|
Wolf Blitzer is a loving awesome name, though. Wolf. Blitzer! Edit: this page just got Wolf Blitzered!
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
aWho What Now posted:Wolf Blitzer is a loving awesome name, though. nd yet the man himself well "man"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
just to clarify thats not an attack on its masculinity i don't think wolf blitzer is a human being
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wolf Blitzer is a loving awesome name, though. Sounds like the cover name for a German Assassin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
xwing posted:
AGAIN, try not going to college. See how it works out for you. If you don't go to college odds are that you're going to be earning so little that the government will decide you don't owe jack and give you your money back. Wait, that's it! xwing, you hate taxes and think college isn't necessary right? No one's making you go after all! Just apply for a new job without your degree or any of the jobs you got with your degree on your resume, and you won't even owe any taxes! You'll still get to partake of all the benefits of a state without funding it much at all! WE MUST TELL THE PEOPLE
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:AGAIN, try not going to college. See how it works out for you. It's too late, he has debts he must responsibly pay, unlike his debt to the society that allows him to have a functional community that he refuses to pay into. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wolf Blitzer is a loving awesome name, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Lifehack: No one is making you buy food or shelter, just go without! Lots of people go weeks, even months without both and I gotta say their savings are pretty incredible without that unnecessary expense weighing them down. Now, I personally would never dream about myself or anyone I care about going without food or shelter, but that's my personal choice. It's not a big deal to go without these things though, why millions of Americans get by just fine without them every year! Remember folks, it's not coercion so long as no one is literally threatening you with violence. We're all rational people making informed choices, and your actions and their outcomes are your responsibility and no one else. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Grognan posted:What about abortion is morally corrupt? I'm interested in your stance on this one. Eh, as much as I am pro-choice, abortion isn't really a cut and dry issue. A human life, or at least the potential for a human life, is being destroyed. I find it hard to fault someone who has an issue with ending a human life, or at least the potential of a human life. That being said, people who are anti-abortion and also who are against sex education and helping poor families/single parents to raise children are assholes. If you're anti-abortion, you either need to support policies that reduce unwanted pregnancies or policies that help to support the children that your stance brings about. Preferably both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Eh, as much as I am pro-choice, abortion isn't really a cut and dry issue. A human life, or at least the potential for a human life, is being destroyed. I find it hard to fault someone who has an issue with ending a human life, or at least the potential of a human life. Finding a consistent stance on that is like finding hen's teeth. In my experience. most people that tend to hold those views also condemn the mother for the lack of "personal responsibility" which comes right back to all people as rational actors. I know it's what I did as a shithead youth. "Don't want abortions? Don't have sex, that simple"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
The bonus with people who are pro-choice is that they are generally pro safe sex and sex Ed, and which means they actually support measures which will help limit abortions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Eh, is that really all that interesting an avenue to pursue? So long as he's against criminalizing abortion that's really all that matters, and he has much worse positions to criticize. Such as the demonstrated fact that he has no idea about the knock-on effects of economics, specifically as it pertains to the minimum wage and the exploitation of labour that inevitably happens when the capitalist and bourgeois class have the whip-hand. I shall illustrate it thus, for xwing's benefit: Say that I run a company of some sort. Exactly what company isn't all that important, but I employ 100 people at a salary that averages out to  an hour. Since I'm a nice guy, Saturdays and Sundays are off, and it's a standard nine to five job, or 48 hours per worker, per week. So, my labour costs in this instance is 100 workes times an hour times 48 hours, or 48000 a week. Even assuming four weeks vacation per worker, that still leaves a yearly payroll of 2.304.000 bucks in salary alone. That's quite a bit of money in the course of a year, and I'm not happy about it, but I still make money. Still, let's say I want to cut labour costs to get that money down some. Happily, this is one of those places that has no minimum wage, and we've just had a lot of people move into the area, some of whom are desperate enough to live out of a truck or a rundown flophouse. And they're willing to work for five bucks an hour! Bonanza! Assuming that I have to keep at least some of my actually experienced workers around ( let's say 25 % ), I can still make enormous savings. So I get right on that. I fire 75 people who were paid an hour, and hire 75 people who'll be willing to work for 5. 