Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | Software | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs | Addons: Eutronix | Cases

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#240494 - 08/11/2004 21:06 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
Dylan
addict

Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
Quote:
Instead of realizing that a very large portion of this country disagrees with their views, they have to pull an elitist view that everyone that doesn't live in a major city is stupid, ignorant or a rednecks (actual quotes from editorials at major papers this week) or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board.



from other sources...

Quote:
Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.


Quote:
Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection


How do you explain these numbers except for ignorance or they were tricked?

Top
#240495 - 08/11/2004 22:56 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Dylan]
kayakjazz
member

Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
Quote:
How do you explain these numbers except for ignorance or they were tricked?

Some of it IS willful ignorance:'don't confuse me with the facts...', some is apathetic ignorance--following the issues takes time and thought, and then there's the other half of the normal curve. As noted previously, the majority of U. S. citizens are out of touch with the country's stance in the world and with the world's perception of us. Today's Fact of the Day in the Scotsman (online) is a paragraph on the history of Montana. It just struck me; how likely are we to find something similar about them in our local rag?

Along another line:

Quote:
BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex?

To some degree, most societies are; it is a very powerful life-force, if not, as in Freud's theories, the dominant one, and hard to separate from survival of the species. The feminist view, which holds a lot of validity, also suggests that, especially in the cultures you mention, the sexual taboos keep women in their place: barefoot and pregnant. The U.S. culture is even more ambivalent about it than most; it's used to sell everything from cars and blue jeans to toothpaste, and these days you can find any deviation or degradtion of it you care to imagine online, but we are if anything becoming even more ambivalent and confused about it as a result. As I think you're suggesting, that ambivalence and fear is at the root of a lot of the cultural values clashes; it's not just Viet Nam we're refighting in a new form, it's the 60's and the Sexual Revolution.


Edited by wfaulk (09/11/2004 13:02)

Top
#240496 - 09/11/2004 11:58 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: FireFox31]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3162
Loc: Portland, OR
Quote:
But yes, I've never liked how the liberal media, which controls near everything we see and hear,

Liberal media? The one that gave Bush a pass on nearly *everything* that happened in his first term? That didn't have the cojones to ask any insightful questions? Crikey. Conservatives in the US have got to get over their "liberal media" thing. If you want to see what real liberal media is, get the heck out of Dodge, and take a look at media in places like the Netherlands, Canada, or Britain. Mass media in the US is not liberal, by any stretch of the means.

Top
#240497 - 09/11/2004 12:05 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Tim]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3162
Loc: Portland, OR
Quote:
Quote:
I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".


Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what?

No, I think Jim got it wrong, there... he missed the "I'm the only one that can keep you safe" issue, so it's really 3.5 issues that I think people were voting on.

Quote:
Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

Because everything else he's done has been a failure when you look at the facts? (Those have been hashed out so many times before that I'll not repeat them here.)

Top
#240498 - 09/11/2004 15:52 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: JeffS]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
Quote:
Most protestants I know, myself included, have no problem with contraception (as it's pre-conception). The Catholic church has a tradition of being against contraception (except for "natural means") and I know of one protestant minister who is against it (he says he knows of only three others).

I expected your opinion would be along these lines, of course, but I am somewhat surprised that it is shared with most of protestants. Granted, my only source of information were efforts by Bush&Co to supress efforts to popularize use of condoms, to the extent that they witheld aid from AIDS-fighting programs that even mention condoms. I consider such policy, as I said, murderous.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#240499 - 09/11/2004 16:04 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Daria]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
Quote:
Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

I am not against mentioning advantages of abstinence at all, just against preaching it as the only possible way. For example, a few months ago an African politician (I don't remember who) drew fire from some liberals because he was 'too reserved' towards use of condoms in anti-AIDS campaign. What the guy was saying was, essentially: "The best way to avoid AIDS is through abstinence or strict monogamy; failing that, and I know many of you will, *please* make sure to always use condoms!". Fair enough, I would say (needle sharing was not mentioned because his country is not rich enough for that kind of vice).

Quote:
The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

So, you saw the light, if I understand correctly
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#240500 - 09/11/2004 16:13 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: canuckInOR]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
Yeah, liberal media like Fox News...

