|
Eugene Delgaudio posted:None of these things are cheap. In fact, running a program of the size necessary to defeat this bill can get quite expensive especially with increases in postage and printing costs. Eugene Delgaudio posted:Please sign the "Protect Our Children's Innocence" Petition to Congress and then send a generous contribution right away. Your action will make all the difference. Eugene Delgaudio posted:And along with your petition, would you please send a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35. Eugene Delgaudio posted:And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference. Eugene Delgaudio posted:And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference. I'm sure he's not also cynically using people's bigotry so they'll send him free money 
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:I'm new to the topic, and although the video is ~5.5 min long, I hope it inspires you guys to think next time you post about supporting a man who wants to make you poor. I like that the comments section is moderated by the video poster. Wouldn't want anyone to post anything that contradicts your terrible example, and boy is it terrible. A strawman argument between Reagan and Obama about a strawman argument between a socialist student and an economics teacher that isn't even a useful representation of the economy or socialism while also misrepresenting socialism as "everyone must be paid the same amount".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Anyone who hasn't done this already really should. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair Is it just me, or do only insecure pompous windbags give themselves post-nominal letters for a loving bachelors degree? I don't know anyone else who does this besides internet dickbags like Andrew Schafly, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I love how Lenski, who holds a PhD, just signs his emails with his name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Is it just me, or do only insecure pompous windbags give themselves post-nominal letters for a loving bachelors degree? I don't know anyone else who does this besides internet dickbags like Andrew Schafly, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I love how Lenski, who holds a PhD, just signs his emails with his name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Is it just me, or do only insecure pompous windbags give themselves post-nominal letters for a loving bachelors degree? I don't know anyone else who does this besides internet dickbags like Andrew Schafly, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I love how Lenski, who holds a PhD, just signs his emails with his name. Sometimes people who've received said degrees less than three months or so ago do it for the novelty but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Is it just me, or do only insecure pompous windbags give themselves post-nominal letters for a loving bachelors degree? I don't know anyone else who does this besides internet dickbags like Andrew Schafly, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I love how Lenski, who holds a PhD, just signs his emails with his name. I know perfectly likable people that do this, but they are almost all social workers, so I'm not sure if there is some link there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
Sankis posted:Not quite a forward but fits the "crazy political" and "family" (sorta) part of the topic. I saw a woman wearing that shirt at a beer festival at the Flying Saucer in Fort Worth, TX once. Was visiting there for a weekend. Cue me and another gay guy, who was from Baltimore, following her around the festival trying to take a picture of her without being caught. Or, to quote him -- "dammit, this is what I came to Texas to see."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:I know perfectly likable people that do this, but they are almost all social workers, so I'm not sure if there is some link there. It's pretty common for degrees that are specific to a particular thing, to show that you do in fact know what you're talking about (like specific engineering disciplines or arts).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:It's pretty common for degrees that are specific to a particular thing, to show that you do in fact know what you're talking about (like specific engineering disciplines or arts). Yeah, that's fair I suppose. But these emails were just a clear attempt by a wingnut to antagonize a scientist. They were hardly from one professional to another - it just comes off as really insecure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Yeah, that's fair I suppose. But these emails were just a clear attempt by a wingnut to antagonize a scientist. They were hardly from one professional to another - it just comes off as really insecure. Arrogant. I don't think Schafly is insecure, I think he honestly thinks that deep down no one is more of an expert than he. Also, experts are terrible and only regular people have the real answers, which Schafly is. He's an expert at being mediocre. It's a convoluted and confusing mindset, but I'm not sure it's an insecure one. I mean, this is the guy who tried to argue to the New Jersey and North Dakota Supreme Courts that there was an implied Constitutional power to hold recall elections of US Senators because George Washington wrote a letter once where he expressed support for the idea. He's crazy, but he's very sure of himself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Yeah, that's fair I suppose. But these emails were just a clear attempt by a wingnut to antagonize a scientist. They were hardly from one professional to another - it just comes off as really insecure. No, you're right. And in this case, it's irrelevant, because Schlafly is writing to a microbiologist and signing B.S.E., J.D., as if a structural engineer or lawyer would be experts on bacterial evolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Whenever I see stupid images shared and reposted to my feed, I report them, and if its from a personal facebook, it gives you an option like "Send a message to Joe Idiot saying you don't like it" and it puts in this really snarky little message for you, the responses you get from this are fantastic.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Whenever I see stupid images shared and reposted to my feed, I report them, and if its from a personal facebook, it gives you an option like "Send a message to Joe Idiot saying you don't like it" and it puts in this really snarky little message for you, the responses you get from this are fantastic. Could you post some those responses?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
