Same-Sex Marriage Unanimously Included In DNC Platform USA!

[Lootifer]

For me, those last two of J9B's have to be "either-or" policies.

For example, many welfare liberal states (esp. the Scandinavian ones, Saudi Arabia--not liberal, and maybe NZ--not sure) have generous welfare/entitlement programs; however, access to citizenship is extremely tight, so some of them tend to opt to policies that create "second-class citizens," or long-term immigrants who lack many of the rights and entitlements which the first-class citizens enjoy.

I could see the US implementing a similar policy, yet I imagine that the enforcement costs would be significantly higher than the previously mentioned countries.

Our welfare state isnt huge; but its there... But we have the benefit of being a tiny island at the arse end of the world - and flights dont come cheap...

I knew there was a benefit to that somewhere...

Like you say the US has the problem of boardering what used to be a 3rd world country and is well and truely still developing. Lax immigration means opening the floodgates.

Also many "liberals" are ambivilent on the immigration thing; for these very reasons (ie look after our own before we look after the world - welfare > immigration in terms of priority)

[Army of GOD]

I've always thought that Mexico should just become a part of the US, that way they'd all be legal immigrants and we'd have a shit ton of resources (including all the gold in El Dorado and the fountain of youth...f*ck you Juan Ponce de Leon!).

[BigBallinStalin]

@Lootifer and whoever


If you had to choose between "welfare/decent minimum standards of living" policies or "lax immigration" policies, which would it be?



_________________________________________________________________
I'd go with the latter. It seems to have made the US awesome during its time of relatively lax immigration laws (pre-1910s, but mostly 1800s, roughly).

In my opinion, the former, which has been implemented for roughly four decades, has been dismal in "helping" the poor. It seems to subsidize poverty, and with the out-of-whack tax rates, staying in the lowest tax bracket makes sense for many poor people (otherwise, they lose a significant portion of their entitlement income).

[Woodruff]

Ok- which liberal views do you hold?

off the top of my head...
- i favor gay marriage equality
- i prefer a non-interventionist foreign policy
- i think there is way too much corporatism in our government
- i'm a proponent of civil liberties
- i'd like to abolish the death penalty and the war on drugs

i'm open (if not fully committed) to the ideas of:
- universal healthcare DONE RIGHT
- government incentives for environmentally sound practices
- campaign finance reform
- welfare/decent minimum standards of living
- lax immigration laws

If you truly believe in these views, then why don't you espouse them at all?

[Juan_Bottom]

Of course you throw your undying support to them. You spend labor starting internet message board threads encouraging people to support the employees of multinational corporations, like Barack Obama. The fact that you're collared and cowed - a serf, a cog of choice - doesn't change that.

You valiantly announced, in all caps, that you "HAD ENOUGH" ... and then said you are voting for the man who appointed the Senior Vice-President of Monsanto as Commissioner of Food Safety. I laaaaaughed.

You're not that dumb to think you're actually expressing an enraged desire for change versus cookie-cutter, bland status quoism, are you?

You obviously haven't had enough. You're like a severely beaten wife who married at age 17 to a drunk hillbilly. You want to be slapped around, choked, punched by your daddy. You want daddy to take care of you even if it means he's going to beat the living crap out of you while doing it. Juan - intellectually, you're a mom with 8 kids, two black eyes and a refrigerator full of O.E. 800.

I only ever knew one other CCer who could troll/bait an insult like this, and word it so that not only would any response be defensive, but also so that it doesn't necessarily cross any lines set up by the admin.

And you're better in Character, I think.

[saxitoxin]

Of course you throw your undying support to them. You spend labor starting internet message board threads encouraging people to support the employees of multinational corporations, like Barack Obama. The fact that you're collared and cowed - a serf, a cog of choice - doesn't change that.

You valiantly announced, in all caps, that you "HAD ENOUGH" ... and then said you are voting for the man who appointed the Senior Vice-President of Monsanto as Commissioner of Food Safety. I laaaaaughed.

You're not that dumb to think you're actually expressing an enraged desire for change versus cookie-cutter, bland status quoism, are you?

You obviously haven't had enough. You're like a severely beaten wife who married at age 17 to a drunk hillbilly. You want to be slapped around, choked, punched by your daddy. You want daddy to take care of you even if it means he's going to beat the living crap out of you while doing it. Juan - intellectually, you're a mom with 8 kids, two black eyes and a refrigerator full of O.E. 800.

