Gun rights--Left has LOST. Time and again Americans recognize the fundamental freedoms of owning a gun.
Gun grabbing cost the Rats the congress in 94 and the presidency in 2000. (Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000 over gun rights. Had he been able to win his own home state, he would have been president instead of the loser he now is.)
Gun grabbing even cost two senators from Colorado their seats in a recall election. What sent shockwaves throughout the left was these were two "safe seats" from strong liberal districts.
--The draconian gun laws in the NE states in the aftermath of a mass shooting remains largely ignored by the gun owners there.
In places with strict guns laws like Chicago and DC, the crime rate continues unabated. and the left seems unconcerned about stopping crime in those places.
What have people learned: The left wants law abiding people disarmed and cares nothing if criminals use guns.
so tell me Mr liberal asswipe? Why is the left so intent on disarming the law abiding people and not the criminals? Why is crime worse in Shitcago and Detroit than in Phoenix?
..........................................................................................
Foreign policy: Obama is an utter embarassment here. Our allies don't trust us, and our enemies don't love us (in spite of Obamas apology tour). The Left is now defined by Bengahzi and Syria. Obama's buddies were thrown out of power in Egypt.
.................................................................................
Healthcare. The left said prices would go down, instead they are up, by $20,000 per family.
The left said you could see your own doctor...LIE. Doctors are opting out of Obamacare in droves. The govt health plans are now dependent on nurses and non-doctors treating patients.
Death panels are real, they are just called waiting lists. surgeries you could get in a moments notice a year ago will take 6+ years to get in 2015.
70% of the people are against the ACA, and want it repealed.
....................................................................................
Tea party. They're taking over the GOP. Despite the IRS attempting to block their formation, the ranks are swelling. Tea party senators and congressmen are wildly popular in their districts and don't fear rocking the boat in DC. Boehner is no Tea Party man, but even he is helpless to resist their influence
the govt shut down. The threats of the Left couldn't stop it. people are not afraid of the left's machine anymore. two days and no one in America is feeling the pain. The phone lines aren't melting in DC.
........................
Socialized auto industry. Since the govt took over the bankrupt auto plants, the auto industry has made cars NO ONE WANTS...or even can afford. No govt motors plan has yet to make a profit.
...............................................................
Environment No one believes in global warming. the Carbon tax the left wanted is non existant. The Kyoto treaty couldn't even pass a filibusterer-proof democratic congress.
---in fact, every single "green industry that got millions of stimulus money is bankrupt. The millions of jobs in the green industry never materialized.
---now we know the millions of govt money was just to pay off Obama supporters.
...........................................................
The economy and JOBS. Obama swore this would be his first priority, and he ignored it
the economy is in shables, and people are facing a future of part time jobs because of Obamacare (29 hours a week). Obama has done NOTHING to increase jobs.
recent states show the number of people working part time jobs approaching 50%. The largest private employer is not Walmart, but temp agencies.
---can't blame that on Bush
Bottom line. It seems to me your proclamation of victory is premature.
Yep.I didn't ask for a surrender, nor would I expect you to surrender if you felt strongly about any of these issues. The question is, do you agree? Are my predictions on target, or do you think something else will happen? I am genuinely curious.
I guess we should just surrender.
:whatever:
Nice dodge, coward. I already bitch-slapped you so I'll have to wait an hour to do it again.
While it's clear that you have a great number of things that you'd like to talk to me about, because this chew toy is going to get a lot of attention, I have to keep my responses focused on the social issues that are the subject of my OP. That said, I do appreciate your response.
-Laelth
Oh, so the destruction of the stable family, the evisceration of morality, hope, and civility is a "win" in your book?It's a "win" for the left, and that's how I framed the question. Whether that's a good thing for the country is another question altogether. Obviously, you have strong feelings on the issue.
Tells me all I ****in need to know about you, ****tard.
I have never seen a leftist initiated program that was successful. They are all failures like them.While I could list a host of liberal measures that have been wildly successful, the point of this thread is to get your opinion on the social issues I listed in the OP. What do you think about those? Are my predictions correct? What's your opinion?
Nice dodge, coward. I already bitch-slapped you so I'll have to wait an hour to do it again.LOL. Have at it. I will consider it a badge of honor to have the lowest possible negative reputation on this site, even though, in truth, I consider all of you cave-dwellers to be American patriots who are interested enough in this country to think about it, read about it, and even write about it in a public forum.
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2557/71sd.gif)
If you think winning at killing babies is a great social achievement then you suck bad. That's disgusting.Insult and attack aside, do you see any way that abortion will become illegal in the United States within the next 40 years? I don't.
It's pretty obvious that gay boy Laelth isn't here to discuss anything.Dude, and I assume you are a dude, that's lame.
I'll Hi5 anyone who insults the gay boy or posts kitties, pie, bacon, or boobs.
bottom line: this is a discussion board. if you're afraid to discuss find another place to troll.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8091/4pdq.jpg)
Insult and attack aside, do you see any way that abortion will become illegal in the United States within the next 40 years? I don't.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
Insult and attack aside, do you see any way that abortion will become illegal in the United States within the next 40 years? I don't.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
Doesn't matter what social issues the left has won....it will all be thrown out the window when they finally win complete control.Not sure I am following you, here. While I think it's true that the Democratic Party will probably control national politics for a generation following the 2020 census, I am curious to know what you think will be "thrown out the window" when that happens.
Illegal? No. Restricted? Yep. Look at Texas.I noted in the OP that a number of states have passed further restrictions on abortion, but none of them is willing to abolish the practice. Our conservative SCOTUS won't even touch the issue. Besides which, Texas will turn blue in a few election cycles, and I suspect that these restrictions will be abolished like the Jim Crow laws conservatives fought for in the 1960s. Do you disagree?
I noted in the OP that a number of states have passed further restrictions on abortion, but none of them is willing to abolish the practice. Our conservative SCOTUS won't even touch the issue. Besides which, Texas will turn blue in a few election cycles, and I suspect that these restrictions will be abolished like the Jim Crow laws conservatives fought for in the 1960s. Do you disagree?
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
Besides which, Texas will turn blue in a few election cycles...
-Laelth
"Thesis?"Nice to see you too, Eupher. And thanks for the bitch-slap. :cheersmate:
You writing some kind of college-boy paper, so you're collecting "data?" Is that it, Laelth?
I seem to remember bitchslapping you before. Since you've resurrected yourself, gotta be time to do that again.
*sigh*
Some trolls just don't learn.
Jim Crow laws were pushed by DEMOCRATS. Racist Dems, at that.Generally speaking, you are absolutely correct. You'll note, I hope, that I said conservatives fought for those laws (just like they fought against the integration of the military). I did not say anything about the Democratic Party (which has always had its share of conservatives).
Is there any other kind of Dem besides racist?
I'm genuinely curious! :whatever:
Generally speaking, you are absolutely correct. You'll note, I hope, that I said conservatives fought for those laws (just like they fought against the integration of the military). I did not say anything about the Democratic Party (which has always had its share of conservatives).
-Laelth
Has the left won on the great social issues?
I think that's a great subject to discuss here.
I wouldn't consider that abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization are great wins. As for civil rights, that has always been a conservative value. If you think that's a win for liberals, then you don't know your history. The reasons there are so many black people in prison isn't a civil rights issue, that is a failure created by the left.
But the real question isn't if the left has won, but has America won, and I don't see where they have.
I do see the socialist way as the pathway to communism, which should be sending up red flags to every American and not celebrated by anyone.
Dori, before you engage in further discussions with this troll, please note that he has a long and checkered history here.
Laelth comes in, shits on the carpet, then leaves for another year or two before he finds himself back in Mommy's basement with nothing to do, so he comes in here and shits on the carpet again.
I'm glad I'm not the one cleaning his mess up.
I'm confused.
There are many here who have said to liberals, that they are welcome to come here, and wouldn't be treated like they are at the DUmp.
I don't know this members history here, so I guess my question is, are they really welcome here?
1. Abortion.
2. Gay Marriage. Already legal in several states, and it will become legal in all 50 states (except, perhaps, Utah) within the next 20 years.
3. MJ legalization. Already legal in Washington and Colorado, it won't be long before MJ is legal for growth, sale, and recreational use in all 50 states.
4. Civil Rights.
5. Many more.
yeah, I caught your non-sequitur. Nobody said anything about fighting against the integration of the military. Stop mixing apples and oranges.
I specifically said that Dems (and there were a bunch of them) who voted for Jim Crow laws.
You're chasing the same tired story that all victims of public education have been spoon-fed -- that conservatives are racist.
Not so. At least none that I know of.
You have some specific examples of how CONSERVATIVES pushed for Jim Crow laws? A link or two will do nicely. And make sure those links are from reputable sources.
HuffPo and the Daily Kos won't cut it.
I'm confused.Dori, you are very kind, and I appreciate it. I consider myself a "guest" here, and I post here knowing full well that I am going to be subject to a certain amount of abuse. I just try to be civil. Sometimes I get civility back. Frank, being the good and decent person he is, allows me to post, and I am thankful for that.
There are many here who have said to liberals, that they are welcome to come here, and wouldn't be treated like they are at the DUmp.
I don't know this members history here, so I guess my question is, are they really welcome here?
Insult and attack aside, do you see any way that abortion will become illegal in the United States within the next 40 years? I don't.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
Hopefully people will start having a conscience and ban a barbaric procedure. As medical science progresses and more people see that what you call a clump of cells is a human more people will oppose this form of legalized murder.
So, I ask, do you agree or disagree? Has the left already won on all the great social issues of the day, or not?
You consider at will killing of the unborn a "victory"? What does that say about your values?I want to know why the Republican Party didn't ban abortion when they had the chance from 2003-2006. My hunch is that they didn't do it because (as I suggested) "the left" has already won on that issue. Whether that's a good thing or not is another topic altogether.
Based upon what? Its passage in liberal controlled states shows no real nationwide trend.Here, we're talking about gay marriage. Obviously, you don't think the left has "won" on this issue. Fine. I appreciate your insight on this.
No basis for this observation, either. Using Amsterdam as a model, I suspect that will be overturned in time as well.Here we're talking about MJ legalization. Obviously, you don't think the left has "won" on this issue either. Fine. Again, I appreciate your insight, though I suspect this movement is global, now, and you may see a lot of change on this front in a very short period of time. As state governments lose more and more federal funding, they will look to other sources of revenue, and MJ is some really big low-hanging fruit just waiting to be taxed.
