I can't follow what you initially said and you cited no sources so I am going to ignore it. Referring to the second half, the "human shield" excuse holds no weight. First of all you really think someone would willingly be used as a human shield? Don't be absurd. Secondly so what if Hamas is even doing that. That does not give Israel any excuse. If the police are in a shootout with someone and they take a hostage to protect themselves, the police don't say "Oh darn they are using the old human shield trick, nothing we can do. Just mow them both down with a machine gun and let's call it a day."
How is it a load of bull shit and how does it make the country a laughing stock to the rest of the world?
"I don't see why God couldn't have just set evolution in motion."
Because according to the bible god created all of the various species at the time of creation. This makes evolution impossible.
How is Obama making the country a laughing stock to all other nations? I'm pretty sure that was Bush's job.
As long as you aren't trying to justify the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saying that we underestimated or did not fully understand the effects of the bombs, I am fine.
It's amazing how I provide a lot of actual information and you respond with a terrible argument like that based upon nothing.
Sorry but they knew exactly what the results would be. Before Fat Man and Little Boy were even deployed a bomb with the same design as Fat Man was detonated in a test called Trinity in New Mexico. And even for this test they calculated the probability that the atmosphere would be incinerated as impossible.
The Fat Man was not a test. We knew exactly what it would do. And we had a very good prediction of the damage it would cause. Please stop debating things you clearly don't know anything about.
A land invasion would have caused more deaths to American soldiers, but not to innocent Japanese civilians. Deliberately targeting and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because they were born in the wrong country is morally repugnant. If you were Japanese you would not be justifying the war crimes of Truman. If America had not won the war Truman would have been tried for war crimes. But whichever country wins wars faces no punishment for its actions and they are usually glorified or justified by the country's citizens.
What do you mean no one knew what the hell it would do? You think that is how the military designs weapons? You think they just throw some random shit together and then deploy? $2 billion were spent on the Manhattan Project. They calculated the exact amount of energy that would be released by the detonation of Fat Man and Little Boy. And they had done extensive tests to determine the damage that would be caused.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events in human and United States history and they were done to frighten the Soviet Union with our technological and military prowess.
1. Obviously it does take more education than that if people are continuing to have unhealthy lifestyles.
2. No I mean health insurance companies need to streamline. No it is not because our lives are precious. Like I said we spend the greatest percentage of our GDP on health care, but have only the 37th best quality of health care.
3. The problem is that not everyone will help out of their own free will.
4. I am not arguing for artificially low health care costs. I am arguing for creating a single-payer system that is so efficient that it forces private health insurance companies to become as efficient.
If the price increase touches all industries then everyone's wages will go up, and there is still no inflation.
And I understand that a minimum wage increases unemployment I never said it doesn't. We were simply arguing over whether or not it causes inflation.
1. I have never even heard Obama say that line before, but I'm fairly certain he neither invented it nor popularized it. Many people do not understand how to live a healthy lifestyle. They can underestimate its significance or simply not know how. It may seem simple to me or you, but many people were simply never properly educated about basic physiology. Or maybe they just need a bit of motivation. Bottom line is that countries that spend more on preventative medicine spend much less on treatment.
2. I never argued a government mandate to reduce reimbursements. A universal health care option will force insurance companies to streamline their business models to stay competitive. The cost of medicine is not the issue. The cost and availability of health insurance is.
3. Life is not meant to be hard. Life is not meant to be anything. It may be hard, but this does not mean it is meant to be hard. I'm not sure if I can make you understand because you seem to be a borderline sociopath. If you can't be persuaded to help other people then maybe you can be persuaded to help yourself. Like I said we waste a ton of money of health care. And that actually does hurt you. The less money everyone has, the worse this is for the economy and as you are a member of the economy, you as well.
4. I have no idea what you are talking about. You are arguing a different point and I can't really even tell what it is.
Okay apparently you do not know what inflation is. Inflation is a rise in the price of all goods and services in an economy. So let's say minimum wage increases and therefore the costs of companies affected increases. They therefore increase their prices. As long as the money supply is held constant this just means that consumers have less money to spend on other goods and services which means there is a less of a demand for them. When there is less of a demand for other goods and services their price decreases. Consequently there is no rise in all goods and services simply a simply a shift. Some goods and services increase in price and others decrease in price. This is not inflation.
1. Then why are countries with universal health care so much healthier than ours if it 'encourages people to be unhealthy.' Maybe the reason why we are so unhealthy is that our medical system fails at preventative medicine.
2. Thank for the beginners economics lesson, but that isn't what I was talking about. The companies and researchers developing new medicines and techniques are not the same people administering health care. Health insurance companies have nothing to do with developing new medical technology. Therefore cutting health insurance companies profits does nothing to decrease incentives of other companies to do research.
3. "Life is meant to be hard." According to who? So because you think life is meant to be hard, we should do nothing to help people who are in need of assistance. Alright so if see an old man fall down just walk up to him and say "I'm sorry sir, but life is meant to be hard. Good luck gramps" and walk away.
4. That will not necessarily happen and that is not what is being proposed. They can lower by prices by doing that, but if they don't what is the problem?
I don't deny that we have many serious health problems in the United States, but this would not mean we have lower care. It could increase the amount we spend slightly.
How do we spend so much money, yet have pretty poor quality health care?
Medical research is separate from actual health care. The current employer-based insurance system is not efficient regardless of how many medical advancements have come from the US. When 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, there is a problem.
It has nothing to do with driving out the competition. If you can't see how a single payer system is a more efficient distributor of resources, I don't really know what to tell you. Try shopping at Costco or getting a loan from a credit union I guess, maybe that will make you understand.
Like I said even though that could be a part of fascist economies you would not define it as fascist because it is not unique to fascism.
This is what you just did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Here's an example:
If something is a frog, then it is alive.
You are a alive.
Therefore you are a frog.
You are actually employing another logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Just because it is a part of a fascist philosophy does not make it wrong.
No fascist government has ever made it legal to throw people in volcanoes. So because fascism is 'evil' should we make it legal to throw people into volcanoes?
Basically congratulations on using two logical fallacies in one argument.
I'm going to copy-paste my response here:
"An increase of the cost of goods and services only leads to inflation if the government increases the money supply. If the money supply is held constant, then it just means less money will be spent on other goods and services to compensate and money still buys the same amount of goods, just different goods."
An increase of the cost of goods and services only leads to inflation if the government increases the money supply. If the money supply is held constant, then it just means less money will be spent on other goods and services to compensate and money still buys the same amount of goods, just different goods.
You just demonstrated your ignorance of health care issues. The United States currently spends 15% of its GDP on health care more than any other country. Yet the WHO ranks the our health care at #37 in the world. Something is clearly broken if we are spending so much and not receiving the benefits. All that extra money is lining the pockets of the owners of health insurance companies and it is also used for administrative costs. Because every company has their own way of doing things and it is very decentralized, much money is spent on administration. A single-payer system is simply more efficient. Think of Costco if you have one near you, or any other consumer co-op. The same principle is in use.
