New Campaign Slogan has ties to Socialism/Marxism

[pgg]

Dramatic slopes - check
Super narrow y-axis - check
Short x-axis - check

The only thing these graphs really convinces me of is that the maker wants to manipulate my opinion by withholding historic context. I don't feel any more informed about the issue than I was 3 minutes before seeing those graphs.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[countingdays]

Dramatic slopes - check
Super narrow y-axis - check
Short x-axis - check

The only thing these graphs really convinces me of is that the maker wants to manipulate my opinion by withholding historic context. I don't feel any more informed about the issue than I was 3 minutes before seeing those graphs.

Do you not believe that there is a strong correlation between generous hand out programs and unemployment by choice? Why would anyone work if your quality of life would be basically the same on the dole?

 

[deleted103644]

Do you not believe that there is a strong correlation between generous hand out programs and unemployment by choice? Why would anyone work if your quality of life would be basically the same on the dole?

You could also argue the opposite - people trying to get on disability due to a lack of employment opportunities.

Very few people would choose handouts over a decent job.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You could also argue the opposite - people trying to get on disability due to a lack of employment opportunities.

Very few people would choose handouts over a decent job.

People like handouts. People like jobs. They rarely care about the consequences the former has on the latter. Vive La France.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[vector2]

People like handouts. People like jobs. They rarely care about the consequences the former has on the latter. Vive La France.

30 years later people are still buying into the cadillac-driving welfare queen myth. You're delusional if you think there's anything but a small minority of unemployed people out there who would rather get temporary govt benefits as opposed to a real salary at a real job.

McDonalds hired 62,000 people after receiving over ONE MILLION applications


Austerity is currently being tried out in Europe and it is proving to be a spectacular failure. Romney will no doubt try to implement the same policies as Britain's conservative government and the net result will likely be the same as the double-dip recession they just entered. But of course Romney doesn't care since I'm sure the multimillionaires here and in Europe will be just fine.

 

[pgg]

Do you not believe that there is a strong correlation between generous hand out programs and unemployment by choice? Why would anyone work if your quality of life would be basically the same on the dole?

Sure.

I'm just saying it's a lousy graph, designed to manipulate and obscure data, rather than inform.

 

[pgg]

Austerity is currently being tried out in Europe and it is proving to be a spectacular failure.

Time will tell just how spectacular the failure will or won't be in Europe.

Europe is not the United States, for many reasons. One monumental difference is their near-total lack of individual geographic mobility within the EU - residents of Alabama can easily move to Florida to follow a job; there are other barriers preventing Italians from moving to Germany. Also, the PIIGS are much further along this debt spiral than we are.

You seem to believe that since the varied measures they've taken under the generic "austerity" label have not created a miraculous recovery in ~2 years, that the US version of "austerity" can't alter our own long-term economic course if implemented in some form now.

The trouble with Scotland Greece is that it's full of Scots Greeks!

We're not Greece. I like our austerity odds a wee bit better than those of the PIIGS.

 

[BLADEMDA]

30 years later people are still buying into the cadillac-driving welfare queen myth. You're delusional if you think there's anything but a small minority of unemployed people out there who would rather get temporary govt benefits as opposed to a real salary at a real job.

McDonalds hired 62,000 people after receiving over ONE MILLION applications


Austerity is currently being tried out in Europe and it is proving to be a spectacular failure. Romney will no doubt try to implement the same policies as Britain's conservative government and the net result will likely be the same as the double-dip recession they just entered. But of course Romney doesn't care since I'm sure the multimillionaires here and in Europe will be just fine.

Disagree completely. Fiscal responsibility with an overhaul of the tax code will lead to an economic boom.
Unemployment will fall, businesses will hire and GDP will soar. It is the American way.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

 

[doctor712]

I knew this thread wasn't really about Socialism or Marxism. It's about Taxism and how many dollars its OPism can keep in his Pocketism...

D712

 

[vector2]

Disagree completely. Fiscal responsibility with an overhaul of the tax code will lead to an economic boom.
Unemployment will fall, businesses will hire and GDP will soar. It is the American way.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

I looked up the 1920-21 depression when you posted it awhile back. A couple points about why it's not analogous: 1. There's confounding of the cause due to the drawdown from the war, we had 2 million people re-entering the workforce almost overnight and thus a gradual recovery would've certainly happened even without policy change. 2. Aggregate demand never decreased like it did during this recession thus voiding the need for the stimulus that's direly needed in such situations. 3. The top marginal rate at the time was 73%, it's 35% now, so Romney's tax code flattening is nothing but greed talking. 4. Harding's recovery didn't last long. An economic stall began again in 1923 while tax cuts were still underway followed by another in '27.

