Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,160
Nerding out here and this is completely irrelevant to this thread, but there's actually a lot of evidence that when societies started to shift to agrarian economies as opposed to hunter-gatherer ones, the people got smaller and died younger. Obviously, you can support much bigger populations with agriculture, and the shift to agriculture (along with the development of coercive religious and governmental institutions) allowed people at the center to accumulate more power, but for the average individual living as a hunter gatherer was, on average, a much better life style.

Some serious health problems sometimes ensued and lifespans shortened in many cases. The reasons are two-fold. First, although the new agrarian economies did provide a much larger and more dependable food source, the nutritional value or at least the nutritional balance took a hit. A steady diet of corn or wheat or rice meant few starved, but wasn't as nutritionally varied and complete as the hunter-gatherer's diet.

Second (and probably the biggest reason), was the increase in population density and the effect that had on the spread of diseases. With the agrarian revolution causing people to live in much larger communities than their hunter-gatherer ancestors, diseases and even high-mortality plagues became a MUCH bigger problem. Basically, the agrarian revolution meant more people could eat, but their nutrition was worse, they were exposed to a lot more diseases in their lifetime, and they were much more likely to be the victim of a deadly plague.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Because some parents are shitty and didn't sign their families up, because some states turned down expanding medicaid and probably because some people hate the idea of being forced to buy insurance and so didn't for their families.

Would the Conservatives out there be opposed to universal healthcare for minors. Parents would be free to buy supplemental insurance if they wanted.

And because some families are trying to get by on minimum wage jobs that don't leave any money for healthcare no matter what the cost. When your gross annual income is $10,000 to $20,000 per year, you are hardly in a position to pay out a few thousand per year for healthcare.

I like the idea of universal healthcare for children. However, that still leaves many of the primary wage earners without healthcare. What do the children do when their parents get sick and there is no money coming into the family?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
And because some families are trying to get by on minimum wage jobs that don't leave any money for healthcare no matter what the cost. When your gross annual income is $10,000 to $20,000 per year, you are hardly in a position to pay out a few thousand per year for healthcare.

I like the idea of universal healthcare for children. However, that still leaves many of the primary wage earners without healthcare. What do the children do when their parents get sick and there is no money coming into the family?

If my gross annual income were $10,000-20,000 per year, the last thing I would do is bring another child into my world. Hell, if my income were $35-40k I still wouldn't in today's environment.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
If my gross annual income were $10,000-20,000 per year, the last thing I would do is bring another child into my world. Hell, if my income were $35-40k I still wouldn't in today's environment.

The reality is the birth rate for lower income groups far exceeds that of higher income groups. If the lower class and lower-middle class birthrate drops where will our military personnel come from? Who will fill the menial jobs that pay so little?

Also, if people earning $35,000 to $40,000 per year did not have children, many people starting out in respectable occupations (teachers, nurses, etc.) would be childless. A large percentage of our population is trying to get by on less than $40,000 per year.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The reality is the birth rate for lower income groups far exceeds that of higher income groups. If the lower class and lower-middle class birthrate drops where will our military personnel come from? Who will fill the menial jobs that pay so little?

Also, if people earning $35,000 to $40,000 per year did not have children, many people starting out in respectable occupations (teachers, nurses, etc.) would be childless. A large percentage of our population is trying to get by on less than $40,000 per year.

My point is people should not have children they cannot afford, children who eventually become the responsibility of everyone else.

Where will military personnel come from? Are you serious? Same place they currently come from, even though our troop count is on the downslide because of new technology. The menial jobs? Teenagers and college kids should all be working, as can retired people in their 50s or 60s who still want to work.

I don't know what you're paying nurses and teachers in Michigan, but ours here in PA are getting paid better than that (I know nurses who started around $55k). Also, teachers all start in the $30k or $40k range but you and I both know they don't end there. Don't play dumb.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
It warms my heart to see liberals from both the right and the left coming together over eugenics. "If those f*cking poor people would just stop breeding, all our problems would be solved!"

On a related note, here's an article with select quotes from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:

Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.

On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.

Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.

1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”

“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

6) She was an advocate of a proposal called the “American Baby Code.”

“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.

According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.

She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B

8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.