I only ever knew one other CCer who could troll/bait an insult like this, and word it so that not only would any response be defensive, but also so that it doesn't necessarily cross any lines set up by the admin.

And you're better in Character, I think.

You keep loudly declaring that you're going to ignore all my posts, and then manically respond to each of them. I chuckle a bit.

[Juan_Bottom]

You keep

I only said it once, and I did. I didn't respond to the content.

[john9blue]

Ok- which liberal views do you hold?

off the top of my head...
- i favor gay marriage equality
- i prefer a non-interventionist foreign policy
- i think there is way too much corporatism in our government
- i'm a proponent of civil liberties
- i'd like to abolish the death penalty and the war on drugs

i'm open (if not fully committed) to the ideas of:
- universal healthcare DONE RIGHT
- government incentives for environmentally sound practices
- campaign finance reform
- welfare/decent minimum standards of living
- lax immigration laws

If you truly believe in these views, then why don't you espouse them at all?

most of the people who disagree with me about these issues are respectful when they do so (and are also usually an extreme minority on these boards).

therefore, i feel no need to aggressively push my beliefs on them/insult them for disagreeing with me (which is probably what woodruff's idea of espousal is like)

[Lootifer]

@Lootifer and whoever


If you had to choose between "welfare/decent minimum standards of living" policies or "lax immigration" policies, which would it be?

_________________________________________________________________
I'd go with the latter. It seems to have made the US awesome during its time of relatively lax immigration laws (pre-1910s, but mostly 1800s, roughly).

In my opinion, the former, which has been implemented for roughly four decades, has been dismal in "helping" the poor. It seems to subsidize poverty, and with the out-of-whack tax rates, staying in the lowest tax bracket makes sense for many poor people (otherwise, they lose a significant portion of their entitlement income).

Assuming a quality political landscape the former. Based on the premise you look after your own first, and the rest of the world second.

Obviously i see the former to include provisioning of pre-tertiary education and healthcare.

[saxitoxin]

You keep

I only said it once, and I did. I didn't respond to the content.

Juan, did you skip 3rd grade?

Generally, on the playground, "I'M GIVING YOU THE SILENT TREATMENT!" is more effective in getting your point across than "I'M GIVING YOU THE SILENT TREATMENT EXCEPT IN THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE ATTACHED APPENDIX, AS WELL AS COROLLARY 1.3 THROUGH 1.7 OF MY STANDING SILENT TREATMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES PLUS SITUATIONAL AMENDMENTS I WILL MAINTAIN DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO INVOKE AND ADDITIONAL CAVEATS THAT MAY BE NECESSITATED BY CIRCUMSTANCE."

You have a lot to learn about effective pouting.

[Juan_Bottom]

Did you just call me a bitch?

[BigBallinStalin]

@Lootifer and whoever


If you had to choose between "welfare/decent minimum standards of living" policies or "lax immigration" policies, which would it be?

_________________________________________________________________
I'd go with the latter. It seems to have made the US awesome during its time of relatively lax immigration laws (pre-1910s, but mostly 1800s, roughly).

In my opinion, the former, which has been implemented for roughly four decades, has been dismal in "helping" the poor. It seems to subsidize poverty, and with the out-of-whack tax rates, staying in the lowest tax bracket makes sense for many poor people (otherwise, they lose a significant portion of their entitlement income).

Assuming a quality political landscape the former. Based on the premise you look after your own first, and the rest of the world second.

Obviously i see the former to include provisioning of pre-tertiary education and healthcare.

You know <puts head down>. I just don't have it in me to argue with you. The main reason is because I'm jealous of New Zealand.

[Haggis_McMutton]

disagree. if someone's position is so ridiculous and so illogical, then it should take you about 30 seconds to disprove it completely. oh, what's this? they responded to your rebuttal with one of their own? and it's not a personal attack? guess they have something to say! or... you can just laugh and walk away because their theory is absolutely RIDICULOUS, just like all other theories that you don't currently believe in.

So you believe all oppinions are equal, really? That the question of the nature of dark matter should be debated just as seriously as the question of whether there are little green men on Mars, or whether the moon is hollow, or whether aliens landed at Roosevelt ?

Do you think I would be unable to argue with you right now, for at least 5 pages, that the moon landing was faked?
Have you read any of the Lionz threads? Do you need any more evidence that it is possible to "provide rebuttals that don't have personal attacks" that are absolutely worthless ?