Let's take a look at spending in '23 and '27 and see if there's any clues to explain number 4...

You seem to believe that since the varied measures they've taken under the generic "austerity" label have not created a miraculous recovery in ~2 years, that the US version of "austerity" can't alter our own long-term economic course if implemented in some form now.

I've never said this. I'm all for fiscal responsibility and debt/deficit reduction (based on tax increases and spending cuts) when the economy is stronger (see: the Clinton years). Imposing such measures now is what I have a problem with since it's the surest way to worsen unemployment and throw us into a double-dip.

 

[countingdays]

Tax revenue increases are fine if they are from closing loopholes and decreasing deductions. The tax rates are not too low for any bracket, the problem is with deductions letting people with similar incomes pay dramatically different effective tax rates.

Of course it all comes back to the government being corrupt power brokers. They want to sell influence and loopholes, then get lucrative consultant jobs for themselves/friends/family or to use their power to create government programs to buy votes from free-loaders. The answer is a flat tax/fair tax and a small government. Power corrupts, there is no chance of us ever having a large but honest government, never gonna happen.

 

[pgg]

I've never said this. I'm all for fiscal responsibility and debt/deficit reduction (based on tax increases and spending cuts) when the economy is stronger (see: the Clinton years). Imposing such measures now is what I have a problem with since it's the surest way to worsen unemployment and throw us into a double-dip.

OK, sorry to mischaracterize what you advocate.

So - no spending cuts or tax increases now, because the economy isn't strong enough.

Suppose in 10 years the economy is doing better, but the debt is $25 trillion. Also suppose that in that time, interest rates have gradually increased (whether deliberately or less voluntarily doesn't matter) such that the average rate of our national debt is 3%. $750 billion per year in interest costs. How are we better off then?

You don't seem to have any sense of urgency. I don't get that.

If the debt doesn't at a minimum stop growing in the next few years, there will come a day within a couple decades when the annual interest costs on the national debt cross a $trillion per year. This isn't conjecture or theory, it's simple math based on a single self evident assumption: interest rates can't stay near 0% forever.

How is paying $1 trillion / year in interest payments in 2020 (with no end in sight) preferable to enduring $1 trillion in spending cuts and tax increases now (with an end in sight)?



Also - you seem to take it as a matter of faith that if tax increases are delayed and stimulus spending continues, that the economy will make a meaningful and sustained recovery. What if it doesn't? You're banking a lot on the assumption that a return to 3%+ annual growth is going to happen.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Why Socialism and Wealth Redistribution Don't Work and Cause MORE Poverty, Inequality, and Injustice

By Capitalist in Chief

The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions.
Yes, socialism exacerbates the very problems it claims to solve.



http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/

 

[vector2]

OK, sorry to mischaracterize what you advocate.

So - no spending cuts or tax increases now, because the economy isn't strong enough.

Suppose in 10 years the economy is doing better, but the debt is $25 trillion. Also suppose that in that time, interest rates have gradually increased (whether deliberately or less voluntarily doesn't matter) such that the average rate of our national debt is 3%. $750 billion per year in interest costs. How are we better off then?

I should've clarified because I didn't mean to imply that there is literally zero room right now for tax increases or spending cuts. Make no mistake, there's a lot of fat to be trimmed from the budget, but we don't need to be cutting things which will help the economy now and 25 years from now.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2012USrn_13rs1n

The question is what do you want the priorities to be. That site has some very interesting breakdowns for each category, especially discretionary spending in Other. Without a doubt there has to be some cuts in medicare, but I'm 100% opposed to things like means testing or shifting people to the more expensive private sector (a. how are they going to be insured? b. how do you think it affects businesses when they have to pay more for health care?), especially when 40-50% of the spending is going to a much smaller percentage of recipients who are the sickest and getting unneeded tests/interventions with no real benefit.

We're spending 0.90 trillion on defense, and everyone's heard the statistics that that's more than the next 16-17 countries combined. Do we need to be spending so much in an age where we're only superpower, and the primary warfare we engage in is targeted and asymmetric? Granted, this is still a contentious point because it's silly to say that Keynesian economics is somehow limited to welfare spending. The 1990-91 recession was characterized by significant job losses in defense contracting, so we've gotta know how bad the damage would be with severe cuts.