“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she continued. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families

9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18: The Goal

10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”

“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3: The Materials of the New Race

11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.

“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.

Mothers, “at whatever cost, she must emerge from her ignorance and assume her responsibility.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 1: Woman’s Error and Her Debt

12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote.Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”

Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.

If this is an American hero, maybe the Nazis weren't such bad guys after all.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
It warms my heart to see liberals from both the right and the left coming together over eugenics. "If those f*cking poor people would just stop breeding, all our problems would be solved!"

On a related note, here's an article with select quotes from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:

If this is an American hero, maybe the Nazis weren't such bad guys after all.

What's semi-related and sort of funny is that socialist utopia of Sweden that is often held up by socialists in this country as a model actually has a documented history of eliminating "undesirable traits" from their population over the course of decades through forced sterilization of said "undesirables." Sooo... yeah.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
It warms my heart to see liberals from both the right and the left coming together over eugenics. "If those f*cking poor people would just stop breeding, all our problems would be solved!"

On a related note, here's an article with select quotes from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:



If this is an American hero, maybe the Nazis weren't such bad guys after all.

I never mentioned anything close to what you described. You can either choose to ignore the problem or take an opinion on the premise: that it seems we in America all have rights, but not all of us have responsibility. In this case we're talking about children. I was raised not to buy/ have anything I couldn't afford. Just my opinion.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I never mentioned anything close to what you described. You can either choose to ignore the problem or take an opinion on the premise: that it seems we in America all have rights, but not all of us have responsibility. In this case we're talking about children. I was raised not to buy/ have anything I couldn't afford. Just my opinion.

I've made my thoughts on the societal importance of marriage, particularly as it relates to child rearing, on this board quite clear. What's your brilliant policy proscription for reversing the destruction wrought by the Sexual Revolution? Wagging your finger at poor Americans for being "irresponsible" while supporting neo-liberal policies that continue to destabilize their lives is not a solution.

E.U.-Bound Migrants Sneak Across Hungary's Border

"Hungary’s Border Fence Isn’t Stopping Desperate Syrian Migrants"

Nor should it. Most of these migrants are Christians fleeing an genocide at the hands of ISIS. It's a travesty that the "Christian" West has steadfastly refused to help resettle these Christian communities (many of which have existed since Jesus walked the earth) from the onslaught of a monster it created.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I've made my thoughts on the societal importance of marriage, particularly as it relates to child rearing, on this board quite clear. What's your brilliant policy proscription for reversing the destruction wrought by the Sexual Revolution? Wagging your finger at poor Americans for being "irresponsible" while supporting neo-liberal policies that continue to destabilize their lives is not a solution.



Nor should it. Most of these migrants are Christians fleeing an genocide at the hands of ISIS. It's a travesty that the "Christian" West has steadfastly refused to help resettle these Christian communities (many of which have existed since Jesus walked the earth) from the onslaught of a monster it created.

I am libertarian on many social issues. Live and let live. But the idea that person B is liable for the poor decisions of person A is garbage. People who make $40k a year don't get approved for $500k mortgages do they?
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
I am libertarian on many social issues. Live and let live. But the idea that person B is liable for the poor decisions of person A is garbage. People who make $40k a year don't get approved for $500k mortgages do they?

Well they did in the good ole days of stated income, interest only mortgages. Oh, sweet 2006/2007 how we all miss thee. Who would have ever thought that could end badly?
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
Curious as to the board's thoughts on Farrakhan and his recent rant...
 

Huntr

24 Karat Shamrock
Messages
7,500
Reaction score
10,423
Not sure if it's possible for me to care less about anything he says/has said.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Curious as to the board's thoughts on Farrakhan and his recent rant...

I'm kind of wondering how the GOP is going to justify a blatantly race baiting bigot being their candidate when Trump wins the nomination. At least with Reagan and Bush 1 it was much more low key and behind the scenes when Lee Atwater was running the show on their campaigns. It's gotten so out of hand that I'm beginning to wonder if he didn't run just to torpedo the 2016 election on purpose.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I'm kind of wondering how the GOP is going to justify a blatantly race baiting bigot being their candidate when Trump wins the nomination. At least with Reagan and Bush 1 it was much more low key and behind the scenes when Lee Atwater was running the show on their campaigns. It's gotten so out of hand that I'm beginning to wonder if he didn't run just to torpedo the 2016 election on purpose.