Never was a "left" victory. Unless, that is, you want to count all of the discrimination codified into Federal Law that various leftists have managed to pull off.Civil Rights was never a victory for "the left," huh? My history is a little rusty, but I can't buy that one. All the same, and regardless of who deserves credit, we have made tremendous progress on this issue, and I am very proud of my country for it.
A socially liberal country? One that just showed the real third rail in politics is the Second Amendment? You have a bit too much confidence in the face of the lib agenda starting to be rejected.As I mentioned to another poster, I see gun control as a Constitutional issue, not a social issue (though it has elements of both). I am opposed to further attempts to control the sale and possession of guns for a number of reasons, but, again, I don't really see this as a social issue. It's certainly not, as you rightly note, an issue that the left has "won" in any way. On this issue the left is quite divided. The proponents of gun control, however, have clearly lost for the time being.
Hopefully people will start having a conscience and ban a barbaric procedure. As medical science progresses and more people see that what you call a clump of cells is a human more people will oppose this form of legalized murder.Interesting. You actually see abortion being banned in the United States in the near future? That's a response I did not expect. Thanks.
I am a straw-man for all kinds of beliefs that are associated with "the left," so I'll let this issue slide.
Interesting. You actually see abortion being banned in the United States in the near future? That's a response I did not expect. Thanks.
btw, I never called anyone or anything a "clump of cells," neither here nor elsewhere, but I realize that, in this forum, I am a straw-man for all kinds of beliefs that are associated with "the left," so I'll let this issue slide.
-Laelth
Then why don't you make your beliefs known and quit acting like a scrunt fart.
Eupher, I agreed with you that Democrats fought for Jim Crow laws. I don't see why I need to do research and provide links when I am agreeing with you.
-Laelth
My argument is that "the left" has already won on all the great social issues of our time.
Yes, you did. And then immediately compared THOSE Democrats to conservatives.There are plenty of racist Democrats just as there are plenty of racist Republicans. I would add, however, that from my experience the United States is one of the least racist nations on Earth. Racism remains real, and racism is global, but, here in the U.S., it's an issue we talk about, think about, and try to combat. We actually have laws on the books to address this issue, unlike many nations. On this issue, we are the world's leader--the most multicultural and diverse nation on Earth. I am very proud of my country for its advances in this area.
How 'bout them racist Dems, Laelth? Gonna throw a brick through THAT window?
There are plenty of racist Democrats just as there are plenty of racist Republicans.
It's not winning to kill defenseless babies. Why are you spiking the football with their savage death? :(
It's not winning to kill defenseless babies. Why are you spiking the football with their savage death? :(
Laelth is a slick-tongued, obsequious, smarmy liberal who pretends he wants to discuss "the issues." All he really wants to do is see his screen name while he hovers over a computer screen in Mommy's basement.
Laelth no more cares about aborted, murdered babies than he cares about moving out of Mommy's basement.
You see, Laelth worships government control. He subscribes to the liberal, Proglodyte mantra that the government knows what's best for you, me, and him.
He's steadfast in his beliefs -- I definitely get that.
So WTF is he here?
Answer -- to spread his goober dust around the place. Someone else will clean it up.
Then why don't you make your beliefs known and quit acting like a scrunt fart.
Scrunt fart? That's one I haven't heard before.
As for my beliefs, I have written plenty on what I think as a Google search for my handle will quickly demonstrate. I thought I'd check in and see what you think.
-Laelth
Scrunt fart? That's one I haven't heard before.
As for my beliefs, I have written plenty on what I think as a Google search for my handle will quickly demonstrate. I thought I'd check in and see what you think.
-Laelth
The great error in your statement is the idea that you listed "the great social issues of our time." In promoting leftist policies as the cure-all for the "great social issues" of his time, a Democrat president once said, "“I'll have those ******s voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Nothing has changed for the left.I will admit, that I have no idea what you consider to be "the great social issues of our time." I listed a few in hopes of getting a response, but it became clear to me that a number of people see gun rights as a social issue. Fine. On that one, the right has won (for the moment), but I was looking to see what conservatives thought about these issues. To the extent you have answered my question from your own perspective, I thank you.
Try this little mental exercise, leftie: The power is shut off in your entire state for two weeks. No running water. No sanitation. No stores selling groceries. No phone service. No Internet. No gas at the gas pumps. No public transportation. No law enforcement. No fire service. Who gives a shit about same sex marriage now?Indeed, social issues mean very little when life's necessities are at risk. That, in fact, is what drives this line of questioning. I am less-and-less concerned about these social issues these days as economic, material issues become more prominent in my life (as they are for millions of Americans). How will the Republican Party survive without these wedge issues to divide people? It's a good question.
Here is an important social issue: Suckling from the government teat. What will the helpless leftists do when Unca Suga's milk tit runs dry? What will you do about the rioting ghetto dwellers who expect you to feed them?Lots of people suck from the government teat, and the ones who get the big government bucks are quite wealthy already. I will agree to look at (and restrain) the poor and middle-classed people who suck off the government teat as soon as we enact laws that prevent rich people from sucking off the government teat. When that happens, we'll talk.
How about this: Crushing our children and grandchildren with ballooning government debt and devaluing money. Have you ever heard of the Wiemar Republic? We're almost there.Not even close, my friend. We are the hardest-working people on Earth. We go to work, we pay our taxes, and we pay our bills. We can continue to borrow money into the foreseeable future. I do not see what you see on this issue.
Here is another: The systematic destruction of the American spirit of adventure and self-reliance. How many generations do you envision from you to abject slavery?Slavery ... hmm. Give me a $15/hr. minimum wage, and your slavery fantasies will evaporate. When the poor and middle-class have a lot of money to spend, we all get richer. We will always have our entrepreneurs. We have been the most inventive and productive people the world has ever seen, and I don't see that changing (no matter how much the "evil" left tries to spread the wealth and insure that capitalism's benefits are fairly distributed to all members of this society).
On the real social issues of our time, the left is ass-backwards and moving father to the rear all the time.Strangely enough, you engaged me on economic issues (the ones I think really matter now). The "social issues" are ones I think the left has already won (for better or for worse), and you proved this point with your post. Thanks.
but it became clear to me that a number of people see gun rights as a social issue. Fine. On that one, the right has won (for the moment),
How will the Republican Party survive without these wedge issues to divide people? It's a good question.
Lots of people suck from the government teat
and the ones who get the big government bucks are quite wealthy already
as soon as we enact laws that prevent rich people from sucking off the government teat
We go to work, we pay our taxes, and we pay our bills.
We can continue to borrow money into the foreseeable future.
I do not see what you see on this issue.
Slavery ... hmm. Give me a $15/hr. minimum wage, and your slavery fantasies will evaporate. When the poor and middle-class have a lot of money to spend, we all get richer. We will always have our entrepreneurs. We have been the most inventive and productive people the world has ever seen, and I don't see that changing (no matter how much the "evil" left tries to spread the wealth and insure that capitalism's benefits are fairly distributed to all members of this society).
Whatever he is he is not going to change our minds because we at least have a heart. Him, not so sure. Anyone that rejoices in killing human life is too far gone.I don't rejoice in the killing of human beings. That's a really low blow, Gina.
When the poor and middle-class have a lot of money to spend, we all get richer.
I don't rejoice in the killing of human beings. That's a really low blow, Gina.
-Laelth
You realize that by raising the minimum wage, the businesses you loathe and despise so much will be forced to raise the prices on the goods and services that they offer and will probably have to fire some employees in order to meet that requirement. By raising the minimum wage, all you will be doing is raising the price of goods and services for everyone. I realize that you may not subscribe to the the theory of the Law of Unintended Consequences, but it still applies.I don't loathe business. I am on record (in this forum) saying the opposite.
So, if a higher minimum wage means more money for everyone, why just $15 an hour? Why not make it $150 an hour?Then the government will just re-define "full time" to something less than 40 hours a week.
I don't loathe business. I am on record (in this forum) saying the opposite.
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen). I suspect the benefits of a higher minimum wage would offset any damage caused by it. The truth is that we're all better off when the poor and the middle-class have more money to spend, and a higher minimum wage would accomplish this goal.
-Laelth
So, if a higher minimum wage means more money for everyone, why just $15 an hour? Why not make it $150 an hour?
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen).
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen). I suspect the benefits of a higher minimum wage would offset any damage caused by it. The truth is that we're all better off when the poor and the middle-class have more money to spend, and a higher minimum wage would accomplish this goal.
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen). I suspect the benefits of a higher minimum wage would offset any damage caused by it. The truth is that we're all better off when the poor and the middle-class have more money to spend, and a higher minimum wage would accomplish this goal
I don't rejoice in the killing of human beings. That's a really low blow, Gina.
-Laelth
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen).
I don't rejoice in the killing of human beings. That's a really low blow, Gina.
-Laelth
I am sorry if I have offended you. But it's a pretty low blow to say that the Left has WON with abortion. It's killing innocent life. How is that a good thing? :shrug: Please explain.
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen). I suspect the benefits of a higher minimum wage would offset any damage caused by it. The truth is that we're all better off when the poor and the middle-class have more money to spend, and a higher minimum wage would accomplish this goal
I don't loathe business. I am on record (in this forum) saying the opposite.
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen). I suspect the benefits of a higher minimum wage would offset any damage caused by it. The truth is that we're all better off when the poor and the middle-class have more money to spend, and a higher minimum wage would accomplish this goal.
-Laelth
I want to know why the Republican Party didn't ban abortion when they had the chance from 2003-2006. My hunch is that they didn't do it because (as I suggested) "the left" has already won on that issue. Whether that's a good thing or not is another topic altogether.
Here, we're talking about gay marriage. Obviously, you don't think the left has "won" on this issue. Fine. I appreciate your insight on this.
Here we're talking about MJ legalization. Obviously, you don't think the left has "won" on this issue either. Fine. Again, I appreciate your insight, though I suspect this movement is global, now, and you may see a lot of change on this front in a very short period of time. As state governments lose more and more federal funding, they will look to other sources of revenue, and MJ is some really big low-hanging fruit just waiting to be taxed.
Civil Rights was never a victory for "the left," huh? My history is a little rusty, but I can't buy that one. All the same, and regardless of who deserves credit, we have made tremendous progress on this issue, and I am very proud of my country for it.
As I mentioned to another poster, I see gun control as a Constitutional issue, not a social issue (though it has elements of both). I am opposed to further attempts to control the sale and possession of guns for a number of reasons, but, again, I don't really see this as a social issue. It's certainly not, as you rightly note, an issue that the left has "won" in any way. On this issue the left is quite divided. The proponents of gun control, however, have clearly lost for the time being.
