Conquer Club

Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:25 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I wonder if there are any big medical device companies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Indiana.

Minnesota - Meditronic Inc.
Pennsylvania - AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Indiana - Eli Lilly

PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

Your point?


My point is you're being dumb.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby tzor on Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:30 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?


Commercials exist not to give "people what they want" but to convince people that "they want it." Democrats don't really push for things that people want, they convince people to want what they give them.

(Of course that's not a "flaw" in the party; that's why the party wins!)

The fact that every policy almost always has the opposite effect of what is advertised ... doesn't really matter. The opposite effect is blamed on something else.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:09 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I wonder if there are any big medical device companies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Indiana.

Minnesota - Meditronic Inc.
Pennsylvania - AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Indiana - Eli Lilly

PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

Your point?


My point is you're being dumb.


Nice try, but simply saying you disagree doesn't mean I am "dumb".
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:11 pm

tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?


Commercials exist not to give "people what they want" but to convince people that "they want it." Democrats don't really push for things that people want, they convince people to want what they give them.

(Of course that's not a "flaw" in the party; that's why the party wins!)

The fact that every policy almost always has the opposite effect of what is advertised ... doesn't really matter. The opposite effect is blamed on something else.

Actually, I would say that the Democrats have NOT been doing that great a job of either having a good meassage OR of convincing anyone. Their only real bonus of late is that the Republicans are so blatantly and patently wrong, folks are willing to take almost any viable alternative.

I mean, it doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexual marriages won't exactly threaten the security of the country.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:19 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:2. Trying to Deep-Six Obamacare

But now that they feel its future is protected and it’s safe from repeal, Democrats are becoming more vocal about parts of the law that they want changed or eliminated — even kids’ dental coverage. Four Senate Democrats — Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Donnelly of Indiana — are co-sponsoring a Republican bill to repeal the law’s medical-device tax. Ten House Democrats are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, a controversial panel that is designed to keep Medicare spending in check.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/a ... 88717.html



Who doesn't like political compromise?
[/tongue-in-cheek]

This is one of the main problems with any position supporting public policy X. Public policies must go through this political process--where exemptions are made and the reasonable parts of the policy are resisted and sometimes removed (e.g. that advisory board, that medical-device tax).

This is one of many avenues where the favored policies of well-intended voters lead to bad outcomes.

So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?


They pass Bill X and with it, some means of paying for it, then some of the very Democrats who passed bill X are seeking ways to remove some of those means for paying for it. If they're successful, then all they've done is spent more money and then removed some of the means to pay for it.

That would be extremely stupid in any business, but with government it makes total sense. Most voters don't understand how this works, and if they do, they don't care because they still want their government goodies.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:31 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:2. Trying to Deep-Six Obamacare

But now that they feel its future is protected and it’s safe from repeal, Democrats are becoming more vocal about parts of the law that they want changed or eliminated — even kids’ dental coverage. Four Senate Democrats — Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Donnelly of Indiana — are co-sponsoring a Republican bill to repeal the law’s medical-device tax. Ten House Democrats are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, a controversial panel that is designed to keep Medicare spending in check.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/a ... 88717.html



Who doesn't like political compromise?
[/tongue-in-cheek]

This is one of the main problems with any position supporting public policy X. Public policies must go through this political process--where exemptions are made and the reasonable parts of the policy are resisted and sometimes removed (e.g. that advisory board, that medical-device tax).

This is one of many avenues where the favored policies of well-intended voters lead to bad outcomes.

So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?


They pass Bill X and with it, some means of paying for it, then some of the very Democrats who passed bill X are seeking ways to remove some of those means for paying for it. If they're successful, then all they've done is spent more money and then removed some of the means to pay for it.

That would be extremely stupid in any business, but with government it makes total sense. Most voters don't understand how this works, and if they do, they don't care because they still want their government goodies.
Very simplistically and superficially, yes. However, let’s bring in some history here.