The best part is after I got that email, my mom emailed me again to ask if 'any of it was true.' Yes, Mom. The evil Obama who is going to run death panels and start Obamacare to gently caress with all the white people wants to turn everyone loving gay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 01:33
|
|
blackmet posted:I saw a woman wearing that shirt at a beer festival at the Flying Saucer in Fort Worth, TX once. Was visiting there for a weekend. I'm not a betting man, but I think the chances are you can find one of those in Maryland too.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
I don't know where Americans get the idea that British schools are indoctrination centres. We were pretty much told "some people are gay, don't be arseholes" and left to our own devices. Mostly because sexuality, like religion, is understood to be kept in the house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Mostly because sexuality, like religion, is understood to be kept in the house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I don't know where Americans get the idea that British schools are indoctrination centres. We were pretty much told "some people are gay, don't be arseholes" and left to our own devices. Mostly because sexuality, like religion, is understood to be kept in the house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I don't know where Americans get the idea that British schools are indoctrination centres. The only people who think that are the ones who think the same thing about American schools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Telling people that gay people exist and that you shouldn't be assholes to them is exactly what they mean by "indoctrinating kids into the homosexual lifestyle" or however they want to phrase it. It's absurd, but this is what some people really believe. Exactly. Just look at how popular Rick Santorum was in the Republican primary. Santorum is a guy who wants to ban contraceptives and thinks Lawrence v. Texas should be overturned so states can go back to criminalizing sodomy (AKA criminalizing homosexuality). This isn't some fringe nutjob on Free Republic or Stormfront, this is a politician who handily beat Mitt Romney in several states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 11:01
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Exactly. Just look at how popular Rick Santorum was in the Republican primary. Santorum is a guy who wants to ban contraceptives and thinks Lawrence v. Texas should be overturned so states can go back to criminalizing sodomy (AKA criminalizing homosexuality). And the contraceptives bullshit was basically when everybody realised that his best shot at a job in the white house was a janitorial position. "A Republican who agrees posted:“Republicans being against sex is not good,” the G.O.P. strategist Alex Castellanos told me mournfully. “Sex is popular.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:The same holds true in academia. Lenski would never need to bring up his degree because it's understood at his level that he has a PhD. Anecdotally, there's a single member of my department who consistently puts down his PhD in his presentations, posters and office nameplates. He's uniformly considered an irredeemable rear end in a top hat by the other faculty. I had an economics teacher in high school who would send back his rosters if they didn't have the "Dr." in front of his name as they were "not addressed to him". He was a dick. Also a poor teacher.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 12:29
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I don't know where Americans get the idea that British schools are indoctrination centres. We were pretty much told "some people are gay, don't be arseholes" and left to our own devices. Mostly because sexuality, like religion, is understood to be kept in the house. Except for the part where we have compulsory daily worship in schools. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 12:34
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I don't know where Americans get the idea that British schools are indoctrination centres. We were pretty much told "some people are gay, don't be arseholes" and left to our own devices. This is the same group of people who still push for the removal of sex ed entirely because they feel that talking about sex will cause sex. That if they simply never tell teenagers about sex, then they won't have sex. Ever. These are not people who have a particularly strong attachment to reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:The best part is after I got that email, my mom emailed me again to ask if 'any of it was true.' I think the bigger contradiction is the idea that Obama is secretly in league with radical Muslims AND wants to turn everyone gay. Radical Islam hates homosexuality just as much as conservative Christians. How am I supposed to take their fear seriously when they fear completely contradictory things all at the same time. Shasta Orange Soda posted:The only people who think that are the ones who think the same thing about American schools. You know, I hear the Nazi's had public schools 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:This