Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there a clause that states marriage has to include sex? Because I need to print that shit out and show it to my wife!

    As the answer is no, what is the problem with relatives marrying?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
      Which leads me to your next question, re: how we're born. I actually think the point that we're all born with polyamorous tendencies actually strengthens -not weakens- the case against polygamy being protected by the 14th Amendment. Marriage incentivizes people to go against their base instincts and bind themselves to one other. In return, they get to enjoy certain legal, economic, and social benefits. You can choose to get married or you can choose to turn down those benefits and pursue how many partners you want, but you can't do both. This applies to everybody. In contrast, until last week, gays were given a fundamentally different choice: in order to opt-in to marriage, they had to give up both their ability to pursue multiple partners (a choice we all have to make) AND their ability to be in a romantic relationship (a choice we don't all have to make).

      In other words, it's not impermissible for a law to ask people to make sacrifices or trade-offs. It is impermissible for a law to ask certain people to make sacrifices without a compelling state interest.
      What about bisexual people who want to marry both a man and a woman in accordance with their sexual orientation, just as straights and gays do?

      How does their marriage harm you?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NDgradstudent View Post
        What about bisexual people who want to marry both a man and a woman in accordance with their sexual orientation, just as straights and gays do?

        How does their marriage harm you?
        It doesn't harm me, but it harms the legitimate state interest of having marriage laws that make sense like any other polyamorous marriage. I want to marry lots of women (see, for example, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) but I can't. No different for bi.

        But maybe I'm wrong and you'll change my mind. If there's no legitimate state interest involved, than I would support polygamy. Like you point out, it doesn't bother me.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
          From what I remember from Human Ecology at ND, this isn't accepted fact.

          Some animals are naturally monogamous, others are not. Usually in nature it's very easy to determine which group a species falls into from simple observation. Humans are sort of strange in that there is a wide spectrum of behavior, but pair bonding is common among almost all humans.

          Pair bonding in humans (both sexual and social) goes back as far as recorded history. There is strong evidence that humans are not naturally polygamous... and there is strong evidence that, if reasonably empowered, humans are biologically wired to be with multiple partners (as you said, "polyamorous"). In general, primates are sort of all over the place... it varies species to species. But humans exhibit very different behavior than the primates that don't pair bond and aren't monogamous (e.g. gorillas). When you observe gorilla behavior where a dominant male gets multiple females and actually physically imposes his will on the other males to keep them all for himself... that is a polygamous animal. For a counter-example, chimps do not act this way. Nor do humans. In every society that has ever existed at any time in any part of the world, there is evidence of pair bonding among humans... whether it's African tribes, or Native Americans in the pre-Colombian era, or Victorian England, or...

          But what about polygamous societies? This is understandable, as humans can have multiple pair bonds. Second, it's important to differentiate between this kind of behavior (i.e. limited polygamy as the result of multiple pair bonds) and having hundreds of concubines (i.e. how men are biologically wired to want to "spread their seed" and move on regardless of any bonding).
          Gave you reps because this was actually really interesting. It doesn't change the basic argument though, which is that the institution of marriage (in a legal sense) was designed to get humans to stick with one pair bond.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
            Is there a clause that states marriage has to include sex? Because I need to print that shit out and show it to my wife!

            As the answer is no, what is the problem with relatives marrying?
            It legitimizes inbreeding which in humans has serious an documented genetic defects that accumulate and spread rather quickly.

            Comment


            • New Bubble Wrap is losing its pop - CNN.com


              Thanks Obama

              didn't know where to put this
              Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by connor_in View Post
                Continuing to play devil's advocate...why not divide by the number of members of the marriage? Why would that have any problems with legalities and rationality? By the way, in your example it would actually be 16.7% as 1 man + 5 wives = 6 members of the marriage. 100 divided by 6 = 16.7 (I know, I know, math are hard)
                False.

                Two of the wives are midgets and we all know they only count as half a person.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ndaccountant View Post
                  False.

                  Two of the wives are midgets and we all know they only count as half a person.
                  Gol' dang heightist SOB!
                  Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                    It doesn't harm me, but it harms the legitimate state interest of having marriage laws that make sense like any other polyamorous marriage. I want to marry lots of women (see, for example, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) but I can't. No different for bi.
                    Suddenly "having marriage laws that make sense" is a legitimate state interest that overrides the citizens' desires/need for love?

                    Prior to same-sex marriage being legalized, you could not marry a member of your sex, either. But surely you believe that this does not matter for you, as opposed to a gay person, for whom it matters a great deal more?