I will admit, that I have no idea what you consider to be "the great social issues of our time."
Indeed, social issues mean very little when life's necessities are at risk.
I am less-and-less concerned about these social issues these days as economic, material issues become more prominent in my life (as they are for millions of Americans).
How will the Republican Party survive without these wedge issues to divide people? It's a good question.
I will agree to look at (and restrain) the poor and middle-classed people who suck off the government teat as soon as we enact laws that prevent rich people from sucking off the government teat. When that happens, we'll talk.
Not even close, my friend. We are the hardest-working people on Earth. We go to work, we pay our taxes, and we pay our bills. We can continue to borrow money into the foreseeable future. I do not see what you see on this issue.
Slavery ... hmm. Give me a $15/hr. minimum wage, and your slavery fantasies will evaporate.
When the poor and middle-class have a lot of money to spend, we all get richer.
We will always have our entrepreneurs. We have been the most inventive and productive people the world has ever seen, and I don't see that changing (no matter how much the "evil" left tries to spread the wealth and insure that capitalism's benefits are fairly distributed to all members of this society).
Strangely enough, you engaged me on economic issues (the ones I think really matter now). The "social issues" are ones I think the left has already won (for better or for worse), and you proved this point with your post.
I don't loathe business. I am on record (in this forum) saying the opposite.
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen). I suspect the benefits of a higher minimum wage would offset any damage caused by it. The truth is that we're all better off when the poor and the middle-class have more money to spend, and a higher minimum wage would accomplish this goal.
-Laelth
Yet you support abortion...the murder of a human being.Well, evidently the Republican Party (on the national level, at least) supports it too, given that they controlled all of the federal government from 2003-2006 and didn't ban the procedure.
She hit the bullseye with you.
Well, evidently the Republican Party (on the national level, at least) supports it too, given that they controlled all of the federal government from 2003-2006 and didn't ban the procedure.
My point was that this issue has faded into the background, and I am curious to know whether you think this is a long-term social trend or just a temporary setback for those who oppose having abortion legal. I have gotten a good answer on this one from a number of people--i.e. temporary setback. Perhaps. We'll see.
-Laelth
Points 1-3 could very well reverse course when the fallout from each has become apparent. Until 100% of the states pass favorable laws it's hardly a Win.I appreciate your responses.
There's so much in 4 that you purposefully neglect.
"While the SCOTUS has neutered the Civil Rights Act of 1965, it's clear that the races in this country are moving towards parity in terms of their legal rights." Moving towards parity? There is parity now. Some simply refuse to think beyond their days instant gratification.
"This change is slow (still far more black men in prison than white men, as a percentage of the total population), but it is coming." Failing to address why the incarceration rate of blacks exceed other races makes any argument null. Hint: glorification and emulation of thug culture, demise of personal responsibility, reliance on government for daily existence, death of the family unit.
Mr. Mann has brought up several areas that are, indeed, social issues. Why the hesitation to address them? As an attorney you should be prepared to respond.
I am sorry if I have offended you. But it's a pretty low blow to say that the Left has WON with abortion. It's killing innocent life. How is that a good thing? :shrug: Please explain.I didn't say it was a "good" thing. I couldn't think of a better, value-neutral way to frame the question. The question is, will we see abortion banned in the next 20-40 years? I don't think so. I am wondering whether I am missing something.
I appreciate your responses.
As for Mr. Mann's insights, which I also appreciate, I don't think we're ready to agree on the history of "civil rights" in this country, nor are we ready to agree on whether there's parity between races and genders at present, so, rather than stoke that fire, I dropped the subject.
-Laelth
Nice try. Your boss might be able to spew that line in front of the camera on the Hill without challenge but in reality that BS excuse doesn't fly.Agreed. It would likely have been impossible for Congress to ban the procedure from 2003-2006, and other issues were consuming our legislators' attention. That said, the Republican Party didn't even try to ban the procedure from 2003-2006. Does that say something, or not? To me it says "the left" has won on this issue, for better or for worse, and it appears the SCOTUS agrees (for the moment), as they don't seem inclined to rule on this subject.
A repeal of Roe would have never passed the Senate during that time. As you well know working on The Hill...the Senate was 49-49 after Jumpin Jim Jeffords betrayed the GOP. And there was the little problem of 9/11 that took center stage during that time.
Just because the media doesn't cover Roe unless a Republican President gets elected...and then only to scare people into believing it's the end of Abortion as we know it...doesn't mean it's NOT important to America and American people.It's cool to hear that "all Republicans by and large want to do is return the right to determine whether abortions can be conducted in a state bACK to the State legislatures," but I suspect Republicans are not united in this opinion. Either way, Roe made this a national, Constitutional issue, and I don't see how we can undo that now.
And for the record...and it's something you Libs in D.C. ALWAYS misconstrue...no one is trying to make abortion illegal...all Republicans by and large want to do is return the right to determine whether abortions can be conducted in a state bACK to the State legislatures.
Which is exactly how it was prior to 1972. Abortion wasn't illegal in the country as a whole...but some states did vote to not allow abortions in their state.
And like any other time a state self determines it's own laws and policies within it's right in the Constitution...your Lib bosses there in D.C. step in and tell those states they don't know whats good for them and force them to do something against the will of that states voters.
"Parity", like "fairness" is a chimera. Both terms are undefinable and unmeasurable.True. Too hard to define and measure. That's why I dropped the subject.
So, if a higher minimum wage means more money for everyone, why just $15 an hour? Why not make it $150 an hour?I read somewhere that a $15/hr. minimum wage would put us on par with the minimum wage in (approximately) 1962 (inflation adjusted, of course). Kicking it up much higher that that would cause undesirable inflation, or so I understand. That said, I am not an economist (as a number of you have kindly reminded me). I concede that a $15/hr. minimum wage would create some inflationary pressure, but I think it would be worth that risk. On the other hand, a $150/hr. minimum wage would create extraordinary and undesirable inflationary pressure, or, so I understand.
As you might imagine, I disagree. Not sure there's much more to be said, here, but I do appreciate your response.
So you believe that the benefits of raising the minimum wage will offset the damage it will cause. I'm sure the people of the aforementioned Weimar Republic (Germany post WWI) would give you an idea of how well that worked. People were getting wheelbarrows full of money and couldn't buy anything with it due to runaway inflation. While the causes are different, the result for the US will be the same. Keep rasing the minimum wage, and the market will correct itself like it always does and raise the cost of EVERYTHING. And once again, the poor will be poor with even less purchasing power from their dollar.
I don't loathe business. I am on record (in this forum) saying the opposite.
I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hamburger if it meant we could get a lot of people off the welfare rolls (and that's exactly what would happen). I suspect the benefits of a higher minimum wage would offset any damage caused by it. The truth is that we're all better off when the poor and the middle-class have more money to spend, and a higher minimum wage would accomplish this goal.
-Laelth
And quite frankly being the Lib you are...you don't care.I actually do care, and I wouldn't be here talking to you if I didn't.
Have you ever operated a business or done the accounting for it? Do you have any idea about who owns franchises?Forgive me if I do not respond to personal questions. I understand that most franchisees are local, small-business owners.
Please sooper genius,explain to me why the poverty level will not rise in proportion as prices rise to meet the additional expense.I'll pass on that one, but feel free to educate me on what you see as the likely results of an increase in the minimum wage. I promise to read what you have to say.
WE think you're an idiot. Don't need to Google you *****...you're not famous and we've got all the evidence that you don't know jack right here in your posts on CC.
I'll pass on that one, but feel free to educate me on what you see as the likely results of an increase in the minimum wage. I promise to read what you have to say.
-Laelth
I'll pass on that one, but feel free to educate me on what you see as the likely results of an increase in the minimum wage. I promise to read what you have to say.
-Laelth
I didn't say it was a "good" thing. I couldn't think of a better, value-neutral way to frame the question. The question is, will we see abortion banned in the next 20-40 years? I don't think so. I am wondering whether I am missing something.
That said, I do appreciate your kind reply.
-Laelth
Why? What do you hope to gain? Do you actually think that you and your ilk are going to "convert" any of us here? Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course, but to me, it's arrogance personified for a Proglodyte to occasionally drop in (sorta like a steaming turd) into a decidedly different community and "gloat" the way you did in your OP.Call it gloating, if you like, but I am truly interested in what conservatives have to say about the fact that the Republican Party (on the national level) appears to have surrendered on a number of key issues that matter a great deal to the right-wing base. Those of us on the left assume the Democratic Party isn't listening to us, and much of the rancor you see on DU is a result of that disconnect between the Democratic Party and its base.
You and your ilk aren't interested in exchanging ideas. You just want to spread your filth around.
As far as I'm concerned, when you Proglodytes and Fascists (yes, if you're following the teachings of Brother Barry, you're most definitely a Fascist), celebrate the killing of the unborn, you've already lost. We don't even need to discuss the other talking points in your screed.
Call it gloating, if you like, but I am truly interested in what conservatives have to say about the fact that the Republican Party (on the national level) appears to have surrendered on a number of key issues that matter a great deal to the right-wing base. Those of us on the left assume the Democratic Party isn't listening to us, and much of the rancor you see on DU is a result of that disconnect between the Democratic Party and its base.
What's different, now, is that the Republican Party appears to be listening to its base (and fighting hard for its base's ideology, at least in regards to the ACA and the national debt). This is a departure from what we have seen in the recent past, and it's interesting. I am not expecting to "convert" any of you, but, I will continue to assume that you are American patriots who cares enough about this country to think about it, talk about it, and write about it in a public forum. If you refuse to extend to me the same courtesy, so be it.
Gotcha. I'll expect to see no more responses from you. Obviously, I'm not worth talking to.
So you define "victory" as a lack of legislation banning abortion? Interesting...I admit that I spent some time thinking about how to phrase the question in the OP. I used the word "won" to avoid any value judgment on it so I could get some responses. Evidently, I failed.
Education and advances in medical science are doing far more to get rid of willful killing of the unborn than legislation ever could.
That's nice. Now, answer my question, please.I have looked back, and I can't find a question that you asked on this issue (gay marriage). If you'd like to refresh my memory, I'll try to respond, but my opinion on this subject is that gays deserve (and will have, within then next 20 years or so) the right to marry in all states (except Utah which I expect to hold out on that issue for much longer). The question I pose is whether the Republican Party has any will to continue to fight on this issue. It appears to me that the left has already won, and that it is only a matter of time before we see the nation's laws start to reflect the national consensus on this issue. If I am wrong about this, and I am asking you directly, I'd like to know.