is the same group of people who still push for the removal of sex ed entirely because they feel that talking about sex will cause sex. That if they simply never tell teenagers about sex, then they won't have sex. Ever. These are not people who have a particularly strong attachment to reality. What's more, we need to prevent gateway sexual activities, such as hand holding and kissing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Sarion posted:What's more, we need to prevent gateway sexual activities, such as hand holding and kissing. Disturbing implications for handshakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Sarion posted:What's more, we need to prevent gateway sexual activities, such as hand holding and kissing. I posted the same thing in another thread about this, but there's really nothing in the bill mentioning hand holding or kissing. Just vague (and still really reprehensible) poo poo about abstinence-only education, "family-oriented" sex ed, and the stuff about not teaching gateway sexual activities. It never says what those are, but by now there's been like 3 or 4 stories saying IT'S GOING TO BAN HAND HOLDING even though it's not in there at all. My problem with that is by saying "they're trying to prevent hand holding and kissing," all it takes is one rear end in a top hat on facebook with google to derail the conversation away from how loving terrible abstinence-only education is toward how the liberal media is trying to portray the GOP as Puritanical or something. Tear down the bill for what it is--vague, reprehensible, and likely to be used in terrible ways--but don't just repeat talking points that are entirely fabricated. (Didn't mean to single you out, I just am particularly irritated with the way the coverage of this story is being handled)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Sarion posted:What's more, we need to prevent gateway sexual activities, such as hand holding and kissing. Ayup. Christian Sidehugs for everyone!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Ayup. Christian Sidehugs for everyone! They're still touching, it's too dangerous. You need appropriate hoverhands and room for Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Emron posted:I posted the same thing in another thread about this, but there's really nothing in the bill mentioning hand holding or kissing. Just vague (and still really reprehensible) poo poo about abstinence-only education, "family-oriented" sex ed, and the stuff about not teaching gateway sexual activities. It never says what those are, but by now there's been like 3 or 4 stories saying IT'S GOING TO BAN HAND HOLDING even though it's not in there at all. True; and I don't feel singled out, its a perfectly good point to be made. But what I don't know is what else would be considered gateway sexual activities. I guess "making out", but beyond that you get into things like oral sex which I don't think counts as "gateway", its sex. But maybe that is what they meant since its not "baby makin' sex"? And who's sex ed class teaches how to perform oral sex? I mean, the risks associated with it should be discussed, but they already aren't. So what is it that the law is trying to prevent? Who knows, like you said its very vague because they don't define what those activities are. Nothing better than really vague laws! Especially really vague laws that grant parents the ability to sue teachers if they don't comply with said vague law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
Sarion posted:True; and I don't feel singled out, its a perfectly good point to be made. But what I don't know is what else would be considered gateway sexual activities. I guess "making out", but beyond that you get into things like oral sex which I don't think counts as "gateway", its sex. But maybe that is what they meant since its not "baby makin' sex"? And who's sex ed class teaches how to perform oral sex? I mean, the risks associated with it should be discussed, but they already aren't. So what is it that the law is trying to prevent? Nah, they explicitly define "sex" as penetrative sex (be it anal, oral, or vaginal). I'm guessing they intended it to mean making out, removal of clothing, or maybe manual sex or masturbation. It's really hard to say what they meant, because they left it vague. And that IS a problem--that's why it really could be used to talk about hand holding or kissing. It's almost worse that they leave it so vague, because it could be extended to so many things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I guess "making out", but beyond that you get into things like oral sex which I don't think counts as "gateway", its sex. But maybe that is what they meant since its not "baby makin' sex"? quote:(12) “Sexual intercourse” means that a penis is inserted into a vagina, quote:(7) “Gateway sexual activity” means sexual contact encouraging an individual to engage in a non-abstinent behavior. A person promotes a gateway sexual activity by encouraging, advocating, urging or condoning gateway sexual activities; And at least one definition of "sexual contact" exists in the law already, so I'm assuming that applies in lieu of a new definition: "Tennesee 39-13-501 posted:(6) “Sexual contact” includes the intentional touching of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's intimate parts, or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's, the defendant's, or any other person's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification EDIT: Still a lovely law, since it conflates "condoning" with "promoting". Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