Lately you seem to have been repeating the point that just because some people speak/write about it, there must be a real argument to be had. I've already pointed this out to you: Amazon holds thousand of books on Astrology. Does this make the assertion that huge bodies of gas and matter unimaginable distances away influence my love life any less ridiculous?

all opinions are equal at first, until someone gives evidence to either support it or refute it. you CANNOT begin a debate with the assumption that "my opponent's position is ridiculous and does not deserve to be refuted". that defeats the entire point of debating in the first place.

the thing about astrology, faked moon landing, etc. is that it's relatively easy to give very strong evidence against those theories. it is not easy to give strong evidence against either position on, for example, universal healthcare. one's position on healthcare (when it is an informed opinion) is determined by the examination of many small pieces of evidence, after which a conclusion is drawn. but what is a supporter of astrology going to do when i tell them "the light from some of those stars is hundreds of years old. one of them may not even exist any longer"? to disprove that, you would pretty much have to undermine a huge chunk of modern physics.

And you think that if you said that to an Astrologer they would go: "Oh wow, that makes perfect sense. I just realise I've been practising a sham for the past 10 years of my life. Thank you for showing me the light."
Of course not, they would come with some bullshit explanation, or just shoot 10 counter-arguments in quick succesion and see what sticks.
Seriously, have you not seen any of the Lionz threads? If that guy can debate for 50 pages that young earth creationism is real, do you doubt any ridiculous position can be maintained in debate through dishonest tactics and so on?

So let's say you spend 2 hours debating with the first astrologer, hell lets be generous and say you win, something which is actually quite uncertain and depends on hopw good a bullshitter the other guy is. When the next one comes around, you have to spend another 2 hours debating him as well, right? Cause his oppinion is still equally valid?

This whole approach is completely impractical and ridiculous. At some point, as soon as someone says they're an astrologer and willing to debate the matter you're just going to have to state "Explain how the stars influnce my day to day life". When they try to dodge you will have to ridicule them to force their hand.

Similarly, I say that any debate on young earth creationism is adequately handled by linking to talk origins and then ridiculing the ridiculous position. We cannot maintain every issue open to debate forever. Untill sufficient contrary evidence arises the debates on astrology, YEC, tarot and alchemy are done and dusted and should only be engaged in if you are suffering from extreme boredom.

[Lootifer]

@Lootifer and whoever


If you had to choose between "welfare/decent minimum standards of living" policies or "lax immigration" policies, which would it be?

_________________________________________________________________
I'd go with the latter. It seems to have made the US awesome during its time of relatively lax immigration laws (pre-1910s, but mostly 1800s, roughly).

In my opinion, the former, which has been implemented for roughly four decades, has been dismal in "helping" the poor. It seems to subsidize poverty, and with the out-of-whack tax rates, staying in the lowest tax bracket makes sense for many poor people (otherwise, they lose a significant portion of their entitlement income).

Assuming a quality political landscape the former. Based on the premise you look after your own first, and the rest of the world second.

Obviously i see the former to include provisioning of pre-tertiary education and healthcare.

You know <puts head down>. I just don't have it in me to argue with you. The main reason is because I'm jealous of New Zealand.

Dont get me wrong I agree that traditionally welfare programs have had pretty poor results. I dont see why that has to continue though, assuming you're smart.

[john9blue]

all opinions are equal at first, until someone gives evidence to either support it or refute it. you CANNOT begin a debate with the assumption that "my opponent's position is ridiculous and does not deserve to be refuted". that defeats the entire point of debating in the first place.

the thing about astrology, faked moon landing, etc. is that it's relatively easy to give very strong evidence against those theories. it is not easy to give strong evidence against either position on, for example, universal healthcare. one's position on healthcare (when it is an informed opinion) is determined by the examination of many small pieces of evidence, after which a conclusion is drawn. but what is a supporter of astrology going to do when i tell them "the light from some of those stars is hundreds of years old. one of them may not even exist any longer"? to disprove that, you would pretty much have to undermine a huge chunk of modern physics.

And you think that if you said that to an Astrologer they would go: "Oh wow, that makes perfect sense. I just realise I've been practising a sham for the past 10 years of my life. Thank you for showing me the light."
Of course not, they would come with some bullshit explanation, or just shoot 10 counter-arguments in quick succesion and see what sticks.
Seriously, have you not seen any of the Lionz threads? If that guy can debate for 50 pages that young earth creationism is real, do you doubt any ridiculous position can be maintained in debate through dishonest tactics and so on?

So let's say you spend 2 hours debating with the first astrologer, hell lets be generous and say you win, something which is actually quite uncertain and depends on hopw good a bullshitter the other guy is. When the next one comes around, you have to spend another 2 hours debating him as well, right? Cause his oppinion is still equally valid?

This whole approach is completely impractical and ridiculous. At some point, as soon as someone says they're an astrologer and willing to debate the matter you're just going to have to state "Explain how the stars influnce my day to day life". When they try to dodge you will have to ridicule them to force their hand.

Similarly, I say that any debate on young earth creationism is adequately handled by linking to talk origins and then ridiculing the ridiculous position. We cannot maintain every issue open to debate forever. Untill sufficient contrary evidence arises the debates on astrology, YEC, tarot and alchemy are done and dusted and should only be engaged in if you are suffering from extreme boredom.

look, i'm not saying that you are FORCED to debate someone until one of you is convinced. i'm saying that it's fallacious to dismiss an opponent's beliefs before they have a chance to defend them. that happens a lot in this forum.

linking to a website like you have done is a good way to avoid repetition (provided that you agree with everything the website says). if someone has a point that your website doesn't address, then they would be justified in asking you directly, after you link them to the website.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Lootifer and whoever


If you had to choose between "welfare/decent minimum standards of living" policies or "lax immigration" policies, which would it be?

_________________________________________________________________
I'd go with the latter. It seems to have made the US awesome during its time of relatively lax immigration laws (pre-1910s, but mostly 1800s, roughly).

In my opinion, the former, which has been implemented for roughly four decades, has been dismal in "helping" the poor. It seems to subsidize poverty, and with the out-of-whack tax rates, staying in the lowest tax bracket makes sense for many poor people (otherwise, they lose a significant portion of their entitlement income).

Assuming a quality political landscape the former. Based on the premise you look after your own first, and the rest of the world second.

Obviously i see the former to include provisioning of pre-tertiary education and healthcare.

You know <puts head down>. I just don't have it in me to argue with you. The main reason is because I'm jealous of New Zealand.

Dont get me wrong I agree that traditionally welfare programs have had pretty poor results. I dont see why that has to continue though, assuming you're smart.

The sad truth--as I perceive it--is that the traditional welfare programs of the US have to continue in order to continue giving X to voter market Y, so that the an array of politicians can maintain their careers and future streams of income/psychological profit from their privileged positions. It's a self-reinforcing problem that is systemic and unresolvable with the current means (the US institution/rules of the game for voting), and perhaps unresolvable for the next 10-20 years--on the margin due mainly to the rising costs of Social Security (IIRC, it's to double in 20-30 years, thus consuming another 20% of the US Federal budget relative to GDP).

A budget crisis will induce a change, so things could be corrected with minimal costs, or if the politicians do a shit job as their walls of comfort fall around them, things could get worse.

A cultural pushback could occur, but... if that is effective, it likely won't produce good outcomes since there's not enough libertarians, and there's not enough "friends on the left." There would be too many well-intended people promoting policies of terrible unintended consequences. Another FDR 1933-whenever comes to mind.

[Woodruff]

Ok- which liberal views do you hold?

off the top of my head...
- i favor gay marriage equality
- i prefer a non-interventionist foreign policy
- i think there is way too much corporatism in our government
- i'm a proponent of civil liberties
- i'd like to abolish the death penalty and the war on drugs

i'm open (if not fully committed) to the ideas of:
- universal healthcare DONE RIGHT
- government incentives for environmentally sound practices
- campaign finance reform
- welfare/decent minimum standards of living
- lax immigration laws

If you truly believe in these views, then why don't you espouse them at all?

most of the people who disagree with me about these issues are respectful when they do so (and are also usually an extreme minority on these boards).

therefore, i feel no need to aggressively push my beliefs on them/insult them for disagreeing with me (which is probably what woodruff's idea of espousal is like)

No, you didn't answer the question, which was "then why don't you espouse them at all?". Don't play Phatscotty games with this by trying to change definitions and act like everyone else is the problem. Answer the question.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you truly believe in these views, then why don't you espouse them at all?

From what I recall about john's history of posts, he does support the following:

off the top of my head...
- i favor gay marriage equality
- i prefer a non-interventionist foreign policy
- i think there is way too much corporatism in our government
- i'm a proponent of civil liberties
- i'd like to abolish the death penalty and the war on drugs

The other half are policies which he may favor yet is still undecided.

[john9blue]

No, you didn't answer the question, which was "then why don't you espouse them at all?". Don't play Phatscotty games with this by trying to change definitions and act like everyone else is the problem. Answer the question.

do you believe i'm lying? would you like to find a post of mine that contradicts one of the positions i stated? the burden is not on me to prove that EVERY post i've ever made supports those positions.