The point is, I refuse to believe that a 1.33 trillion dollar deficit needs to be put solely on the backs of poors and olds as Blade would advocate when we have travesties like FICA being capped at 106k. I also think cutting discretionary spending like transportation, infrastructure, research and development, education is ultimately the most shortsighted thing we could do, and I'd be surprised if you disagree with this since we both believe that infinite GDP growth is impossible and that technology/innovation will be responsible for maintaining a steady state economy sometime down the road when we all have jetpacks etc.

You don't seem to have any sense of urgency. I don't get that.

This is a funny thing to say considering you're voting for the guy whose tax plan has been projected to add $2.6 trillion to debt without the requisite offsetting spending cuts....cuts which he doesn't have the courage to elucidate.

IIRC, didn't you also say (or imply) that you care more about the gun issue than the debt?

If the debt doesn't at a minimum stop growing in the next few years, there will come a day within a couple decades when the annual interest costs on the national debt cross a $trillion per year. This isn't conjecture or theory, it's simple math based on a single self evident assumption: interest rates can't stay near 0% forever.

How is paying $1 trillion / year in interest payments in 2020 (with no end in sight) preferable to enduring $1 trillion in spending cuts and tax increases now (with an end in sight)?

Also - you seem to take it as a matter of faith that if tax increases are delayed and stimulus spending continues, that the economy will make a meaningful and sustained recovery. What if it doesn't? You're banking a lot on the assumption that a return to 3%+ annual growth is going to happen.

All the evidence points to the notion that the recovery is in a very, very fragile state right now. Short of 1920-21 (which as I pointed out earlier is quite contentious), there is no weak aggregate demand recession that has ever ended by imposing austerity instead of stimulus. The economy is driven by businesses hiring/producing and that is driven by consumption. There is obviously no 100% guarantee that the economy is going to quickly make a meaningful and sustained recovery (there are just too many factors that go into that blackbox to make an accurate prediction), but it's a plain and obvious fact that if private sector demand is weak and you cripple public sector spending, the entire economy is going to **** itself now. Not tomorrow, not next week, and not 10 years from now.

 

[pgg]

IIRC, didn't you also say (or imply) that you care more about the gun issue than the debt?

I might vote on the debt issue alone if I thought there was a substantial difference between the candidates.

I put the gun issue on equal footing with gay marriage, both are basic civil rights. Which is a conundrum, because Obama can't be trusted not to go after more gun regulation "under the radar" when his last election is behind him, and maybe Romney can't be trusted to do the right thing for gay people.

The core of America is individual liberty and property rights. Everything else follows from that.

All the evidence points to the notion that the recovery is in a very, very fragile state right now. Short of 1920-21 (which as I pointed out earlier is quite contentious), there is no weak aggregate demand recession that has ever ended by imposing austerity instead of stimulus. The economy is driven by businesses hiring/producing and that is driven by consumption. There is obviously no 100% guarantee that the economy is going to quickly make a meaningful and sustained recovery (there are just too many factors that go into that blackbox to make an accurate prediction), but it's a plain and obvious fact that if private sector demand is weak and you cripple public sector spending, the entire economy is going to **** itself now. Not tomorrow, not next week, and not 10 years from now.

You may be right, which is a disturbing line of thought, because it suggests that we're screwed either way.

 

[yappy]

Gun rights = gay marriage? lol. Laughable. Stop drinking the cool aid pgg - catching up on your Ellen and Glee episodes?

 

[GoodmanBrown]

(Large graph)

© 2000-2012 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved. Investor's Business Daily, IBD, CAN SLIM and

I've heard of this as well. The interesting question for me is whether the disability roles will fall once we have more jobs available. When there are plentiful jobs, many people are willing to work to earn the premium above what disability pays.

 

[vector2]

I put the gun issue on equal footing with gay marriage, both are basic civil rights. Which is a conundrum, because Obama can't be trusted not to go after more gun regulation "under the radar" when his last election is behind him, and maybe Romney can't be trusted to do the right thing for gay people.

Dude, cmon...gun control with any significant teeth is dead in America, and this is reflected by the fact that public support for gun control is at its lowest level in the last 50 years. If the lack of legislation after a congresswoman is shot in the face doesn't convince you of this, you've been drinking too much of the LaPierre "the fact that Obama hasn't said or done anything about gun control is counterfactual proof of a lameduck conspiracy" koolaid.

 

[doctor712]

Gun rights = gay marriage? lol. Laughable. Stop drinking the cool aid pgg - catching up on your Ellen and Glee episodes?

