kids swallow pills sold over the counter that terminate births.....
30 years down the pike I can just see the poor me law suits.
Just like smokers dying of cancer.
-
Finally! You should be so ashamed of yourself!
I am, I am. How dare I present incontrovertible facts that would decimate ones opinion of how evil Bush & Cheney are supposed to be. 50 lashes with a wet noodle
-
For the Plan B pill, a prescription is required.
You are a shifty replier.
We are talking about birth control pills, not abortificants which is what plan b drugs are.
How hard to get are plan A drugs?
-
I don't see a single thing wrong with over-the-counter sale of Plan B pills to anyone old enough to get pregnant in the first place. The world is plenty over-populated as it is without adding unwanted children into the soup as well. Anyone who thinks a collection of cells without a brain or a nervous system (which is about where the pregnancy is when Plan B terminates it) is a human being is wrong. Period. I know what a human being looks like, and it's not a round little microscopic ball of cells.
This seems to be a conversation of the deaf - - while I am talking about basic human rights like food and shelter, cro is talking about the "right" to do whatever one pleases, i.e., to damage public property, use the streets as a toilet, etc. NO, cro, nobody has the "right" to use the streets as a toilet, damage public property or do anything else they please. Let's get past that, the so-called "right" to do whatsoever one pleases is a straw-man, a "right" I never claimed for anybody - - the basic rights I am speaking of include a right not to be tortured, a right to food and health care and shelter. BT asks, Why? That 's easy - - because they're human beings and because I and millions more like me feel that way about them.
Anyone who doesn't is a fascist, an enemy of the people.
You once again confuse perks, privileges, "extras" with basic human rights. Perks etc. must be earned: there's no free lunch. You want an automobile, earn an automobile. Basic human rights are just that - - basic. They're built into each and every human being, factory-installed. Nobody has to "earn" them and they're not conditional upon fulfillment of some arbitrary or mythical set of "responsibilities."
-
That 's easy - - because they're human beings and because I and millions more like me feel that way about them
Then they are YOUR responsibility. I have my own people to take care of. Don't have the time nor the energy to take care of yours.
As far as the fascist remark, that just shows the bankruptcy of your argument. Demonize instead of reason with those who disagree.
-
I don't see a single thing wrong with over-the-counter sale of Plan B pills to anyone old enough to get pregnant in the first place.
Another unfocused reply. Are Birth Control Pills hard to get?
-
>>Another unfocused reply. Are Birth Control Pills hard to get?<<
Just one example of FREE birth control & GYN exams:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nassau-county/free-birth-control-and-gyn-exams.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nassau-county/free-birth-control-and-gyn-exams.htm)
-
>>Another unfocused reply. Are Birth Control Pills hard to get?<<
Just one example of FREE birth control & GYN exams:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nassau-county/free-birth-control-and-gyn-exams.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nassau-county/free-birth-control-and-gyn-exams.htm)
So BC pills are as easy to get as just showing up.
Wonder how much easier XO wants to make it?
-
So BC pills are as easy to get as just showing up.
Wonder how much easier XO wants to make it?
Well, if you have to go somewhere to pick 'em up, then it's unfair to the poor. The government should have vans driving around the poor neighborhoods, knocking on doors and offering the pills for free, I'm sure.
::)
-
Is there a right to become pregnant as many times as one may please?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230566090673847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230566090673847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
-
Is there a right to become pregnant as many times as one may please?
================================================
Unless there is a law against it, one must assume such a right.
-
Is there a right to become pregnant as many times as one may please?
================================================
Unless there is a law against it, one must assume such a right.
Judges have taken that right a few times .
I don't want this to be anything but a basic right , like other rights , not infringed without good reason and due process.
-
I don't see a single thing wrong with over-the-counter sale of Plan B pills to anyone old enough to get pregnant in the first place. The world is plenty over-populated as it is without adding unwanted children into the soup as well. Anyone who thinks a collection of cells without a brain or a nervous system (which is about where the pregnancy is when Plan B terminates it) is a human being is wrong. Period. I know what a human being looks like, and it's not a round little microscopic ball of cells.