No that is not fascism. You can't just describe every political position you don't like as fascist.
First of all he never said the government would mandate wage caps. And even if the government did put a limit on CEO wages this wouldn't even be communist.
So you support the concept of a minimum living wage, but you do not support the continued rise in the minimum wage? This is a cognitively dissonant position. Over time as inflation causes prices and rise and therefore the cost of living, minimum wage has to be increased or else it is worthless. What is a fair minimum wage today will not be a fair minimum wage in the years to come.
Your bosses are afraid of the destruction of the employer based health insurance system? Unless you work for a health insurance company, I'm not sure why they would be scared.
"working calss pays a pittance compared to the rich- and the poor pay negative taxes because of earned income tax credit. "
I don't see what your point is. I said that working class citizens do pay taxes.
"Keep taxing the rich so they go to china and build nukes."
I'm sorry what are you talking about?
You must have a really skewed definition of working class. Like I said earlier middle class != poor.
Just because the price of a good has risen does not mean suppliers have not been able to meet demand. There is this thing called inflation which is a general rise of the price of all goods and services in an economy over time.
I thought this was a debate on economics not morality. Debating morality is useless because everyone has their own.
Regardless I am kind of shocked you think a progressive tax system is as bad as slavery, but to each his own I guess.
Oh wow, that was an egregious error in reading comprehension. I kind of feel bad for you. I am amazed at how you managed to misinterpret what I said so extremely.
I didn't say he said tax cuts are bad. I said that the economist said that tax cuts are more effective when given to people of the middle class rather than upper class.
And Adam Smith may be the father of modern economics, but that does not make him correct, just as most of Frued's theories (the father of modern psychology) have been proven to not be entirely right.
I'm not sure how the fact that Paul Krugman is liberal invalidates any of his theories. He thinks liberalism is the best mentality. You think being a libertarian is the best mentality. You can't discredit someone solely based upon their philosophy, you should look at the substance of what they are saying. And are you really trying to compare a Nobel Prize winning economist to a hate-mongering wing-bag with no recognition outside of his extreme group of followers.
"I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh."
Oh really good argument. I was too "eh" with my statements.
That my friends is how you know you have lost a debate. You cease debating the actual points because you are unable to do so, so you instead red herring the argument until your opponent gives up. You stay classy jafl.
Oh and just to illustrate how ridiculous your 'argument,' to use the term loosely, is. That is like debating on whether Macs or PCs are better and your opponent says, "Well PCs work better" and you say "Oh yeah the holocaust worked really well too, so take that obviously you are incorrect."
His definition of work in context was to function to create a sound economic system that promotes stability, growth, and fairness. So if you want to explain how slavery, smallpox, or AIDS concentration camps would result in a stable economy then by all means do so, I'm quite interested.
I just want to emphasize that I am really shocked at how moronic what you just said is.
Just out of curiosity since when do working class families not pay taxes? I think you might have misread working class as poor for some reason.
Also could you please explain how the agricultural and manufacturing sectors don't have the capacity to meet demand.
We have tried supply-side economics before, it just doesn't work. I really wish I could find a citation for this, but I couldn't because it was on NPR about a month ago, but they had an economist talking about the stimulus package and things like that and he said that tax cuts are four times more effective at stimulating the economy when given to the lower and middle class than when given to the upper class. It makes sense when you think about it. Working families will spend their money right away to pay for bills, food, gas and things like that. However upper class families might save the money or invest it in such a way that doesn't directly stimulate the economy.
To quote Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman "When Ronald Reagan was elected, the supply-siders got a chance to try out their ideas. Unfortunately, they failed." Under Reagan public debt tripled, job growth was just average for a twentieth century president, unemployment was higher, private investment decreased, and real wages decreased. Reagan started the huge national debt that has not been payed off even today. And his system of deregulation led to a recession. Just like it did during the Great Depression. And just like it did in 2008. When will you conservatives understand that Reagan was a bad president. I do not understand why you all love him so much. And please stop espousing his moron economic theories. History has shown that they don't work.
Ah I see what you're saying. Yes that would be a more efficient distribution of time and money if one were inclined to achieve the most efficient system possible.
Well are we talking about professional schooling? Because for things like doctors, lawyers, and engineers you can't do that online. Those professions require hands-on learning and experience.
You may not, but having people make scientific advancements is really important.
Just curious how many Nobel Prize winners or people who have made groundbreaking discoveries did not attend college?
I will agree with you that is possible to be successful without attending college. You can still make a decent amount of money if you want to and you can easily still be happy. However for many fields, succeeding without college just isn't feasible. Yes you can try to self teach by reading textbooks, but there is something to be gained from having the information taught to you by professor who wrote the book him or herself. And like you said research is also a huge reason to go to college. There are other institutions that conduct research, but having one with a steady stream of young eager minds with a passion for knowledge will probably fare better.
It may be possible to self-teach and many people have, but it is significantly more difficult. Sometimes you just need a real live human being to explain things to you and answer your questions. This may change some day if we can develop AI sufficiently so that computer programs can teach, explain, and answer which may really make college obsolete, but as of right I think college is worth the time and money. There is a really strong statistical link between level of education and salary. So just from an economic perspective definitely.
Some of the article makes sense, but a lot of it doesn't.
The "Why your parents wanted you to go to college" is totally wrong. Maybe some parents somewhere just wanted to get their kids out of the house, but the vast majority of parents actually want to help their children succeed. How do you explain first generation college students from low-income families where their parents would be much better off if kids didn't go to college, but stayed home and worked for the family? Instead they sacrifice and work hard to allow their kids to attend college and have opportunities they didn't have.
The "Colleges- Which ones are better" is also fairly incorrect. For a B.A. degree the best place is probably an Ivy League school. Just because most people are dumb and think that Ivy League schools are better. For a B.S. degree, however, this is absolutely not true. Cornell is the only Ivy League school with a decent science and engineering program, but there are many schools that are significantly more respected in the science and engineering job community than all of the Ivy League schools. Maybe this was one of the sections the author said doesn't apply to B.S. degrees, but I don't know.
The "A college degree translator" while a bit exaggerated is based on truth. Getting a B.A. really doesn't help with job prospects because most B.A. degrees are for majors like philosophy or English. And by getting a B.A. degree you don't learn any skills or knowledge that someone will pay you for. It's really sad when I see college graduates working as cashiers because they spent so much time and money, but it ended up not really helping them.
The "Professors" section is quite wrong also. I can't speak for every professor, but most of them are not at college because "they failed the real test." In fact many professors are so busy with their research so they can get grants and awards that they don't actually care about teaching. Many professors are world-renowned experts who have won Nobel Prizes and other distinguished awards. They conduct ground-breaking research that is contributing to new insight and technological advancement.
Overall the article had some kernels of truth, but was largely exaggerated and incorrect.