So, wait, only gay people watch Glee and Ellen? They don't catch up on Breaking Bad or Sopranos? What sort of thing are you saying here Yappy?

Pgg was stating where he placed gun rights and gay rights on his importance-during-an-election scale. Both are important to him. He's not saying there's an amendment, yet, to the Constitution like the 2nd amendment, that covers gay rights. I mean, why should there be, after all, are homosexuals not people? Do they not have the inalienable rights to be happy, pursue happiness, and have all the protections anyone else has?

You realize the Dred Scot case, regarding black voting rights and slavery etc, it was a low moment in SCOTUS' history. Essentially stating that blacks could not vote because they were slaves, and not people who didn't have rights afforded to white people. I mean, what they were saying is that clearly the founders were offering rights to people, not slaves. Your view of homosexuals and their rights, will one day go the way of Dred Scot. States are getting their ducks in order and making the changes already.

D712

 

[pgg]

Gun rights = gay marriage?

Since only one of them occupies a spot in the Bill of Rights, are you suggesting that gay rights aren't important? I would have expected a more enlightened viewpoint from you.

Dude, cmon...gun control with any significant teeth is dead in America,

Armed self defense is the most fundamental of all human rights. The United States has the 2nd Amendment, which is thankfully far better protection than most other countries, yet it was just a couple years ago that the Supreme Court ruled (by the narrowest 5-4 margin) that Americans have the right to own and possess a handgun in their own home.

Your notion that gun control has been dead for the last 50 years is laughably absurd. For chrissake the federal AWB was in effect from 1994 to 2004! To say nothing of what's happened to gun control in California in the last 30 years; it's been a disaster of regulation after ban until just the last few years. And this place is still screwed up - even today, the state bans certain guns based on criteria no deeper than whether their finish is blued or stainless! It's arbitrary, capricious, and absurd.

California, Illinois, DC, New York, etc are continuing to fight desperate tooth-&-nail legislative and legal fights to prohibit and restrict gun ownership. They're losing, slowly, because of a slim 5-4 SC majority. If you think gun control couldn't or wouldn't expand in a hurry with a different court, you must not be paying attention ... or you don't care.

 

[deleted103644]

Let me pull a BLADE:

 

[pgg]

Let me pull a BLADE:

Are you suggesting that near zero interest rates are desirable, sustainable, both, neither?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Let me pull a BLADE:

Enjoy it while it lasts. It can't continue and will revert back to the norm or worse. Look at all those other bubbles in the past 13 years. Inflation is coming and another 4 years of Obama means it will be real ugly.

 

[deleted103644]

Are you suggesting that near zero interest rates are desirable, sustainable, both, neither?

Neither. The real interest rate is now negative.

"This is as clear a demonstration as you can ever expect to see that the models some allegedly authoritative figures use to analyze the economy are dead wrong; it's also an indication that obsessing over the deficit, and actually cutting back sharply on government investment, are crazy."

 

[scarshapedstar]

Yeah, yeah, inflation is coming, heralded by the bond vigilantes, and then the confidence fairy will die. Also, China.

Hey, that would make a pretty good WSJ op-ed.

 

[pgg]

Neither. The real interest rate is now negative.

Now worries me less than 10 years from now.

What do you think the real interest rate will be in 2020 or 2025?

"This is as clear a demonstration as you can ever expect to see that the models some allegedly authoritative figures use to analyze the economy are dead wrong; it's also an indication that obsessing over the deficit, and actually cutting back sharply on government investment, are crazy."

What's the end point? At what point will the economy be deemed sufficiently recovered that the deficit matter "enough" to do something about it?

Seems more likely that no matter what happens, whether no recovery, a weak recovery, or a vigorous recovery - the argument will be made that whatever recovery we get is too fragile to cut government spending.

Do you think $750 billion+ interest payments on the national debt aren't coming, or do you think it will come but doesn't matter?

 

[doctor712]

Since only one of them occupies a spot in the Bill of Rights, are you suggesting that gay rights aren't important? I would have expected a more enlightened viewpoint from you.

Please note PGG, (sounds like we're on same side for once) that since Bowers v Hardwick was overturned in 2003, SCOTUS has recognized Gay Rights using the 14th amendment (sorry not as fancy as first 10) and equal protection clause. The Texas case that overturned Bowers essentially legalized homosexual activities in the US in 2003. And SCOTUS used the US Constitution to do so.