Again, no real basis other than your opinion. I am using the Amsterdam model of changing policy where marijuana bars are required to be private clubs. Which, it would seem, is a rather large reversal of the previous laws.No, indeed. My opinion here is irrelevant. I wanted to know what you had to say. You're absolutely right to note that the Dutch are restricting this right. That said, a number of countries are liberalizing on this issue (as I saw in a recent edition of Time). So, what's your prediction for us here in the States?
Regardless of who deserves credit? After claiming it as a leftist victory? You don't say....Gun control? A metric of how liberal the United States is? Well, I can safely say (from my own experience) that people in many places in the world consider our attitude towards guns to be backwards and frightening. To that, I respond that we are a different country with a different history, and that the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and that it's not changing any time soon. They respond to me with puzzled looks and mild disdain. I can live with that.
It is, however, a very large metric in the overall indicator of how "liberal" the country truly is. Do you deny that?
Why pass,it is a simple equation...force businesses to pay more without an increase in value and they raise the price of goods/services to cover it.Here's what I can safely say. If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now. History proves me right on this point.
Those employees that do have an intrinsic value will receive more but with the increase in prices have no greater buying power.
Suddenly the lower end,your 15/hr entry level workers become the new poverty class which instead of being 12,000 for a single suddenly becomes 20,000 or similar.
Then you leftys will insist they get assistance so nothing changes,you just rejigger the numbers.
You really are ignorant aren`t you?
Here's what I can safely say. If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now. History proves me right on this point.
And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.
-Laelth
Here's what I can safely say. If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now. History proves me right on this point.
And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.
-Laelth
Here's what I can safely say. If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now. History proves me right on this point.
And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.
-Laelth
You do an awful lot of "passing" and "dropping."I am a visitor here, and I am aware that I disagree with you on a number of issues. Are you interested in discussing these issues with me, or not? If not, then quit responding. It's that easy.
Does that mean you're going to "pass" and "drop" yourself right on out of here?
The door is -------------------------> that way.
And don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.
Face it, Laelth. You're not adding anything to the discussion. You repeatedly have your ass handed to you in arguments that you're woefully inadequate to address. On all manner of subjects, economics, social policy, racial bigotry, abortion, you get this lofty idea in that pea brain of yours and then decide to wander in here and gloat about how the left has "won."
And then you're shown in clear, unambiguous language, just how wrong you are.
Aren't you embarrassed for yourself? Do you like to show your ass like you do? Have it handed to you?
Are you a masochist of some kind? :loser:
You didn`t just try to compare the overall economic atmosphere of 1962 with 2013...oh wait,yes you did.
Don`t you get tired of looking like an idiot?
Excellent. Please explain to me how our economy is so different now that we can't sustain a $15/hr. minimum wage while you concede that our economy could sustain that inflation-adjusted minimum wage in 1962. Genuinely curious.
-Laelth
The minimum wage is just like tax rates. You leftists constantly demand just a little bit more then when you get it you demand just a little more. Rinse and repeat. There is no minimum wage that will ever satisfy you, there is no tax rate that will ever satisfy you either. We could tax the rich at 100% over a certain amount and it wouldn't be long before you wanted 105%. Minimum wage could be $1000/hr and you would still want it raised.
What was the cost of an auto,utilities,energy,schools,insurance etc in 1962 before your leftist driven,business hating unions and politicians drove those prices through the roof?
Um ... I have no idea, but I am interested in your insight on this subject.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
Here's what I can safely say. If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now. History proves me right on this point.
And I will continue to maintain that we are all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.
-Laelth
To be honest, I understand why you feel this way. That said, I have no interest in crashing the American economy. We operated quite well in the 1950s when the marginal income tax rate was 90% (or more) http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html. What's wrong with asking those who derive the greatest benefit from this society to pay the most for its upkeep?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
To be honest, I understand why you feel this way. That said, I have no interest in crashing the American economy. We operated quite well in the 1950s when the marginal income tax rate was 90% (or more) http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html. What's wrong with asking those who derive the greatest benefit from this society to pay the most for its upkeep?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
Do you seriously think anyone being taxed at that rate would stay here or keep their money in this country?Hey, that's exactly what people like Laelth wants. They want people out of work, starving, dying in the streets. That will give Bill Ayers and company the excuse to kill off their 50,000,000 (adjusted for population inflation) and bring on their wonderful socialist utopia.
We've already lost enough business and jobs to other countries because of the BS businesses have to deal with here.
California is a good example of how high taxes and regulations run businesses and good paying jobs out of the state.
I'm going to be civil, I've decided. :-)
I think you have conservatives all wrong. We're not about "banning" or making these sweeping national laws. At least I'm not. By definition, conservatives believe the fewer laws, the better. Every law we make, no matter how "necessary," limits our freedom a littlel bit.
I'm pro-life. I believe that abortion is the killing of a human life. I want Roe V. Wade overturned. It's bad law, and it's long obsolete. I think states should make their own laws when it comes to abortion. I don't know if you could ever ban it, because--although my personal beliefs may differ--you have to take the life of the mother or rape victims, etc., into consideration.
But should a 12 year old, who can't get Motrin without parental permission, be allowed unfettered access? No. Should third-trimester abortions be completely outlawed? Yes.
Protections for the life of the unborn have to be put back into place.
So, the way the country is moving, I see conservatives "winning" this debate.
Do you seriously think anyone being taxed at that rate would stay here or keep their money in this country?
We've already lost enough business and jobs to other countries because of the BS businesses have to deal with here.
California is a good example of how high taxes and regulations run businesses and good paying jobs out of the state.
Personally, I'd be happy to return the marginal rate to what it was under Clinton, 39.6%. That would wipe out the national defecit.
I appreciate your response.
-Laelth
Hey, that's exactly what people like Laelth wants. They want people out of work, starving, dying in the streets. That will give Bill Ayers and company the excuse to kill off their 50,000,000 (adjusted for population inflation) and bring on their wonderful socialist utopia.
Now take his name and we'll kick his ass later.
In addition, I would add that liberals are capitalists. Our goal is to prevent socialism by curbing capitalism's excesses. I want a capitalist country (the United States) that spreads the benefits of capitalism in a just way throughout our society. I do not favor state ownership of all property, i.e. socialism.
Here's what I can safely say. If a $15/hr. minimum wage didn't destroy the American economy in 1962, then it won't destroy the American economy now. History proves me right on this point.
Of course it would sparky. You speak like a man with a paper a**hole.Dude, and I assume you are a dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain. I am genuinely curious to know what you think.
I think you have capitalism and crony-capitalism mixed together.
No one here likes how businesses and special interests get in bed with politicians. And especially how the Unions and lawyers act as the strong arm thugs of the Democrat party.
I've never seen it as bad as it is with this Administration either.
I'm reminded of some one.....................hummmm.............................AH!
How Laelth sees himself:
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/4644942/star-wars-kid-remix-o.gif)
The reality:
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/76626/star-wars-kid-o.gif)
(http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/082010/sw-toast.gif)
Dude, and I assume you are a dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain. I am genuinely curious to know what you think.
-Laelth
Dori, you rock. None of us wants business interests (or union interests, for that matter) in bed with our politicians, but that's exactly what we have. What to do about that is the question. I will say this, though. The Unions have been crushed, and they have little if any power. Whether that's a good thing for the United States is another question altogether. The business interests, however, control our government, and that's why we saw the bail-out of AIG and the banks in 2008. Nobody is willing to fight them, despite the fact that most Americans opposed the bail-out.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
Tell us then what you thought of all the money O has laundered through public employee unions?Honestly, I wasn't aware that BO had laundered any money through public employee unions. Please feel free to enlighten me.
How about the crushing tax burden to fund union controlled job mills also known as public schools?As a general rule, I support teachers' unions. Teachers provide a vital service to our nation, and they do so for wages that are far lower than they deserve. It's absurd to call their labor costs "crushing." I think they should be paid more, not less. So what, exactly, are you driving at?
Dude, history has shown over and over that increasing tax rates doesn't increase revenues. Increasing economic activity does. History also shows that increased revenues are always spent. The only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending.Ah, the absurd Laffer curve. Here's what you need to know. President George H. W. Bush called "supply-side economics" voodoo economics when he ran against Ronald Reagan for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980. He was right then, and his wisdom rings true today. Increasing tax rates does, in fact, increase tax revenues, and most people understand this intuitively. If you don't, there's not much I can do for you.
Oh, and stop calling me dude.
Honestly, I wasn't aware that BO had laundered any money through public employee unions. Please feel free to enlighten me.As a general rule, I support teachers' unions. Teachers provide a vital service to our nation, and they do so for wages that are far lower than they deserve. It's absurd to call their labor costs "crushing." I think they should be paid more, not less. So what, exactly, are you driving at?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
An example...
http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2011/06/01/did-80-of-federal-stimulus-funds-go-to-public-unions
Well,back when I was in school classes were probably twice the size as today with one teacher.
Now in my own district the budget amounts to 19,000.00/student and they can`t count change back on graduation.
This is funded in large part by property taxes and along with Medicaid has bankrupted most of NY.
Today, the cash registers do all the figuring. Hell, the ones at the drive-through even spit the change out for you, no counting required.
And when it doesn't work to spit out the change, the highly pierced and incredibly stupid cashier usually can't even count out your change correctly. :mental:I rarely eat in fast food places any more because of the tattooes, chrome balls in the mouth, rings in the lips and bone in the nose people working there.....but CHIK FILET here doesn't hire those types so they get more of my fast food business and I don't really like chicken that much..
I rarely eat in fast food places any more because of the tattooes, chrome balls in the mouth, rings in the lips and bone in the nose people working there.....but CHIK FILET here doesn't hire those types so they get more of my fast food business and I don't really like chicken that much..
I am a visitor here, and I am aware that I disagree with you on a number of issues. Are you interested in discussing these issues with me, or not? If not, then quit responding. It's that easy.
That said, I am curious to know what you think. Astounding, isn't it?
-Laelth
I'm interested in pointing out how wrong you are on many issues. Over and over and over again.
And you really, truly don't want to know what I think. Because what I think on any issue is irrelevant to your grandstanding and posturing, which is, of course, the reason you're back here.
Does it get dark in Mommy's basement to the point that you get skeered? I'd like the answer to that question, because that question has more relevance to this entire thread than your fawning, obsequious style which is as false as you are.
Perhaps he's tired of no one paying attention to Laelth's Letters. I noticed that his return coincided with the govt shut down.
