On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote: I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream.
Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb.
You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine.
Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue.
Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source
Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9
Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too.
A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
Damn. Are you sure that you worked for a republican?
Christian conservatives believe in charity and local communities taking care of their own. They find it unnecessary and offensive that bureaucratics from Washington interfere in these matters.
I think you're confusing two different people.
Ah, yes. One of you needs to change your name. Go flip a coin.
On August 29 2012 12:30 Falling wrote: Well I think a bunch see the church and volunteer charities as better form of welfare. But what really doesn't make sense is these supposed GOP Christians that also tout Rand. Even ignoring her athiesm, her defence of selfishness was such that even Hitchens felt was completely unnecessary.
I don't know anyone who supports the full Ayn Rand doctrine. Also self-interest, perhaps better called individualism, is not the same thing as selfishness. The famous line "Greed is good" pushes the better word further than it should go.
On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote: It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
Not really. The GOP isn't against welfare, it's against large-scale GOVERNMENT welfare programs.
I spent a year working for a homeless shelter that was funded by a Catholic church (I'm not a religious person). This shelter took care of people that even government programs couldn't help. The argument is that government programs are notoriously inefficient at providing locally tailored solutions in the same manner a community can. And it's the correct argument. I decided to go to law school and get involved with politics because I saw how shitty our system currently is.
The problem is that local churches and charities don't have near the available funding or infrastructure to properly address the needs of masses. Many larger charities are also notorious for being as wasteful if not more so than the government. The amount of donation money that actually goes to the cause is no where near as much as people believe.
And I'm not just talking about homeless shelters. I'm talking social security and medicare / medicaid as well.
So instead of collecting 20% in income taxes, why not just say, we're collecting 15%, and you must donate the other 5% to the local, non-political 501c of your choice. I mean, that obviously has abuses and would have to be shored up, but the I think the idea behind that would be far more beneficial than have the government dole it out.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men.
Little known fact, Jesus didn't feed the poor and hungry. He gave them food stamps. He didn't heal the sick. He put the government in charge of medicine. The path to Heaven is to just vote Democrats and let some bureaucrat deal with people who have problems.
I don't believe in it personally but the argument has no value in an itemized sense but instead looks to the logic behind arguments. Jesus sets an impossible standard. What he does in the bible with a flick of his wrist he calls all followers to do through lifelong sacrifice. When Christians fall short of this, as they all do, they justify it with a very sensible and realistic view. In the end no headway is made on any specific issue except to show how religious people are willing to accept highly interpreted derivative views when fundamentalism makes their life hard but are unwilling to make the same compromise for others.
On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote: I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream.
Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb.
You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine.
Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue.
Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source
Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9
Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too.
A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others".
How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country?
But what really doesn't make sense is these supposed GOP Christians that also tout Rand. Even ignoring her athiesm, her defence of selfishness was such that even Hitchens felt was completely unnecessary.
I think you're taking a small minority of people and saying "Ta-Da! I've now stereotyped 100 million people! My point has been proven."
I probably should have added a few qualifiers to specify exactly who I was talking about. I certainly don't think the entirety subscribe to Rand. But I find it odd that Rand's idea are finding firmer foundation just the same.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men.
Little known fact, Jesus didn't feed the poor and hungry. He gave them food stamps. He didn't heal the sick. He put the government in charge of medicine. The path to Heaven is to just vote Democrats and let some bureaucrat deal with people who have problems.
Well it's more the concern for the poor and what is best method for obtaining it. Can volunteerism properly cover a post-industrial society of 300M? I rather suspect not. We're not exactly in the barn-raising era being such a transient and isolated population. Community-based volunteer efforts are bound to leave gaps that government welfare programs can help cover.
On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote: It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
Not really. The GOP isn't against welfare, it's against large-scale GOVERNMENT welfare programs.
I spent a year working for a homeless shelter that was funded by a Catholic church (I'm not a religious person). This shelter took care of people that even government programs couldn't help. The argument is that government programs are notoriously inefficient at providing locally tailored solutions in the same manner a community can. And it's the correct argument. I decided to go to law school and get involved with politics because I saw how shitty our system currently is.
The problem is that local churches and charities don't have near the available funding or infrastructure to properly address the needs of masses. Many larger charities are also notorious for being as wasteful if not more so than the government. The amount of donation money that actually goes to the cause is no where near as much as people believe.
And I'm not just talking about homeless shelters. I'm talking social security and medicare / medicaid as well.
So instead of collecting 20% in income taxes, why not just say, we're collecting 15%, and you must donate the other 5% to the local, non-political 501c of your choice. I mean, that obviously has abuses and would have to be shored up, but the I think the idea behind that would be far more beneficial than have the government dole it out.
I'm just not sure why you think it's more efficient for local groups to be given charity money than the government.
It's like comparing the production possibilities between a bunch of small companies and a one very large company. The very large company has the connections and the infrastructure to produce goods very cheaply and efficiently while smaller companies have more expensive manufacturing costs because they lack the same amount and quality of capital the larger company does.