"Anyways where was this majority talk the past "8 years"!?!? "
It probably occurred mostly around the 2000 election when the candidate who won the majority of votes wasn't made president.
"What if the majority of the majority is uneducated and indocrinated? "
Right because if a Republican wins then the majority is informed and free thinking, but if a Democrat wins then obvious that election everyone became indoctrinated and forgot everything they knew.
"Are you saying that the majority of the media is biased?"
Yes.
"The government can not handle it. All the people who know what they are doing are in the big buisnesses and not in the government."
This statement is both unfounded and irrelevant.
"And sacrifice free speech?"
It's not sacrificing free speech. You can say whatever you want. But if you want to get a broadcasting license from the FCC you need to follow certain regulations.
Great argument I completely agree. I think the root of this problem is the consolidation of corporations and businesses. All the news channels are owned by three companies. Movie studios own most of the theater chains. Then you have huge conglomerates like GE that own companies in a multitude of sectors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
To simplify the problem I think democracy is starting to break down. Journalism is the backbone of a democracy. Without an informed public it ceases to exist. And when the media is owned by a few corporations watching out for their best interests and the interests of their subsidiaries, the result is that the public is not informed. Businesses also have an enormous amount of control in congress. Like you said health care reform has been blocked many times by insurance company lobbies because they don't want any of their profits to be taken away. More money continues to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and this can lead to tyranny of the minority. We need to demand that congress take steps to fix the media like bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and breaking up the monopoly on news. We also need to demand more transparency and regulation of where politicians get funding. To all the conservatives who are afraid of a strong central government this is what I will say. At least with a strong central government, the people have control over it democratically. Right now our government is in a stranglehold by big business over which we have no control.
What other logical factors are there in this situation?
50chars
I can add emotional and moral arguments if you want, but I consider emotional arguments weaker than logical arguments and consequently they are much easier to refute as they are based on opinion not fact. "I think it's fair to allow them to become citizens." "Well they didn't come here legally so it's not." No one is right because it's just your opinion. Whereas if I talk it about from an economic standpoint we can actually analyze the truth value.
The problems people usually have with illegal immigrants is that they collect social benefits, but don't pay taxes. Isn't the most logical argument then to give them all amnesty and citizenship?
I am removing all emotional and moral arguments from this and examining it from a purely economic standpoint. So who deserves what, and what is fair, is irrelevant.
Right now there are millions of illegal immigrants who are not paying taxes on their income and who are benefiting from taxes of citizens. Let's think of the possible remedies to this situation.
1) We deport all of them
2) We grant them all amnesty and citizenship
Clearly the first solution is impossible. We spend a lot of money on trying to prevent illegal immigrants from entering and trying to get rid of them and clearly the idea is fundamentally flawed. So if the enforcement plan doesn't work, the only other possible solution is amnesty.
I was saying that to illustrate that it is dumb to say you can't criticize something you don't experience regularly. I have seen Fox before, and I didn't like it. It was pretty bad, but not that bad relative to other news networks.
1. Yes I understand that. I acknowledge that capitalism better encourages innovation.
2. My only point with that example is that helping someone in need of help is not rewarding them for failure.
3. Oh I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm not really sure how good they are as a whole, but that study was flawed.
"It's the No Spin Zone."
Yeah if he calls it the no spin zone, then obviously there can't be spin. So if I call my house a mansion will it magically turn into one?
Bill does not want straight answers are you kidding me? He is completely a partisan and he is a pundit masquerading as a journalism. He has a political purpose and his goals when he has liberal guests on is to cast them in a bad light.
By your logic you can't criticize rapists.
I have seen Fox before. That is why I do not watch it.
No it doesn't because anecdotal evidence is useless in a debate.
Care to cite an actual study instead of making information up? And saying other networks are bad too isn't going to make me recant my criticism of Fox as I don't watch them anyway.
Okay good I'm glad we're in agreement.
50 charactersssssssssssssssss
http://www.youtube.com/
"Why don't you just shut up" = "Shut up"
They have the same meaning and he used them with the same intention.
Well then apparently you define insane as anyone who disagrees with Bill O'Reilly and is trying to make their point. As I have said before, I have never seen a guest's mic be cut on any other channel except for Fox. It's because Fox doesn't do actual interviews. Like I said the purpose of having guests on Fox is to make ridiculous accusations and then yell over them and prevent them from responding so they look bad.
I wouldn't put it past Beck he has no integrity. Until you provide a citation for that, I am not even going to address it. You can't just say things like, "Even that one guy who works for Fox in LA or something says that Fox News is run by the Republican Party." Until you have been a guest on Glen or Bill's show you have no idea how difficult it is to actually respond to questions. It isn't a normal interview where they ask you a question and then yet you respond. From the get-go they are trying to make the guest look bad. Like I said they make unfounded accusations, distort facts, and even lie and don't give you a chance to respond. It is incredibly frustrating to try and defend yourself when being attacked by someone who can adjust the mic volume and controls the show.
1. Yes I completely refuted what you said. Socialism has nothing to do with where you fit best. You are describing a warped view of communism, but that is irrelevant because we are talking about socialism. We already have socialism elements in this country. Police, fire department, utilities, and roads are a few examples. As I have said to you maybe 4 times, socialism is just government ownership of the production and distribution of goods and services. This has nothing to do with "preventing progress."
2. No, you just have a warped view of individualism. And I'm not going to argue this point anymore because you are clearly lying. If your friend fell down and was hurt and needed to be helped up, I guarantee you would not say "Get up on your own."
3. I just described why their method of sampling the knowledge of the participants in the survey was flawed.
1. What are you talking about? Go back to high school if you don't know what socialism. Socialism =/= communism.
2. That's not being an individualist it's just being an asshole. If you wouldn't help a friend who had fallen down and wanted help, you probably don't have very many friends. But it's irrelevant because I know you're full of crap anyway.
3. The points you are arguing against my analogy on are absurd. Most people don't what caused their fire at the time? That's what you are going to respond with?
No I got my statistics from a study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes published in Political Science Quarterly.
The Pew Research poll found that a higher proportion of Rush Limbaugh listeners answered all three of the following questions correctly.
"The three questions asked respondents which party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives (Republicans); the name of the current U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice); the name of the current president of Russia (Vladimir Putin)."
This isn't really a good metric for knowledge of the audience because theoretically if Rush had 100 listeners 5 of whom got all three questions right, and 95 of whom got none right, and every listener of another news source got 2/3 right, Rush Listener's would be declared much more knowledgeable. So it's kind of bad surveying technique.
In none of situations were the guests "insane." In every one they were trying to answer a question.
The only person who was lying was Beck. He said ACORN make 20000 fraudulent votes in Nevada, when that was just the total number of voters they registered. However Beck just yelled over the guy and shut off his microphone so he couldn't even correct him.
And there is no evidence that he actually said that. Just the word of Beck and one of his workers on the show. Not exactly an impartial witness. Why did no one else say they heard it when Beck asked except for one person?