True. Too hard to define and measure. That's why I dropped the subject.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
To be honest, I understand why you feel this way. That said, I have no interest in crashing the American economy. We operated quite well in the 1950s when the marginal income tax rate was 90% (or more) http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html. What's wrong with asking those who derive the greatest benefit from this society to pay the most for its upkeep?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
Why would you think I want that? Seriously. Despite the fact that we disagree on a number of issues, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt--that you are an American citizen, as much a citizen of this nation as I am, and that both of us care enough about our country to think about it and write about it in a public forum. Is this not so?
In addition, I would add that liberals are capitalists. Our goal is to prevent socialism by curbing capitalism's excesses. I want a capitalist country (the United States) that spreads the benefits of capitalism in a just way throughout our society. I do not favor state ownership of all property, i.e. socialism.
So, I'm not sure what straw-man you're setting fire to, but it ain't me if you think I am a socialist.
-Laelth
I'm interested in pointing out how wrong you are on many issues. Over and over and over again.Cool. Please continue if you are so inclined.
And you really, truly don't want to know what I think. Because what I think on any issue is irrelevant to your grandstanding and posturing, which is, of course, the reason you're back here.I will continue to assume that you are an American patriot--one who cares about this country enough to think about it and write about it in a public forum. Way back when, I got some good political advice. Among the legislators and politicians I know, the 1st rule is: don't question another politician's motives. You make political enemies that way, and I have no desire to make enemies here.
Does it get dark in Mommy's basement to the point that you get skeered? I'd like the answer to that question, because that question has more relevance to this entire thread than your fawning, obsequious style which is as false as you are.I am not skeered, actually, but you can see that, I'm sure.
So you want to prevent socialism by implementing socialist programs.Yes, in fact. That's the basic jist, though, as you might imagine, I would call those programs "liberal" (because that's what they are).
Yes, in fact. That's the basic jist, though, as you might imagine, I would call those programs "liberal" (because that's what they are).
-Laelth
You aren't asking anyone to pay, you are demanding they pay. It gets on my nerves how leftists misuse words like ask. The reality is the rich already do pay most of the tax bill. Where the hell do you get the idea that government is the great equalizer and has the authority to step in and take from one group of people and give it to another group?Assuming we're talking about the "guaranteed minimum income," and assuming there was political will to do such a thing in the United States (which there isn't), under those circumstances "I" wouldn't be demanding that anyone pay anything, but it is true that the Federal Government of the United States could demand (and does demand) that its citizens pay taxes for whatever constitutional purpose that the federal government decides needs to be done.
The fact that a free country ever had a tax rate of 90% is disturbing as hell. Even if no one ever paid that rate it bothers the hell out of me that it was on the books.Nobody I know wants a 90% top marginal rate. As I said elsewhere on this forum, I'd be happy to return to the 39.6% top marginal rate we had under Clinton.
By all means, lay out your plan and show your work.No, thank you. I was just responding to a comment in a thread on the proposed, Swiss guaranteed minimum income. On that subject, I have already given my opinion.
No, thank you...
-Laelth
Didn't think so, doesn't fit with trolling and disruption, does it? Honest debate involving actual ideas and data rarely do.I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States. I stand by that. I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed. That said, there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States, so it's kind of pointless to research the issue and give you the "homework" you desire, teacher.
I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States. I stand by that.
I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed.
I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States. I stand by that. I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed. That said, there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States, so it's kind of pointless to research the issue and give you the "homework" you desire, teacher.
-Laelth
I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States.
Why do people deserve that? On what grounds or Constitutional reasoning do you make this statement?
Why do people deserve that? On what grounds or Constitutional reasoning do you make this statement?You make a good point. Nobody deserves that. I am not terribly worried about what people deserve, and that's a key dividing frame between liberals and most of the conservatives I know.
You make a good point. Nobody deserves that. I am not terribly worried about what people deserve, and that's a key dividing frame between liberals and most of the conservatives I know.
For me, the only question, politically, is what would be best for the country. Nobody "deserves" anything, from my point of view. That said, and as I have argued elsewhere (but will never be able to prove to your satisfaction, so I'm not even going to try), we are all better off (and richer) when the poor and middle class have more money to spend. Our income disparity (highest to lowest) has reached levels now that are on par with what we had in 1918. That's a serious problem, and I would be willing to use the power of government to re-distribute that wealth (if I could) because I firmly believe that in a capitalist system wealth flows from the bottom to the top. Because I don't want to live in a 3rd world country, I am willing to use the power of government to reverse this natural flow because, as I have said, I think we're all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
You make a good point. Nobody deserves that. I am not terribly worried about what people deserve, and that's a key dividing frame between liberals and most of the conservatives I know.
For me, the only question, politically, is what would be best for the country. Nobody "deserves" anything, from my point of view. That said, and as I have argued elsewhere (but will never be able to prove to your satisfaction, so I'm not even going to try), we are all better off (and richer) when the poor and middle class have more money to spend. Our income disparity (highest to lowest) has reached levels now that are on par with what we had in 1918. That's a serious problem, and I would be willing to use the power of government to re-distribute that wealth (if I could) because I firmly believe that in a capitalist system wealth flows from the bottom to the top. Because I don't want to live in a 3rd world country, I am willing to use the power of government to reverse this natural flow because, as I have said, I think we're all richer when the poor and middle class have more money to spend.
I agree that we are better off when the poor and middle class have more money to spend. But taking it forcefully from the wealthy is where we'll disagree. When there is job CREATION, there is wealth CREATION!
Your idea is to move the pie from one side to the other. My idea is to bake more pie. We do that through job creation, not increased taxes or giving stuff away.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
I agree that we are better off when the poor and middle class have more money to spend. But taking it forcefully from the wealthy is where we'll disagree. When there is job CREATION, there is wealth CREATION!Look, if the free market were creating enough jobs for everyone at the moment, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would prefer the free market to handle these problems. When it can't, I'm not afraid to let government step in and try to fix it.
Your idea is to move the pie from one side to the other. My idea is to bake more pie. We do that through job creation, not increased taxes or giving stuff away.
Look, if the free market were creating enough jobs for everyone at the moment, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would prefer the free market to handle these problems. When it can't, I'm not afraid to let government step in and try to fix it.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
Look, if the free market were creating enough jobs for everyone at the moment, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would prefer the free market to handle these problems. When it can't, I'm not afraid to let government step in and try to fix it.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
It's Liberal policies that are choking the free market's ability to create jobs. Nothing the Government does will improve that. Government doesn't create wealth and it doesn't create jobs. It can only restrict in both areas.Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long. I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now. On this, we will never agree.
The answer isn't more government...it's LESS government.
Liberals are the only political animals that think the way to fix their bad ideas is with...MORE bad ideas.
Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long. I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now. On this, we will never agree.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
Don't you think there's an argument to be made that the government stepping in that has caused this "moment"? We're losing jobs to Obamacare.Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so. I just don't buy it.
The government creats nothing. It only takes.Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks, the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world), the interstate highway system, the FAA, most of our airports, our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world), the greatest military machine the world has ever seen, and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs). The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff. I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.
Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so. I just don't buy it.
Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks, the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world), the interstate highway system, the FAA, most of our airports, our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world), the greatest military machine the world has ever seen, and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs). The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff. I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so. I just don't buy it.
Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks,
the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world),
the interstate highway system,I'll concede that one.
the FAA, most of our airports,
our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world),bankrupt
the greatest military machine the world has ever seen,
and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs).
The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff. I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.
Thanks for the response.
Personally, I'd be happy to return the marginal rate to what it was under Clinton, 39.6%. That would wipe out the national defecit.
I appreciate your response.
-Laelth
Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long. I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now. On this, we will never agree.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
Certainly, that argument has been made (over and over) for the past forty years, or so. I just don't buy it.
Hmm ... the Federal Government of the United States created ... the national parks, the currency we all value (as does the rest of the world), the interstate highway system, the FAA, most of our airports, our postal system (the best and cheapest in the world), the greatest military machine the world has ever seen, and it employs millions of people (i.e. it creates jobs). The Federal Government creates a lot of good stuff. I am afraid we will continue to disagree on this issue.
Thanks for the response.
-Laelth
Yes, Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long. I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now. On this, we will never agree.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
Funny thing is, he was dead-on balls accurate when he said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." Remember 1980? I sure as hell do. And the current chump-in-chief is destroying this nation and this economy in ways Carter himself would shudder at.Yes, I remember 1980, and, as you might imagine, I am a fan of our 39th President, James Earl Carter, Jr. As I have also said, I think Reagan was wrong when he said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." I think Reagan did a lot of damage to this country with that statement, and we have not yet recovered from it. Obama, for his part, can't do much of anything (from my perspective). If he could, I'd be seeing some serious, liberal reform right now. Instead, Obama is fighting for the ACA, an expensive band-aid on a broken health-care system that was thought up by the Heritage Foundation in the 1990s. This is not where I wanted to be in the second term of a Democratic President.
"REAL" unemployment is at 11-12 percent, if you use the U-3 number and factor in the change of workforce utilization from 2009 to now. We have the LOWEST percentage of adults working since they started tracking that stat in the 1970's. We have the LONGEST period of unemployment over 7.5 percent EVER, and if you figure it what it should REALLY be (the U-6, not the U-3) it's that much WORSE.I buy all of that. We are in trouble. This is a big problem. Fine. If your only goal is to place blame, have at it. I don't care who's to blame. I just want it fixed.
Now I've pointed out a number of things to you, which over the past several pages you've chosen to ignore--that's fine, you're entitled to be an arrogant condescending smartass, as am I. But as Romney rightly pointed out, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts." And the fact is, this country is in the shitter, barely getting by (if that) and there's an economic shitstorm of epic proportions that'll make 2008 look like an episode of Romper Room. You want a ****ed up country?Well, I agree with Romney on the opinions vs. facts issue. While I don't see financial collapse on the horizon now (I did in 2008), it's possible that a financial collapse of the kind you envision could get us to where I think we need to go, and I have said so elsewhere.
Nationalize 1/6th of the economy, which is why the Democrats are trying to do, and watch the whole thing just go to warm runny shit.Does it really matter, at this point, what Democrats are trying to do? They're having trouble preserving the ACA, a law that was passed three years ago. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can do much right now at the federal level. Our government is divided.