What? No over the pants stuff? That's the first step to manhood!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Sorry for the length, TL;DR at the bottom My cousin posted this on facebook:  I tried to explain how you can't compare government spending to a family's spending, here's the exchange: Me posted:Here's the problem with comparing gov't revenue/debt with a family budget: Cousin posted:It's not the allocation I have an issue with... I fully understand that my purchase of a firearm can't and doesn't compair to the military or the spending that goes in to that and that some of the costs are totally different... Case and point... there's not a line on thier budget for Legos... it's the spending more than your means porting I have an issue with. When expenses run past income... at some point it's time to tighten a belt somewhere. As a family we're faced with situations like "eat or have HBO"... That's the slice of my 'apple' I don't want to see on an 'orange' scale. Me posted:People "spend" more than their means all the time. I make about $50k and I'm almost $190,000 in debt (mortgage and car). Right now I'm about 4x more in debt than I make a year. According to that pic, the gov't is 7x more in debt than it takes in in revenue, except they get a way better interest rate than I do. If I had student loans, credit card debt, and another car loan, I'd easily reach that 7x figure. Except, nearly all government spending is investments in some way shape or form, like I listed above. They reap dividends. NASA funding developed tons of products now produced by private companies, roads allow companies to get their products all over the country, gov't medical research saves millions. I totally sympathize with your position though, it's obvoius that cuts would definitely help the situation, but which would most families rather do: make more money to cover their debt, or keep on cutting spending until they're left wearing a barrel on suspenders? Some Girl posted:MisterFusion, just thought I might chime in here. Working for a bank, I see people all of the time who purposefully spend more than they make. Making more money does not directly equate to having less debt, especially if the mindset is to simply buy any and everything you want. It is a choice, plain and simple, to not budget. This goes for individuals as well as countries. Yes, while interest on personal loans differ quite a bit from the interest rates that countries are offered, it still doesn't make financial sense to spend more than you're making. You wouldn't go to your boss and demand a raise only because you wanted the latest Ipod or flat screen TV, but that's exactly what the government has asked to do.. all at the tax payer's expense. Is there some concise way to explain why this picture is bullshit? ^^^^TL;DR
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
MisterFusion posted:Is there some concise way to explain why this picture is bullshit?  And start with the disclaimer that yes 37% isn't the effective tax rate of someone on minimum wage normally so he doesn't decide to do a strawman on that, but the point is it can be for someone making a miniscule amount of money compared to Mittens and company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
"...it still doesn't make financial sense to spend more than you're making." Isn't this the whole nature of investment? You take out a loan to buy a better widget-making machine, whose increased output allows you to recoup that initial expense over a period of years. Similarly, we pay to keep our citizens (ideally) protected, fed, and educated so that they produce more in the future and improve the output of the economy. Do they give business loans at that bank?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
MisterFusion posted:Sorry for the length, TL;DR at the bottom Also, what family gets to borrow at nearly 0% interest? also, ms. Working at a bank clearly works in low level consumer stuff (maybe even a teller). If conservatives saw what business and rich people did with credit, they'd have a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
nm posted:Looks to me like the unworking parent could get a job making $21k and have a huge surplus. Aka, raise some taxes. The most fundamental difference is that governments literally sell their debt to eager creditors who turn it into economic liquidity which aids the economic system, while families are truly at the mercy of creditors who they must ask for loans and their loans are eaten up a variety of requirements and are diced up before returning to the economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Responding to the earlier discussion: Thanks for the detailed info, I agree the response does seem overblown, or at least the examples being thrown around are not accurate. But yeah, terrible law all around. As for the Home Budget vs. Government Budget, there's all kinds of massive differences between the two. One of which no one has mentioned, unless I missed it, is that the US Government's Debt is US Dollars, a currency which the US Government can print more of any time it wants. I wish I could just print my own Sarion-Bucks to pay off my mortgage and student loans. However, I think the really big difference isn't between a family's budget and the Government's, because you could actually do a good job comparing the two if you really wanted to. But "Mr. Conservative" doesn't want to. The real problem with that info-chart is "Credit Card Debt". Because it reinforces the false idea pushed by Conservatives that the US debt is a consumptive debt, when it's really an investment. Right now, my debt situation is much like MisterFusion's. My wife and I have some Credit Card debt, about $8-9k, but it's a relatively small part of our overall debt which includes: $75k in student loans for the both of us, $15k in car loans, and $156k in mortgage. I make pretty good money, but this all still ends up being roughly 4x our annual income. It's a pretty normal situation to be in; but if we had $250k in credit card debt, we'd be hosed. And if the US was having to pay 15-30% on its debts, it would be hosed too. But it's not, not only is the interest low, the things it's spent on are, mostly, investments that will provide greater income in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 03:58
|
|