I would say that this is happening because few politicians can afford to actually have a real “vision” or perhaps just that our ideas of who “knows stuff” has shifted so highly in the past 3-4 decades. That is, it was possible for scientists in the 1950’s to come up with evidence and convince folks that we needed, say to floridate our water, pay for school lunches or even seek alternatives to oil. (that last requires some explanation… scientists then were not really and truly seriously considering that because they did not have the knowledge we do now, about when they had done so, other sources were found).

Today, the widest consensus of scientists in the history of our planet saying “global warming is real” gets razzes and jeers. Partly, life has sped up, partly, there is so much more information out there its getting harder and harder to tie it together sensibly and partly, those in power have consolidated themselves not just in the US, but internationally to such an extent they rival the robber Barons of the 1920’s. The next step is to be like the Gregorian monarches, but on a global scale.

Anyway, while the Democrats are not innocent, this is really a Republican game. Reagan started it, but he was directed by people who made real sense. Bush did not even have to make much pretense.

But here is the thing. The damage caused by BP was very permanent and long-lasting, not just a PR game or an economic blip. Global climate change is real and will have real impacts that cannot just be changed by economic games and pretenses.

NO political party or views will matter unless they all start paying attention to real problems brought forth by science. Economics can be a tool, as can various political games, but the goal MUST ultimate be resting upon what is best for humanity.


OH, in other words, that IS what business does, its just that they pass the costs onto other people.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:25 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I wonder if there are any big medical device companies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Indiana.

Minnesota - Meditronic Inc.
Pennsylvania - AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Indiana - Eli Lilly

PLAYER57832 wrote:More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

Your point?


My point is you're being dumb.


Nice try, but simply saying you disagree doesn't mean I am "dumb".


You're dumb because you denigrate the Republican Party for corporate cronyism while at the same time supporting the Democratic Party which engages in corporate croynism. I would say "hypocrit" but I don't think you're informed enough to understand that the Democratic Party is as involved in corporate cronyism as Republicans. So... I label you dumb.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby tzor on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:08 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:I mean, it doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexual marriages won't exactly threaten the security of the country.


No I suppose it doesn't, especially when you consider only "security." Mind you, Democrats haven't been quick to jump on the bandwagon. Even Obama was against it before he was for it.

There have been Democrats opposed to same gender marriage (I mean why can't two heterosexuals of the same gender marry each other) and Republicans in support of it.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby tzor on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:22 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:That is, it was possible for scientists in the 1950’s to come up with evidence and convince folks that we needed, say to floridate our water, pay for school lunches or even seek alternatives to oil. (that last requires some explanation… scientists then were not really and truly seriously considering that because they did not have the knowledge we do now, about when they had done so, other sources were found).


OMG ROTFLOL :lol:

Did you just argue about the scientific history of water fluoridation? Ah yes the 1950's. Look, I'm not going to act all snobbish at the past but ... that is so funny. Current studies suggest that ingesting fluoride is not a good thing; it might make a good mouth wash but it's not effective and even harmful when enough is ingested.

EPA wrote:Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness. Children aged 8 years and younger exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in the tooth enamel, along with a range of cosmetic effects to teeth.


50 REASONS TO OPPOSE FLUORIDATION

Remember that the shoe fitting fluoroscope was still in use into the 50's. Yes, those were the time of real "science" ... if it didn't kill you, that is. :lol:
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:50 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Similar, Abortion became "choice" even though NO ONE (sane) really and truly "jsut choooses" to have an abortion.


Sorry, you're wrong; some folks DO "just choose" to have an abortion, for reasons having nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or danger-from-birth for the mother. Calling it "pro choice" is accurate.

Implying they're insane to do so.... well, name-calling is a fundamental flaw of both parties.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby Played out on Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:32 pm

tzor wrote:OMG ROTFLOL :lol:


You may think that posting lol makes a good counterpoint, but it's simply a dodge from the REAL point about scientific oppression. If there weren't so many diapers to be changed I'd refute you.
User avatar
New Recruit Played out
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:22 pm

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby tzor on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:21 am

Played out wrote:You may think that posting lol makes a good counterpoint


Time is also a problem on my side as well, but a post that (in this order no less) ... praises the glories of the 1950's, condemns the "robber barons" of the 1920's, and then blames Reagan for everything is so bizarrely wrong that whole thesis papers could be dedicated to showing how absurdly wrong that is. Alas, I don't have the time to write such a paper and no one here would be bothered to read it.