Yes, I remember 1980, and, as you might imagine, I am a fan of our 39th President, James Earl Carter, Jr. As I have also said, I think Reagan was wrong when he said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." I think Reagan did a lot of damage to this country with that statement, and we have not yet recovered from it. Obama, for his part, can't do much of anything (from my perspective). If he could, I'd be seeing some serious, liberal reform right now. Instead, Obama is fighting for the ACA, an expensive band-aid on a broken health-care system that was thought up by the Heritage Foundation in the 1990s. This is not where I wanted to be in the second term of a Democratic President.Oh geez....Carter was a complete failure and a boob....still is. Oh and before you think about hitting me with the most likely response, and the one I always get from your side "What about Bush". Yea what about him? He was an idiot as well...he expanded the Govt as well. I do not believe in Govt. expansion. It would fit on a postage stamp if I had my way.
I buy all of that. We are in trouble. This is a big problem. Fine. If your only goal is to place blame, have at it. I don't care who's to blame. I just want it fixed.
Well, I agree with Romney on the opinions vs. facts issue. While I don't see financial collapse on the horizon now (I did in 2008), it's possible that a financial collapse of the kind you envision could get us to where I think we need to go, and I have said so elsewhere.
Does it really matter, at this point, what Democrats are trying to do? They're having trouble preserving the ACA, a law that was passed three years ago. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can do much right now at the federal level. Our government is divided.
Sorry if I let some of your previous posts pass without a response. CC keeps me quite busy when I post here.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States. I stand by that. I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed. That said, there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States, so it's kind of pointless to research the issue and give you the "homework" you desire, teacher.
-Laelth
I said I would favor a $12k/year guaranteed minimum income in the United States. I stand by that. I have actually engaged another poster on the math in question, suggesting that it would be far less expensive that what that poster believed.You did no such thing. You provided no information on how such plan would be implemented or even proposed. You merely shrugged your shoulders and said "meh".
You did no such thing. You provided no information on how such plan would be implemented or even proposed. You merely shrugged your shoulders and said "meh".
Are you planning on defending any of your assertions in this thread with concrete and verifiable data or are you just going to talk out of your ass and waste everyone's time? Because your tenure here is looking more like the latter than the former.
Assuming we're talking about the "guaranteed minimum income," and assuming there was political will to do such a thing in the United States (which there isn't), under those circumstances "I" wouldn't be demanding that anyone pay anything, but it is true that the Federal Government of the United States could demand (and does demand) that its citizens pay taxes for whatever constitutional purpose that the federal government decides needs to be done.
Government does have the power to take wealth from one group and distribute that wealth to another group. This power is not new, nor is it going away. How to use this power is the question. It appears to me that government takes money from the poor and middle class and gives it to the rich far moreso than it takes money from the rich to give to the poor and middle class (bailout of AIG and the banks, for example).
Nobody I know wants a 90% top marginal rate. As I said elsewhere on this forum, I'd be happy to return to the 39.6% top marginal rate we had under Clinton.
-Laelth
Show me where the government has the power to redistribute wealth. I can't find anywhere in our constitution nor from the founding fathers any permission to steal from one man to give to another.We agree, I think, that the government does have this power. Whether that power is constitutional is another question. I will note, however, that this is a matter of established law, and that the SCOTUS is not likely to hear any arguments on the government's taxing and spending powers any time soon.
The bailouts were wrong, the government had no business deciding who should succeed and who should fail. If the banks failed there are free market solutions for dealing with it.On that, we agree--entirely and without question, though I admit I came to this conclusion late in the game.
If you want a 39.6% tax rate then when you figure your taxes at the end of the year make up the difference and send a check to the IRS. They will gladly accept it. You may think that 39.6% would make you happy but I know that if you got your way, it would end up being 40% before too long then 50% and so on. There is no tax rate that will ever satisfy you leftists, just as no amount of government control will ever be enough for you. No matter how high taxes are you will claim that someone somewhere is a victim and that we owe them.If I ever get the power to set federal tax rates (which I won't), then I am sure you will be there to reign me in and insure sane fiscal policy. In fact, I'll be relying on you to do just that.
We agree, I think, that the government does have this power. Whether that power is constitutional is another question. I will note, however, that this is a matter of established law, and that the SCOTUS is not likely to hear any arguments on the government's taxing and spending powers any time soon.
On that, we agree--entirely and without question, though I admit I cam to this conclusion late in the game.
If I ever get the power to set federal tax rates (which I won't), then I am sure you will be there to reign me in and insure sane fiscal policy. In fact, I'll be relying on you to do just that.
:cheersmate:
Still, a 39.6% top marginal rate wouldn't kill anybody, and we need the revenue.
-Laelth
Whether that power is constitutional is another question.
If I ever get the power to set federal tax rates (which I won't), then I am sure you will be there to reign me in and insure sane fiscal policy.
That is not another question. That is the question on every law, every policy, and everything the feds do. If it is unconstitutional then the government does NOT have that power. I am sick of people thinking the constitution was nothing more than a bunch of suggestions. And NO we do NOT agree that the government has that power. Just because they have done it does not make it right.I hear you on that, honestly. Still, if the SCOTUS won't take that power away from the government (and it appears they won't), then, I must conclude that the government does have that power, for better or for worse. You say "worse." I get that.
Personally, I'd be happy to return the marginal rate to what it was under Clinton, 39.6%. That would wipe out the national defecit.
I hear you on that, honestly. Still, if the SCOTUS won't take that power away from the government (and it appears they won't), then, I must conclude that the government does have that power, for better or for worse. You say "worse." I get that.
-Laelth
You can conclude that all you want still doesn't make it right. If the SC won't do their job then it is up to us to vote for people who will take that power away.
People that do not follow the constitution do not deserve to be in power ever. The Constitution was not a suggestion and this country has acted as if it were for way too damn long. The founders wrote it for a reason, they knew people like you would come along who have no desire for liberty.
Thank goodness George Mason got his way and Article V was included in the Constitution to protect us from the over reach of government that we're seeing now.
*sigh* if only we had followed it.
Well...better late than never. Just gotta get our state reps and Govs to do it.
The Tea Party is a good start.
Indeed. They must really worry the Dems with all vitriol directed at them.
Same for Ted Cruz
The RINOs get treated exactly the same way, they are just focused on the Tea Party right now. So there is no benefit in being a RINO yet there are so many.
I will continue to assume that you are an American patriot--one who cares about this country enough to think about it and write about it in a public forum. Way back when, I got some good political advice. Among the legislators and politicians I know, the 1st rule is: don't question another politician's motives. You make political enemies that way, and I have no desire to make enemies here.
Okkkkkkkk..... some of the things on your list are not something I would push, have won and ne proud of.Thanks for the response.
Let's start with abortion... women get abortions usually ,because they and their partner were too damn lazy or irresponsible to take precautions.
Gay marriages...well that can be tricky..homosexuality has existed since humans appeared. Whether it is an extra x or y chromosome in the dna, don't know don't care. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Bible, the Torah, and even the Qquran say that homosexuality is an abomination against each religion's celestial being.
We have our constituional rights, yes, but with those rights, come responsibility, discretion and tact.
You can conclude that all you want still doesn't make it right. If the SC won't do their job then it is up to us to vote for people who will take that power away.
What I learned was that, in the United States, the Constitution is only as powerful and as relevant as the SCOTUS says it is. It's that simple. The SCOTUS is the only defender we have of the Constitution, and, quite frankly, we're lucky to have it (the SCOTUS).
Regards,
And when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with Marxist judges, then what?The brown stains will get so bad you can't read it.....almost that bad now.....somebody get Obama a roll of TP....please.
And when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with Marxist judges, then what?
And when the Supreme Court becomes stacked with Marxist judges, then what?Hard to say, actually. I suppose it depends on who's controlling Congress and the Presidency at the time.
Hard to say, actually. I suppose it depends on who's controlling Congress and the Presidency at the time.
That said, I see zero chance of any Marxist judges sitting on the SCOTUS, ever. As such, I don't see what we gain from speculating about that possibility.
-Laelth
I'm sure about 10-15 years ago, you saw zero chance of a Marxist president ever.That's funny. Credit where it is due.
Well, guess what...
Too late...there are already three.Oh, please!
Oh, please!
:banghead:
-Laelth
Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan.
And I ain't too sure about Roberts...
And I ain't too sure about Roberts...When an avowed Republican like John Roberts is considered a potential Marxist we have serious problems with the state of our national discourse.
When an avowed Republican like John Roberts is considered a potential Marxist we have serious problems with the state of our national discourse.
-Laelth
He's a Republican? Could have fooled me after he modified parts of Obamacare from the bench and ignored the Constitution to rule that Obamacare was legal.Ruth Badass Gingerbread for one.....age of consent 12.
Wouldn't be the first Judge nominated by a Republican that turned out to be a raging Lib once seated on the bench.
Oh, please!
:banghead:
-Laelth
Oh please tell me your not that naïve.
When an avowed Republican like John Roberts is considered a potential Marxist we have serious problems with the state of our national discourse.
-Laelth
Abortion:
Roe v. Wade is more than settled as precedent
SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?â€
ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
SPECTER: â€You went on to say then, ‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.’“
ROBERTS: â€I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don’t go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding.“
Finds no support for abortion rights in Constitution
Judge Roberts’ public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent. In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush’s administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. “We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled,†Roberts wrote. His brief added: “The Supreme Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.“
Citizens United: corporate political ads are free speech
Over the years, the privileges granted to these state-created private tyrannies have been extended, primarily by courts. Corporations are legally persons under the law, with rights far beyond those of human beings.
In the 2010 Supreme Court 5-4 decision on Citizens United, Chief Justice Roberts selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds, and maneuvered the Court into using it for a far-reaching decision that, in effect, permits corporate managers to buy elections directly, instead of using more indirect means.
Corporate campaign contributions are a major factor in determining the outcome of elections, and the same is sure to be true of the virtually unlimited advertising for candidates now permitted by the Court. This alone is a significant factor in policy decisions, reinforced by the enormous power of corporate lobbies and other conditions imposed by the very small sector of the population that dominates the economy.
Whistleblowers can be fired for cause
Roberts authored the decision in KOSZOLA V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
A former employee sued the FDIC, alleging that the FDIC violated his rights by disciplining and firing him in retaliation for disclosures protected under the RTC Whistleblower Act. The district court found for FDIC on the ground that the FDIC would have taken the same employment actions regardless of any protected disclosures. The plaintiff appeals, but we affirm.
The FDIC hired Koszola in 1991. In Feb. 1993, Koszola was accused of leaking a story about waste & abuse. In Sept. 1993, Koszola testified with other FDIC employees before the Senate Banking Committee about waste & abuse within FDIC operations. In Dec. 1993, Koszola was fired based on charges that he had failed to follow instructions and proper investigative procedures.