25 workers still works for an hour, so they will cost me 576.000 a year. My new workers are willing to work for 5 bucks an hour, so they will cost me 864.000 a year, so my new yearly salary outlay is... 1.440.000. Holy poo poo, I've just saved 864.000! That's gotta be loving great, right?! And for me? Yeah, it is! Except I've also just blown an 864.000 dollars a year hole in the local economy. The money I've just 'saved' my company in expenses ( by replacing workers earning 10 dollars an hour with workers earning 5 dollars an hour ), is money that would go into the economy of other businesses. In fact, it's even worse than that, because what I've also done is leave 75 people without work at all. That means there are now 75 people out there who may end up not being able to pay their mortgages, or who won't spend money at the local grocers, the local electronics store, the local hardware store, or at the local [whatever]. Meanwhile, my new workers are going to be living hand-to-mouth, or paycheck to paycheck, spending most if not all of their wages on food. But there's still going to be less money in circulation because I'm still paying out less in salaries than I used to. And finally, if the job-market is saturated, if there's high unemployment? Now the workers I just sacked face what I'm sure xwing will consider a 'choice' evenn if it's not really a choice at all; Either, they can come back and work for me at 5 bucks an hour... Or they can try to get another job somewhere else. Maybe a job that pays less than the one they had before I started 'cutting costs', but hey, it's still a wage, right? Of course, they're going to need a new place to stay, even if they do get a job, and they still have expenses... Maybe even kids. Maybe they can just... live out of the back of their truck? Or in a flophouse? And this is why a lack of a minimum wage ( or in the case of the US, an obviously insufficient minimum wage ) coupled with unrestricted immigration is a moronic idea. It's also just scratching the surface of the problem, but I figured I'd keep it simple and as easy to parse as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
But TLM3101, now that you're roughly $800k richer than you were before you hired those new employees, obviously your going to use that money to hire MORE employees, right? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:But TLM3101, now that you're roughly $800k richer than you were before you hired those new employees, obviously your going to use that money to hire MORE employees, right? Well see that means he can hire infinite servants in his house so all the people he fired he'll obviously just rehire to weed his garden, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:But TLM3101, now that you're roughly $800k richer than you were before you hired those new employees, obviously your going to use that money to hire MORE employees, right? Maybe, if there's demand for it. And that's another part of the whole vicious downward spiral of this ( as I'm sure you know already ). By taking those 800k out of the local economy, I've depressed local demand as well. Which means there's less local demand for my goods and/or services, but also less demand of every other good or service. So, in the short term I've made a nice profit, but in the long term I've shot myself in the foot as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
xwing will hire those newly unemployed people at his new construction business for $5/hour which, combined with his property tax savings from abolishing public education for their children, will finally allow him to become the captain of industry that Big Government had always held him back from becoming, once he sells all those new homes he's building to ... uhm.... to uh um.. uh well hey TLM you have an extra $800,000/yr in savings mind buying a few homes to help out my business?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
I'm not really interested in retreading the same old minimum wage arguments but with a new opponent, let's first address the logical inconsistency of claiming to support the existence of public education while also saying that no one should be forced to pay taxes to support them