On August 29 2012 11:56 Defacer wrote: He doesn't even to have the courage to release his tax returns! Or discuss his record at Bain! Or keep his gay foreign policy advisor!
Because these are much more important than getting the economy going for the millions of unemployed across the country. Bain, tax returns, all that is bullshit brought up by the left to have anything other than the economy and unemployment to talk about. What is more important to college grads to be ? What Mitt Romney invests in and what % of income taxes he pays (which is a complete bullshit argument anyways) or whether they can get a job using their degree when they graduate or if they have to flip burgers ?
But isn't his prior business experience what helps people determine if hes competent enough to fix the economy. He claims that his business success means he has the knowledge to fix our country's problems but he won't disclose details regarding how he became rich and successful.
The reason he isn't revealing anything is because the things he did make him the antithesis of who Americans want as their president.
Look at his experience turning the Olympics into a success. Look at his experience as Governor. Tax returns don't have anything to do with his experience. The fact that we know he's rich as hell based on his experience as a venture capitalist, something we don't need tax returns to see, since even pro-Obama SuperPacs are running ads left and right about Bain, indicates he understands why businesses succeed and why they fail. His wealth is largely derived from investing in failing businesses, and either turning them around (Staples) or selling them. When venture capitalists take on risky investments, they are frequently businesses that are going to close their doors for whatever reason, and can't even qualify for more standard financing, thus the need for the venture capitalists. To demonize Bain for some factories shutting down is a joke that clueless, ignorant people buy into because they're retards. The business was already failing. The fact that Romney is rich means that he was able to get value out of businesses that nobody else could. He risked his capital and reaped the financial rewards. Nothing wrong with that. Not to mention, how much did he give to charity ? A certified shit-ton. I think Romney's record is hardly one of "the antithesis of who Americans want as their president".
President Obama loves to call Romney extreme. Somewhat true. Romney's success is pretty extreme to President Obama.
On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote: It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
Not really. The GOP isn't against welfare, it's against large-scale GOVERNMENT welfare programs.
I spent a year working for a homeless shelter that was funded by a Catholic church (I'm not a religious person). This shelter took care of people that even government programs couldn't help. The argument is that government programs are notoriously inefficient at providing locally tailored solutions in the same manner a community can. And it's the correct argument. I decided to go to law school and get involved with politics because I saw how shitty our system currently is.
The problem is that local churches and charities don't have near the available funding or infrastructure to properly address the needs of masses. Many larger charities are also notorious for being as wasteful if not more so than the government. The amount of donation money that actually goes to the cause is no where near as much as people believe.
And I'm not just talking about homeless shelters. I'm talking social security and medicare / medicaid as well.
So instead of collecting 20% in income taxes, why not just say, we're collecting 15%, and you must donate the other 5% to the local, non-political 501c of your choice. I mean, that obviously has abuses and would have to be shored up, but the I think the idea behind that would be far more beneficial than have the government dole it out.
I'm just not sure why you think it's more efficient for local groups to be given charity money than the government.
It's like comparing the production possibilities between a bunch of small companies and a one very large company. The very large company has the connections and the infrastructure to produce goods very cheaply and efficiently while smaller companies have more expensive manufacturing costs because they lack the same amount and quality of capital the larger company does.
Do you really think comparing local charities to manufacturing is a good comparison ? The bigger the organization, the more overhead and red tape. I don't know many charities that are manufacturing with heavy machinery.
On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote: I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream.
Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb.
You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine.
Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue.
Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source
Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9
Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too.
A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
Well I think a bunch see the church and volunteer charities as better form of welfare. But what really doesn't make sense is these supposed GOP Christians that also tout Rand. Even ignoring her athiesm, her defence of selfishness was such that even Hitchens felt was completely unnecessary.
On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote: It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus called upon people to help their neighbors, not to have the government do it. A fundamental difference exists between Democratic and Republican politicians who have released their tax returns for various reasons. Republicans are very charitable and Democrats have given significantly less. Check out Al Gore, Joe Biden, etc, compared to Bush, Romney, etc. Democrats don't give themselves because they leave it to the government, well, either that ore they are just not very charitable people.
On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote: I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream.
Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb.
You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine.
Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue.
Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source
Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9
Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too.
A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
Well I think a bunch see the church and volunteer charities as better form of welfare. But what really doesn't make sense is these supposed GOP Christians that also tout Rand. Even ignoring her athiesm, her defence of selfishness was such that even Hitchens felt was completely unnecessary.
Even Hitchens? What are you talking about?
Nevermind the title of the video, but this Hitchens on Rand
On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote: It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus called upon people to help their neighbors, not to have the government do it.
It doesn't exactly specify who should do it, rather that it should be the Christian's concern. So then the question becomes, what is the best method for accomplishing it? Can volunteers and charities shoulder the weight, or is something more systematic necessary?
On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote: I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream.
Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb.
You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine.
Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue.
Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source
Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9
Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too.
A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others".
How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country?