The district court correctly reasoned that the FDIC had already adduced clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated Koszola regardless of any protected activity.
*Ok to prosecute for eating french fries on city trains. (Feb 2005)
*Guidelines for parole can’t add to sentence retroactively. (Nov 2004)
*Police supervisors not liable for misdeeds of officers. (Apr 2004)
*Live witness not required for all scientific testing. (Jun 2011)
*International Court not grounds for stay of execution. (Jul 2011)
I had made a personal vow not to respond directly to your idiocy, but I'll reconsider.
Your statement is proof positive that you are a confirmed moron. "Avowed Republican?" Maybe GWB thought that at the time he appointed the Chief Marxist Justice to the bench, but subsequent activities have pretty much nullified those ideas, dontcha think?
Let's take a look at just a few:
(But just so you don't make the claim I'm cherry-picking information, I'll post the "Republican" stuff too, mmmkay?)
Some inconsistency here:
On Corporations:
Oh, looky here!
On Crime:
Bottom line -- there's a whole bunch of John Roberts that stinks of Marxism and adherence to a police state.
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Roberts.htm
Now, with all that said, aren't you just a little embarrassed?
Wow! That's a great post, and I am happy to let it stand, as is. I see in John Roberts a pro-business, pro-state security, proto-fascist. You call him a Marxist. Whatever. I don't care what you call him, but I will agree with you, fully and without question, that Chief Justice Roberts is not good for either America or the people of the United States. On that, we agree.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
Whatever you try to call him the one thing you can't call him is Republican or Conservative.He calls himself both a Republican and a conservative. If you disagree about the appropriateness of those labels, your issue is with him.
He calls himself both a Republican and a conservative. If you disagree about the appropriateness of those labels, your issue is with him.
-Laelth
Wow! That's a great post, and I am happy to let it stand, as is. I see in John Roberts a pro-business, pro-state security, proto-fascist. You call him a Marxist. Whatever. I don't care what you call him, but I will agree with you, fully and without question, that Chief Justice Roberts is not good for either America or the people of the United States. On that, we agree.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
He calls himself both a Republican and a conservative. If you disagree about the appropriateness of those labels, your issue is with him.
-Laelth
.....the end and the beginning are unknown.....we see only the intervening formations.....Bhagavadgita
.....we know little of the past, and nothing of the future, and the present is so immense that it exceeds our range of experience.....Radhakrishna Paraphrasing Sankara
Here ladies and gentlemen, we have the typical egocentrism of a primitive, presuming that an issue is "settled," the final word, the final solution, that the left has won, and that's the way it's going to be forever and ever, amen.Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made.
Nothing is "final" but death.
Sorry about using obscure Hindus, but I don't imagine a primitive would give any credence to Judaic or--gasp!--Christian philosophers.
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made.
But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like. I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.
Thanks for the response. :cheersmate:
-Laelth
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed.Gee, with a response like that, one would get the idea you're here to do nothing more than troll.
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made.
But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like. I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.
Thanks for the response. :cheersmate:
-Laelth
I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made...
-Laelth
Bitchslapped for believing you could slide the strawmen in here without being called on it.
Let's review a little history, shall we?
Slavery? Compromisers allowed that to flourish far longer than it ever should have, but it was AGGRESSIVELY ADVOCATED FOR by the leftists of the Democrat Party.
Trail of Tears? Sits squarely on the shoulders of the ass-clown Democrat Jackson and his successors.
Fugitive Slave Act? Democrat.
The Civil War? Not only Democrat initiated, but Democrats fired the first shots.
The Ku Klux Klan? That was the terrorist wing of the DEMOCRAT PARTY, post Civil War era.
Jim Crowe laws? Segregation? Those were DEMOCRAT abortions, defended to the end by DEMOCRATS.
The first 20th century Dictator? Wasn't Hitler, Mussolini, or even Lenin. It was the DEMOCRAT Woodrow Wilson.
Concentration Camps on American soil? Thank Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt for that.
Wars of aggression? World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam; Hell, you have to get all the way to the first Gulf War before you find a war with American involvement that wasn't kicked off by a Democrat.
And the list goes on and on and on, sir. In fact, I find myself hard pressed to find any source of misery, contention, violence or oppression that doesn't have at it's heart, the finger of a Democrat manipulating things.
And you have the unmitigated temerity to claim that e Republicans are what's wrong with America?
[/quote
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made.
But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like. I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.
Thanks for the response. :cheersmate:
-Laelth
Gee, with a response like that, one would get the idea you're here to do nothing more than troll.
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made.
But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like. I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.
Thanks for the response. :cheersmate:
-Laelth
No matter how how a Libtard tries to act all nice and use flowery words...eventually their hard ugly center rears it's head.
I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery.
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made.
But feel free to quote Judeo-Christian philosophy if you like. I'm pretty well versed in it and have tremendous respect for it.
Thanks for the response. :cheersmate:
-Laelth
I've read through this thread, and it's the same story I continually see from the left.
This "the left has won the social issues of the day" really has no meaning unless it's just some kind of neener, neener, neener thing. To me, it's the same as having a "When it comes to throwing Christians to the lions, Caesar has won that discussion." OK, maybe so. But how did that finally work out for you, future Caesars?
What I don't see discussed are how the ramifications of what they're doing is going to effect those who disagree with them. They seem to be living in this world of "We had the debate, our side has own, therefore we all start rowing together again," as though we're one big happy family. They have this view that once their programs are implemented that people will realize it wasn't as bad as they thought it was going to be, and all will be good in the world. Well, those days are long gone. The left has victory now, and I'm going to remember it and the nasty way they went about it. The left is building up a lot of annomosity towards themselves, their ideology, and their methods. Sure they may get victories, but what good is victory when you're forcing others to go along?
So victories? From their viewpoint, yes. But my question is at what cost? What good is victory when you're ripping the seams of the country apart in order to get it? People are not going to forget, and they will pass their stories down to their children and their children's children. The left needs to decide; do they want victories or do they want the country to stay together? Because much to their belief otherwise, they can't have both.
I keep seeing L claiming this is a great country. Yet the closer we inch towards the liberal ideology he desires, the less great it becomes. After a while, we'll be at a point where roughly 50% of the country doesn't care anymore. We're at the point now where most of us realize it's every man for himself. Now, what happens when even 20% of the 50% that carry the financial burden of the USA decide we're just not going to play along anymore?
I suspect if some things don't change back in the next few years, even I'll live long enough to see the beginning of the end. And truthfully, it would be the right thing to do. A country as the left envisions would not turn out the way they think it would, and it most certainly would not be a country worth preserving for future generations.
.
I've read through this thread, and it's the same story I continually see from the left.
snip
I suspect if some things don't change back in the next few years, even I'll live long enough to see the beginning of the end. And truthfully, it would be the right thing to do. A country as the left envisions would not turn out the way they think it would, and it most certainly would not be a country worth preserving for future generations.
.
OMG are you really that stupid, to think that we want to bring back slavery?
Leftists are the ones who are all for slavery, they may not use whips and chains, but they use taxes and regulations to make it so people are forced into labor for the benefit of the new plantation owners aka the state.
I don't what you are talking about.
Republicans (such as Lincoln) were the ones that got rid of slavery, and you think we want to bring it back?
Bitchslapped for believing you could slide the strawmen in here without being called on it.I appreciate the thorough response. I don't recall ever saying that "the left" = Democrats and "the right" = Republicans in this thread. I think the Republican party was pretty liberal during its early years (anti-slavery, pro-public education). The Democrats were our conservatives during the mid-to-late 19th Century. The parties flipped their biases (conservative/liberal) in the early 20th century. I assumed people took this historical fact for granted. Perhaps I was wrong about that.
Let's review a little history, shall we?
Slavery? Compromisers allowed that to flourish far longer than it ever should have, but it was AGGRESSIVELY ADVOCATED FOR by the leftists of the Democrat Party.
Trail of Tears? Sits squarely on the shoulders of the ass-clown Democrat Jackson and his successors.
Fugitive Slave Act? Democrat.
The Civil War? Not only Democrat initiated, but Democrats fired the first shots.
The Ku Klux Klan? That was the terrorist wing of the DEMOCRAT PARTY, post Civil War era.
Jim Crowe laws? Segregation? Those were DEMOCRAT abortions, defended to the end by DEMOCRATS.
The first 20th century Dictator? Wasn't Hitler, Mussolini, or even Lenin. It was the DEMOCRAT Woodrow Wilson.
Concentration Camps on American soil? Thank Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt for that.
Wars of aggression? World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam; Hell, you have to get all the way to the first Gulf War before you find a war with American involvement that wasn't kicked off by a Democrat.
And the list goes on and on and on, sir. In fact, I find myself hard pressed to find any source of misery, contention, violence or oppression in modern America that doesn't have at it's heart, the finger of a Democrat manipulating things.
And you have the unmitigated temerity to claim that the Republicans are what's wrong with America?
edited: for fat finger and clarity issues
No, I don't think anyone here wants to bring back slavery. My point was that social/cultural issues do sometimes get "decided" by us, as a society. I said this in response to franksolich's suggestion that nothing is final. That said, upon reconsideration, I agree with franksolich. Nothing is final.But just yesterday, you said:
-Laelth
I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won." Your point is well made.
I've read through this thread, and it's the same story I continually see from the left.Thank you for the thoughtful response.
This "the left has won the social issues of the day" really has no meaning unless it's just some kind of neener, neener, neener thing. To me, it's the same as having a "When it comes to throwing Christians to the lions, Caesar has won that discussion." OK, maybe so. But how did that finally work out for you, future Caesars?
What I don't see discussed are how the ramifications of what they're doing is going to effect those who disagree with them. They seem to be living in this world of "We had the debate, our side has own, therefore we all start rowing together again," as though we're one big happy family. They have this view that once their programs are implemented that people will realize it wasn't as bad as they thought it was going to be, and all will be good in the world. Well, those days are long gone. The left has victory now, and I'm going to remember it and the nasty way they went about it. The left is building up a lot of annomosity towards themselves, their ideology, and their methods. Sure they may get victories, but what good is victory when you're forcing others to go along?
So victories? From their viewpoint, yes. But my question is at what cost? What good is victory when you're ripping the seams of the country apart in order to get it? People are not going to forget, and they will pass their stories down to their children and their children's children. The left needs to decide; do they want victories or do they want the country to stay together? Because much to their belief otherwise, they can't have both.