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Also that education is a beneficial public good, but people should pay for it themselves if they want it...combined with a plan to depress everyone's wages by importing foreign labor and abolishing wage floors and worker protections. At least jrod pretends that libertarianism will make everyone richer so paying for all formerly government-provided services will be no problem. On the other hand at least xwing is honest about the plan to drive the working class below the poverty line and then tell them their kids' tuition is their responsibility. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Hey if the free market decides you should be dirty, illiterate, and poor then drat it you should be dirty, illiterate, and poor and loving enjoy it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm still waiting on xwing's grand disaster recovery plan, considering the multiple states who are all about being Tax Free and Free Market and loathe the Federal Government always go running right to FEMA as soon as a disaster strikes and beg for Federal Disaster Relief. Oh, the free market provided all right. The Red Cross' response to Hurricane Sandy posted:The Red Cross national headquarters in Washington "diverted assets for public relations purposes." A former Red Cross official managing the Sandy effort says 40 percent of available trucks were assigned to serve as backdrops for news conferences. Specifically, the free market provided dodgy public relations. It's like my business professor said: marketing really is the most important thing in any business! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Maybe, if there's demand for it. De...mand? Wait, are you telling me that you and other job creators like yourself wouldn't just mindlessly hire people just because you happened to have some extra cash laying around? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:De...mand? Wait, are you telling me that you and other job creators like yourself wouldn't just mindlessly hire people just because you happened to have some extra cash laying around?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Haven't we just spent the last... "my entire lifetime," really, pretending that demand just kind of magically happens and all that matters is helping out suppliers? Supply side economics, if you will? Supply-side economics is about lowering prices via abundant supply. In theory, if you just increase incomes, and therefore demand, all that'll happen is inflation. Think of it this way: if, tomorrow, the government mailed checks covering the cost of childcare to every family that needed it, all that would happen is the cost of childcare would explode, because there'd still be an undersupply of childcare providers. Even if this'd only last a couple years as supply rises to meet new demand, this is still a Very Bad Thing because as far as right-wing economists are concerned, inflation is the Great Satan. Of course, the theory of supply-side economics slams into very real problems, like companies soaking up cost savings as profits, and the costs of regulation being so overblown that reducing them accomplishes very little beyond putting consumer's well-being at risk. The obvious solution is to pair increased demand with increased supply, by lowering costs while subsidizing demand. I'm sure there was a big push to do this with healthcare recently. What was it called again? The Affordable Care Somethingorother?  Huh. Funny how that worked out. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
The problem with supply-side economics is that it makes sense in theory but even the theory that was used to justify doing it wasn't used at all. What always gets trotted out is just straight up trickle-down economics. The theory was that if you reduce the taxes on the wealthy and their businesses they'll invest that money in increasing supply which would then bring costs down. In practice they only ever pocketed the money because no new demand was being created. Then they used that money to buy politicians, banks, and favorable legislation to get bigger tax cuts and pry the gap between rich and poor ever wider. "Supply-side economics" would work if the government was actually paying companies to increase their supply but that only ever got done with corn, which happened before Reagan, and is part of why we have many of the food problems we do now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
xwing posted:I also don't have a problem with all taxes... but WTH with this dual narrative? Corporations abuse the system to their advantage getting taxes breaks and subsidizes... but I'm also supposed to happily pay taxes?!?! You're supposed to oppose what allows that abuse, rather than accepting it as an immutable fact, which is basically a double standard when you don't purport the same "it cannot be helped" view towards the presence of taxes in general. I'll get to the rest later, because these other guys are fast and I have a lot to read so I don't get all redundant Also, just a non sequitur thought I'd like to throw out there: Nobody notices when an up-to-code building doesn't collapse Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
One more, and then I'll get back to your original response to me.xwing posted:Please don't point to the weekly satire episode and claim relevance... We're comparing taxes, an institution that could provide access to public higher education, to bank loans, which presently fill the same role in our society. I took about 30k in loans, which was basically for living expenses, and since I'm so privileged my parents covered my tuition. I'm paying $500/month, which is half my rent, and have a 7 year plan after refinancing with SoFi which means I'll have my loans paid off by ~age 30. I don't even want to think about someone who had to foot the loans for their whole tuition. Let's compare In the bank scenario, I the student got my costs covered by a bank. How do I pay it back? Right out the gate, from the income at the start of my career, when I'm at my lowest income, paying the highest proportion while I'm supposed to be building my own financial security, and then putting nothing back into the system from then on. Meanwhile, businesses benefit from my and others' education, and their stock dividends benefit the investment banks that own them, so they get both privatized benefit (interest on debt) and socialized benefit (ultimate dividends from my productivity) from my decision to seek education. This is backwards to how a graceful and stable society/economy operates. A tragic misalignment. In the taxes scenario, I the student got my costs covered by Uncle Sam. How do I pay it back? In small proportion to my low income at the beginning of my career, followed by giving much more back as the benefits of my education fully mature in my career's income. Under Bernie Sanders' tax plan, it'd be about $200/month with my current income, and much more when my income is higher and e.g. $800/month is equally not-that-cumbersome to me. In the aggregate, this means that I comfortably cover the costs that people who were not able to benefit their income so readily from the education system, cannot. Meanwhile, I benefit from their education in ways that are not tied to their income, and businesses and their owners get aforementioned socialized benefit from my decision to seek education, and similarly pay a socialized cost through taxes. Very harmonious. We did the same thing with high school last century to keep up with demand for smarter workers, and around now, the digital-global age, is the time to step it up. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:
In the public sector we take silence to mean nothing is wrong and thus approval because the only time they bother to get involved in Local Government is when they perceive something to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
I mean if you wanna get technical, if you believe in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) like I do then taxes don't "pay" for anything, they're just a means of (a) removing money from the economy to limit inflation (b) ensuring the state's currency is the dominant currency in the economy. MMT's explanation of taxes is ironically very amenable to libertarians who view taxes as a purely destructive, rather than redistributive, force in the economy, and also it dovetails nicely with their ideas about "government monopolies". I say "ironically" because I've never actually seen a libertarian, or even conservative, proponent of Modern Monetary Theory, because it's conclusions scare the bejesus out of them. MMT's main point is that, because taxes are 100% about regulating the money supply and forcing everybody to use the state currency, the state can literally pay for whatever poo poo it wants by straight-up printing money. Inflation is the only practical limit to this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
xwing posted:The "system" doesn't determine your outcome. I'm okay with that being considered "weirdly individualistic". Your distance from the hoop doesn't "determine" your ability to score, got it. xwing posted:If it will satisfy the goons... I'd like to know why you feel this way as well. To me a pregnancy is a classic violation of the NAP. xwing posted:All it says in the video was "some people came after me"... but I gather he was 17 at the time. Rights of minors are abridged and he was already breaking laws by having a handgun and carrying it. I'm also guessing he's in a state that has a duty to retreat in addition to it's not a hard case to sell that a minor who's illegally carrying has intent to do harm, and thus get's a murder trial. This is kind of getting away though... and pretty much reinforces what I was getting at. He made a ton of choices that ended up getting him in jail. Choices that aren't forced on anyone by their circumstances. Um, the choice of whether to shoot someone who's coming after me doesn't really come up in my life, so I'd say it does arise from circumstances. How would you respond as a teenager when a strange man was in your house sexually assaulting your mother? Beating her? I think that's a choice you haven't had to make. How many times were you faced with the choice to join a gang? Is it the same choice when the cost-benefit analysis comes out wildly different? xwing posted:I certainly wouldn't discount that. Though I'm not sure availability is an issue... there's a minefield of life ahead of college. I'd think that not sitting in jail is a "carrot" in it's own right. I don't really see that there's a disconnect between looking for funding outside of the government and taxing to make higher education freely available a possibility. We could dangle the "carrot" of repatriating money by corporations to fund the idea. Jail is the stick. Have you never heard the carrot-stick metaphor used? Are you familiar with the recidivism rate of our prisons? And again I ask, have you considered the overall government outlays that would be saved by embracing the education-not-incarceration model? Or have you raised invisible objections to the basis for the model? xwing posted:I'm not saying by any means I have the answer. I'm going to protest though the default that it "needs" to be the government to make it happen. Hell maybe if we quit the war on drugs the prison situation will sort itself