                    Most of the attempts to distinguish the cases in this thread seem to be rationalizations of the following:

                    Gay people are good, should get anything that they want
                    Poly people are bad, should not get anything that they want

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NDgradstudent View Post
                      Suddenly "having marriage laws that make sense" is a legitimate state interest that overrides the citizens' desires/need for love?

                      Prior to same-sex marriage being legalized, you could not marry a member of your sex, either. But surely you believe that this does not matter for you, as opposed to a gay person, for whom it matters a great deal more?

                      Most of the attempts to distinguish the cases in this thread seem to be rationalizations of the following:

                      Gay people are good, should get anything that they want
                      Poly people are bad, should not get anything that they want
                      Once again, I don't really care if polyamorous marriages are legalized. If you think this is some sort of trump card, you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that they are, in fact, fundamentally different things. Marriage's reason for existence as a legal (as distinct from social or religous) concept is to provide a set of default property and other rules for two people who decide to come together. Those roles are symmetrical: in the vast majority of modern jurisdictions, each married person has the same responsibilities, rights, and duties towards one partner as that partner has towards them. You don't need to use gendered terms to define those duties. If I gave you a hypo: (e.g. person A marries person B, B goes into debt and dies, what rights do B's creditors have over A's assets?) gender is irrelevant to the final answer. A could be a male or female, B could be a male or female and it doesn't matter even a little bit. It would matter hugely if a person C were to be involved, because the rule doesn't apply to that scenario. So even though you'd use the word "marriage" to describe a union between A, B, and C, it's a fundamentally different legal concept.

                      Now why is it not discriminatory to not allow for that A-B-C legal union? Because the rule applies with equal force to us all. I am genetically hardwired to want to marry multiple women. So are most men. But we can't. There's a clear social benefit to having people pair off and our rules have been built to encourage that behavior. There's no 14th Amendment problem.

                      There may be a case that there is actually a freedom of religion problem with the prohibition on polygamy. That's a different issue, and has nothing to do with Obergefell.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                        It doesn't harm me, but it harms the legitimate state interest of having marriage laws that make sense like any other polyamorous marriage. I want to marry lots of women (see, for example, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) but I can't. No different for bi.

                        But maybe I'm wrong and you'll change my mind. If there's no legitimate state interest involved, than I would support polygamy. Like you point out, it doesn't bother me.
                        There are four state interests that were used consistently by states to defend traditional marriage - procreation, child rearing, tradition and interstate uniformity.

                        If SSM can overcome these four interests, what stops polygamists?

                        The last three interests are a wash - both polygamists and same sex couples can raise children, neither of them meet the definition of traditional marriage, and interstate uniformity is largely irrelevant once SCOTUS swipes their pen.

                        Procreation, the most commonly used argument by the states, would seemingly be much easier for a polygamist to overcome as they can biologically reproduce.

                        Comment


                        • So while everyone wrings their hands regarding Isis here is what goes on right next door in Mexico. Reading this gave me the chills.

                          How Dogged L.A. DEA Agent Hector Berrellez Unraveled the CIA's Alleged Role in the Murder of Kiki Camarena | L.A. Weekly

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post
                            There are four state interests that were used consistently by states to defend traditional marriage - procreation, child rearing, tradition and interstate uniformity.

                            If SSM can overcome these four interests, what stops polygamists?

                            The last three interests are a wash - both polygamists and same sex couples can raise children, neither of them meet the definition of traditional marriage, and interstate uniformity is largely irrelevant once SCOTUS swipes their pen.

                            Procreation, the most commonly used argument by the states, would seemingly be much easier for a polygamist to overcome as they can biologically reproduce.
                            Interstate uniformity obviously cut in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell.

                            Child rearing- over 200,000 children are currently being raised by gay parents. How does a prohibition on gay marriage help them? Seems like it hurts, yes? So that cuts in favor of gay marriage.

                            Procreation- for this to make any sense, you'd have to assume that if gays can't get married they'll enter into procreative marriages. That's obviously nonsense in today's world.

                            Tradition- without any other interest, tradition can't stand alone. Slavery was a tradition at one point too.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                              Interstate uniformity obviously cut in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell.

                              Child rearing- over 200,000 children are currently being raised by gay parents. How does a prohibition on gay marriage help them? Seems like it hurts, yes? So that cuts in favor of gay marriage.

                              Procreation- for this to make any sense, you'd have to assume that if gays can't get married they'll enter into procreative marriages. That's obviously nonsense in today's world.