Some facts,

The African Country of Chad legalized Same-Sex relations in 1967
The Western African Country of Mauritania punishes same-sex relations with Death.
Sierra Leon, Males= not ok. Females = females ok.
Mexico: legal since 1872.
Belize: Illegal, 10 year prison sentence.
Panama: legal since 2008.
Haiti: Legal since 1986.
Brazil: legal since 1830.
Venezuela: legal.
Jordan: legal since 1951.
West Bank (Palestine) Legal since 1951.
Saudi Arabia: Death Penalty.
Iran: Death Penalty (but Ahmedinijad says there are no gays in Iran, so this shouldn't be an issue)
China: Legal since 1997
Cambodia: Legal
Central Europe: EVERY COUNTRY LEGAL
Eastern Europe: EVERY COUNTRY LEGAL
Northern Europe: EVERY COUNTRY LEGAL
Southern Europe: EVERY COUNTRY LEGAL
Western Europe (including Vatican) EVERY COUNTRY LEGAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

1986: ILLEGAL
2003: Legal.

Some oppressive countries listed there, oppressive laws. And not.

Time to get with the program everyone. I'd like to walk some homophobes around here down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood at 8pm on a Friday night.
See you turn white, with ignorance.

D712

 

[scarshapedstar]

Seems more likely that no matter what happens, whether no recovery, a weak recovery, or a vigorous recovery - the argument will be made that whatever recovery we get is too fragile to cut government spending.

How's that whole starvy-slashy thing working out for ya in Europe?

Lemme guess - more leeches to stop the bleeding...

 

[deleted103644]

Now worries me less than 10 years from now.

What do you think the real interest rate will be in 2020 or 2025?




What's the end point? At what point will the economy be deemed sufficiently recovered that the deficit matter "enough" to do something about it?

Seems more likely that no matter what happens, whether no recovery, a weak recovery, or a vigorous recovery - the argument will be made that whatever recovery we get is too fragile to cut government spending.

Do you think $750 billion+ interest payments on the national debt aren't coming, or do you think it will come but doesn't matter?

For that you need to look at unemployment, or more appropriately employment per working age population (the whole "seeking work" aspect of the official unemployment statistic makes it really arbitrary).

Unemployment and inflation are roughly inversely proportional (all else being equal), and I care more about unemployment right now as should you.

I also think the best way to shrink debt/GDP right now is to increase GDP, not decrease debt. Both are necessary, but give the economy a stent before lowering its cholesterol.

 

[pgg]

Please note PGG, (sounds like we're on same side for once)

By many conservatives' standards, I'm a raving hippie liberal.

I don't think it's possible to really be a libertarian without openly and fully supporting equal legal protection for gays.

that since Bowers v Hardwick was overturned in 2003, SCOTUS has recognized Gay Rights using the 14th amendment (sorry not as fancy as first 10) and equal protection clause. The Texas case that overturned Bowers essentially legalized homosexual activities in the US in 2003. And SCOTUS used the US Constitution to do so.

I'm embarassed to admit I wasn't familiar with Bowers v Hardwick or Lawrence v. Texas. (Except in the vaguest sense, that at some point in my lifetime sodomy laws had been struck down by the Court.)

But, given my very brief read on the 2003 case now, it still appears that while the decision decriminalized "doing gay stuff" it fell well short of granting 'equal protection' to the LGBT class. That's not the same thing as making it illegal for an employer to discriminate against gay people when hiring. Which is consistent with what I believe to be the case today - that sexual orientation is not a protected class the way race is. Unjust as it may be.

For the moment, being gay is like being ugly. Hooters doesn't have to hire you to serve drinks if they think being gay or ugly will scare the customers, because gayness or hideousness aren't protected classes.



Also, as an aside, I see that SCOTUS wimped out on the manner in which they invoked the 14th Amendment in Lawrence v. Texas - via its kludgy "due process" clause, rather than the "privileges or immunities" clause that would've lent more strength to a broader application of the decision. Same thing happened in McDonald - it appears that except for Clarence Thomas, the conservative majority didn't want to go the "privileges or immunities" route in part because doing so would possibly open the door to ... wait for it ... an obligation to support gay marriage.

150+ years since the Slaughter House cases, and that precedent is still screwing liberty at every turn.

 

[countingdays]

By many conservatives' standards, I'm a raving hippie liberal.

I don't think it's possible to really be a libertarian without openly and fully supporting equal legal protection for gays.




I'm embarassed to admit I wasn't familiar with Bowers v Hardwick or Lawrence v. Texas. (Except in the vaguest sense, that at some point in my lifetime sodomy laws had been struck down by the Court.)

But, given my very brief read on the 2003 case now, it still appears that while the decision decriminalized "doing gay stuff" it fell well short of granting 'equal protection' to the LGBT class. That's not the same thing as making it illegal for an employer to discriminate against gay people when hiring. Which is consistent with what I believe to be the case today - that sexual orientation is not a protected class the way race is. Unjust as it may be.

For the moment, being gay is like being ugly. Hooters doesn't have to hire you to serve drinks if they think being gay or ugly will scare the customers, because gayness or hideousness aren't protected classes.



Also, as an aside, I see that SCOTUS wimped out on the manner in which they invoked the 14th Amendment in Lawrence v. Texas - via its kludgy "due process" clause, rather than the "privileges or immunities" clause that would've lent more strength to a broader application of the decision. Same thing happened in McDonald - it appears that except for Clarence Thomas, the conservative majority didn't want to go the "privileges or immunities" route in part because doing so would possibly open the door to ... wait for it ... an obligation to support gay marriage.

150+ years since the Slaughter House cases, and that precedent is still screwing liberty at every turn.

Why are you talking so much about gays? The best thing for gay people is the best thing for everyone else too. Jobs, security, enjoying the fruits ( pun not intended) of your own labor, a sustainable naton for future generations, etc.

I'm all for gay benefits, marriage, whatever by the way. Having a bunch of a-holes recognize their lifestyle is inconsequential beside having our children work half the year to pay interest on the debts run up by selfish short sighted baby boomers.
And living in a country where too many people find it easier to vote democrat/handout than to work. What percentage of voters who pay little or no taxes does there have to be before a functioning democratic republic becomes imposible?

 

[pgg]

Why are you talking so much about gays?

Because civil rights are important.

 

[yappy]

Ellen and Glee are not only watched by gay people; however, they actively promote the gay agenda (hence my cool-aid comment).

To your Dred Scot case comment. I think in the future biology will exonerate my position. At best it's a choice and at worst a result of a gene that will eventually be gone due to decreased fitness OR according to my biochemistry professor who is conducting research in this area - a result of harmful products like BPA etc. on the human genome – a mutation that decreases fitness.

Any way you paint it it's not a rosy picture and it's not on the same level of racial identity and the American Civil Rights Movement. To suggest that is rather insulting.

So, wait, only gay people watch Glee and Ellen? They don't catch up on Breaking Bad or Sopranos? What sort of thing are you saying here Yappy?

....

You realize the Dred Scot case, regarding black voting rights and slavery etc, it was a low moment in SCOTUS' history. Essentially stating that blacks could not vote because they were slaves, and not people who didn't have rights afforded to white people. I mean, what they were saying is that clearly the founders were offering rights to people, not slaves. Your view of homosexuals and their rights, will one day go the way of Dred Scot. States are getting their ducks in order and making the changes already.

D712

 

[deleted103644]

Ellen and Glee are not only watched by gay people; however, they actively promote the gay agenda (hence my cool-aid comment).

To your Dred Scot case comment. I think in the future biology will exonerate my position. At best it's a choice and at worst a result of a gene that will eventually be gone due to decreased fitness OR according to my biochemistry professor who is conducting research in this area - a result of harmful products like BPA etc. on the human genome – a mutation that decreases fitness.

Any way you paint it it's not a rosy picture and it's not on the same level of racial identity and the American Civil Rights Movement. To suggest that is rather insulting.

Haha, I understand the religious argument, but yours is just silly.

Blaming homosexuality on BPA? That's a unique mix of liberal and conservative hogwash. You also clearly lack a serious understanding of genetics.

I agree that the comparisons to civil rights are a bit overblown, but you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[yappy]

Hmmm...

On my script:

300lv bio general genetics
400lv bio quantitive genetics
300lv bio microbiology (had large genetic component)
+
Work in lab researching novel cancer genes.

I dont think it's so silly and like I said there are several explanations. My prof is in the early stages of all this... relax man soon enough we'll have the answers

BPA has been thought to alter gene expression at an epigenetic level. There has been significant research done in the area of obesity using a mouse model and BPA as the experimental condition. Now my prof is looking into if there is a coorlation between BPA exposure (as well as others) and same sex preference.

Time will tell, my friend.

Haha, I understand the religious argument, but yours is just silly.

Blaming homosexuality on BPA? That's a unique mix of liberal and conservative hogwash. You also clearly lack a serious understanding of genetics.