[Woodruff]

No, you didn't answer the question, which was "then why don't you espouse them at all?". Don't play Phatscotty games with this by trying to change definitions and act like everyone else is the problem. Answer the question.

do you believe i'm lying? would you like to find a post of mine that contradicts one of the positions i stated? the burden is not on me to prove that EVERY post i've ever made supports those positions.

I didn't even suggest that you should prove that EVERY post you've ever made supports these positions. Why do you keep devolving into these Phatscotty games?

[john9blue]

No, you didn't answer the question, which was "then why don't you espouse them at all?". Don't play Phatscotty games with this by trying to change definitions and act like everyone else is the problem. Answer the question.

do you believe i'm lying? would you like to find a post of mine that contradicts one of the positions i stated? the burden is not on me to prove that EVERY post i've ever made supports those positions.

I didn't even suggest that you should prove that EVERY post you've ever made supports these positions. Why do you keep devolving into these Phatscotty games?

my bad dude.

so are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions i listed? or are we all gonna have to take your word for it that i don't believe what i said that i believe?

[Woodruff]

No, you didn't answer the question, which was "then why don't you espouse them at all?". Don't play Phatscotty games with this by trying to change definitions and act like everyone else is the problem. Answer the question.

do you believe i'm lying? would you like to find a post of mine that contradicts one of the positions i stated? the burden is not on me to prove that EVERY post i've ever made supports those positions.

I didn't even suggest that you should prove that EVERY post you've ever made supports these positions. Why do you keep devolving into these Phatscotty games?

my bad dude.
so are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions i listed? or are we all gonna have to take your word for it that i don't believe what i said that i believe?

Let me see if I have this straight. I posit that "if you support those positions, then why don't you espouse them at all?", to which you respond with "are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions?"...and that makes sense to you as a logical response? More diversion.

[john9blue]

I didn't even suggest that you should prove that EVERY post you've ever made supports these positions. Why do you keep devolving into these Phatscotty games?

my bad dude.
so are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions i listed? or are we all gonna have to take your word for it that i don't believe what i said that i believe?

Let me see if I have this straight. I posit that "if you support those positions, then why don't you espouse them at all?", to which you respond with "are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions?"...and that makes sense to you as a logical response? More diversion.

there are three possibilities:

- my posts usually support the positions i stated
- my posts say nothing about the positions i stated
- my posts usually contradict the positions i stated

which one do you think is true?

[Woodruff]

I didn't even suggest that you should prove that EVERY post you've ever made supports these positions. Why do you keep devolving into these Phatscotty games?

my bad dude.
so are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions i listed? or are we all gonna have to take your word for it that i don't believe what i said that i believe?

Let me see if I have this straight. I posit that "if you support those positions, then why don't you espouse them at all?", to which you respond with "are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions?"...and that makes sense to you as a logical response? More diversion.

there are three possibilities:
- my posts usually support the positions i stated
- my posts say nothing about the positions i stated
- my posts usually contradict the positions i stated
which one do you think is true?

So your issue is that you absolutely refuse to show that you have, in fact, espoused these positions in these fora (for the moment presuming that you have actually done so). Basically, you're simply sitting down and saying "no, I don't want to show you how your statements are inaccurate". I wonder what the reason for that might be?

[john9blue]

I didn't even suggest that you should prove that EVERY post you've ever made supports these positions. Why do you keep devolving into these Phatscotty games?

my bad dude.
so are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions i listed? or are we all gonna have to take your word for it that i don't believe what i said that i believe?

Let me see if I have this straight. I posit that "if you support those positions, then why don't you espouse them at all?", to which you respond with "are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions?"...and that makes sense to you as a logical response? More diversion.

there are three possibilities:
- my posts usually support the positions i stated
- my posts say nothing about the positions i stated
- my posts usually contradict the positions i stated
which one do you think is true?

So your issue is that you absolutely refuse to show that you have, in fact, espoused these positions in these fora (for the moment presuming that you have actually done so). Basically, you're simply sitting down and saying "no, I don't want to show you how your statements are inaccurate". I wonder what the reason for that might be?

i never even claimed to have espoused them. i claimed to have held them. so even if i haven't espoused them, your argument here wouldn't mean anything.

since you don't believe that i hold these views, it's your job to give evidence for your assertion

are you one of the idiots who thinks that disbelieving in something can be done without a shred of evidence.