                              Tradition- without any other interest, tradition can't stand alone. Slavery was a tradition at one point too.
                              Agreed. The only thing I'd add is that polygamists have a stronger argument with respect to procreation. So what stops them from challenging the courts?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post
                                Agreed. The only thing I'd add is that polygamists have a stronger argument with respect to procreation. So what stops them from challenging the courts?
                                No they don't.

                                First, you have to assume procreation is a legitimate state interest. I'm not sure that's true. But if it is, then it's not clear to me why polygamous marriages serve that interest. Imagine a town of 5 straight men and 5 straight women. If one man gets married to two women, then you're only going to have 4 potential procreative marriages instead of 5. Will the threesome have enough children to cover the gap? Probably not, so it actually hurts the states "legitimate" interest in procreative relationships.

                                Conversely same town, but two of the dudes and two of the girls are gay, it doesn't reduce the number of potentially procreative relationships (3) if they can marry. They're not going to be making babies either way.
                                Last edited by IrishinSyria; 07-02-2015, 04:22 PM. Reason: Typos from phone!

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                  No they don't.

                                  First, you have to assume procreation is a legitimate state interest. im not sure that's true. But if it is, then it's not clear to me why polygamous marriages serve that interest. Imagine a town of 5 straight men and 5 straight women's. If one man gets married to two women, then you're only going to have 4 potential procreative marriages instead of four. Will the 3 some have enough children to cover the gap? Probably not, so it actually hurts the states "legitimate" interest in procreative relationships.

                                  Conversely same town, but two of the dudes and two of the girls are gay, it doesn't reduce the number of potentially procreative relationships (3) if they can marry. They're not going to be making babies either way.
                                  It's well accepted that the gov't or state has a legitimate interest to encourage reproduction - the human race must go on.

                                  One man marrying two women can produce just as many children, if not more, than two different men marrying those same two women. It's a flawed assumption that more marriages equals more children.

                                  A same sex couple relies on the willingness of a third party to reproduce. It simply cannot be done without their assistance (and quite a bit of money). Polygamists can reproduce without the assistance of anyone. It makes their argument stronger.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post
                                    It's well accepted that the gov't or state has a legitimate interest to encourage reproduction - the human race must go on.

                                    One man marrying two women can produce just as many children, if not more, than two different men marrying those same two women. It's a flawed assumption that more marriages equals more children.

                                    A same sex couple relies on the willingness of a third party to reproduce. It simply cannot be done without their assistance (and quite a bit of money). Polygamists can reproduce without the assistance of anyone. It makes their argument stronger.
                                    Right, but the government interest is in the total reproductive rate of society, not in any single couple reproducing. Whether gay couples get married or not has no theoretical impact on total reproduction. Polygamous relationships might have an impact, but the point of my example is it's far from clear that it's a net positive effect on society's rate. I think if you could control for things like cultural background, it would either be neutral or negative, but without empirical data, it's impossible to say for sure.

                                    Anyway, this isn't the point. The legitimate interests against polygamy are a: it hurts women, b: it hurts children, c: the prohibition against polygamy applies to and effects everyone with equal force and d: it would require a complete overhaul of our nation's laws because it is a completely different institution (as opposed to gay marriage, which simply involves neutralizing any remaining gendered language).

                                    If you could show convincing evidence that a and b weren't true, then you'd have the case for decriminalizing polygamy. If you can show that a, b, and c aren't true then you might have an argument that due process demands that we legalize polygamy. In fact, I would support any such effort. But I don't think that case exists.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by IrishinSyria View Post
                                      Right, but the government interest is in the total reproductive rate of society, not in any single couple reproducing. Whether gay couples get married or not has no theoretical impact on total reproduction. Polygamous relationships might have an impact, but the point of my example is it's far from clear that it's a net positive effect on society's rate. I think if you could control for things like cultural background, it would either be neutral or negative, but without empirical data, it's impossible to say for sure.

                                      Anyway, this isn't the point. The legitimate interests against polygamy are a: it hurts women, b: it hurts children, c: the prohibition against polygamy applies to and effects everyone with equal force and d: it would require a complete overhaul of our nation's laws because it is a completely different institution (as opposed to gay marriage, which simply involves neutralizing any remaining gendered language).

                                      If you could show convincing evidence that a and b weren't true, then you'd have the case for decriminalizing polygamy. If you can show that a, b, and c aren't true then you might have an argument that due process demands that we legalize polygamy. In fact, I would support any such effort. But I don't think that case exists.
                                      Protecting women by restricting their decision making? A woman, just like a man, should have free will to enter into relationships.