But CNN seemed to be relatively objective, in that bland 'balanced' way. They drew fire from liberals for giving too much time to operations in Iraq and their people 'embedded' there, but I did not feel that was done in overly propagandistic way. After all, families of all those boys and girls in Iraq will whatch to every frame and listen to every sound from there, and CNN needs viewers, too
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#240501 - 09/11/2004 16:34 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: bonzi]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Granted, my only source of information were efforts by Bush&Co to supress efforts to popularize use of condoms, to the extent that they witheld aid from AIDS-fighting programs that even mention condoms.
I'm interested to know what that was about; I've not heard of anything like that. I can't see that this would be an attempt to get votes from conservative Christians, but perhaps there is some fiscal conservatism in view? As I said I really know nothing about it. I do know that AIDS is ravaging African at the moment and we should be doing everything possible to stop it, so what youíre saying is cause for concern.

The youth ministers I know (who deal with the issue of per-marital sex more than anyone in the Christian church) certainly encourage abstinence, however if they know a person is going to be sexually active, certainly theyíll encourage protection. No one wants the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

I suppose there is a big question of sex education in school. Iím not really on top of the issue (not having kids in school), but I guess the issue is whether the state is teaching children the type of sexual responsibility the parents want. I remember going through it all several times when I was in school and thinking the whole thing was pretty much a joke. My mother (a much more liberal person than I am who never really encouraged abstinence for me) also felt the sex education I received was not too helpful. I donít think Iíll fret over it too much though (I reserve the right to feel differently in 16 or so years); I assume that Iíll have a relationship with my children strong enough that I can provide them with whatever information I feel is lacking in the public education (if my children are publicly schooled, that is).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#240502 - 09/11/2004 16:39 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: kayakjazz]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
Quote:
Some of it IS willful ignorance:'don't confuse me with the facts...', some is apathetic ignorance--following the issues takes time and thought,

Exactly

Quote:
and then there's the other half of the normal curve.

Delicate wording of the day!

Quote:
Quote:
BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex?

To some degree, most societies are; it is a very powerful life-force, if not, as in Freud's theories, the dominant one, and hard to separate from survival of the species. The feminist view, which holds a lot of validity, also suggests that, especially in the cultures you mention, the sexual taboos keep women in their place: barefoot and pregnant. The U.S. culture is even more ambivalent about it than most; it's used to sell everything from cars and blue jeans to toothpaste, and these days you can find any deviation or degradtion of it you care to imagine online, but we are if anything becoming even more ambivalent and confused about it as a result. As I think you're suggesting, that ambivalence and fear is at the root of a lot of the cultural values clashes; it's not just Viet Nam we're refighting in a new form, it's the 60's and the Sexual Revolution.

Agreed, but I was meaning speciffically dogmas of these three religions, as opposed to, say, Helenistic religion(s), or many of Asian ones. Social status of women was (is) hardly better in those cultures, but their outlook on sex was in wide spectrum from that of harmless entertainment to ritualistic to mystic. No shame, no sin.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#240503 - 09/11/2004 17:08 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: bonzi]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
FWIW, most churches I've attended view sex as a good thing: the most intimate of acts, reserved for the union of marriage. Sex is not sin, or even close to it; using it for the wrong purposes is. I don't know of anywhere in the bible where marital sex is even implied to be sinful or unhealthy (except for perhaps regarding activity during a woman's menstruation in the OT law- but there's a lot more to that than sexual activity). I realize that there are some Christians who've regarded sex as necessary only for the bearing of children, but this is VERY hard to support from the perspective of the bible. What I (and most Christians I know) come away with is that God intended sex to build/show intimacy between marital partners in a unique and special way.

As a matter of fact, I think the only places where the bible is explicit and obvious regarding sexual sin is regarding homosexuality, sex with relatives, affairs, and lust. Even the ban on pre-marital sex isn't explicit that I know of, (though I do believe it falls out naturally from the study of a marriage covenant). So for the Christian, nothing about sex is really sinful, only what we consider to be the abuse of it.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#240504 - 09/11/2004 17:10 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: JeffS]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
A bit of Googling refreshed my memory and showed me wrong: Bush was insisting on 'abstinence-only programs' in countering AIDS, but changed his mind this summer; condoms are now OK, even in USA. Money (and condoms) were (and still are) cut for those institutions that mentioned abortion in their family-planning programs. Condoms are in Africa often distributed and their use promoted (both as an AIDS-prevention and family-planning device) by clinics that either provide or inform about abortion. Closing them down has several effects: more AIDS and other STDs, more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions (but in not even rudimentarily hygienic conditions of those clinics).
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#240505 - 09/11/2004 17:45 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: bonzi]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
My wife received this in her email recently...

Quote:
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women:Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice.

His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurateassertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's livesor to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and researchmust not be influenced by anti-abortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.


If neoconservative militarism was the theme for his first term, it certainly appears that neoconservative religon is going to be the theme for his second.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#240506 - 09/11/2004 18:11 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: genixia]
Heather
addict

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 509
Loc: NY
Quote:
My wife received this in her email recently...

Quote: {another trainwreck and imposition on women's health courtesy of the shrub and his cronies}


<heavy sarcasm tempered with rage>

Oh I'm sorry, does the silly little bint think she's got a right to be regarded as something more than a fsck hole, incubator, and milk maid?

The poor woman, seems to think she's capable of thinking and controlling something so personal as her crotch.

</sarcasm>
_________________________
Heather

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B Anthony

Top
#240507 - 09/11/2004 19:02 (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: bonzi]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
Quote:
Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

I am not against mentioning advantages of abstinence at all, just against preaching it as the only possible way. For example, a few months ago an African politician (I don't remember who) drew fire from some liberals because he was 'too reserved' towards use of condoms in anti-AIDS campaign. What the guy was saying was, essentially: "The best way to avoid AIDS is through abstinence or strict monogamy; failing that, and I know many of you will, *please* make sure to always use condoms!". Fair enough, I would say (needle sharing was not mentioned because his country is not rich enough for that kind of vice).



Sure. And that was basically the education I got.

Quote:

Quote:
The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

So, you saw the light, if I understand correctly


Well, despite the collapse of the basic steel industry around Pittsburgh when I was a kid, some other industries were suriviving, and I hadn't put all the pieces together.

The corporatist point of view seems to be that it's ok for high-level executives to profit as production is downsized or moved offshore. When steel was "going down" locally there wasn't massive profit-taking on the part of executives; The industry was legitimately hurting, and a lot of people lost their jobs as the domestic industry contracted.

tonyc was here this week and can no doubt attest to me pointing out several places which when I was young had steel mills covering them, and that wasn't even a majority of such local former mills.

Westinghouse Electric started shedding jobs later; The East Pittsburgh Works ended up being sold and reused as an industrial park. Copious Westinghouse facilities now sit empty or underused locally. Even this wasn't so much an issue; They too were in trouble. But then things were somewhat turned around as Westinghouse bought CBS... only to spin off the industrial assets. Westinghouse will never rise again to what it once was, and more jobs (they had a local R&D center) were lost in the process. Still, I hadn't totally lost the corporatist bent, but continued industrial downfall brought me around.

Today, Levi's Jeans production has all been moved offshore. It's nearly impossible to get a pair of shoes made in the U.S.; Expensive shoes might still come from Europe, some less expensive stuff is from Brazil, and everything else is from China.

Same deal with most toy production; Tonka stuff is now made elsewhere; One major competitor from the days of die cast metal toys, Nylint, went out of business a few years back.

For that matter, go in Wal-Mart and see what you can find that was made in this country. Remember when they used to advertise about saving American jobs? Did you notice how they haven't in quite a while? And we, all of us Americans collectively, look for cheap cheap cheap, and are buying ourselves right out of our own jobs. I won't say I'm better than anyone else; While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.

Am I under any delusion that this is Bush's fault? Not hardly. But the problem is, what do you do for the people who were turned out? We created bodies of non-skilled, semi-skilled, and skilled-but-priced-out-of-the-market unemployed labor, who now are often forced into trying to support their families on the barest wages, unable to afford health care.