This seems to be a conversation of the deaf - - while I am talking about basic human rights like food and shelter, cro is talking about the "right" to do whatever one pleases, i.e., to damage public property, use the streets as a toilet, etc. NO, cro, nobody has the "right" to use the streets as a toilet, damage public property or do anything else they please. Let's get past that, the so-called "right" to do whatsoever one pleases is a straw-man, a "right" I never claimed for anybody - - the basic rights I am speaking of include a right not to be tortured, a right to food and health care and shelter. BT asks, Why? That 's easy - - because they're human beings and because I and millions more like me feel that way about them.
Anyone who doesn't is a fascist, an enemy of the people.
You once again confuse perks, privileges, "extras" with basic human rights. Perks etc. must be earned: there's no free lunch. You want an automobile, earn an automobile. Basic human rights are just that - - basic. They're built into each and every human being, factory-installed. Nobody has to "earn" them and they're not conditional upon fulfillment of some arbitrary or mythical set of "responsibilities."
Michael, Michael.... this is no 'strawman'.... this is you failing to realize that laws are always up for judicial interpretation. You want (what you consider to be ) rights not to be impinged upon but the problem lies in the fact that we cannot cherry pick any rights laid out by the Constitution. That is EXACTLY what I see liberals doing time after time. Now since you are a communist me thinks that you are not talking about rights at all. You are just talking about Party promises. Since the Party is making up the rules (not rights) they are the only one than can change them or take them away (without debate or the public having a voice in that decision). Well, I suppose that they could with a revolution.
-
Michael, Michael.... this is no 'strawman'.... this is you failing to realize that laws are always up for judicial interpretation. You want (what you consider to be ) rights not to be impinged upon but the problem lies in the fact that we cannot cherry pick any rights laid out by the Constitution. That is EXACTLY what I see liberals doing time after time. Now since you are a communist me thinks that you are not talking about rights at all. You are just talking about Party promises. Since the Party is making up the rules (not rights) they are the only one than can change them or take them away (without debate or the public having a voice in that decision). Well, I suppose that they could with a revolution.
=============================================
This is a total dodge of the issue. Total and complete. What you think liberals do or communists do has nothing at all to do with this issue: why not sell Plan B to anyone who asks for them?
It is entirely unrelated to anyone being a liberal, a communist, a whig or a republican.
-
Michael, Michael.... this is no 'strawman'.... this is you failing to realize that laws are always up for judicial interpretation. You want (what you consider to be ) rights not to be impinged upon but the problem lies in the fact that we cannot cherry pick any rights laid out by the Constitution. That is EXACTLY what I see liberals doing time after time. Now since you are a communist me thinks that you are not talking about rights at all. You are just talking about Party promises. Since the Party is making up the rules (not rights) they are the only one than can change them or take them away (without debate or the public having a voice in that decision). Well, I suppose that they could with a revolution.
=============================================
This is a total dodge of the issue. Total and complete. What you think liberals do or communists do has nothing at all to do with this issue: why not sell Plan B to anyone who asks for them?
It is entirely unrelated to anyone being a liberal, a communist, a whig or a republican.
what the fuck.... Why is it that when I make a point, that I have to defend the strawman that you liberals hoist.... pay attention.
I don't think that we should give out free PESTICIDES to our UNINFORMED youth that figure they can take a little DDT and go on to the next roll in the hay.
I am not going to debate DDT the wonder pesticide. Cigarettes not being harmful to your health. The list goes on and on about oh, it's safe and then decades later, oh, it is not. Only to be followed by massive law suits that always come down to dramatic government expenditures. Your logic of giving to anyone who asks for them is simply YOU cherry picking your rights again.
We are responsible for our children - you usurp that by giving them drugs, i.e you are disregarding my rights.
The boy that fathered this pregnancy, may or may not be aware of his future progeny, i.e. you are disregarding his rights.
You are also allowing a person that is not legally responsible for making decisions to make irrevocable decisions.
if you are supposing to support this program with my tax dollar, again you are taking my money to pay for your short sightedness. While you are just as animated about the government spending tax dollars on things that you oppose.
-
This is a total dodge of the issue. Total and complete. What you think liberals do or communists do has nothing at all to do with this issue: why not sell Plan B to anyone who asks for them? It is entirely unrelated to anyone being a liberal, a communist, a whig or a republican.
Why is it that when I make a point, that I have to defend the strawman that you liberals hoist.... pay attention. We are responsible for our children - you usurp that by giving them drugs, i.e you are disregarding my rights. The boy that fathered this pregnancy, may or may not be aware of his future progeny, i.e. you are disregarding his rights.
You are also allowing a person that is not legally responsible for making decisions to make irrevocable decisions.
if you are supposing to support this program with my tax dollar, again you are taking my money to pay for your short sightedness. While you are just as animated about the government spending tax dollars on things that you oppose.
BRILLIANT rebuttal, Cro
*Golf clap*
-
I have usurped nothing. If you are worried about the "rights" of the dude who knocked your daughter up or your daughter who got herself knocked up, then listen carefully; IT IS UP TO YOU as the parent to convince her not to take Plan B. If you told her to go out and find a dude and get herself knocked up, the you can go that tiny extra distance further and explain all about it.
Taking the pill is simply an option that should be available. It is not compulsory. Just like all contraception is voluntary, as all sex should be entirely voluntary.
As members of society, it is in our interests for many reasons that unwanted children not be born. So it is up to you to convince her to want her offspring. Just as if she cannot be convinced, that you should convince her to use proper birth control before the fact.
No one is denying your right to raise your children. But if they shoot out a bunch of unwanted kids before they are old enough to be responsible, then keep in mind that YOU are responsible.
So far as I know,this has nothing whatever to do with being a liberal or a conservative or a whig or a tory.
-
But if they shoot out a bunch of unwanted kids before they are old enough to be responsible, then keep in mind that YOU are responsible.
Not according to Mikey.
-
Mikey can speak for himself. He doesn't need me.
-
Mikey can speak for himself. He doesn't need me.
did i say otherwise?
-
"I have usurped nothing. If you are worried about the "rights" of the dude who knocked your daughter up or your daughter who got herself knocked up, then listen carefully; IT IS UP TO YOU as the parent to convince her not to take Plan B. If you told her to go out and find a dude and get herself knocked up, the you can go that tiny extra distance further and explain all about it."
Yes you have, and here again. First in your brutally liberal zealous manner, you have claimed me guilty about not being able to control my children. Been there and done that....no lack of control for my kids. Second you insult the father without any understanding of him and his position on said pregnancy as a 'dude who knocked up my daughter.' Third, and I find this atypical of you and yours in that fact that it is UP to me to convince my daughter not to use plan B while you fucking liberals are encouraging her to terminate without first trying to educate and, Fourth, and when all else fails, you insult me.
"Taking the pill is simply an option that should be available. It is not compulsory. Just like all contraception is voluntary, as all sex should be entirely voluntary."
but there is no long term study to the safety of the option and you don't know how safe it is. Again, future lawsuits by the three mentioned above.
"As members of society, it is in our interests for many reasons that unwanted children not be born. So it is up to you to convince her to want her offspring. Just as if she cannot be convinced, that you should convince her to use proper birth control before the fact."
Let me just say China.
"No one is denying your right to raise your children. But if they shoot out a bunch of unwanted kids before they are old enough to be responsible, then keep in mind that YOU are responsible."
Ahhh.... and who has said that I have lost sight of this responsibility.
Your solutions and rebuttals in regards to these problems are both lacking in full and thorough contemplation.
-
you fucking liberals are encouraging her to terminate without first trying to educate and, Fourth, and when all else fails, you insult me.
===============================
I did not say that I encourage anything. I merely said that any women should have the option of choice. That is all.
I have not insulted anyone, since your daughter, her sperm donor and any fetus involved, and your situation are purely hypothetical, and I cannot actually insult them any more than I can insult Batman or the Tooth Fairy.
Your solutions and rebuttals in regards to these problems are both lacking in full and thorough contemplation.
That would be your opinion, but I find my contemplation full and thorough and my solutions complete.