He wasn't ranting he was trying to respond to Beck's point. And the point of having a guest on is to allow them to answer questions, not to allow the host to get their views across. Well not with Fox News, but normally.
It's funny because I watched the entire video and I never heard him say "You're just afraid of black people". So basically you just misquoted him.
1) I don't believe someone who works on the set of the Glenn Beck Program to be an impartial witness.
2) How come only one person said they heard if he "went off"?
You totally missed my point though. The alleged statement was made during a commercial break. I was referring to when Glenn asked the sound engineer turn off the feed from his microphone much earlier. That is the ultimate case of not letting your guest to get their point across. Once again I have never seen it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it never happens, on any other news channel.
Glenn Beck is so rude. Fox News is the only channel I have ever seen where the hosts asked for the guests mics to be cut off. I have seen multiple times with Bill O'Reilly and now Glenn Beck. It's rude and bad journalism to not allow your guest to get their point across. Once again we see the typical Fox News modus operandi of shouting over their guests and preventing them from talking. The accuse them of false things and then don't give them adequate time to respond so they look dumb. Glenn Beck is a dishonest asshole. Why would anyone, even a Republican watch him? "Pipe down sir." That is ridiculous. I don't care who your guest is that's not okay. Also when he turns to the camera to start talking to the audience you can see the intent of the program. A real news program has guests on to try to glean their insight or opinions. Glenn just had him on to entertain Republicans by making this guy look dumb.
"Are you so afraid of the Republicans that you have to invent voters? Are you that afraid? I mean the Republicans can be beaten without voter registration fraud."
The people who were convicted of voter registration fraud were registering fake voter registration forms. This did not result in fraudulent votes. If I register Mickey Mouse to vote, it doesn't matter because Mickey Mouse isn't going to show up to the polls with his valid identification showing he is Mickey Mouse. Because Mickey Mouse isn't a person. Such a dishonest entertainment program.
Right, I wasn't saying war movies shouldn't be dark, I was kind of saying the opposite. I was saying most war movies portray war as glorious and melodramatic. The reason I like Apocalypse Now is that is shows how war is not a perfectly orchestrated and choreographed event. And Apocalypse Now was definitely very dark; it was based on a book called Heart of Darkness.
Well then I will answer your new question. Those communist leaders killed to maintain political power. Just like why the leaders of fascist states like Hitler and Mussolini killed. The mass murders to maintain power had nothing to do with communism.
The reason people are accusing you of equating liberalism with communism is that in a debate about right-wing terrorism you said "you've inspired me to ask why Left Wing extremism has killed more people than any other radical extremism... ."
You then made a debate about communism. Therefore this implies that unless you decided to make a different debate than you stated, that you are saying left-wing ideology is communism.
Also it seems like you are saying communism is a far left-wing ideology which it isn't either. Communism isn't far left-wing any more than fascism is far right-wing. Like I have said earlier a one-dimensional political spectrum is really myopic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
If you look at a bi-axial political spectrum you can see the far left-wing is just increasing liberalism. You have to move toward the authoritarian side of the vertical axis for communism.
I said my reason was that it is historically inaccurate and melodramatic. I then cited a historian and movie critics. I provided a reason and evidence.
You tend to have an aversion to reason so I thought I'd spare you. But as you wish.
Here is an op-ed article in the New York Times by David Hackett Fischer a history Professor at Brandeis University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/01/opinion/hubris-but-no-history.html?scp=8&sq;="The+Patriot"&st;=nyt
Letter to the editor regarding the piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/07/
According to rottentomatoes.com which you will probably accuse of having a liberal bias or something: "The Patriot can be entertaining to watch, but it relies too much on formula and melodrama."
If you read critical reviews of The Patriot they have a pretty consistent message that it is melodramatic and vacuous.
Thanks for the good argument.
"No, the only explanation I can think of is that people are woefully misinformed about the individual circumstances that has lead these poor girls to these doctors, and it's important people learn so that hopefully more of these doctors are not killed."
You're definitely right that we have to educate people that the few late-term abortion doctors are not simply baby killers, but are actually really courageous people who are helping people. They knowingly risk their lives to help ensure women who need late-term abortions can get them.
For everyone who thinks that abortion doctors are simply evil baby killers, please read this article by an abortion doctor on why he performs abortions despite two attempts on his life.
The Patriot is an example of the kind of historically inaccurate melodramatic war movies that are essentially just propaganda.
You can see then how this is a decision best left up to doctors not politicians right?
Communism is not left-wing extremism. It may be an extreme position, but left-wing extremism would be things like eco-terrorism or The Weather Underground Organization during the sixties.
Also the things that caused these leaders to kill many people was not their political ideologies, but their styles of government. The authoritarian, oppressive style of government has existed in governments of all ideologies and is truly independent of political theories. Also Communism was intended to be the epitome of democracy that would result in a truly oppression free society. Unfortunately I think the greed and lust for power of man is too great to ever allow a truly communistic state to ever exist. The point is that the oppressive and murderous style of the communist leaders you cited had nothing to do with their communism.
And also as davidh said liberalism =/= communism. So you kind of lose on all counts.
Well I think many war movies portray war in a glorified Hollywood manner. This is why I really liked Apocalypse Now. I think it was a realistic and chilling portrayal of the Vietnam War. I also enjoyed that the movie was about more than the Vietnam War, while at the same time really transporting you there emotionally.
I agree with agnosticism. I am agnostic, but I am atheist as well. I was trying to explain that the two are not mutually exclusive and in fact both are kind of necessary for the other. But I see I can't really get you to see what I am trying to say to never mind.
All abortions no matter when they occur are very sad affairs. It is really sad when circumstances have come together such that a life must be ended or stopped from coming to fruition. Abortions are very emotionally trying to mothers and their families. That said, abortions are completely and absolutely necessary even late term abortions. I am going to argue this from a few angles.
If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy bad enough, she will do so regardless of whether she has to go to a clinic or get one from an unlicensed back alley "doctor" or perform one herself. Before Roe v. Wade thousands of women died every year from complications from these abortions. By allowing abortions and late-term abortions to be legal, we allow women to go through safe and regulated channels to do something they are going to do anyway to be frank.
There are many circumstances in which late-term abortions are quite necessary, but I'll just name a few common situations. Often when young girls are raped, they will not tell anyone because they are afraid or a multitude of other reasons. Sometimes no one knows these girls are pregnant until they start getting big in their third trimester. These girls never got a chance to abort the rape-child in the "proper" time window because they are too afraid or immature to tell anyone or they don't even understand what pregnancy or sex is. Is it really fair to force an 11 year old girl to give birth to the child of her rapist because she didn't want to tell anyone she was raped?