I keep seeing L claiming this is a great country. Yet the closer we inch towards the liberal ideology he desires, the less great it becomes. After a while, we'll be at a point where roughly 50% of the country doesn't care anymore. We're at the point now where most of us realize it's every man for himself. Now, what happens when even 20% of the 50% that carry the financial burden of the USA decide we're just not going to play along anymore?
I suspect if some things don't change back in the next few years, even I'll live long enough to see the beginning of the end. And truthfully, it would be the right thing to do. A country as the left envisions would not turn out the way they think it would, and it most certainly would not be a country worth preserving for future generations.
.
Today you say: But just yesterday, you said:
:whatever:
Today you say: But just yesterday, you said:Frank was right. Anything is possible, and nothing is "final" in regards to these issues. I was in error to suggest that any social change is permanent.
In addition to being completely, factually, historically incorrect, you also paint with a broad, libelous brush.
Which opinion do you stand behind? Yesterday's or todays?
:whatever:
Well I can say with out a doubt the left is pushing into a area they don't want to go. Their mere existence will depend on how they handle this. If they keep pushing unconstitutional laws they will find that they are no longer viable. I don't think they are viable now.Interesting. I'd be curious to hear you out further on this observation, if you're interested in expanding upon it.
Frank was right. Anything is possible, and nothing is "final" in regards to these issues. I was in error to suggest that any social change is permanent.I was focusing on your opinion that conservatives (like us) want to bring back slavery. First you sad we do, then, after you were called on it, you said we don't.
-Laelth
No, I don't think anyone here wants to bring back slavery. My point was that social/cultural issues do sometimes get "decided" by us, as a society. I said this in response to franksolich's suggestion that nothing is final. That said, upon reconsideration, I agree with franksolich. Nothing is final.Yet you, like most other liberals, seem to believe the decades-long propagana and fear hype about the republicans and conservative christians in particular (otherwise, you wouldn't have said it). You know, how if republicans had our way, this country would be a theocracy where women would have no rights whatsoever and would function only as baby factories, where children would go to work for 20 hour days before they could learn to walk, where anyone who isn't an Albino would be rounded up and shipped to Baffin Island, where the planet's climate would resemble Venus, and where we would pray to the local corporation three times a day, and so on.
-Laelth
Yet you, like most other liberals, seem to believe the decades-long propagana and fear hype about the republicans and conservative christians in particular (otherwise, you wouldn't have said it). You know, how if republicans had our way, this country would be a theocracy where women would have no rights whatsoever and would function only as baby factories, where children would go to work for 20 hour days before they could learn to walk, where anyone who isn't an Albino would be rounded up and shipped to Baffin Island, where the planet's climate would resemble Venus, and where we would pray to the local corporation three times a day, and so on.
For far too long, we have heard all kinds of things about how republicans want to destroy this country (some actually worse than what was in the last paragraph). They create a government program and then once its been established, they will use it election year after election year as a way to get their voters all worked up and frightened that those eeeeeeevil republicans want to take that program away (i.e. social security, medicare, and now Obamacare). And when someone comes along and tries to fix the problems that involve reducing the power of government, out comes the liberals and the media (redundant, I know) and the knee-jerk reactions, the fear, and even downright hate.
After decades of all of this, it's little wonder that the dupes at DU and other such places totally believe all of the abject lies and slander. There is thread upon thread over at DU which is nothing more than "I hate (Cruz, Bush, Tea Party, insert silly nickname for republicans here, Cheney, Fox News, etc.) and I want them to (go away and never return, be thrown in jail, die, die horribly, die slowly, be shot, be fragged by that grenade, suffer agonizing pain for years and then die, etc.)". And for what? Because the republicans disagree with the liberal agenda? Because there are some people out there that maybe...just maybe don't want to be dependent or subservient to an all-powerful government? Maybe we like using incandescent bulbs or driving an SUV, but if we do, we're made out to be some kind of horrible villain bent on destroying the world.
Do you see just how ridiculous all of that hype and propaganda is? So please, don't believe the tripe that just because we don't want the government controlling our health care that somehow we want to bring back slavery. If anything, Obamacare is what will make slaves of us, by telling us what we can and cannot eat or drink or where we can and cannot go, or worse, what we are required to eat or drink in the interests of "cutting costs". Need that pacemaker? Sorry, it would cost too much and you're too old anyway. Here, take these pain pills.
I was focusing on your opinion that conservatives (like us) want to bring back slavery. First you sad we do, then, after you were called on it, you said we don't.I did change my mind on the subject. Frank made a very good point.
That was a faster flip-flop than John Kerry.
No, I don't think anyone here wants to bring back slavery. My point was that some social/cultural issues do get settled in time, a point I made in response to Frank who suggested that nothing is final. Ultimately, he's right about that. I concede that my premise regarding social issues in this thread is in error.
-Laelth
I do not buy that hype, though you rightly note that some people do. That said, I do have to agree with Frank that nothing is final and unchangeable (other than death).
Thank you for your thoughtful response. :cheersmate:
-Laelth
I did change my mind on the subject. Frank made a very good point.
That said, I never said that you want to bring back slavery. I think I said that conservatives could bring back slavery, i.e. that nothing is "final" and "decided" regarding social issues. I concede that Frank was right about that.
-Laelth
I did change my mind on the subject. Frank made a very good point.
That said, I never said that you want to bring back slavery. I think I said that conservatives could bring back slavery, i.e. that nothing is "final" and "decided" regarding social issues. I concede that Frank was right about that.
-Laelth
You are groveling, bowing, scraping, and ingratiating yourself.Thanks, Eupher, and you're a swell person too. :rofl:
It isn't working. You're still repugnant.
Thanks, Eupher, and you're a swell person too. :rofl:
-Laelth
One would think that a lawyer would have run across the 13th amendment somewhere in law school.
Carl, that's the worst argument of all the ones available to you. The 13th Amendment (because it's an amendment) proves the point that anything can change, i.e. we could amend the Constitution again (given that we've already amended it once on this issue).
Sorry, I have to agree with Frank here. Anything can change. Nothing is final.
-Laelth
You, on the other hand, are an asshole.
...You are no where near as clever as you think yourself.
Don`t be an idiot,your strawman suggestion was that slavery could be brought back virtually by fiat by conservatives when in truth it would require an impossible task of amending the constitution and overwhelming popular support.
You are no where near as clever as you think yourself.
But why even cosider that as a possibility?
Nothing is final.
-Laelth
What Lillith was trying to do was get one or more members of this forum to advocate violence. Fortunately we have good people on this forum (or at least smart) and, he isn't very good at his/her job.
edit: SP
I did change my mind on the subject. Frank made a very good point.The only thing final is your membership here. Your comments about slavery are inexcuseable, and you're not "walking" that one back.
That said, I never said that you want to bring back slavery. I think I said that conservatives could bring back slavery, i.e. that nothing is "final" and "decided" regarding social issues. I concede that Frank was right about that.
-Laelth
The only thing final is your membership here. Your comments about slavery are inexcuseable, and you're not "walking" that one back.
Goodbye.
Crap!! we just get the new chew toy all slobbered up and Chris takes it away.Ah, come on. That one was all raggedy and chewed-up.
Crap!! we just get the new chew toy all slobbered up and Chris takes it away.
The only thing final is your membership here. Your comments about slavery are inexcuseable, and you're not "walking" that one back.
Goodbye.
The only thing final is your membership here. Your comments about slavery are inexcuseable, and you're not "walking" that one back.
Goodbye.
Awww...what's he gonna do now until the Gov't shutdown is over?
Troll for nerdy chicks on the gamer forums?
Troll for nerdy chicks on the gamer forums?
Troll, yes. Chicks, maybe not.
Or chase the workmans comp ambulance.
Crap!! we just get the new chew toy all slobbered up and Chris takes it away.
Laelth has been around since 2010.
Laelth has been around since 2010.
Crap!! we just get the new chew toy all slobbered up and Chris takes it away.It was a cheap Chinese one....probably came from a flea market somewhere, not even worthy of WAL-MART.
Ya just have to wonder. Here's a guy who advertises he is some hotshot lawyer.
--Yet his posts are all made during the day when other lawyers are busy working.
and what's up with a hotshot lawyer hanging around the bargain basement of losers like DU?
and for that mater...
Whats up with a hotshot lawyer trolling small time boards like us? Its obviously not for respect.
lawyers have money...where's his life? Why does---did he spend all his time here?
None of this adds up to a lawyer, let alone a guy with a full time job.
The only conclusion can can come away from this is what Frank told us all so long ago:
"DUmmies lie. All the time, DUmmies lie."
Ya just have to wonder. Here's a guy who advertises he is some hotshot lawyer.
--Yet his posts are all made during the day when other lawyers are busy working.
and what's up with a hotshot lawyer hanging around the bargain basement of losers like DU?
and for that mater...
Whats up with a hotshot lawyer trolling small time boards like us? Its obviously not for respect.
lawyers have money...where's his life? Why does---did he spend all his time here?
None of this adds up to a lawyer, let alone a guy with a full time job.
The only conclusion can can come away from this is what Frank told us all so long ago:
"DUmmies lie. All the time, DUmmies lie."
I'm still going with my theory that he's a staffer or an aide for one of the Congress critters from Georgia.
He showed up the day the slim down started and was parroting literally word for word what Reid and Pelosi and others were saying.
Ya just have to wonder. Here's a guy who advertises he is some hotshot lawyer.
--Yet his posts are all made during the day when other lawyers are busy working.
and what's up with a hotshot lawyer hanging around the bargain basement of losers like DU?
and for that mater...
Whats up with a hotshot lawyer trolling small time boards like us? Its obviously not for respect.
lawyers have money...where's his life? Why does---did he spend all his time here?
None of this adds up to a lawyer, let alone a guy with a full time job.
The only conclusion can can come away from this is what Frank told us all so long ago:
"DUmmies lie. All the time, DUmmies lie."
I still think he was here to generate posts espousing violence against dear leader.
Yes he was...
You know, I'm just really tired of primitives coming over here as know-it-alls.
I'm not saying this late one was one of the most obnoxious sorts of those--:jugs: :yahoo: is a better example--but s-o-o-o-o-o-o many of them come over here automatically assuming they're brighter than us.
Even before they know anything about any of us, that's their biggest assumption.
I will say my successes in moling Skins's island are based on that I don't go over there automatically assuming I'm brighter than them; I merely scout the terrain, go over, and mingle for quite a while before I dare make any judgement call about intelligence (if it's even necessary, which it isn't always, to make such a determination).
I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery.