On September 04 2012 08:43 jacosajh wrote: I don't really see how Romney being rich has anything to do with anything.
I don't care if he made his millions single-handedly robbing people's house in their sleep. As long as he can create jobs and stir up our economy, I'm going to be happy.
Obama has failed at this miserably and another 4 years isn't going to make any differences. Even if it's not Romney; it just needs to be someone not Obama. Fixing our economic problems should be a priority, not tweeting, not giving shout-outs to Jay-Z, not publishing Final Four brackets, etc.
I also don't see how our Presidents' foreign policy makes any differences. Whether the rest of the world likes us or not, I don't give a single fuck. As long as our leader takes care of us, I'll be happy.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
How much of a problem is it to get the ID in the first place?
Is this the usuall crying about being terrebly opressed, by having to spend maybe 10 dollars and 2 hours of your life for something that the majority of people already have?
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
The point is that someone has to stand for people's freedom to make their own choices and think their own thoughts because rights lost are hard to win back. I don't think government should have any say in whether or not I can hire/fire someone just like they should not be able to control whether I shop at Wal-mart or Target.
Or whether a place like Chik-fil-A can open in your city because of the company owners opinions and charitable decisions.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
It must be awful to be one of these subjugated majorities I keep hearing about.
My thoughts exactly. I'm actually at a loss on how to respond.
On September 04 2012 08:43 jacosajh wrote: I don't really see how Romney being rich has anything to do with anything.
I don't care if he made his millions single-handedly robbing people's house in their sleep. As long as he can create jobs and stir up our economy, I'm going to be happy.
Obama has failed at this miserably and another 4 years isn't going to make any differences. Even if it's not Romney; it just needs to be someone not Obama. Fixing our economic problems should be a priority, not tweeting, not giving shout-outs to Jay-Z, not publishing Final Four brackets, etc.
I also don't see how our Presidents' foreign policy makes any differences. Whether the rest of the world likes us or not, I don't give a single fuck. As long as our leader takes care of us, I'll be happy.
So the fact that effective foreign policy plays an important role in international economic solvency means what to you?
On September 04 2012 08:43 jacosajh wrote: I don't really see how Romney being rich has anything to do with anything.
I don't care if he made his millions single-handedly robbing people's house in their sleep. As long as he can create jobs and stir up our economy, I'm going to be happy.
Obama has failed at this miserably and another 4 years isn't going to make any differences. Even if it's not Romney; it just needs to be someone not Obama. Fixing our economic problems should be a priority, not tweeting, not giving shout-outs to Jay-Z, not publishing Final Four brackets, etc.
I also don't see how our Presidents' foreign policy makes any differences. Whether the rest of the world likes us or not, I don't give a single fuck. As long as our leader takes care of us, I'll be happy.
That's just ignorant.
EDIT: More bolding.
Basically. Foreign policy has a sizable affect on our economy: who we're trading with, what we're trading, how high our taxes are or how much debt we're in (wars), who we're giving aid, the list goes on. To be honest, we really don't need another war right now.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
There could be far more cases of fraud that you don't know about. Fraud is by its nature hidden, and voting does not leave a good paper trail.
Its also really easy to get an ID. It would be better if they made the IDs 'free', but regardless its a small hurdle.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
The point is that someone has to stand for people's freedom to make their own choices and think their own thoughts because rights lost are hard to win back. I don't think government should have any say in whether or not I can hire/fire someone just like they should not be able to control whether I shop at Wal-mart or Target.
Or whether a place like Chik-fil-A can open in your city because of the company owners opinions and charitable decisions.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
It must be awful to be one of these subjugated majorities I keep hearing about.
Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
How much of a problem is it to get the ID in the first place?
It depends on whether or not the town you live in has one of these places that must be legally obligated to provide free IDs (lest it be considered a poll tax); whether or not you can afford reliable transportation to one of these places (considering distance, as well as time off of work, if needed); and, whether or not you can do all of this within the "non-discriminatory" time period between voter ID laws passing oh-so-close to election time and the time that the polls open, before they close earlier than expected in your county.
It could be quite a hassle. Good to know that you haven't got any perspective there, nor qualms about defending criticism against it.
EDIT:
On September 04 2012 08:53 naastyOne wrote: Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
On September 04 2012 07:39 kwizach wrote: [quote] Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
The point is that someone has to stand for people's freedom to make their own choices and think their own thoughts because rights lost are hard to win back. I don't think government should have any say in whether or not I can hire/fire someone just like they should not be able to control whether I shop at Wal-mart or Target.
Or whether a place like Chik-fil-A can open in your city because of the company owners opinions and charitable decisions.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
It must be awful to be one of these subjugated majorities I keep hearing about.
Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
I'm so confused. So how does this all relate to discriminating based on gender, race, age, or sexual orientation? I said discriminating based on gender, race, age, and sexual orientation is oppressing the majority in favor of the minority in the U.S. Are you agreeing with me?
On September 04 2012 08:43 jacosajh wrote: I don't really see how Romney being rich has anything to do with anything.
I don't care if he made his millions single-handedly robbing people's house in their sleep. As long as he can create jobs and stir up our economy, I'm going to be happy.
Obama has failed at this miserably and another 4 years isn't going to make any differences. Even if it's not Romney; it just needs to be someone not Obama. Fixing our economic problems should be a priority, not tweeting, not giving shout-outs to Jay-Z, not publishing Final Four brackets, etc.
I also don't see how our Presidents' foreign policy makes any differences. Whether the rest of the world likes us or not, I don't give a single fuck. As long as our leader takes care of us, I'll be happy.
Ironically, this was precisely the sentiment on which Obama rode into office as the savior of the the world.
Do yourself a favor and take a step back...the US fell for the ploy once...let's not fall for it again when it's in plain view for everybody to see.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
How much of a problem is it to get the ID in the first place?
It depends on whether or not the town you live in has one of these places that must be legally obligated to provide free IDs (lest it be considered a poll tax); whether or not you can afford reliable transportation to one of these places (considering distance, as well as time off of work, if needed); and, whether or not you can do all of this within the "non-discriminatory" time period between voter ID laws passing oh-so-close to election time and the time that the polls open, before they close earlier than expected in your county.
It could be quite a hassle. Good to know that you haven't got any perspective there, nor qualms about defending criticism against it. EDIT:
On September 04 2012 08:53 naastyOne wrote: Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
Wow.
Then, perhaps, you need to argue that the procedure of obtaining a voter ID is too bad, instead of arguing againts the ID itself?
Well, the quick and cheap example: Ukraine, a country with the state language, and education language being Ukrainian, the majority of the people speak Russian in daily life.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
The point is that someone has to stand for people's freedom to make their own choices and think their own thoughts because rights lost are hard to win back. I don't think government should have any say in whether or not I can hire/fire someone just like they should not be able to control whether I shop at Wal-mart or Target.
Or whether a place like Chik-fil-A can open in your city because of the company owners opinions and charitable decisions.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
It must be awful to be one of these subjugated majorities I keep hearing about.
Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
I'm so confused. So how does this all relate to discriminating based on gender, race, age, or sexual orientation? I said discriminating based on gender, race, age, and sexual orientation is oppressing the majority in favor of the minority in the U.S. Are you agreeing with me?
As i said, the gender, race, age, sex, wealth, are just hair splitting.
The demand to not opress gays on the basics of sexual orientation is indeed a case of opressing the heterosecxual majority on behalf of the homosexual minority, so yes, you are spot on.
"Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one"
Still find it odd that you dont need an id in the usa Just curious:how does the usa recognise illegal immigrants when people are not required to have an id? (realy wondering about this, i see border patrol and such programs on tv and lots illegal immigrants are caught, but how are they caught if you dont need an id?"
Birthcertificate is a form of id? Are people in the usa required to show their birthcertificate if police officers want to id someone?
(btw not trolling or annything, i am realy curious how these things are handled if people dont have an id)
On September 04 2012 09:03 Rassy wrote: "Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one"
Still find it odd that you dont need an id in the usa Just curious,how does the usa recognise illegal immigrants if people are not required to have an id?
On September 04 2012 09:03 Rassy wrote: "Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one"
Still find it odd that you dont need an id in the usa Just curious:how does the usa recognise illegal immigrants when people are not required to have an id? (realy wondering about this, i see border patrol and such programs on tv and lots illegal immigrants are caught, but how are they caught if you dont need an id?
On September 03 2012 09:06 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
Clinton bucked his party and signed Welfare Reform pushed by Republicans. Name me a time that Obama went against his party and sided with the GOP....
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
Didn't all that stuff happen in the 2nd term of Clinton? The divergence of the right started around when Gingrich got control, but didn't become so huge of a deal until the late 90s.
According to that graph, by the time Obama was in office, the Republican party had already moved 0.15 points to the right since the end of Clinton, which is HUGE in the context of historical trends. That means that the current Republicans could be considered 50-80% more devisive than what Clinton faced.
Interesting, though I'm surprised that the chart shows Republicans getting more conservative under Bush.