I was browsing on YouTube the other day looking for Bernie Sanders interviews and stumbled upon an interesting theory from Thom Hartmann. He says that the billionaires backing candidates don't care for Bush because he doesn't need them, ie their power is diminished. So his theory was that Trump got into the race to hammer Bush and not guys like Walker or Kasich, and then he'd back out when Bush is finished and Walker walks to the nomination. Do I think it's true? Well, no. Interesting though nonetheless.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Curious as to the board's thoughts on Farrakhan and his recent rant...

Obviously Bluto does NOT want to discuss it. He quotes your question goes into a race baiting rant of his own.


I first google Farrakhan recent speech and found only blog cites. I next week to Snopes.com which posted a Farrakhan comment,

Did Louis Farrakhan say that “if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us”?

and documented that it was TRUE.

They referenced a YouTube of Farrakhan and a website article. I watched and listened closely to the 14 minute video.


Read more at The Wrath of Farrakhan : snopes.com

Farrakhan makes that point that he did not say white people, "mischiefmakers" misquoted him. He also notes that there are some good cops in cities and some bad. He then goes on to attack medical examiners, prosecutors, DAs, and judges ... government. He quotes the Bibles "eye for an eye" and the similar passage from the Qur'an and takes of retaliation.

He ends with the hope for a separate flag and a separate nation.


Interestingly the Bruto deflects to Reagan and others who wanted/want smaller government. Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers but I never heard him call for their exectution nor for "retaliation on cops, prosecutors, DAs, and judges". I'm sure there were a number of Federal and Supreme Justices that Reagan would not have mind attending their funerals but he never advocated anyone using violence to achieve smaller government.

Check out the snopes article, watch the video and make up your own mind.
 
Last edited:

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Obviously Bluto does want to discuss it. He quotes your question goes into a race baiting rant of his own.


I first google Farrakhan recent speech and found only blog cites. I next week to Snopes.com which posted a Farrakhan comment,



and documented that it was TRUE.

They referenced a YouTube of Farrakhan and a website article. I watched and listened closely to the 14 minute video.


Read more at The Wrath of Farrakhan : snopes.com

Farrakhan makes that point that he did not say white people, "mischiefmakers" misquoted him. He also notes that there are some good cops in cities and some bad. He then goes on to attack medical examiners, prosecutors, DAs, and judges ... government. He quotes the Bibles "eye for an eye" and the similar passage from the Qur'an and takes of retaliation.

He ends with the hope for a separate flag and a separate nation.


Interestingly the Bruto deflects to Reagan and others who wanted/want smaller government. Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers but I never heard him call for their exectution nor for "retaliation on cops, prosecutors, DAs, and judges". I'm sure there were a number of Federal and Supreme Justices that Reagan would not have mind attending their funerals but he never advocated anyone using violence to achieve smaller government.

Check out the snopes article, watch the video and make up your own mind.

Let me know when Farakan polls at 30% of any legitimate party with a shot at any position of real power. He's on the fringe for a reason and bringing him (or any other nutty person with no real power, access to power or ability to influence public policy) up is a deflection from real problems like billionaire white dudes saying crazy, racist, xenophobic, facist stuff who also have the money and power to turn those nutty views into real public policy. It's the same old same old welfare queen, anchor baby, Willie Horton bullshit distraction. But hey, if you think nutty old Black guys are ruining America and the biggest problem we face by all means have at it. I brought up Reagan and Lee Atwater specifically because the GOP used to do what Trump does blantantly in a much more wink wink nudge nudge kind of way.
 
Last edited:

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Let me know when Farakan polls at 30% of any legitimate party with a shot at any position of real power. He's on the fringe for a reason and bringing him (or any other nutty person with no real power, access to power or ability to influence public policy) up is a deflection from real problems like billionaire white dudes saying crazy, racist, xenophobic, facist stuff who also have the money and power to turn those nutty views into real public policy. It's the same old same old welfare queen, anchor baby, Willie Horton bullshit distraction. But hey, if you think nutty old Black guys are ruining America and the biggest problem we face by all means have at it. I brought up Reagan and Lee Atwater specifically because the GOP used to do what Trump does blantantly in a much more wink wink nudge nudge kind of way.