out. This statement displays a severe ignorance about the history of policing. If it's not drugs, it'll be something else that cops use to target dark-skinned people. xwing posted:I don't know how I feel on campaign finance reform as a whole. I am pretty disgusted with the bailouts and the whole situation that that formed from on many sides. I do feel that the massive growth of government has helped foster the ability to serve business over people and we shouldn't necessarily be asking if more regulation/laws is the solution to the issue. Let's take something concrete. Do you agree that political action committees should have a donation cap? Remember that these are tax-exempt organizations that get their tax-exempt status by claiming to be expressly for the purpose of taking political actions. The rest is covered elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
And just to illuminate any reader's perspective more, Ta-Nehisi Coates' story of the boy with small eyes has always stuck with me since reading Between the World and MeTa-Nehisi Coates posted:I remember being 11 years old, standing out in the parking lot in front of the 7-Eleven, watching a crew of older boys standing near the street. I stood there, marveling at the older boys’ beautiful sense of fashion. They all wore ski jackets, the kind that mothers put on layaway in September, then piled up overtime hours so as to have the thing wrapped and ready for Christmas. A light-skinned boy with a long head and small eyes was scowling at another boy, who was standing close to me. It was just before three in the afternoon. I was in sixth grade. School had just let out, and it was not yet the fighting weather of early spring. What was the exact problem here? Who could know? Read more here but I recommend the whole book Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Aside, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and civility in your responses and that's why I'm responding to them. I wouldn't honestly be posting in this thread otherwise. I was more hoping for a discussion of the current political landscape where in this election cycle the Libertarian Party will certainly have an impact, not the finer points of an ideology I'm not fully committed to or a scholar on by any means. Stinky_Pete posted:Also, just a non sequitur thought I'd like to throw out there: Nobody notices when an up-to-code building doesn't collapse I deal with codes and they are certainly a bane of my existence sometimes... I may be taking the metaphor too far, but codes are not immutable and change. Sometimes reformed or removed altogether. Our laws (and by extension taxes and other legislation) shouldn't be beyond reproach and examining to see if they've become outdated. Stinky_Pete posted:One more, and then I'll get back to your original response to me. I pay more than you... though I'm not required to do so on my loans. I do it because I will not extend the slavery of interest on my life. It represents a large portion of my expenses, and it does delay certain life events. I won't be a homeowner soon or make other extravagant expenditures. I made that choice though. So when you suggest further taxes I see that as putting a smaller yoke on everyone. I'll be honest I haven't paid attention to Bernie's tax plan at all... but what you're describing is an income based repayment plan which already exists under the federal student loan system. I'm currently under that and it's not entirely relevant, but I'm astounded by the sheer amount of college graduates that didn't consider their loan options and repayment conditions. I've had to lay down some hard news to about a dozen of my friends and acquaintances how much they are paying interest and that "forgiven" is not the forgiven they think it is (the interest will be capitalized and added to the remainder of principal and appear as taxable income). Question to you: Since what you described is essentially a graduated or income based payment plan as currently existing... would you be okay with the current system of Federal loans with interest rates subsidized or an extremely low rate? I ask because it wasn't even that long ago that this was the case. I believe during the first of the recent budget showdowns (democrat control, I believe which would have have ben early in Obama's 1st term) one of the things that drastically suffered was student loan interest. It went from 2.4% to 6.8%. Subsidized loans were also way harder (that was the last year I had received one). I wrote my senators and was got a nice form letter that amounted to "we don't care". This is nothing to say of why college costs have skyrocketed either.... causation is always a bitch to claim. It would be reasonable to say that working summers or during school is no longer a valid method of paying for school that doesn't push college into a decade long experience. Stinky_Pete posted:I'd like to know why you feel this way as well. To me a pregnancy is a classic violation of the NAP. If you want to see Libertarians get really cranky... bring up abortion. I agree with that on a personal level. I believe life starts at conception for many reasons. I believe it's entirely consistent with the NAP to therefore say abortion is murder and should be banned. Not everyone shares that view of when life starts so combined with the fierce individualism of Libertarians it gets heated. If you believe life starts at some other juncture no action on abortion is required. That's where the clash comes in and the action a pro-life Libertarian demands becomes intensely abhorrent to a pro-choice Libertarian. I will admit my personal feelings are heartbreaking that abortions occur, I know they won't stop because we make them illegal. Prohibition has never ever worked. Yes, I've stated I'm against funding Planned Parenthood and other third party entities on a purely fiscal basis, but if it were me sitting at a negotiation table over our national budget... I wouldn't fight that one at all. Also on another personal note, I strongly favor adoption and the "red tape" is just absurd. Every time really conservative people passive aggressively seek more abortion regulation I ask them if they will also as aggressively seek to deregulate adoption so maybe young women decide to carry to term for adoption. Stinky_Pete posted:Um, the choice of whether to shoot someone who's coming after me doesn't really come up in my life, so I'd say it does arise from circumstances. How would you respond as a teenager when a strange man was in your house sexually assaulting your mother? Beating her? I think that's a choice you haven't had to make. How many times were you faced with the choice to join a gang? Circumstances can deal you a rotten hand... I'm not sure what to say if you don't accept that I believe there was the option of not shooting someone. Stinky_Pete posted:Jail is the stick. Have you never heard the carrot-stick metaphor used? Are you familiar with the recidivism rate of our prisons? And again I ask, have you considered the overall government outlays that would be saved by embracing the education-not-incarceration model? Or have you raised invisible objections to the basis for the model? Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes? I do believe as I said there's a minefield before college. I just believe that there may be more savings possible by a more pointed method than "free college" for all as a carrot-stick method. For example, have you noticed how few grade school teachers are male, and minority males even more? Granted a case can be made that this is a bit of a chicken-egg scenario, but add what I laid out above with easy loan terms and seeing real role models as teachers that that would make a huge difference if implemented on a wide scale without incurring a larger debt to everyone? Role model programs on small scales have been amazing, let's foster that with scholarships for male teachers (especially minority males) and paying grade school teachers well. Stinky_Pete posted:This statement displays a severe ignorance about the history of policing. If it's not drugs, it'll be something else that cops use to target dark-skinned people. I'm well aware of it. If we reform sentencing, other laws that disproportionately affect minorities, and the other means we've been discussing (the education discussion)... that eventually that prejudice wouldn't have a basis for existing? Or do you not believe that there will ever be a basis for a systemic mistreatment based on race to die away? Stinky_Pete posted:Let's take something concrete. Do you agree that political action committees should have a donation cap? Remember that these are tax-exempt organizations that get their tax-exempt status by claiming to be expressly for the purpose of taking political actions. If we're going to continually creep down the path of ever growing regulation via bureaucracy and government involvement... sure, PAC's should be capped. That's not a very Libertarian stance though. I'd prefer that politicians don't have the power to legislate issues that can be bought so easily... that's probably not remotely possible so an answer is far more complicated. I will say the idea of you telling me not to spend my money however I please is repugnant, no matter how rich I may be. If I had millions I'd create a "gently caress Michael Bloomberg PAC" where the logo is a big gulp... just because. Sometimes complete state financing of elections comes up in this. How will we negate traditional media focus? I think we'd be remiss to not note that both Trump and Hillary have had ridiculous free coverage from the media that does have an incalculable impact on our elections. How different would elections be if we didn't have polling up in our faces everyday? How would we stop the free coverage and manipulation without treading down really scary 1st amendment issues? Take away PACs and I'm sure the buying of media in an already biased atmosphere will only get worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
hi jim long time listener first time caller i just had a question for xwing, uh, what's it like to be mentally retarded? i'll take my answer off the air, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