You know, personally I blame it on FDR, but to be honest he got his ideas from a Republican Relative of his. (Her strange view of history.)

P.S. I don't think you will ever convince a former residence of Key West that the "Robber Barons" were the cause of all evil. It's not going to happen.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:51 am

thegreekdog wrote:
You're dumb because you denigrate the Republican Party for corporate cronyism while at the same time supporting the Democratic Party which engages in corporate croynism. I would say "hypocrit" but I don't think you're informed enough to understand that the Democratic Party is as involved in corporate cronyism as Republicans. So... I label you dumb.

Oh please... and you support the Republican party while dengrating much of what they do.


I actually do not, as you claim, "support the Democratic Party". I don't contribute to them in funds or effort, do not participate in campaigns for the Democratic Party. I DO support and work for local individuals of ALL parties, based on the individual.
I voted for Obama because he was better than Romney -- not a lot better, but better. Twisting that into "well you support the Democrats" is not just stupid, its the kind of thinkin that is getting in the way of real solutions.

I am attacking the Democratic party here because that is the thread. I criticized the Republicans because that was that thread, though I stayed out a tad because I knew so many of you were just going to say "well,.... we know what YOU think..".

I look at the individual, not the party. The only time I consider the party is when I have 2 candidates who are truly equal or, who just don't say anything about themselves except their party, then I look at trying to balance things, but that is pretty rare. It happens occasionally in local elections, mostly when there was a last minute addition to the ballot, and its mostly people that 90% of the town know... I just don't. (usually, even then, I am able to at least ask around and get some information on the person).
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:58 am

stahrgazer wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Similar, Abortion became "choice" even though NO ONE (sane) really and truly "jsut choooses" to have an abortion.


Sorry, you're wrong; some folks DO "just choose" to have an abortion, for reasons having nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or danger-from-birth for the mother. Calling it "pro choice" is accurate.

Implying they're insane to do so.... well, name-calling is a fundamental flaw of both parties.


I don't understand where Player gets this idea that abortions are not chosen. I've posted this link at least five times and she has yet to respond to it.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:59 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
You're dumb because you denigrate the Republican Party for corporate cronyism while at the same time supporting the Democratic Party which engages in corporate croynism. I would say "hypocrit" but I don't think you're informed enough to understand that the Democratic Party is as involved in corporate cronyism as Republicans. So... I label you dumb.

Oh please... and you support the Republican party while dengrating much of what they do.


I actually do not, as you claim, "support the Democratic Party". I don't contribute to them in funds or effort, do not participate in campaigns for the Democratic Party. I DO support and work for local individuals of ALL parties, based on the individual.
I voted for Obama because he was better than Romney -- not a lot better, but better. Twisting that into "well you support the Democrats" is not just stupid, its the kind of thinkin that is getting in the way of real solutions.

I am attacking the Democratic party here because that is the thread. I criticized the Republicans because that was that thread, though I stayed out a tad because I knew so many of you were just going to say "well,.... we know what YOU think..".

I look at the individual, not the party. The only time I consider the party is when I have 2 candidates who are truly equal or, who just don't say anything about themselves except their party, then I look at trying to balance things, but that is pretty rare. It happens occasionally in local elections, mostly when there was a last minute addition to the ballot, and its mostly people that 90% of the town know... I just don't. (usually, even then, I am able to at least ask around and get some information on the person).


First, I don't support the Republican Party. I support certain Republicans, sure (like Rand Paul).
Second, you do support the Democrats. You argue incessantly about how Democrats are awesome.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:34 am

i apparently over-wrote the original post here, have no idea what it was, am posting my response to greekdog's later post below.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:35 am, edited 4 times in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:40 am

tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:That is, it was possible for scientists in the 1950’s to come up with evidence and convince folks that we needed, say to floridate our water, pay for school lunches or even seek alternatives to oil. (that last requires some explanation… scientists then were not really and truly seriously considering that because they did not have the knowledge we do now, about when they had done so, other sources were found).