If you do not like them, find your own.
-
LOL on the hypothetical.... NOT... they are your mantra.
NEVER do I see respect for these people (in your words) whilst you pretend to want to help them.
I thought I have made it abundantly clear that I do have my own.
-
NEVER do I see respect for these people (in your words) whilst you pretend to want to help them.
I thought I have made it abundantly clear that I do have my own.
What people? I am talking about basic principles. People do not need my help, they simply need to be able to help themselves. Since I believe that any woman should be able to decide whether she has a baby or not, I simply believe that in a civilized society, this option should be available and well-known. I am not pretending that I want to help or do not want to help. Women whom I do not know are fee beings, I would not presume to do more than try to see t it that the state provides the options mentioned.
You have made it abundantly clear that you have your own WHAT? Pregnant unmarried daughters? Worthy daughter's boyfriends? I was talking about basic rights, not specific people, and was unaware that any of this actually had to do with specific people. The principles involved, however, are entirely the same.
If I say you should have freedom of speech, it means you can say anything about anyone so long as libel and public endangerment do not occur. You can say silly things, or say them in a squeeky shrill voice like fingernails on a chalkboard, or grunt them in the language of the Klingon or the Wookie.
-
<<Michael, Michael.... this is no 'strawman'.... this is you failing to realize that laws are always up for judicial interpretation. >>
Well, cro, the fact is that I was talking about very specific rights, a right to food, for example, a right to shelter, not just any right, and you then came back and attempted to rebut me by attacking as being ridiculous, a claim to a right "to do anything one pleases."
Well, of course I never asserted that anyone had a right to do "anything one pleases." So by attacking a claim to a right that I never made, you were in fact setting up a straw-man. The whole idea of a so-called right to do whatever one pleases is a straw man. There is no such right, I never claimed there was any such right, and rather than attack claims I actually made (of a right to food, a right to shelter) you were ignoring those claims of rights that I DID make to go on the offensive against a claim that I never made, the claim of a right to do whatever one pleases. That is the very essence of a straw-man argument.
<<You want (what you consider to be ) rights not to be impinged upon but the problem lies in the fact that we cannot cherry pick any rights laid out by the Constitution. >>
But of course we can. Why can't we? Are you saying that if somebody infringes my right to freedom of speech, that I can't assert only that one right? That I have to claim all the rights of the Constitution before I can claim the only right that anyone tried to take away from me? That makes no sense at all.
<<That is EXACTLY what I see liberals doing time after time. >>
Well, so what? Why should a liberal who wants to defend free speech rights also have to launch into a defence of Second Amendment rights at the same time? When blacks were defending equal protection rights, were they also obliged to go to bat for the Second Amendment at the same time? That's nuts.
<<Now since you are a communist me thinks that you are not talking about rights at all.>>
Well, as long as this communist has to live in a capitalist system, the only rights he has are the ones that are granted by the system. So they're the only ones he's concerned with at the present time.
<<You are just talking about Party promises. >>
No. Read my lips. Read my posts. I am talking about rights. Constitutional rights, which are pretty much the same in our two countries. I don't know how I can make this any plainer. What I said is in black and white and it refers to rights under the Constitution of the U.S.A. and the very similar rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
<<Since the Party is making up the rules (not rights) they are the only one than can change them or take them away (without debate or the public having a voice in that decision). Well, I suppose that they could with a revolution.>>
I'll save comment on that last for another debate on another subject.
-
A right to food and shelter?
That needs a thread of its own.
-
Hey, I found my post from 2008. 3700 views? Whoa, it must have been the subject title.
There is a big difference from 2008 to now. People have soured on so called "hope and change," big time.
XO, get your surfboard buddy, and ride the Tea Party wave.
(http://costaricasunshine.com/images/stories/surf-wave.jpg)
-
Hopefully on Nov 2, 2010 we will be unfucked.
-
I hope so. I would love to see Barney Frank lose his job for being mostly responsbible for the mortage mess. I would love to see Senator Mam (Boxer) lose her title. I would love to see Christine O'Donnell win, just to watch the liberal left's heads explode.