xwing if planned parenthood is defunded you're going to get more teen pregnancies and women seeking abortion, not less. This is because most of Planned Parenthood's work is in sex education and providing young people access to contraceptives (so that they'll become parents when they planned to, you see) So I really think you should reconsider your stance on them! I'm sorry you aren't getting what you came here for, but I gotta say I don't see the Libertarian party making much impact at all. They're simply irrelevant in most of the country. Though if I were to speculate, any scenario where they're actually getting enough votes to matter is most likely to result in them acting as a spoiler for the Republican party, resulting in more Democratic victories. This would be due to America being a first past the post system and the vast majority of self-identified Libertarians voting Republican when they don't vote third party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:hi jim long time listener first time caller i just had a question for xwing, uh, what's it like to be mentally retarded? i'll take my answer off the air, thanks! You really have nothing better to do than shitpost. paragon1 posted:xwing if planned parenthood is defunded you're going to get more teen pregnancies and women seeking abortion, not less. This is because most of Planned Parenthood's work is in sex education and providing young people access to contraceptives (so that they'll become parents when they planned to, you see) So I really think you should reconsider your stance on them! I'm sorry you aren't getting what you came here for, but I gotta say I don't see the Libertarian party making much impact at all. They're simply irrelevant in most of the country. That's why I said I wouldnt defund them? My stance is only one in principal and your reason is exactly why I'd never fight for it. I'd rather see like state run liquor stores a shop for rubbers on every corner run by the health department than Planned Parenthood. The Libertarian Party pulls from both sides pretty equally. They also today just polled Gary Johnson at 16% in Utah with "other" at an equally high percentage. I don't think irrelevance is going to happen... huge impact no, spoiler? Maybe. I really dislike first past the post. Has there ever been a thread on differing election protocols and quirks? Like Peru is wrapping (or has?) I found it fascinating the sheer volume of parties and their logos used for voting (to facilitate the illiterate or speakers of regional dialects).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Sounds like the cover name for a German Assassin. I was going to say it sounds like the name of the bad guy in a WW2 movie. Herr oberkommandant Wolfgang Blitzer, head of the Reichspropaganda department.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
The way I see abortion, xwing, and the choice I feel must ultimately be made is not whether abortion is murder or if the fetus is a human life. Suppose it is. Suppose life begins at conception. Does Right to Life trump Right to Bodily Autonomy? Because if you think it does, if you think that the baby has more of a right to live than the mother has a right to her body, then man oh man, that is a scary world you live in. If you believe that, then why isn't organ donation not only mandatory but compulsory? You have two good kidneys, I need one to live, why can't I just take it? Or your blood, or a bit of your liver? You'll pay your share of the medical bills, of course. Wouldn't want things to be unfair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
It's almost like the NAP is a stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
xwing posted:You really have nothing better to do than shitpost. It doesn't matter what anybody says, you're going to keep posting the same idiot rear end bullshit forever. Why should I waste my time breaking down the many ways in which you're an idiot baby trashman when I could just call you a moron as a blanket dismissal of all the things this thread has collectively spent multiple hundreds of pages on already? That's fuckin stupid, lemme tell you about time preference
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
xwing posted:I do believe as I said there's a minefield before college. I just believe that there may be more savings possible by a more pointed method than "free college" for all as a carrot-stick method. For example, have you noticed how few grade school teachers are male, and minority males even more? Granted a case can be made that this is a bit of a chicken-egg scenario, but add what I laid out above with easy loan terms and seeing real role models as teachers that that would make a huge difference if implemented on a wide scale without incurring a larger debt to everyone? Role model programs on small scales have been amazing, let's foster that with scholarships for male teachers (especially minority males) and paying grade school teachers well. Free college though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:If you believe that, then why isn't organ donation not only mandatory but compulsory? You have two good kidneys, I need one to live, why can't I just take it? Or your blood, or a bit of your liver? You'll pay your share of the medical bills, of course. Wouldn't want things to be unfair. The government doesn't own your body in death... or ever. If you believe in life at conception then it's two bodies and just because it's inside the womb doesn't change vs. after birth. OwlFancier posted:It's almost like the NAP is a stupid idea. I half agree. Austin Peterson straight up said he didn't believe in it which was a big deal and probably was a factor in him losing the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:30
|
|