Another situation is sometimes mothers are diagnosed with cancer late in their pregnancies beyond the date of normal abortions. These women often need chemotherapy or radiation therapy. This is an excerpt from the abstract of a paper by the Department of Radiology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine
"Malignant disease requiring radiation therapy during pregnancy presents an enormous challenge for the clinician. The optimal radiotherapeutic management of the patient and the optimal management of the pregnancy involve directly opposing demands. Ionizing radiation should be avoided during pregnancy whenever possible. Doses in excess of 0.1 Gy (10 rad) delivered during gestation have been associated with various detrimental effects, and therapeutic abortion has been recommended."
Often the cancer is so fast spreading that to wait the duration of the pregnancy to administer treatment that will most likely kill or maim the fetus is very dangerous and possibly fatal for the mother. In these situations the most humane thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and treat the mother.
My last hypothetical is that sometimes it is not apparent until late in the pregnancy that the baby has life-threatening deformities that threaten the mother as well. Is it really fair to tell a mother she must risk her life to give birth to baby that will or likely will die?
As you can see there are multitude of possible situations in which a late-term abortion is the best option. There are such diverse situations that can occur and they are so sensitive and dependent on context, that this is not an issue that is done proper service by a blanket rule by politicians. These decisions are best left up to doctors and their patients. Women who want late-term abortions should ask their doctors and if their doctors agree that a late-term abortion is the best medical option, they should seek the approval of other doctors. Furthermore all of these decisions should be overseen by a governing board of doctors.
Late-term abortions are not used because mothers changed their mind or procrastinated and this is not the intended use. Like I said the decision should be up to the discretion of doctors to determine the necessity of the procedure.
Sigh. I see you have never actually talked to an atheist before in your life and all you know are stereotypes. I tried to help you, I even showed you how according to the dictionary you are wrong, but to no avail. I see propaganda has once again won the day. I surrender.
"Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. "
No they don't. They do need proof, which is why they don't believe in god.
This is the last attempt I am going to make and then I give up trying to explain this to you.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? My guess is that you will say no. But can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist? No you can't prove it. Sure some parents may be putting the presents under their tress, but you can't know for a fact Santa Claus doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative. But because of a lack of evidence, you don't believe in him. It is possible to not believe and not think it is possible to know for certain at the same time.
But don't take my word for it.
http://atheism.about.com/od/
http://www.youtube.com/
Like Penn said in his video theism vs. atheism is not about is there a god? Anyone who claims to know that god exists or doesn't exist is lying. It's an impossible thing to know. Atheism vs. theism is about is there a god in whom you believe. If you asked a Christian if there is a god they believe in, they would say "Yes Jesus Christ." If you asked a Muslim if there is a god they believe in they would say "Yes Allah." But if you asked an atheist or what you think is an agnostic if there is a god they believe in, they would say no.
If the answer to the question is there a god in whom you believe is no, you are an atheist. And I don't know is not an answer to the question. There either is a god you believe in or there isn't. Thinking a god possibly exists is a totally separate issue.
Alright I'm glad we agree that the Fair Housing Act was necessary at least at one point in time. I still think it needs to exist now just in case to ensure people don't have difficulty finding a place to live due to their race though.
No actually most atheists I have met understand the terms.
Atheism is not rejecting the idea that there is a designer or superior energy force. Atheism and theism are the only two possibilities. There is no other option. For some reason you think there are all of these atheists running around who think it is impossible and provable that god doesn't exist. Here is a neat experiment you can try. Attempt to find an atheist who does not believe in a god, and thinks that it is possible to prove and know absolutely that god doesn't exist. Hint: You won't be able to find one.
I completely agree with you about thoughtcrimes being bad and about how the government should not run our lives. Being a pretty strong liberal I am libertarian about all social issues ( Abortion, drugs, gay marriage, gambling, prostitution.) Like you said the government's role is not to legislate morality or try to government our everyday lives as long as we do not hurt other people. In my opinion the government's role is to protect us from other people, but not from ourselves. And in this case because many blacks could not get housing they needed to be protected from the tyranny of racist whites. We're probably not going to agree on this because you're just a bit more libertarian than I am, but I do agree with you that the government should not run people's lives.
And yes you did essentially have to prove discrimination with the Fair Housing Act. It was just like how workplace discrimination laws work today. If you are fired and you are black, that is not good enough. But if you can prove to a jury using evidence that you were fired solely because of your race you can win the case.
I actually have a pretty cool story about the Fair Housing Act. My high school government teacher, who is a great guy as you will see, told us this. When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated my teacher, was in college at the time, went to the black students' union at the school and asked if there was anything they could do to help. The students said that many of the black students on campus were not able to get housing in the area because the white owners were refusing to rent apartments. Many colleges only guarantee on-campus housing for two years, so many of these students were getting screwed. So my teacher, his friends, and some of the members of the black student's union would basically perform sting operations on the local building owners. One of the black students would walk into a building and ask to rent an apartment. When the owners told them there was no vacancy they would leave and signal to one of the white students waiting outside who would then go in and ask for an apartment. If the owner then said there was vacancy they would compile the evidence and report the owner to the district attorney with their testimony. Regardless of if you feel the Fair Housing Act should be legal, it should be a pretty touching story.
Israel bombed a school in Gaza
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870087,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/06/israeli-bombs-hit-un-scho_n_155497.html
Israel prevented and delayed the Red Cross and rescue workers from gaining access to victims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/mobile/i/bbc_news/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28554801/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
Israel used white phosphorus in the massacre in Gaza in violation of international law
http://www.guardian.co.
http://www.guardian.co.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0114/
http://www.guardian.co.
Journalists have been denied access to Gaza to show what Israel is doing
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/05/
Like I said, I would show you legitimate sources. The things I said happened. Unfortunately they were not really talked about in the American media. Our media and country in general have a fairly strong pro-Israeli bias.
That is astounding. You managed to use so many words to say so little. You were an English major weren't you?
"I was speaking in the broad scope of human history, and in that great span, this misapplication of the more traditional term of "marriage" to some form of relationship between a couple who are of the same sex IS new and IS unprecedented"
I see you have difficulty reading so I will bold what I wrote earlier.
"The first country to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally recognized marriage was the Netherlands, effective in 2001. Since then, six other countries and seven U.S. states have followed suit, though voters in California revoked it through passage of Proposition 8."
Same-sex marriage is not unprecedented.
"Particularly noteworthy is the use of the law as a weapon to force the new definition of the word "marriage" on everybody"
Just like forcing the new definition of the word marriage as being interracial as well. How can you not see that this is exactly the same thing?
"I assure you words DO have meaning, and pondering that meaning is neither "vacuous" or "pseoudo intellectual"."
I never said words do not have meaning. And pondering meanings of words is not what I was criticizing you for. I was criticizing you for complaining that the natural progression of society and therefore its means of communication, language, amounts to a destruction of language.
"Descarte, Aristotle, Newton, poets like Shakespeare, and Thoreau (who has been speculated as being homosexual by the way) all poured over the fine nuance and meaning of the words they used."