How so? What policies and voting records changed with the Republican party to make them more "liberal"?
Bigger entitlement spending, more federal funding and involvement in education, a greater willingness to engage in protectionism and a big jump in regulations to name a few.
The key with those provisions is that they were all Republican answers to Democrat issues. Education needed reform, so Republicans created a system that punished failing public schools. Medicare "expansion" was a nod towards the business side of things, not so much the recipient side. Much of their policy changes were in line with that style, where an expansion in government involvement was actually a helping hand to business.
The way the analysis for these things go is by a measure of what certain Congressman have supported before, and then what they support later, then comparing that with the rest of the party. Since parties often offer counter proposals to the majority proposal we see a rolling record of support.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
How much of a problem is it to get the ID in the first place?
EDIT:
On September 04 2012 08:53 naastyOne wrote: Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
Wow.
Well, the quick and cheap example: Ukraine, a country with the state language, and education language being Ukrainian, the majority of the people speak Russian in daily life.
On September 04 2012 07:47 farvacola wrote: [quote] The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
The point is that someone has to stand for people's freedom to make their own choices and think their own thoughts because rights lost are hard to win back. I don't think government should have any say in whether or not I can hire/fire someone just like they should not be able to control whether I shop at Wal-mart or Target.
Or whether a place like Chik-fil-A can open in your city because of the company owners opinions and charitable decisions.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
It must be awful to be one of these subjugated majorities I keep hearing about.
Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
I'm so confused. So how does this all relate to discriminating based on gender, race, age, or sexual orientation? I said discriminating based on gender, race, age, and sexual orientation is oppressing the majority in favor of the minority in the U.S. Are you agreeing with me?
As i said, the gender, race, age, sex, wealth, are just hair splitting.
The demand to not opress gays on the basics of sexual orientation is indeed a case of opressing the heterosecxual majority on behalf of the homosexual minority, so yes, you are spot on.
That's utterly absurd. The same legislation that would say an employer can't go "I heard you're gay, you're fired, faggot!" would stop them going "I heard you're straight, you're fired". Straight people are not oppressed by the lack of oppression for them to exert their legal rights and fight against. It's a nonsense.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
Another, more well known one:
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I don't care if he made his millions single-handedly robbing people's house in their sleep. As long as he can create jobs and stir up our economy, I'm going to be happy.
This does not make much sense. You destroy people's livelihoods on the hope that he might make a few jobs? How about making money by making jobs. Seems to me Romney has a tendency to be the EA that buys up Westwood and then shuts them down. EA makes money, but Westwood is dead including anyone that was actually competent at making an RTS game. Is it jobs he makes, or does he just suck a company dry? It seems to me that actually is a rather important distinction.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
How much of a problem is it to get the ID in the first place?
It depends on whether or not the town you live in has one of these places that must be legally obligated to provide free IDs (lest it be considered a poll tax); whether or not you can afford reliable transportation to one of these places (considering distance, as well as time off of work, if needed); and, whether or not you can do all of this within the "non-discriminatory" time period between voter ID laws passing oh-so-close to election time and the time that the polls open, before they close earlier than expected in your county.
It could be quite a hassle. Good to know that you haven't got any perspective there, nor qualms about defending criticism against it. EDIT:
On September 04 2012 08:53 naastyOne wrote: Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
Wow.
Then, perhaps, you need to argue that the procedure of obtaining a voter ID is too bad, instead of arguing againts the ID itself?
Well, the quick and cheap example: Ukraine, a country with the state language, and education language being Ukrainian, the majority of the people speak Russian in daily life.
On September 04 2012 07:47 farvacola wrote: [quote] The idea is that it is not the government deeming these rights basic, but that it is society at large that deems certain aspects of human identity irreproachable. That you are willing to defend prejudice in the name of big government critique is something I simply cannot sympathize with.
Some things that are reprehensible but are irrevocably tied to larger primary rights should be protected. For example the right of people to say hateful things is reprehensible but should be protected because freedom of speech is just that important. The freedom to control your own personal business is I think primary and crucial. The idea that you think governement should control who and why you can hire/fire is shocking to me.
Where does it stop? Suppose a business wanted to fire someone for not being smart? Does that discriminate against the those with below average intelligence? Should it be illegal to fire him for this? Suppose you run a business doing physical labor and an employee gets to fat or was always to small to do the work? Should you be forced to continue to employ them?
Freedom is just that important. The ability of private individuals to decide how to spend their money and who to hire to work for them is just that important. Again, this doesn't go for public employees. Just in the private sector.
"intelligence" and "physical ability" is not the same as sexual orientation. The first two are personal attributes detrimental to their ability to perform their jobs - sexual orientation does not in any way correlate with what level someone may perform their job at. Toss aside the "slippery slope" argument and focus on the issue at hand.
For the record I am not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech. If some asshole drives a kid to commit suicide through the use of words I don't think they should get away clean just because they have the freedom to spew whatever nonsense they want. Also, libel/slander should be illegal and is.
The point is that someone has to stand for people's freedom to make their own choices and think their own thoughts because rights lost are hard to win back. I don't think government should have any say in whether or not I can hire/fire someone just like they should not be able to control whether I shop at Wal-mart or Target.
Or whether a place like Chik-fil-A can open in your city because of the company owners opinions and charitable decisions.
Eh your examples are quite different, so I'll address the main issue. You know, there's a reason why laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on gender, age, and race were passed. Discrimination has strong social (and economic) implications that cause an endless cycle of hate and suffering. If laws were not enacted prohibiting employers to discriminate based on race, the Southern states would still be in massive conflict, and even more blacks would be stuck in poverty. You may say freedom to discriminate is a given right, but what about equality and freedom of opportunity? The freedom to oppress is a freedom the few hold to stifle the freedoms of many, and all it leads to is the worsening of social and economic trends across the board, which portrays how irrational it is when employers persist to discriminate.
I disagree the notion. The "right" of the majority to opress minority is quite the opposite of what you say. If anything, the minority protection is a type of tyrany, where the majority is opressed on behalf of the minority, to improve the life of the respective minority. If anything, the entire discrimination/minority rights is a form of oppresion, and people are just engaged in hairsplitting over which opression is fine, and which is not.
Equality and freedom of opportunity are very, broad and vague consepts. Freedom to discriminate doesnt nececery contradict the two. Equality in general goes in terms of "equality before the law", bot before your uncle`s brother. Freedom of opportunity generally refers t freedom to try, and says nothing about the succes rate. ex,..
It must be awful to be one of these subjugated majorities I keep hearing about.
Get out of the first world, then. You`ll find plenty.
I'm so confused. So how does this all relate to discriminating based on gender, race, age, or sexual orientation? I said discriminating based on gender, race, age, and sexual orientation is oppressing the majority in favor of the minority in the U.S. Are you agreeing with me?
As i said, the gender, race, age, sex, wealth, are just hair splitting.
The demand to not opress gays on the basics of sexual orientation is indeed a case of opressing the heterosecxual majority on behalf of the homosexual minority, so yes, you are spot on.
On September 04 2012 07:29 Chocolate wrote: [quote] To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
On September 04 2012 08:24 naastyOne wrote: I never understood the entire "controversity" behind the woter IDs. US is not a third world nation, getting your face photoed and stamped was not a problem 50years ago, not it is today. It just is a metter of lazines.
As for abourtion, it is controvertial.
I highly doubt that there are people on TL that would deny that the already born children have rights and should not be abused by perents. Killing them, obviously, is a crime. For the unborn, they are basically property of a woman that has no rigths in themselves. The idea that birth actually makes you a person is quite allien to me.
Not to mention, the fact, that in case of murder, the fact that the victim is gone forever, and wouldn`t complain to living about it, doesn`t quite stops the enforcement of finding and punishing the murderer. How is it different in case of abourtion?
Voter ID is a problem because many people don't have ID's for whatever reason, and there is really no reason to force them to get one. The majority of the people affected will be poor: it is little more than a ploy to get some liberal voters to not show up on election day. There is no justifiable reason to require them.
So is my sperm entitled to life because it exists? As far as I'm concerned, anything without a functioning brain has no rights at all.
The reason to have them get an ID is to prevent fraud.
Yes, and fraud is not a problem at all. I recall hearing on the news that there were around 300 cases over the past several years. Let's say there are 100 cases of fraud per year. How many aren't going to vote because now they have to get a government ID? Definitely more than 100, hence why ID laws aren't helpful at all and only serve to discriminate.
There could be far more cases of fraud that you don't know about. Fraud is by its nature hidden, and voting does not leave a good paper trail.
Its also really easy to get an ID. It would be better if they made the IDs 'free', but regardless its a small hurdle.
Still counts as a poll tax. The thing with the fraud and IDs, the best way to rig an election is with large scale vote tampering. Absentee ballots and abusing unsecured records are far more effective ways at vote tampering than voter impersonation. With a focus on voter ID, the whole thing screams ulterior motive. I think the statement "killing a fly with a bazooka" is an apt description in this case.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EkA4O.jpg)
My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