I agree that the comparisons to civil rights are a bit overblown, but you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[deleted103644]

Hmmm...

On my script:

300lv bio general genetics
400lv bio quantitive genetics
300lv bio microbiology (had large genetic component)
+
Work in lab researching novel cancer genes.

I dont think it's so silly and like I said there are several explanations. My prof is in the early stages of all this... relax man soon enough we'll have the answers

BPA has been thought to alter gene expression at an epigenetic level. There has been significant research done in the area of obesity using a mouse model and BPA as the experimental condition. Now my prof is looking into if there is a coorlation between BPA exposure (as well as others) and same sex preference.

Time will tell, my friend.

I'd list my genetics resume too, but trying to maintain some semblance of anonymity on this forum.

Needless to say, more extensive than yours (in coursework, research and publications).

There is research that is worthwhile, and research that is silly, and this falls in the latter category. You openly admit he's fishing (testing multiple hypotheses at once hoping one works) and using variables with serious confounds (BPA exposure - how can you possibly get a reliable measure of this not subject to recall bias?).

Even if you find a correlation, it's worthless (although you might get a paper out of it).

If you do have a legitimate interest in genetics, get out of evolutionary psychology (interesting albeit mostly useless mental masturbation) and look into genomics, proteomics, and systems biology.

 

[countingdays]

Because civil rights are important.

Of course, but for the most part this hasn't been a civil rights thread. Democrats favor just enough gay rights to get most gay support without losing the black and redneck votes too much.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Because civil rights are important.

The Gay stuff is a red herring. I"m a CONSERVATIVE who thinks Gays deserve the same rights as every other American except MARRIAGE. Civil Unions I am on the fence about but Marriage is off the table.

I know plenty of Gay people and except for their sexual orientation they have the same issues as me: High taxes, worried about the economy and a bitchy significant other.

Seriously, Gay Rights and we are facing $20 trillion in debt? As long as these Gays support themselves most Conservatives don't give a rat's ass what they do in private.
As usual the left wants to use the issue of Gay Marriage to convice ALL Homosexuals the GOP hates them; it simply isn't true.

 

[doctor712]

If u have a thread about Marxism and socialism u have to be willing to address social Norms.

Reading the above, I really thank my lucky stars that this is an anonymous thread.
Because for all your clinical knowledge I would never hang and chill and
Get along with people that think this way- on a daily basis.

So, this begs the civil rights question: BLADE for "these gay people", why don't
U support marriage?

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

If u have a thread about Marxism and socialism u have to be willing to address social Norms.

Reading the above, I really thank my lucky stars that this is an anonymous thread.
Because for all your clinical knowledge I would never hang and chill and
Get along with people that think this way- on a daily basis.

So, this begs the civil rights question: BLADE for "these gay people", why don't
U support marriage?

D712

It is fine that we agree to disagree on many issues. In fact, Liberals and Conservatives naturally do disagree on these issues.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is that simple. The institution of marriage has been around long before the USA was even a concept. It has ancient, religious and biblical roots.

Christians/Jews/Muslisms believe a marriage is between a man and a woman; a Homosexual marriage is an afront to God and all that is Holy.

 

[pgg]

The Gay stuff is a red herring. I"m a CONSERVATIVE who thinks Gays deserve the same rights as every other American except MARRIAGE. Civil Unions I am on the fence about but Marriage is off the table.

I know plenty of Gay people and except for their sexual orientation they have the same issues as me: High taxes, worried about the economy and a bitchy significant other.

Seriously, Gay Rights and we are facing $20 trillion in debt? As long as these Gays support themselves most Conservatives don't give a rat's ass what they do in private.
As usual the left wants to use the issue of Gay Marriage to convice ALL Homosexuals the GOP hates them; it simply isn't true.

It's no more a red herring than abortion, public school $ vouchers for religious schools, or putting a picture of a triceratops-riding-Jesus in science books.

I might be convinced to go along with throwing the religious right a bone and calling gay marriages "civil unions" so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities - provided such civil unions were the legal equivalent to marriage in all respects. But not being gay, I don't really feel like it's my place to agree to that kind of compromise.

As far as government is concerned, all marriage should be a civil issue. If there's a church or church-like organization that wants to slap the "married" label on two people, that kind of religious phenomenon shouldn't be touched by the government.


So long as the GOP continues to pander to the religious right, you shouldn't be surprised that gay people act (and vote) like the GOP hates them. Talks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.

 

[deleted103644]

Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Civil unions for everybody (even more than two at a time, although may need some practical limitations), leave marriage to the religions/secular ceremonies. But for tax purposes, visitation rights, etc, everyone should be equal.

 

[pgg]

Civil unions for everybody (even more than two at a time, although may need some practical limitations)

There may be some genetic issues with polygamy and the increased #s of 1/2 siblings running around, over the course of a few generations, given a population that is not big enough to dilute the risk of inbreedin' ... Since the kind of communities that tend to live the polygamy way are usually isolated, small, and inbred to begin with, maybe there's a compelling government interest in reducing the number of not-quite-right kids they bring into the world.


Regardless, a limit of 2 people per government-recognized marriage or civil union is not discriminatory against people that want a recognized perpetual menage-a-trois, provided the government says NOBODY gets legal benefits for living with twice as much nagging.

 

[countingdays]

Gay marriage is fine by me. The religious right is a huge negative of the republican party. But it is still better for the country to be controlled by fiscal conservatives compromising with religious nuts than with socialists who will rob you blind to give money to the welfare base of their party and steal from future generations to avoid making tough decisions today.

 

[pgg]

Gay marriage is fine by me. The religious right is a huge negative of the republican party. But it is still better for the country to be controlled by fiscal conservatives compromising with religious nuts than with socialists who will rob you blind to give money to the welfare base of their party and steal from future generations to avoid making tough decisions today.

I'd agree with that. I wish the lesser of two evils here was more of a fiscal conservative, though.

Something about wishes and horses though.

 

[doctor712]

It is fine that we agree to disagree on many issues. In fact, Liberals and Conservatives naturally do disagree on these issues.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is that simple. The institution of marriage has been around long before the USA was even a concept. It has ancient, religious and biblical roots.

Christians/Jews/Muslisms believe a marriage is between a man and a woman;

a Homosexual marriage is an afront to God and all that is Holy.

People created the ritual of marriage. Therefore, people, not God, should be granted the rights therein. IMHO.

Christians, Jews, Muslim homosexuals believe a marriage is between man/man or woman/woman.

Your afront to God sentence is ridiculous. God isn't walking into my city hall to apply for the marriage permit. PEOPLE are. God didn't create the constitution, or amend it, PEOPLE did. God doesn't pay your G taxes, PEOPLE do. God isn't getting married, PEOPLE are. If your "God" is up there, he wants PEOPLE to be happy, not himself. So, let them have life, liberty and to pursue that happiness.

You standing in judgement OF SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT is awful. Just awful. I never understood that. Maybe because I was taught about homosexuality by my gay Aunt who was sent to a mental hospital in the 50s so they could electroshock the gay out of her. A better exercise might have been to electroshock the GAY out of all the Priests and Pastors who molest their school children
(I haven't heard news of rabbis, or I'd included them too) in that sacred house where no affronts to God should be happening, the Church.

Right Blade?

D712

 

[doctor712]

Gay marriage is fine by me. The religious right is a huge negative of the republican party.

Brilliantly spoken.

D712

 

[yappy]

Looks like this guy got all hyped up by the call-to-arms conclusion of the latest Glee episode.

To the bolded: There are exceptions to every group but gay marriage in not accepted by the majority or the doctrine of any of those faiths. Those faith tend to think that marriage is between a man and a woman. The fact that you didn't know that makes me assume you're misinformed or have had too much BPA exposure

People created the ritual of marriage. Therefore, people, not God, should be granted the rights therein. IMHO.

Christians, Jews, Muslim homosexuals believe a marriage is between man/man or woman/woman.

Your afront to God sentence is ridiculous. God isn't walking into my city hall to apply for the marriage permit. PEOPLE are. God didn't create the constitution, or amend it, PEOPLE did. God doesn't pay your G taxes, PEOPLE do. God isn't getting married, PEOPLE are. If your "God" is up there, he wants PEOPLE to be happy, not himself. So, let them have life, liberty and to pursue that happiness.

You standing in judgement OF SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT is awful. Just awful.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Looks like this guy got all hyped up by the call-to-arms conclusion of the latest Glee episode.

To the bolded: There are exceptions to every group but gay marriage in not accepted by the majority or the doctrine of any of those faiths. Those faith tend to think that marriage is between a man and a woman. The fact that you didn't know that makes me assume you're misinformed or have had too much BPA exposure

That's not my point. My point is that a faith is composed of PEOPLE. Many of which are homosexual. Regardless of their faith. Is that pointed enough for you to grasp?

And yeah, good luck with that BPA research.

D712