                                      This argument is no different than the argument same sex couples faced and it seems they have shown (and courts have accepted) that a child is not hurt by being raised in a loving SSM household. What makes polygamists different?

                                      I don't understand C.

                                      You're oversimplifying law changes as a result of the SCOTUS's decision. It's going to have a huge impact across the nation. Polygamy would do the same.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Wild Bill View Post
                                        Protecting women by restricting their decision making? A woman, just like a man, should have free will to enter into relationships.

                                        This argument is no different than the argument same sex couples faced and it seems they have shown (and courts have accepted) that a child is not hurt by being raised in a loving SSM household. What makes polygamists different?

                                        I don't understand C.

                                        You're oversimplifying law changes as a result of the SCOTUS's decision. It's going to have a huge impact across the nation. Polygamy would do the same.
                                        Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but not as much as people who are saying polygamy is analogous to gay marriage are oversimplifying things.

                                        As for c, read lax's post. Humans are naturally inclined to seek out multiple pairings. This is why porn sells- people are still attracted to other people after they're married. Marriage as an institution gives us certain legal benefits in return for us rejecting those urges. The requirement that you only be married to one person effects everyone with equal force, it doesn't actively harm people who were born with a certain sexual orientation.

                                        Anyway, this article addresses some of the problems with polygamy. Maybe he's wrong, in which case, like I said, I'm all on board lifting the prohibition against it. It's weird to me how hard conservatives in this thread (not saying you, I have no idea what your political leanings are) are trying to convince me that it's a good thing, presumably they don't actually want to see polygamy legalized.

                                        Comment


                                        • Greece and Puerto Rico Default, Inevitably | National Review Online

                                          I hope we all learn the lessons from Greece (and some US cities) and change course very soon.
                                          The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                          Comment


                                          • Liberals are now demanding that an Ohio judge be impeached for declining to marry a same-sex couple on religious grounds.

                                            Notice how black people's opinions only count when they agree with the consensus of white liberals. When they agree with conservatives, as on marriage in California in 2008, they are wicked- although, in the interest of keeping the coalition together, white liberals found a different scapegoat that time (Mormons).

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by NDgradstudent View Post
                                              Liberals are now demanding that an Ohio judge be impeached for declining to marry a same-sex couple on religious grounds.

                                              Notice how black people's opinions only count when they agree with the consensus of white liberals. When they agree with conservatives, as on marriage in California in 2008, they are wicked- although, in the interest of keeping the coalition together, white liberals found a different scapegoat that time (Mormons).
                                              You mean that one, single person that tweeted #impeach in the article? I didn't realize their tweet was representative of every liberals view of the issue. But please, continue portraying it as an entire segment of the population calling for it simply because you saw one random tweet.

                                              The second paragraph is just stupider than fuck, so I wont even bother with it.

                                              You are far and away the worst poster on this board.
                                              Originally posted by koonja
                                              I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                              Comment


                                              • Aren't liberals largely of the mind set that humans are overpopulating the earth? As such, anything undermining "procreation" is encouraged.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                                  Aren't liberals largely of the mind set that humans are overpopulating the earth? As such, anything undermining "procreation" is encouraged.
                                                  Wrong.
                                                  God, Country, Notre Dame

                                                  Comment


                                                  • The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
                                                    Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee

                                                    Comment


                                                    • This Is How Hillary Loses the Primary - The Daily Beast

                                                      Hillary offers Biden a golden opportunity - The Orange County Register

                                                      Brent Budowsky: A Bernie Sanders summer | TheHill
                                                      Last edited by connor_in; 07-09-2015, 11:24 AM.
                                                      Fan since Vagas Ferguson and Jerome Heavens!

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Originally posted by Ultimate Penn St. Hater View Post
                                                        Wrong.
                                                        Sorry to equate the Greenpeace environut fringe with all liberals but equating humans to locusts is kind of a thing in some circles.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                                          Aren't liberals largely of the mind set that humans are overpopulating the earth? As such, anything undermining "procreation" is encouraged.
                                                          Overpopulation with respect to being able to feed the population and having enough resources to sustain the population that is exponentially growing? Yes...that is a definite concern. Fresh water will be a commodity soon and won't be treated as a renewable resource in the near future unless low energy alternatives for desalination are invented. Most developed nations are at neutral population growth but are extremely resource intensive cultures. While the population growth may be neutral, resource use is inefficient and out of control. See California's requirements for groundwater use for its agricultural economy.