OMG ROTFLOL :lol:

Did you just argue about the scientific history of water fluoridation? Ah yes the 1950's. Look, I'm not going to act all snobbish at the past but ... that is so funny. Current studies suggest that ingesting fluoride is not a good thing; it might make a good mouth wash but it's not effective and even harmful when enough is ingested.

NEWSFLASH... ANYTHING is harmful when "enough is ingested". Per the rest, there is an emerging debate, but its very true that dental health has improved by leaps and bounds, and that there is a direct correlation with flouridation and good dental health. Whether other factors are negating that impact or overreaching that impact is why the debate. That is good, but the point is that it needs to be based upon EVIDENCE, not opinion. That decision was. Current "debates" often are not.


tzor wrote:
EPA wrote:Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness. Children aged 8 years and younger exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in the tooth enamel, along with a range of cosmetic effects to teeth.


50 REASONS TO OPPOSE FLUORIDATION

Remember that the shoe fitting fluoroscope was still in use into the 50's. Yes, those were the time of real "science" ... if it didn't kill you, that is. :lol:

OH please. I am not going to get into another debate over fluoridation in this thread. There are to many complications. One point you are ignoring is that today, unlike in 1950, we do a lot of other things that help give better dental health…AND a lot of people no longer drink tap water. Both of those factors skew any data. We can and should revisit the data, look at results and make decisions based on the results. We should not decide “oh, too expensive.. folks are unhappy.. don’t do anything, just let the market decide because the market will make everything turn out OK”.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:44 am

thegreekdog wrote:

First, I don't support the Republican Party. I support certain Republicans, sure (like Rand Paul).
Second, you do support the Democrats. You argue incessantly about how Democrats are awesome.
Nice try at rhetoric.

Your argument would not stand up in court.

See, there is a difference between saying that the Republican Party, as a whole (and some, but not all individuals in the party) are close to being evil and saying that I love the Democratic Party.

AND, like I said.. that entire “Republican versus Democratic” bit is part of the problem. We need people who come up with solutions, not people who “adhere to the party line”.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:53 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:Abortion stuff not backed up by any evidence.


If your argument essentially boils down to this: people who are pro-life in the context of abortions that may save the mother's life are wrong, I agree with that.

If your argument is that most women choose to have abortions to save their own lives and not for any other reason, which seems to be what you've typed numerous times, then you're patently wrong. Not mistaken; not misinterpreted; you are WRONG.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

There is a chart in this linke (Table 2) that shows the "Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion." The categories and US statistics are:

Wants to postpone childbearing - 25.5%
Wants no (or no more) children - 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby - 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job - 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy - 14.1%
Too young; parents or others object to pregnancy - 12.2%
Risk to maternal health - 2.8%
Risk to fetal health - 3.3%
Other - 2.1%

Based on the foregoing statistical evidence (of which you have none), the percentage of women in the United States who have abortions to save their own lives is 2.8%, the second lowest of all reasons.

I don't know exactly why you're banging that drum so much considering that I've provided this data and other data on numerous occasions. The answer I've come up with is that you're trying to justify a pro-choice stance on all abortions and/or trying to justify the Affordable Care Act's mandates. I have no ulterior motive here except to stop you from making your ridiculous argument that is unsupportable. I'm not pro-life. I'm not a conservative Christian. Abortion is legal and will remain legal in the United States for the foreseeable future.

So, do you acknowledge the above statistics? If not, why not? Can you provide your own statistics? If you can do any of these things, let's take it to the other thread. If you can't do any of these things, knock it off with the absurd "women have abortions to save their own lives and conservatives who are against abortion want people to die." It's a ludicrous argument.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:57 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:

First, I don't support the Republican Party. I support certain Republicans, sure (like Rand Paul).
Second, you do support the Democrats. You argue incessantly about how Democrats are awesome.
Nice try at rhetoric.

Your argument would not stand up in court.

See, there is a difference between saying that the Republican Party, as a whole (and some, but not all individuals in the party) are close to being evil and saying that I love the Democratic Party.

AND, like I said.. that entire “Republican versus Democratic” bit is part of the problem. We need people who come up with solutions, not people who “adhere to the party line”.


My argument would stand up in court because the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. While I agree with your last paragraph, I don't agree with your blind loyalty to the Democratic Party when taken in conjunction with the things you say about the Republican Party. Your main beef with the Republican Party lies with respect to the normal things that people hate the Republican Party for: namely "out to protect rich people." And that's fine, because it's right. What makes your position not right is that you believe that the Democrats are not "out to protect rich people" or, if you do believe Democrats are out to protect rich people, that fact has not deterred you from voting for and supporting Democrats and their positions. In other words, you're voting for or supporting Democrats despite that they protect rich people and you're not voting for or supporting Republicans because they protect rich people. It's hypocritical. If you're going to support the Democrats, then stop blasting the Republicans for supporting rich people. If you think the Democrats support rich people, then stop supporting the Democrats. There are other parties with which a statist like yourself can get involved... namely, the Green Party or the Socialist Party.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:49 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Similar, Abortion became "choice" even though NO ONE (sane) really and truly "jsut choooses" to have an abortion.


Sorry, you're wrong; some folks DO "just choose" to have an abortion, for reasons having nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or danger-from-birth for the mother. Calling it "pro choice" is accurate.


You would have to add quite a few other categories before you get to it being a real "choice". They represent about 3% of abortions.

Even so, almost all of those women would choose to just not get pregnant over an abortion.

but... Let's not go over all this yet again.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby stahrgazer on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:52 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Even so, almost all of those women would choose to just not get pregnant over an abortion.

This is true.

As for this:
PLAYER57832 wrote:but... Let's not go over all this yet again.


If you didn't want responses to it, maybe you shouldn't have posted it :lol:
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:58 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Abortion stuff not backed up by any evidence.


If your argument essentially boils down to this: people who are pro-life in the context of abortions that may save the mother's life are wrong, I agree with that.

If your argument is that most women choose to have abortions to save their own lives and not for any other reason, which seems to be what you've typed numerous times, then you're patently wrong. Not mistaken; not misinterpreted; you are WRONG.

I have never said that or anything close to that. I HAVE said that medically, an elective operation is one that is not 100% necessary to sustain life, limb, etc. You have argued that point over and over, but have never bothered to verify , you just post other links that further distort the issue.

I have further said that this intentional misunderstanding of the term has been conveniently paraded to support the anti abortion cause. Ironically, they go to greater lengths to ignore what the term abortion means medically.

I don’t have time to get into the rest AGAIN, right now.

And your continual attempt to present me as someone who somehow likes abortion, as opposed to just someone who thinks it needs to be legal because it is better than the alternatives is pretty dispicable.

And, it seems typical.

Just like your "logic" that being against the Republican party somehow means I am a card-carrying Democrat.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby tzor on Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:11 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:NEWSFLASH... ANYTHING is harmful when "enough is ingested".


NEWSFLASH ... flouride doesn't help teeth when ingested. Getting flouride into toothpaste and mouth washes was a good first step. Getting it into our drinking water was a bad idea based on circumstantial evidence at best, although to be honest this was the 1940's not the 1950. History of Water Fluoridation

New research shows fluoride’s beneficial effects are merely topical so there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride. Unfortunately, dental fluorosis is caused by drinking fluoride. So dentists have actually created the problem they sought to remedy in the American population.


I particularly like the quote from here: THE ABSURDITIES OF WATER FLUORIDATION

Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when Asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers and DDT was deemed so “safe and effective” that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.


or better yet, (and this one goes to the heart of all 1950's worshipers.

In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:31 pm

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.

2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).

3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).

4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.

5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).

6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).

7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children’s blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.

8 ) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/absurdity/


Yeah, but suppose I like having brittle bones. WHAT THEN, DR. CONNETT?!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pmac666