No they were not all on your side. They never wrote anything about gay marriage or the changing of language of being its destruction. Wow you are really intellectually dishonest. They were authors who naturally were quite concerned with the meaning of the language they used to write their works, but that doesn't mean they were concerned with language changing. Please stop misrepresenting the truth.
"Of course the meaning of words change over time, but the underlying reality does not. Some words are reaplied to have new meaning, but the thing refered to has remaind unchanged in its underlying nature. The same bird is called by different names in different languages; and while some words may change faster than others, changing the word does not change the bird."
Here's a great example of your meaningless pseudo-intellectualism. "Underlying reality" is a meaningless phrase. Try to actually say something concrete next time. If you actually knew anything about language, you would understand what a joke it is to say that saying marriage is also between a man and a woman is a drastic change to language. Why don't you take a look at the archaic words and archaic definitions that are no longer used and then talk to me about drastic change. This change of the terms of marriage is incredibly slight. Yours is one of the worst arguments against gay marriage I have heard. At least Christians saying it goes against their holy book is factually correct, even though this is legally and philosophically incorrect. Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "marriage" includes same-sex marriage by the way.
"This may sound academic, but it is not!"
At least you have one thing right.
"This may seem outlandish to the provintial mind, but begs the question...why do they do it? Because they value their own culture."
I like when people deliberately use bigger words in a condescending way to sound smart and then spell them incorrectly. It tickles my irony bone.
And your argument if I can call it that about government censorship is lame. The fact that another government does something is not justification for it. I will spare you the holocaust analogies because I am still hoping you are intelligent enough to see now how stupid your point is.
"The Spanish conquistadors destroyed their conquered Aztec subject's written histories and records for a reason, to bring about the destruction of their civilization."
Oh my gosh you have uncovered the LGBT movement's secret plot. Their plan must have been to destroy civilization by destroying our language by making civil rights apply to them thereby changing the language. Blast those sexual deviants. Good thing you solved the mystery Nancy Drew.
I think I have discussed this with you before, but I will try again.
You are either an atheist or a theist. There is no middle ground. Agnosticism is a totally separate issue. To be frank religious people have corrupted the word agnostic and I will explain why. If they define agnostic as a between position it accomplishes a few goals for them
1) They divide people who don't believe in their god
2) If agnostics are in the middle, they think they can still sway them over to their side.
3) It allows them to cast atheists in an extreme light.
Einstein also seems to have been confused about the meaning of the word as well, as he claimed "I do not believe in a personal God." That statement means you are an atheist.
If you just look at the definition of atheist it is "a disbelief in the existence of deities." This says nothing about if you think it is possible. I don't think it is impossible that there is a god. But there is absolutely no evidence otherwise. Therefore I do not believe in god. Therefore I am atheist.
Here is a little quiz to help you determine what you are:
1) Do you believe in a deity or deities?
Yes: You are a theist
No: You are atheist
2) Do you believe it is possible to determine the existence of a deity or deities with certitude?
Yes: You are gnostic
No: You are agnostic
So you can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. There is no plain agnostic. In reality gnostic atheists don't exist. I have never met someone who doesn't believe in god, but thinks it is possible to prove god does not exist. And I have met a lot of atheists. The reason is where most atheists rejection of god comes from: a lack of empirical evidence. Anyone rational enough to not believe in something that doesn't have sufficient evidence is not going to claim that a lack of evidence proves a lack of existence. That would be totally irrational. Like I said, atheism in it of itself makes no statements about the existence of god. It is merely the lack of a belief in a god or gods.
No Einstein was an atheist not an agnostic.
And yes I was just trying to quickly reference the quote and mixed it up.
Most people try to take a couple of quotes of his out of context to pretend he was a religious man.
I prefer this quote of his:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this"
and this one:
""For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.""
Then there's this one referring to the belief that he was religious
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
With the science without religion is blind quote, he didn't mean religion in the sense people are trying to pretend like it means. here is a quote which shows his definition of religion:
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."
The total extent of his spirituality was an admiration for the complexity of the universe. He did not like religions.
"As I stated in my previous argument the practice of legal recognition of aspects of homosexual unions is new and unprecedented."
First result on google: "The first country to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally recognized marriage was the Netherlands, effective in 2001. Since then, six other countries and seven U.S. states have followed suit, though voters in California revoked it through passage of Proposition 8." I wouldn't call that unprecedented. If you are going to make a strong claim such as something has never been practiced, you should be sure you actually know what you are talking about. Therefore as I said using traditional marriage as an argument against same-sex marriage is just like using traditional marriage as an argument against interracial marriage.
And your argument about language was really just wordy, vacuous, pseudo-intellectual babble. Words and language change over time. This is a natural phenomenon. Cultures are not stagnant. Marriage used to be between a man and the women he bought essentially. Society changes. This does not equate to a destruction of language.
"What proponents of the phrase "gay marriage" demand is that the rest of society be forced to accept their own standard of the meaning of those words. And they seek to force this by attempting to enshrine their own particular minority definition upon the majority."
You mean, just like interracial marriage? If you can't see the comparison, I'm really sorry.
"Even at their peak, the Nazis never had a majority of political affiliation, they took power as a political minority, but look what havok they wreaked upon their own citizenry and the values which they imposed by force upon the majority!"
Yes because the LGBT movement trying to gain civil rights is exactly like the Nazi regime.
I don't think you read 1984 very carefully if you think anything in it can be applied to being against same-sex marriage.
And I find no logical pathway for how same-sex marriage could lead to "a state of total decay and ruin." That's some class A fear mongering right there. Do you work for NOM?
Would you have said this in 1967 prior to Loving v. Virginia?
"Interracial marriage hurts everyone.
The phrase "interracial marriage" is an attack on language, and hurts everyone, as all people use language.
The phrase "interracial marriage" is itself an attack on the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". The lack of a clear and agreed definition of a word makes it impossible for people to have a reasonable debate on the subject pertaining to that word.
Indeed by confusing the meaning of the word "marriage", it makes it impossible for people to rationally discuss it.
A new word or phrase should be chosen so as not to do harm to the existing meaning of words, while at the same time recognizing the essential characteristics of what is to be described by the word or phrase.
The new practice of what may be called a "heteroracial union" is new, because it carries with it recognition under the law, which is unprecedented. But separate from whatever legal definitions may be ascribed to it, the failure to adequately name the practice does harm to the established language and its meaning.
In particular, the practice of calling this "interracial marriage" does harm both to the word "interracial", and to the word "marriage", both of which have established meanings in language, and are widely used. Indeed the word "marriage" has no synonym which can be used in its place, unlike the word "interracial" which can be replaced in usage by the word "miscegenation"; So the destruction or redefinition of the word "marriage" is hurtful to the language in a way that can not be easily mended.
It is precisely the confusion over the definition of the words which has caused so much apparent disagreement which could have been avoided with adequate clarity and agreement over the definitions of the words which they are arguing over.
In conclusion, the phrase "interracial marriage" hurts users of language by confusing the established meaning of words, making rational discussion impossible. The phrase "interracial marriage" is describing something new in that it claims legal status. Therefore, one should pick another set of words that do not harm the established meaning of words in use. In particular, the word "marriage" has an established meaning, and cannot be easily replaced. The phrase should instead be "heteroracial union" or some other phrase that recognizes the nature of the relationship, while at the same time not doing harm to the long established meaning of the word "marriage". Finally, by unequivocating the meaning of the words used, much unnecessary disagreement and wasted debate could be avoided."
There is a difference between harm and progress.
They are not purposefully targeting civilians, but they are not doing much to make sure they don't kill them. During the most recent invasion of Gaza they bombed a school and destroyed whole blocks of residential neighborhoods. They also blocked medical aide and reporters from entering Gaza. No real justification for that.
No it is still Israel's fault if they kill civilians. If I break one of your windows, so you burn my house down and kill my family then you are overreacting right? Israel used white phosphorus and destroyed whole blocks of residential houses in Gaza.
"But, Libertarians (being Patriotic and all) would want to have a quick end to the War"
So if you don't think it is okay to kill millions of civilians and destroy a country, then you are not patriotic?
"As isolationists, they are not worried about innocent civilians, just the livelihood of the troops."
I guarantee libertarians do care about innocent civilians being killed. It may not be their prime motivation, but they definitely do care.
About Michael Jackson, you can not sell to him because you think he is a pedophile that is perfectly fine.
"The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlawed:
Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion or national origin.
Discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.
Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights."
I agree with you that people should be able be able to sell to who they want. That is an important right. But in my opinion the right of groups discriminated against to find affordable housing is greater than the right of racists to sell to who they want. If you think the latter right is more important, then that is your opinion and neither of us is right.
Most of the Palestinians killed by Israel are civilians who did nothing wrong.
"Socialism does it by not letting progression become possible"
What are you talking about? I don't even understand what you are attempting to say.
"Welfare does it by punishing those who progress and rewarding those who don't."
Welfare has nothing to do with punishing anyone. And this ridiculous rhetoric needs to stop. Helping someone in need is not rewarding them for failure. If your friend falls down and he asks to be helped up you don't say "Sorry I don't want to reward you for failing to walk properly."
"as for the fire man analogy, once again, people may THINK they know why their house is on fire, but usually they're wrong."
You are really difficult. If you want to play semantics and argue about ridiculous things then do so elsewhere. It is a relevant analogy, I'm sorry if you can't see it.
I'm not sure what lively debates you are talking about Fox News. You probably mean the pseudo debates between Hannity and Colmes, in which Colmes is deliberately set up to look worse. You should look at the statistics for how often Fox News has conservative vs liberal guests. I have seen interviews with people who stopped appearing on Fox News because they criticized Bush or republicans too heavily. Their slogan of "Fair and Balanced" is a complete joke as they are by far the most biased major tv news network. Statistically people who watch Fox News are much for likely to be ill informed about current events compare to people who get their news from PBS/NPR. If you actually want to find out what is going on in the world, I suggest you stay from Fox News and cable news in general.
I understand what you are saying. However this debate is not about if gay marriage should be legal or if band on it are constitutional. The California Supreme Court already recognized it as a constitutional right. They then said a ban on this right is legal. A law was passed earlier that made same-sex marriage illegal. The court ruled this law violated the constitution. Therefore an ammendment was passed changing the constitution. This means any right can be taken away like this.
The real question is would anyone really want yours?
Sorry joe, you walked right into that one.
Thank you, that was a well reasoned and well written argument. I have trouble maintaining focus when I debate against people who use red herrings and other logical fallacies often. They end up leading me away from the original factual argument into an opinion based digression.
"Joe Cavalry: the face of the Republican party."
Just like Joe the Plumber. Wait a minute...
I wasn't aware that the Libertarian policy was that it is okay to literally level developing nations that you are fighting against. Remind me where it says that in the Libertarian Party Platform because I am having trouble finding it.
And comparing that statement to what Truman did means nothing. In my opinion Truman was a war criminal and a mass-murderer for ordering the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But he never made flippant jokes about it.
Also you need to realize that in a debate you can't use the fact that a position is the Libertarian position as evidence for it being the correct position.
Also disliking the Fair Housing Act is kind of ridiculous. Many people could not find housing or affordable housing simply because of their race. Just to find out if you are a complete idealist or at least somewhat practical I propose the following hypothetical. If you knew that people were homeless because owners were discriminating against them for factors beyond their control which did not in any way influence the fulfillment of the sale or rent contract, would you agree that the owners have the right to do this?
I completely agree with Xaenon. When we die were are basically just meat to put it in crude terms. Not wanting to give up your organs because you want to maintain the "sanctity" of your body is completely selfish because you are effectively condemning someone to death due to the huge demand for organ donors.
When I die I want my organs and body to be used to their fullest potential to save lives directly through transplantation and indirectly through research. Even though it may be a bit anthro-centric I would prefer for humans to benefit from my death rather than worms.
Barring donation I would not want to be buried though. Putting dead flesh into ceremonial boxes and then burying them underground has always struck me as a rather primitive and irrational practice. It is really quite creepy if you think about it. If for some reason I die in such a way that prevents my body/organs from being useful, which I hope doesn't happen for my sake as well, I would like to be cremated and have my ashes disposed of. I definitely would not want them to be placed in an urn or anything like that.
I never said public works projects can eliminate poverty, but they can help. And just because something isn't a complete solution is no reason to reject it.
"although, since that is indeterminable at the time, firefighters serve a good purpose."
So our of curiosity, if someone called 9-11 and said "Help I left my stove on and now my house is on fire" do you think the firefighters should try to save their house then? Because they would be knowingly "rewarding them for failure."
You also need to realize that socialism =/= welfare. I think you are confused because you watch Fox News more than you read books. Socialism - Theories of collective or government ownership of production and distribution of goods.
Welfare - A program through which is distributed to those in need.
"So you admit hat you wouldn't help a friend or family member in need?"
I'm not certain how you came to that conclusion. I understand that some people help other people and I understand that there are charities. But if you think that people can adequately take care of people in poverty than I propose the following question
Why has poverty continued to rise despite charity and government programs? How can you possibility think that charities can take care of these people by themselves if they do not even come close along with large government programs?
"Likeliness doesn't matter, this is about opportunity, you can't force somebody to succeed."
If people who grow up in poverty are significantly more likely to drop out from high school, then clearly being in poverty is preventing them from having the opportunity to succeed.
"Well then you really do have a led head. "
Brilliant debate tactic. You make a bogus point and when called to clarify it you make a lame insult. All that does is show the weakness of your argument.
"Because the Democrats like to be in power and be as big as possible."
And Republicans don't like to be in power? What does that have anything to do with my question?
"And they suck at fixing peoples financial problems."
You are exhibiting classic the immature behavior of a black and white worldview. You still failed to respond to my question.
- Social welfare policies and charities exist
- Poverty has continued to rise
- You claim that charities alone are sufficient
- You claim that mismanagement of government programs because of incompetence inherent in Democrats has resulted in the failure because the government programs weren't good enough.
- Instead of advocating reformation of the policies, you advocate their abdication.
If you cannot see the extreme contradiction in that, I am sorry.
I have never heard anyone say they think private charity is enough to solve poverty. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who actually thinks that, even among conservatives because that isn't a political(left right) issue it's more of a logic issue.
"Well in this case it does. Just because they owned slaves doesn't mean all of there ideas are bad. I hope you know that. "
I do know that, I made that point to highlight the absurdity of yours, but apparently you failed to pick up on the satire. Just as being slave owners does not affect the viability of their opinions, being the founders of the country also does nothing to affect the viability of their opinions. They were just men who started this country. That doesn't mean that everything they thought always correct.
"
" Also progressivism in the modern sense did not even exist yet. "
Good times.
"
Oh wow you are a reactionary. You are even more extreme than I thought.
Yes the 18th century was a fantastic time, as long as you were a rich, white male. The balance of power has now shifted, so what you are saying is you want to go back to a time before rich, white men lost the monopoly on power. You are of course going to deny this, but I would expect nothing less out of someone as intellectually dishonest as you.
"everyone has different grandfathers so their right to vote is dependent on something that they can not control."
And people can control the sex to which they are attracted? My analogy makes perfect sense.
"they don't need to have a special ability, just be human."
You might want to rephrase that because you just said gays aren't human.
"please, stop trying to compare the gay movement to civil rights, I find it offensive and i'm not even black."
I don't think anyone really cares what you find offensive. And the LGBT movement is about civil rights, along with acceptance. I think what you meant to say is you want me to stop comparing gay civil rights to black civil rights because blacks were in a worse position. Which is a really stupid and ignorant position if you think about it. A true defender of civil rights, black, gay, or anything else, would recognize the parallels between the African American civil rights movement and the LGBT civil rights movement. And they would certainly not decry the use of such analogies.
"i still wouldn't say it's against the constitution because that would be silly."
Just out of curiosity how many times have you actually read the Constitution? No I don't mean how many times have your teachers told you what certain sections mean, or political pundits tell you what it says. How many times have you actually read through the entire document along with the documents that led up to it including letters written by the authors of the Constitution?
Everything you are saying is totally irrelevant to the debate. The Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. They then upheld the constitutionality of an amendment that took away this right. The point of the debate is about your opinion on a simple majority being able to take away constitutional rights, not whether or not gay marriage should be legal.
It is based upon an average so more men working would not skew the results.
I never said I disagree. But your statement is based upon nothing, so it is irrelevant.
The claim that something is "common sense" does not work in a debate. You need to be able to actually back up what you are saying. If someone is trying to a get a scholarship to go to college, they aren't really what I am talking about with the cycle of poverty. I am talking about children from impoverished families are 50% more likely to drop out of high school and these are the results of that.
"- 75 percent of state prison inmates and 59 percent of federal inmates are high-school dropouts.
- High-school dropouts are 3.5 times more likely than graduates to be incarcerated.
- Dropouts contribute disproportionately to the unemployment rate. In 2001, 55 percent of young adult dropouts were employed, compared to 74 percent of high-school graduates and 87 percent of college graduates.
- Dropouts contribute to state and federal tax coffers at about one-half the rate of high-school graduates. Over a working lifetime, a dropout will contribute about $60,000 less.
- The 23 million high-school dropouts aged 18-67 will contribute roughly $50 billion less annually in state and federal taxes.
- Studies suggest the United States would save $41.8 billion in health care costs if the 600,000 young people who dropped out in 2004 were to complete one additional year of education.
- If 33 percent of dropouts graduated from high school, the federal government would save $10.8 billion each year in food stamps, housing assistance, and temporary assistance for needy families.
- Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said dropouts cost the United States "more than $260 billion... in lost wages, lost taxes and lost productivity over their lifetimes."
People born into poverty are much more likely to not graduate and therefore much more likely to stay in poverty, and this effect transcends to their kids.
"We can do it better than the government can, that is why the founders created this country the way they did. It is not and should not be the governments place to pull people out of poverty!"
I already countered this argument, but I guess you didn't see it, so I will copy and paste what I said.
The problem is if the government doesn't help them, no one will. Your argument is fairly nonsensical. If we could take care of people in poverty, then why are government programs plus charity not even coming close to fixing the problem? I don't understand why you can't recognize that the free market is not the best solution for every problem. These situations are what is known as market failures by economists. Poverty happens to be one of these markets failures.
"The founding fathers where about as far away from progressive socialists as you can get. You do know that right?"
I'm not sure what your point is. They also thought it was okay to own human beings as property. Just because they believed in something doesn't make it right. Also progressivism in the modern sense did not even exist yet.
Probably bring down the country again. Somehow he used more fear-mongering that Bush did. He used secret tactics to stage rebellions in South America that destroyed rebellions by the people to control their government in favor of right-wing dictators because he didn't like their economic policy. His trickle-down theory was a complete failure. He began the movement of deregulation which has led to the current economic crisis.
Here are 20 things they don't tell you about Reagan:
http://www.freespeechzoneblog.com/diary/
Good Reagan quotes
Reagan advocating nuclear weapons to end the Vietnam war : “It’s silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas.”
Reagan on the Fair Housing Act : “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.”
Reagan on poverty: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet”.
Reagan after the assassination of MLK, Jr : “a great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break.”
Reagan opposing expansion of Redwood National Park : “A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?”
An quote from Reagan's equivalent of Karl Rove, who interestingly enough was one of Rove's mentors
Atwater: "You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites."
A few other articles about how bad of a president Reagan actually was.
http://www.truthout.org/012809L
http://www.commondreams.
Don't worry your un-analytical mind either prevent you from reading all of this, or it will convince you that it is all false or taken out of context. You will not have to actually critically examine the beliefs you have been taught. You're lucky because it's really painful to realize most of the things that you've been told are lies.
"I said it's the BEST WAY, i never said we actually have to."
I understand that. I was saying that your idea of exterminating is not only a unconscionable one, but a completely idiotic one as well. Not killing people who are poor has nothing to do with pseudo morals from god. It has to do with having an ounce of compassion, which you apparently lack.
Socialism is not about rewarding people for failure. Socialism advocates state ownership and control of the production and distribution of goods. I'm not exactly sure what this has to with rewarding people for failing.
Additionally this line "rewarding people for failure" is fairly ridiculous. If you think paying for someone's food, medicine, clothing, and shelter because they cannot work is rewarding them for failure, then I guess you think the fire department putting out the fire on someone's house because they accidentally left the stove on is rewarding them for failure.
"Just find jobs out of the blue?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
This has a few benefits actually. People who didn't have jobs and are hired can sustain themselves. Therefore they are going to buy things which is good for the economy. Also public works improve everyone's lives in some way.