Because power hungry asshole politicians get more powerful and corrupt by doling out tax dollars to their contributors and special interests, and the more tax dollars coming in, the more power and corruption exists. They just continue to call for more taxes because ignorant saps in the population don't see anything wrong with "giving back to your country". The more experienced among us realize politicians are generally corrupt assholes and the only way to keep them under control is to restrict the purse strings. Not to mention the negative economic impact of increasingly high tax rates. We live in a world-wide economy and businesses can operate in any jurisdiction in the world. Tax rates are a major factor in the decision of where to open up shop. If we "give back to our country" too much, we lose jobs to foreign, lower tax rates.
On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote: It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus called upon people to help their neighbors, not to have the government do it. A fundamental difference exists between Democratic and Republican politicians who have released their tax returns for various reasons.
This is fine, but these same religious conservatives believe that it's the government's role to enforce other parts of the Bible / what they believe is in the Bible (anti-gay, outlaw abortion, teach creationism, etc). That's why it's so frustrating that they're against the government being involved in welfare and promoting a universal community -- it's all this cherry-picking. If they were consistently Christian in their policies, or consistently objectivist for that matter, it would be entirely different. Instead, they pick the parts of each ideology that allow them to be the biggest asshole possible and lump it all together in a way that's totally nonsensical.
So I dont vote, but I generally think I am pretty politically aware. My tennis coach from highschool posted this on his facebook
"Mr. President...Real leaders don't follow polls... real leaders change polls." Chris Christie (reminds me of W.)
and I pointed out that in todays era of soundbits and such, it could easily be used to imply (out of context) that electoral fraud or changing any polls (popularity or votes) could and should be altered by those in power.
He ended up going off the deep end about how wrong I am that anyone would ever infer that from the quote, in or out of context. So i question--am I crazy or is this the kind of thing that can turn into a soundbite come tomorrow. (probably wont--Im sure the media will be covering bigger gaffes and important stuff) but i think its possible
On August 29 2012 10:37 Defacer wrote: Wolf Blitzer just pointed out the obvious -- Santorum's speech had less to do with supporting Romney and more to do with positioning himself for the next election.
Why not? Once the flip flopper establishment candidate is thrown out the logical answer for the RNC folks will be to triple down on ideological purity. After all, Romney was the second most 'moderate' of the guys they were putting up in the debates, only less moderate than Huntsman. Or at least he was at one point, obviously by this point in the campaign Romney has literally been for and against every and any position. I
I'm not sure logical is appropriate word to use there, but the policy does seem to be "if something doesn't work, do it even worse next time!"
Makes perfect sense to me though, the angry people are the ones who show up for primaries. And when you have someone as flip flop filled as Romney, the 'establishment candidate', who even 'rigged' the rules of the convention so that there is no possibility of a floor fight falls to the greatest Marxist Kenyan Muslim Obama then inevitably the lesson for all the serial arsonists in the Republican party like Santourm/Palin/Ryan is to demand even more purity. If the Democrats actually manage to do damage in the Congress elections as well then watch as any Republican with even a wiff of 'moderate' around him is routed while a bunch of 'Tea Party' stallwarts get in there and bring the machinery of government to a complete halt.
On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote: I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream.
Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb.
You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine.
Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue.
Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source
Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9
Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too.
A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception.
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism.
I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others".
How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country?
Because power hungry asshole politicians get more powerful and corrupt by doling out tax dollars to their contributors and special interests, and the more tax dollars coming in, the more power and corruption exists. They just continue to call for more taxes because ignorant saps in the population don't see anything wrong with "giving back to your country". The more experienced among us realize politicians are generally corrupt assholes and the only way to keep them under control is to restrict the purse strings. Not to mention the negative economic impact of increasingly high tax rates. We live in a world-wide economy and businesses can operate in any jurisdiction in the world. Tax rates are a major factor in the decision of where to open up shop. If we "give back to our country" too much, we lose jobs to foreign, lower tax rates.
Didnt realize that Grover Norquist posted on tl! Welcome Grover.
George W had the lowest tax rate since WW2, he also had the worst private sector growth rate of all Presidents since Carter. But yes, lets cut some more taxes.
On August 29 2012 13:33 neo_sporin wrote: So I dont vote, but I generally think I am pretty politically aware. My tennis coach from highschool posted this on his facebook
"Mr. President...Real leaders don't follow polls... real leaders change polls." Chris Christie (reminds me of W.)
and I pointed out that in todays era of soundbits and such, it could easily be used to imply (out of context) that electoral fraud or changing any polls (popularity or votes) could and should be altered by those in power.
He ended up going off the deep end about how wrong I am that anyone would ever infer that from the quote, in or out of context. So i question--am I crazy or is this the kind of thing that can turn into a soundbite come tomorrow. (probably wont--Im sure the media will be covering bigger gaffes and important stuff) but i think its possible
Haha, no you're not crazy, in fact ask Dennis Kucinich about "changing polls" (aka redistricting) for example- or Barney Frank who retired when they reshuffled his district. Of course, there's also the Voter ID issue as well. Obviously not the intent of the quote, but the ironic reality cannot be missed and hopefully not least of all on Daily Show or Colbert. :D
EPT