Here's where I'm looking to the government for an answer, and I'm not seeing anything from this administration.

And here's where I have my disconnect with cushman:

Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.


Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Looking to the eastern part of the state, what had been Western Electric became AT&T Microelectronics, and then Lucent, and finally Agere. 3 factories stretching from Reading to Allentown were not enough to satiate the appetite of the new technological economy, and more plants were being built or bought, including in Mexico and Singapore. Then, the market faltered, and lo, over the next couple years all 3 plants in Pennsylvania lost their chip fab lines, and it ended up being done elsewhere. When business is good enough that your employer is struggling to keep up with demand, do you worry that your job and all the jobs around you will be gone in mere months?

Quote:

I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient.



Me either. But, I prefer they be made efficient, and others seem to prefer they just be cut. (for instance, in another post:
Quote:

I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.


and not for instance one who fixes welfare.)

Quote:
I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.


After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

And as far as "well, I don't have the money *now*, so I can't give it to charity *now*", which was one reply I heard while talking to people locally, I asked "so you wouldn't buy a house if you didn't have the money for it now, right?"

I will freely admit to being a liberal, and to being a prick, though really these are unrelated. I was a prick long before I was even slightly liberal. But I don't feel bad about being a prick in the cases where I am seeing no personal benefit as a result of it.

Top
#240508 - 09/11/2004 19:39 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: Daria]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.


Most recent case of sadness here, incidentally: front porch light burned out. I wanted either low-insect-attracting or compact fluorescent.

Sylvania Osram incandescents are made in St. Marys, PA... except the low-insect ones, which came from somewhere 3rd-world-ish. Every compact fluorescent, Sylvania and otherwise in (I think it was Lowe's) was from China.

My front porch has 2 60 watt incandescents in it now. So, to save jobs I have to waste power and/or attract bugs.

Top
#240509 - 09/11/2004 19:44 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: Daria]
cushman
veteran

Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
Quote:
Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.

Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Hey, shat happens. I myself am from a family where we lived below the poverty line for many years. My wife is the same. I grew up in northern Maine where I witnessed the decline of the small time farmer (grandfather and uncles included), the poor job market, and the closure of an Air Force base. All of these factors affected the local economy negatively. My father, a contractor, began having health problems when I was about 12. What he did was quit the construction business, go to college and get a degree in mathematics (my mom supported our family with a job as an administrative assistant). He then started teaching school as an alternative to his old labor-intensive job. In the 70's my dad moved to North Carolina where there was a construction boom so he could support his new family. You have to have your own backup plans. I'm sure you aren't relying on Social Security for your retirement, are you?

Quote:
Quote:

I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient.


Me either. But, I prefer they be made efficient, and others seem to prefer they just be cut. (for instance, in another post:
Quote:

I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.


and not for instance one who fixes welfare.)

Where is the incentive to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and work hard for your own good when you know that you have a government that will support you if you cannot? Especially when you buy into the viewpoint that it is a recurring cycle.

Quote:
Quote:
I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.

After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think this would actually be a good start.
_________________________
Mark Cushman

Top
#240510 - 09/11/2004 19:48 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: Daria]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.



Ok, this is now 2 replies to myself. I suck. Anyway, someone pointed out in response to a thread on a mailing list about a Pittsburgh historical topic where the closure in the last 5-6 years of a local coke plant, that perhaps it was better (for us) if the heavily polluting industrial processes moved offshore. The person who said it was a political moderate who works for state government.

After considerable thought, I decided that wasn't true. Despite recent dilution of environmental protections, there'd still be less environmental damage from doing it here than in China or many other 3rd world countries. And the processes aren't moving to area with good environmental protections, they're moving to China... but we all share an environment.

Certainly televisions aren't as dire as they were; for a while only Zenith sets were made in the U.S.; Now Sony makes sets in a plant in New Stanton, PA, which was built for Chrysler and opened finally 4 years late as a Volkswagen assembly plant.

Top
#240511 - 09/11/2004 20:00 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: cushman]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.

Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Hey, shat happens. I myself am from a family where we lived below the poverty line for many years. My wife is the same. I grew up in northern Maine where I witnessed the decline of the small time farmer (grandfather and uncles included), the poor job market, and the closure of an Air Force base. All of these factors affected the local economy negatively. My father, a contractor, began having health problems when I was about 12. What he did was quit the construction business, go to college and get a degree in mathematics (my mom supported our family with a job as an administrative assistant). He then started teaching school as an alternative to his old labor-intensive job. In the 70's my dad moved to North Carolina where there was a construction boom so he could support his new family. You have to have your own backup plans. I'm sure you aren't relying on Social Security for your retirement, are you?



Nope. But just because I have time to plan, and people to fall back on, doesn't mean everyone does. Moving to find work isn't free either, sometimes you need money to get money, and when you don't have it, no one wants to loan it to you.

Quote:

Where is the incentive to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and work hard for your own good when you know that you have a government that will support you if you cannot? Especially when you buy into the viewpoint that it is a recurring cycle.


And what happens when you're so screwed that you can't even get that far? If you're a single parent with a kid, for instance, and no relatives you can pawn the kid off on for a day, how do you go work? And, just to cut off whatever silly discussion might follow, let's say it's a widow whose spouse died in Iraq or something. You can't just take the kid to work, having someone random not related to you helping is... public assistance, right?

Quote:
Quote:

After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think this would actually be a good start.


I don't think anyone will buy it, which is a shame, because I think a lot of us are really in it for the same ends, but disagree on how we will get there. There are certainly "screw em, let em fend for themselves" people, but I'd argue there are far fewer of those than people who just don't want people living on the dole, and really, neither do I. But I think the flipside is we're sort of screwed now, we have semi-effective government programs, and semi-effective private programs, and the continuing battle over which way we should move to find a real solution is very academic and not actually *doing* anything.

Here, I feel powerless. At work, when things get deadlocked, well, I have enough powers that I can often walk away for a while, come back, and say "while you were arguing about it, I fixed the problem. If you decide you don't like the way I did it, you're welcome to fix it another way, but I'm not going to break it for you while you do, I'm done now.", and while it's often suboptimal, it beats flopping around trying to find direction forever. Here, well, no one of us has the power to move things. Me putting all my money into the government or you putting all of yours into charity would just screw us, and not actually make any difference.

Edit: put back missing quote tag

Top
#240512 - 09/11/2004 20:12 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: Daria]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
I don't think anyone will buy it
More than that, I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what the magic number for each program is that means it has "enough". I fear the arguments would simply relocate rather than go away.

That being said, I think it's a good idea and would be worth a shot.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#240513 - 09/11/2004 20:15 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: JeffS]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think anyone will buy it
More than that, I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what the magic number for each program is that means it has "enough". I fear the arguments would simply relocate rather than go away.


Well, you'd have to codify benchmarks and measuring techniques into the law or what would happen was peple with agendas either way would just change how they measured to support the we are (better/worse) conclusion they sought. And even then keeping people honest would be hard.

Top
#240514 - 09/11/2004 20:15 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: JeffS]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Well, there's some defined number (or other metric) that the government is throwing at it now.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#240515 - 09/11/2004 20:16 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: wfaulk]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
Quote:
Well, there's some defined number (or other metric) that the government is throwing at it now.


Sure, but even if they meet it, your tax money would instead be allocated out of the general fund for something else, not be returned to you.

Top
#240516 - 09/11/2004 20:46 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: Daria]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Sure, but even if they meet it, your tax money would instead be allocated out of the general fund for something else, not be returned to you.
Sure. He wasn't arguing against your idea, only my argument against your idea.

And he's right, but I'd still bet those figures would come under a lot of fire.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#240517 - 09/11/2004 20:49 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: JeffS]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Here's a problem:

How do you determine how much is being given away in charity? Have the charitable orgs report the money they're using? That's kind of self-defeating, as that that much more money they won't have from the government. Tax reports? The givers often don't know exactly how their donations are being used. I'm sure I could go on if I felt like it.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#240518 - 09/11/2004 20:54 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: wfaulk]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
I don't care how much is being given away in charity. I care if the needs are being met. If it took the government $10k to meet needs that charity can do for $3k, then, well, $3k it is, if the needs are in fact being met.