                                                          Do liberals encourage undermining procreation??? As a progressive I don't think I have ever encouraged someone to not procreate. LOL. But raising kids in a resource intensive culture that requires years of education is very expensive so its not unexpected to see that developed countries populations are neutral or shrinking as opposed to undeveloped/agrarian societies where lots of children are a benefit and don't require the expense we have here. I encourage my family to use as little resources as possible though its not that easy to do.

                                                          China, hardly liberal, has serious concerns with population and resource dynamics for its ever increasing 2 billion people. So I believe they have polices to curb their growth.
                                                          Last edited by Cackalacky; 07-09-2015, 11:48 AM.

                                                          Comment


                                                          • I just know a few fairly liberal couples that opt not to have kids largely because they see it as selfish to hog the worlds resources.

                                                            One could argue abortion undermines procreation, as does mainstreaming same sex lifestyles.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                                              I just know a few fairly liberal couples that opt not to have kids largely because they see it as selfish to hog the worlds resources.

                                                              One could argue abortion undermines procreation, as does mainstreaming same sex lifestyles.
                                                              One could argue that polluting the environment and being poor stewards of our only home's resources necessary for existence also undermines procreation.

                                                              Being cognizant of your resource usage is not bad, its actually fairly smart IMO. Also same sex couples can still be parents and have children/raise orphans if they choose, which is still in line with hetero couples. I would be willing to bet the percentage of parents in hetero couples are similar to those in same sex families with respect to their proportionality in the population.

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Surrogates and in vitro are more procreative than adopting. Adopting is more about increasing the lifetime propensity to consume through higher probability of financial success.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • The fact that Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, is gaining momentum in Iowa and NH is downright scary for the future of our country.
                                                                  The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                    The fact that Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, is gaining momentum in Iowa and NH is downright scary for the future of our country.
                                                                    #FeelTheBern

                                                                    ;)

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                      The fact that Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, is gaining momentum in Iowa and NH is downright scary for the future of our country.
                                                                      I think that you meant to say that the fact that Trump is trending up in polls is downright scary for the future of our country.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                        The fact that Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, is gaining momentum in Iowa and NH is downright scary for the future of our country.
                                                                        Not scary at all. In fact, quite refreshing that an independent (albeit running as a Democrat) can garner such support nationwide. Between him and Rand Paul, the political hacks in both the Democratic and Republican parties have to be wondering about the wisdom of selling their services to the highest bidder. We could use some independent thinking in the White House. I doubt either Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders can win their party's nomination, but a strong vote in their favor in the primaries may just send a message that the American public, both left and right, is fed up.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                          The fact that Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, is gaining momentum in Iowa and NH is downright scary for the future of our country.
                                                                          Our current President is a non-self-proclaimed socialist- at least they are getting more candid!

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Obama has been probably one of the more successful pro-corporatist presidents that we have ever had. He was branded a socialist communist pinko liberal commie before he even took office. What he might of been before is nothing like what he is now. He has probably been the best moderate republican president since Eisenhower.
                                                                            Last edited by Cackalacky; 07-09-2015, 09:52 PM.

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by woolybug25 View Post
                                                                              You mean that one, single person that tweeted #impeach in the article? I didn't realize their tweet was representative of every liberals view of the issue. But please, continue portraying it as an entire segment of the population calling for it simply because you saw one random tweet.

                                                                              The second paragraph is just stupider than fuck, so I wont even bother with it.

                                                                              You are far and away the worst poster on this board.
                                                                              I didn't say it represented every liberals' view on the issue, but it certainly represents the view of every liberal I have ever met (which is quite a few, as I deal with academics for a living).

                                                                              So on your view judges assigned to marriage duty can refuse to marry a same-sex couple, but wedding photographers have to take the photos? How does this work? Seeing as how a judge is a state employee, it would seem there is a stronger case for requiring a judge to facilitate the wedding than there is for a private business.

                                                                              It's the usual point-and-sputter ad hominem after that. I guess that I shouldn't expect much in the way of refutation when my remark is unassailable!

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • Originally posted by NDgradstudent View Post
                                                                                I didn't say it represented every liberals' view on the issue, but it certainly represents the view of every liberal I have ever met (which is quite a few, as I deal with academics for a living).
                                                                                Yeah, i'm sure groups of progressive people love to have the privilege of your company. I'm sure your personality is great at dinner parties. You're not fooling anybody on this.

                                                                                So on your view judges assigned to marriage duty can refuse to marry a same-sex couple, but wedding photographers have to take the photos? How does this work? Seeing as how a judge is a state employee, it would seem there is a stronger case for requiring a judge to facilitate the wedding than there is for a private business.
                                                                                I would be happy to discuss this topic with someone that brought it up in a legitimate manner with mutual respect and courtesy. I'll pass on having a friendly debate with our local blowhard who posts an article with a random tweet trying to use it as justification for painting a broad brush over an entire ideology and segment of people. The topic has been vetted quite extensively in another thread and i'm sure there is plenty of dialogue in there for you to felate over.

                                                                                It's the usual point-and-sputter ad hominem after that. I guess that I shouldn't expect much in the way of refutation when my remark is unassailable!
                                                                                I went that route because you are truly unbearable as a persona. It's certainly not my MO to point out specific posters I dislike because of their viewpoints. I'm not doing that to, in fact...

                                                                                Rather... I talk about your persona because it's truly deplorable. The way your mind works, the direction your thoughts take you and the manner in which you express them are all very telling of you character. I tell you that I dislike you not in efforts to troll you... I do it because I honestly think that you are a poor example of what this site provides us as readers. Which outside of you; is a group of intelligent, funny and courteous bunch of lads.
                                                                                Originally posted by koonja
                                                                                I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • Originally posted by RDU Irish View Post
                                                                                  Surrogates and in vitro are more procreative than adopting. Adopting is more about increasing the lifetime propensity to consume through higher probability of financial success.
                                                                                  Surrogacy and in vitro fertilization are "more procreative" than adoption only in a very superficial sense of the word. From a Christian perspective, the latter turns orphans into family members, while the former does the opposite. That's why the Roman Church opposes both practices.

                                                                                  Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                  The fact that Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, is gaining momentum in Iowa and NH is downright scary for the future of our country.
                                                                                  I'll take a sincere socialist* like Sanders over a corrupt mandarin like Hillary every day of the week.

                                                                                  *And to be honest, even though he self-identifies as one, Sanders views aren't very socialistic compared to his European counterparts.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • A candidate that tells the truth. What a novel idea.

                                                                                    #feeltheBern

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                      The fact that Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist, is gaining momentum in Iowa and NH is downright scary for the future of our country.
                                                                                      Q&A with Bernie Sanders: What he means by socialism | OnPolitics

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Of all the candidates that have opened their mouth this cycle he is the only one I have heard actually say that he wants to be the best president he can be for us.

                                                                                        I believed him.

                                                                                        I dont believe jackshit from any of the others.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • "But I think whatís happened in recent years is the Republicans have spent a lot of time trying to cut back on government services. Theyíre not operating as effectively as they should, and people get angry"

                                                                                          If I listen to what Bernie is saying...and don't apply any labels, or get outraged at "socialist", he is still full of shit. Is it safe to say his party could have chosen to "fix" government inefficiency regardless of Republican support? When they had the political power they did not have the will or capability to fix government inefficiency...but as always they had the "dream" to add to it. What republicans did or did not do is a Red Herring...they won't address government inefficiency because it is their biggest jobs program.

                                                                                          Real change that is meaningful comes in the form of someone willing to totally rethink "government" function. Could the Dems have moved toward doing some things...yes! As I've said before, a very easy fist step is to end baseline budgeting. We spend billions automating government with tax dollars, HOW can that not improve the bottom line ...ie the concept of ROI is never seen in the government budget. We never realize ROI by reducing actual costs. We can significantly reduce infrastructure costs by allowing more teleworking for positions which do not require direct customer interface. Why do we need to house as many people as we do within the IRS, DOEd, etc? Why do we still have a system that promotes people by time in grade vs. merit? Why can't we fire poor performers...I mean as it stands about the only thing that can get you fired as a government employee is child porn. It is time to totally change the culture inside the federal government with competent, empowered leadership...key being competent.
                                                                                          One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • Originally posted by GoldenDome View Post
                                                                                            A candidate that tells the truth. What a novel idea.

                                                                                            #feeltheBern
                                                                                            I never called him a liar. His ideas/ beliefs are scary.
                                                                                            The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by EddytoNow View Post
                                                                                              Not scary at all. In fact, quite refreshing that an independent (albeit running as a Democrat) can garner such support nationwide. Between him and Rand Paul, the political hacks in both the Democratic and Republican parties have to be wondering about the wisdom of selling their services to the highest bidder. We could use some independent thinking in the White House. I doubt either Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders can win their party's nomination, but a strong vote in their favor in the primaries may just send a message that the American public, both left and right, is fed up.
                                                                                              Independent my ass lol. He's a socialist running under the Democratic party. The fact that a socialist candidate can show up in a small city like Portland, Maine (as liberal as it is) and get 10,000 supporters there tells me the nanny state is on the rise.
                                                                                              The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
                                                                                                Surrogacy and in vitro fertilization are "more procreative" than adoption only in a very superficial sense of the word. From a Christian perspective, the latter turns orphans into family members, while the former does the opposite. That's why the Roman Church opposes both practices.



                                                                                                I'll take a sincere socialist* like Sanders over a corrupt mandarin like Hillary every day of the week.

                                                                                                *And to be honest, even though he self-identifies as one, Sanders views aren't very socialistic compared to his European counterparts.
                                                                                                That's not too encouraging. See: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc.
                                                                                                The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by Whiskeyjack View Post
                                                                                                  Surrogacy and in vitro fertilization are "more procreative" than adoption only in a very superficial sense of the word. From a Christian perspective, the latter turns orphans into family members, while the former does the opposite. That's why the Roman Church opposes both practices.
                                                                                                  So the Catholic church opposes in vitro and surrogacy? Can you expand on the reasoning behind that? Furthermore, what are their thoughts on in vitro where the egg and sperm of the actual parents are used? Which is a very common practice for couples struggling to conceive, but without any clear obstacle (low sperm count, bad egg development, etc).


                                                                                                  I'll take a sincere socialist* like Sanders over a corrupt mandarin like Hillary every day of the week.

                                                                                                  *And to be honest, even though he self-identifies as one, Sanders views aren't very socialistic compared to his European counterparts.
                                                                                                  Here Here.
                                                                                                  Originally posted by koonja
                                                                                                  I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Does Trump just say shit like this to get people riled up? It's terrifying that there are people that this crazy tv personality could run this country. The guy is a whacko.

                                                                                                    Donald Trump wants to "bomb the hell" out of Iraq's oil fields in order to strike at ISIS.

                                                                                                    "If I win, I would attack those oil sites that are controlled and owned -- they are controlled by ISIS," Trump said. "I wouldn't send many troops because you won't need 'em by the time I'm done."
                                                                                                    Military analysts fact check Donald Trump on bombing oil fields - CNNPolitics.com
                                                                                                    Originally posted by koonja
                                                                                                    I'm making peace with Woolly in 2017.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Nice interview from Democracy Now:

                                                                                                      AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Iím Amy Goodman. Last week, Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, drew the largest crowd of any presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, so far this election season, when he spoke to 10,000 people in Madison, Wisconsin.

                                                                                                      SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We can. We can provide healthcare to every man, woman and child as a right. We can make certain that every person in this country can get all of the education he or she needs, regardless of the income. We can create millions of decent-paying jobs. We can have the best child care system in the world. In the last 30 years, there has been a huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class and working families to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. Our job is to reverse that, redistribute wealth back into the hands of working families.

                                                                                                      AMY GOODMAN: In a statement released on Sunday, Senator Sanders praised the Greek referendum. He said, quote, "I applaud the people of Greece for saying 'no' to more austerity for the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly. In a world of massive wealth and income inequality, Europe must support Greeceís efforts to build an economy which creates more jobs and income, not more unemployment and suffering." Thatís Bernie Sandersí comment. Yesterday at Portland, Maine, he drew something like 9,000 people. The country hasnít seen this kind of crowds before. Front page of The New York Times today headlined "Sandersí Momentum in Iowa Leaves Clinton Camp on Edge." Talk about how Sanders fits into this bigger picture, Richard.

                                                                                                      RICHARD WOLFF: I think what Syriza shows in Greece is the potential of a mass popular resistance, not only to the austerity policies that came in after the crisis of 2008, but even to the very basic system of the countries of Europe that divide people into a tiny number of very wealthy and a mass of poor, that the system is producing outcomes that more and more people are hurt by, are critical of and want to change. But the conventional politics, the Republican and Democratic parties here and their equivalents all across Europe, donít see it, donít act on it, donít even speak about it. So it becomes a kind of a vacuum, where thereís no political expression of what a growing mass of people feel, both about austerity and about capitalism as a system. And so itís like a solution into which you drop that last little bit of hard material and everything crystallizes. Everybody is waiting for the new political voice to emerge that speaks to and represents what the traditional politics have failed to do.

                                                                                                      Bernie Sanders is doing that in this country, and heís doing it very well, exactly like Syriza surprised everybody. Indeed, in England, thereís a struggle going on right now inside the Labour Party, where a candidate like Bernie Sanders, named Corbyn, is surprising everybody by the support heís getting inside the struggle for who will be the new leader of the Labour Party. So you see everywhere the signs of an emerging left wing, not because of some political maneuver, but because of the enormous vacuum that a left leadership can take advantage of, given what has happened in the last eight years of this capitalist global system.

                                                                                                      AMY GOODMAN: How does Bernie Sanders compare to Hillary Clinton?

                                                                                                      RICHARD WOLFF: Well, sheís the old. She is the staid, do it by the books, the old rules, as Paul said so nicely. She is playing the game the way the game has been played now for decades. Bernie Sanders is saying the unthinkable, saying it out loud, saying it with passion, putting himself forward, even though the name "socialist," which was supposed to be a political death sentenceóas if it werenít there. And heís showing that for the mass of the American people, itís not the bad word it once was. Itís sort of a kind of position in which the conventional parties are so out of touch with how things have changed, that they make it easy for Mr. Sanders to have the kind of response heís getting. And my hatís off to him for doing it.

                                                                                                      AMY GOODMAN: Explain what socialism means.

                                                                                                      RICHARD WOLFF: Well, thatís a big one. Socialism has traditionally meant one thing, but itís changing, as well. Traditionally, it meant that instead of private ownership of means of production, of factories and land and offices, you socialize it. The government takes it over. And instead of having bargaining in the market, buying and selling goods to one another, we work from a governmental plan. So it gives the government an enormous power. But the idea was, if the government owns and operates the businesses, and if the government plans how we distribute goods and services, it will all be done more democratically, more egalitarian, etc., etc., than capitalism. That was always the idea.

                                                                                                      The problem was, socialists have to admit, that giving the government that much power raises a whole new set of problems, which the Soviet Union and China and so on illustrate. So the question is: Are there other ways of understanding socialism that gets us the benefits without the negatives? And I think the new direction is the whole focus at the enterprise level, of changing the way we organize enterprises, so they stop being top-down, hierarchical, board of directors makes all the decisions, and we move to this idea which is now catching on: cooperation, workers owning and operating collectively and democratically their economy and their enterprise.

                                                                                                      AMY GOODMAN: When Senator Sanders talks about it, he talks about the example of Scandinavia.

                                                                                                      RICHARD WOLFF: Scandinavia is one example. He also sometimes talks about co-ops. And I think thereís the hint of what he is hopefully going to say more about, that if we believe in democracy, as we claim to do, then we should have instituted democracy, from the beginning, in the workplace. Itís where, after all, most adults spend most of their lives, at work, five out of seven days, 9:00 to 5:00. If you believe in democracy, then why havenít we made our workplaces democratic, or cooperative, just another way of saying it? I think the new direction that socialism is taking, and that will make it extremely powerful, both in the United States and in Europe, is a system in which, yes, the government is given a whole set of roles, but the base that will control the government are workers who now own and operate enterprises, and therefore will have the power to constrain that government. Thatís a way of fixing and learning from socialismís history.

                                                                                                      AMY GOODMAN: Bernie Sanders is also talking about taxing the rich. Now, taxes in the U.S., the standard wisdom is you canít talk about it. But weíre seeing a level of wealth going from the bottom to the top like weíve never seen in history. Can you talk about what that would look like?

                                                                                                      RICHARD WOLFF: Yes. In one way, itís easy to talk about it, because itís going back to something we in America once had. I often have to explain to people, because of our strange way ofóI donít knowóamnesia about our economic history, what we once had. Iíll give you an example. At the end of World War II, for every dollar paid into the federal government by individuals in personal income tax, corporations paid $1.50. In other words, corporations as a whole paid 50 percent more than individuals as a whole. Today the relationship is, for every dollar that we as individuals pay, corporations pay 25 cents. In other words, thereís been a change in the taxes. Iíll give you another example. In the í50s and í60s, the richest people paid an income tax rate of 90 percent or above. Today they pay 39 percent, is the maximum.

                                                                                                      So, what weíve seenóand Bernie said it quite rightóis a massive change in the tax structure, benefiting the richest and putting the burden on the middle and the bottom. And all we are askingópeople like Bernie Sanders or, for that matter, meóis that we go back to what we had, especially when you remember that the '50s and í60s, when we taxed the rich, we had rates of economic growth much faster than we've had now that we donít tax them anymore. We have lower kinds of economic development, because we help the rich, which is bizarre, because the argument for helping the rich has always been thatís what you need to do to get economic growth, but the actual history of the United States is the reverse.

                                                                                                      AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Richard Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, visiting professor at New School University, has written a number of books. Among his latest is the book, Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X