Aaron asked a simple question about what people thought about Farrakhan's recent comments in the politics thread NOT the Presidential Candidate thread. You chose to quote his post and then ignore the topic completely.

Now you take my post where I encourage people to listen and read for themselves you smear me with "if you think nutty old Black guys ... " I never mentioned race, did I? Nor did Aaron, did he. Race is your hangup.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

What is everyone's thoughts on this? I was not in favor of her stand, but I think it is scary that she actually has been jailed because of it. It seems very political to me on how judges decide when to go after people not enforcing Federal law. Why have they not gone after those running sanctuary cities? Are they not enforcing Federal law as well? Just one example of many I see as hypocritical as to why I feel it is more about politics and not about enforcing Federal law.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

What is everyone's thoughts on this? I was not in favor of her stand, but I think it is scary that she actually has been jailed because of it. It seems very political to me on how judges decide when to go after people not enforcing Federal law. Why have they not gone after those running sanctuary cities? Are they not enforcing Federal law as well? Just one example of many I see as hypocritical as to why I feel it is more about politics and not about enforcing Federal law.
I haven't kept up on the details but jail seems... excessive. Terminated maybe? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but not every belief is compatible with every job. If you're a state marriage clerk, you need to follow state marriage law. Her stance is akin to an NFL referee saying his religion prohibits him from working on Sundays.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
I haven't kept up on the details but jail seems... excessive. Terminated maybe? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but not every belief is compatible with every job. If you're a state marriage clerk, you need to follow state marriage law. Her stance is akin to an NFL referee saying his religion prohibits him from working on Sundays.

She is actually in an elected position and I found it interesting she is a Democrat.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

What is everyone's thoughts on this? I was not in favor of her stand, but I think it is scary that she actually has been jailed because of it. It seems very political to me on how judges decide when to go after people not enforcing Federal law. Why have they not gone after those running sanctuary cities? Are they not enforcing Federal law as well? Just one example of many I see as hypocritical as to why I feel it is more about politics and not about enforcing Federal law.

Judges do not "decide when to go after people." they have not gone after sanctuary clinics because that's not something judges do in our system- that's a decision for the executive agencies. She was held in contempt of court, failing to obey a court order is pretty much going to get you in trouble 100% of the time.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Judges do not "decide when to go after people." they have not gone after sanctuary clinics because that's not something judges do in our system- that's a decision for the executive agencies. She was held in contempt of court, failing to obey a court order is pretty much going to get you in trouble 100% of the time.

I'm not a big fan of jail, as it seems to make her a martyr. But she certainly should be removed from her job.

She's also not the best standard bearer for this particular issue, given that she's been married 4 times. I don't like that she's being personally attacked by her opposition, but she's not fit for that particular job.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

What is everyone's thoughts on this? I was not in favor of her stand, but I think it is scary that she actually has been jailed because of it. It seems very political to me on how judges decide when to go after people not enforcing Federal law. Why have they not gone after those running sanctuary cities? Are they not enforcing Federal law as well? Just one example of many I see as hypocritical as to why I feel it is more about politics and not about enforcing Federal law.

You may find it interesting that the Judge was appointed by GWB, and is the son of former Kentucky Repbulican Senator Jim Bunning.

Also from this article ‘He has guts': David Bunning, the same-sex marriage decision’s unlikely enforcer - The Washington Post He doesn't agree with gay marriage but that people must obey the law and the Clerk wasn't.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
I haven't kept up on the details but jail seems... excessive. Terminated maybe? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but not every belief is compatible with every job. If you're a state marriage clerk, you need to follow state marriage law. Her stance is akin to an NFL referee saying his religion prohibits him from working on Sundays.

While I agree that jail time feels excessive, the judge seems to have done it because a fine wouldn't compel her to issue the marriage licenses (and maybe because a lot of people had offered to pay her fines so there would be no monetary loss for her). She also refuses to resign and she can only be removed by being impeached.
 
Top