Top
#240519 - 09/11/2004 21:08 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: cushman]
mcomb
pooh-bah

Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
Quote:
Quote:
After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think this would actually be a good start.

How is this significantly different than existing tax incentives for charitable donations?

-Mike
_________________________
EmpMenuX - ext3 filesystem - Empeg iTunes integration

Top
#240520 - 09/11/2004 21:17 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: mcomb]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3932
Loc: Providence, RI
In other cases they give you a tax credit, e.g. your taxable income is reduced, and there are weird rules and games you can play.

In this case you simply wouldn't be charged tax for this purpose. You'd be eligible for whatever tax credit you might otherwise, the point is not to change the tax code, the point is to meet a need, if possible outside the government's budgeting powers, and having done so, allow reaping of the reward for it.

Top
#240521 - 09/11/2004 22:43 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: Daria]
mcomb
pooh-bah

Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
Quote:
In other cases they give you a tax credit, e.g. your taxable income is reduced, and there are weird rules and games you can play.

In this case you simply wouldn't be charged tax for this purpose. You'd be eligible for whatever tax credit you might otherwise, the point is not to change the tax code, the point is to meet a need, if possible outside the government's budgeting powers, and having done so, allow reaping of the reward for it.


So would you have to prove that you gave in order to be eligible for the tax rebate? I guess you are saying no, that the tax rate would simple be lowered as the "need" was met by whoever felt like it. I suppose that is consistent with libertarian goals. Of course as a liberal I don't see it ever happening (and I suspect you don't either). Those who have the most to give are the least likely to (they have the most incentive not to due to being out of touch with the needs of those who most desperately need the assistance). Not to mention that if the scheme doesn't work you are penalizing those who did try to help by taxing them regardless.

If you do attempt to verify that someone at least attempted to give by setting some minimum gift percentage to be eligible for the tax cut then you have all the same game-ability and other issues that the current tax incentives have.

-Mike
_________________________
EmpMenuX - ext3 filesystem - Empeg iTunes integration

Top
#240522 - 10/11/2004 02:03 Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) [Re: JeffS]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
What I don't get is why people are so vocally against federal social programmes in this country, preferring instead for charity to attempt to pick up the slack, yet remain silent when charities in Afghanistan are leaving because the US military can't keep them safe but can provide (US federal tax dollar-supported) social programmes for Afghanis..
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#240523 - 10/11/2004 02:52 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: canuckInOR]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
No, I think Jim got it wrong, there... he missed the "I'm the only one that can keep you safe" issue, so it's really 3.5 issues that I think people were voting on.

I won't disagree. I think that the reprehensible fear-mongering had its desired effect on some relations of mine, certainly. So in terms of what contributed to the vote, I think 3.5 is about right.

What moved my exasperation over the 2.5? Well, Bush/Cheney probably deserve some cred on their anti-gay/anti-abortion/pro-gun positions evern if they don't really lose sleep over those. At the same time it is darned hard to find any Republicans offering a credible defense for many Bush/Cheney actions including the biggest clusterfuck of all (Iraq) and I hear a lot of people saying -- yeah, quoted in the newspaper and on radio -- "well, gosh, we don't really care about all of those nasty particulars, we just know that hand of God is on his shoulder". Moral issues! I can't believe people say that. Of course, these are the people who still think George found the WMD, so what am I to expect?

Anyhow, I guess my shocked 2.5 disbelief is aimed at the "God's hand" evangelical turnout that pushed this one into Satan's win column. As some angry wag said, red state Republicans have been punked by blue state Republicans. Well, if that ain't the work of the Devil, I don't know *what* is.

And from the standpoint of a strategy that milked the evangelical base, I am guessing that, when the votes are in, Rove will once again win the Evil Genius award for targeted ballot initiatives in swing states that got the vote out over and above the national fear-mongering. And I should add back your comment:

Quote:
Because everything else he's done has been a failure when you look at the facts? (Those have been hashed out so many times before that I'll not repeat them here.)

Sigh. Yup.


Edited by jimhogan (10/11/2004 03:14)

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >