Fascinating!

Considering the coronavirus, the right-wing keys on money costs, debt, taxes and nary a word about human beings getting sick, suffering and possibly dying. They even have the cruelty to label those poor unfortunates who died from taking Trump's advice "lunatics".

The left keys on the human cost and attempts to pull out all stops to alleviate the suffering and dying. The left recognizes the material cost but wisely and compassionately realizes that those costs must, by necessity, be put off until the more important issues of life and death are settled.

These conclusions are based on the thread about "Trump's First Kill". I recommend all viewers to carefully read that thread and compare the differing points of view.

why cover the same ground twice

An interesting perspectives clashes for sure as the virus GROWS, and the death toll GROWS! Add to this the economic affects especially with the jobless figures reported at 3.28 million filing for unemployment, I see righties freaking out and honestly rightfully so, but the root cause of the raging health care crisis cannot and should not be ignored just for the fact it shows NO signs of slowing down and will overwhelm EVERYBODY'S health care system.

I see no choice but to take the economic hit to control this thing, and worry about the other challenges later. The senate has passed the tide over package, but no illusions to how effective that will really be after it's finally implemented, nor should there be any illusions that a lot more will be needed.

They even have the cruelty to label those poor unfortunates who died from taking Trump's advice "lunatics".
any moron who ingests fish tank cleaner is a lunatic Go ahead with that idiotic narrative that he was following Trump's advice and then go and find the quote where Trump suggested someone WITHOUT the virus should take fish bowel cleaner as a remedy . Go on I am waiting . You sound more and more ridiculous by the day .

I stand accused and am guilty . I think what is happening here is sheer folly and that is from someone in the high risk group who lives near ground zero and reports to work every day because my job has been deemed essential . Every day Dr David Katz is more convincing to me .
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html?searchResultPosition=2

any moron who ingests fish tank cleaner is a lunatic Go ahead with that idiotic narrative that he was following Trump's advice and then go and find the quote where Trump suggested someone WITHOUT the virus should take fish bowel cleaner as a remedy . Go on I am waiting

I already posted it. See entry #1 in the thread "Trump's First Kill".

Of course, you have changed what Trump said just enough to suit your bias. I'm not surprised.

any moron who ingests fish tank cleaner is a lunatic Go ahead with that idiotic narrative that he was following Trump's advice and then go and find the quote where Trump suggested someone WITHOUT the virus should take fish bowel cleaner as a remedy . Go on I am waiting . You sound more and more ridiculous by the day .

I stand accused and am guilty . I think what is happening here is sheer folly and that is from someone in the high risk group who lives near ground zero and reports to work every day because my job has been deemed essential . Every day Dr David Katz is more convincing to me .
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html?searchResultPosition=2

I suspect you will get plenty of this herd immunity opportunities just as things are with all those unknown, unverified, and untested citizens running around.

my alternative post . NY STATE AND CITY OFFICIALS ARE COMPLICIT IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW YORKERS AND THE SPREAD OF WUHAN VIRUS AROUND THE COUNTRY . not only did they not take steps to protect the people they encouraged NYers to take risks . NY City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot on Feb 2 urged NYers to spend as much time in crowded public places as possible . She told us the risk of infection is low .She specifically said we should take subways ,bus and to go to our favorite restaurants .Then she said don't miss the St Patty's Day parade . A couple days later they cancelled the parade.

State Senator John Liu called those who were concerned racists . State Senator Brian Kavanaugh encouraged people to go to a festival in China town and scoffed at any potential risk .

March 2 Mayor Sandinista Bill told NYers in a tweet to live their lives and" get out on the town";to see a movie called 'The Traitor ' (a movie about a detective that brings down Cosa Nostra in Italy) March 11, he told us that if we weren't sick we should just go about our lives . You may recall that the NBA suspended their season on the same day. Italy was already in a complete mandatory lock down . Deaths came shortly afterwards . Then DiCommio changed his tune and started to blame shift towards Trump and how he had neglected the city .

You can make a strong case for states not being well prepared Tom, but still waiting for the supply side market solutions by well funded corporations and money suckers to meet demands that the pols dropped the ball on.

it is coming in a remarkably swift manner .
GM is retrofitting a plant as we speak , and will start making ventilators where they were making cars starting next week. A remarkably fast retooling of a production plant . Tesla is going to do the same . The real problem is the lack of a hospital ventilator industry here . Look at who makes them . In the US they are small companies . Most of our stock are made over seas . None of them have the capacity of GM to do what it is doing .

It is happening all over the country . My Pillow retooled ands is now making surgical masks. . Even private crafters are buying supplies and making masks for hospitals
Celebs are getting into the act

https://www.tmz.com/2020/03/27/project-runway-star-michael-costello-converts-factory-masks-coronavirus/

Teva is donating 6 million doses of
Hydroxychloroquine sulfate ;Sun Pharma is donating 2.5million doses . Bayer is donating 3 million doses of
chloroquine .Breweries all over the country have retooled to make hand sanitizers .
You know what would make it go even faster ? Onerous regulations could be relaxed . That is what happened when NY made the call to start clinical trials for the drug combination that Trump said shows promise (and no he did not encourage anyone to take fish tank cleaner ) .

Look ,Trump has the power under the DPA if he chooses to use it . I applaud his restraint . You have ZERO assurances that supplied would be produced faster if he compelled companies to make these products .

...Trump said shows promise (and no he did not encourage anyone to take fish tank cleaner ) .
Trump merely muttering the word "chloroquine" as a potential "gamechanger" was all it took for two of his disciples to swallow fish-tank cleaner that contains that drug.

stupid is as stupid does . I'm not wasting any more time responding to this BS issue

The left keys on the human cost and attempts to pull out all stops to alleviate the suffering and dying. The left recognizes the material cost but wisely and compassionately realizes that those costs must, by necessity, be put off until the more important issues of life and death are settled.What a self-serving pile of nonsense. Yeah, conservatives do tend to look at cost. Libs love to brag about how much they care about people until, of course, the time comes for them to actually pay for any of it. Then they run for cover.

t
he left keys on the human cost and attempts to pull out all stops to alleviate the suffering and dying.
remember how the Dems approve the snuffing of over 600,000 babies a year but now act concerned about a couple thousand seniors who may die

but can't you see the difference, the question of the future and the past, the demonrats own nothing to the future and everything to the past

but still waiting for the supply side market solutions
will post them as they come up .
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/489731-ralph-lauren-pledges-10-million-to-global-coronavirus-efforts
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-google-donates-800-million-fight-covid19-face-masks-2020-3?fbclid=IwAR3rcrFuW07NnIi1UCuKjOC7Al3GxpK_CebeIkc Adv6IMZ8Nk91_53NrItg

From Dr Deborah Birx :

"

And the situation about ventilators. We are reassured in meeting with our colleagues in New York that there are still I.C.U. Beds remaining and still significant — over 1,000 or 2,000 ventilators that have not been utilized. Please for the reassurance of people around the world, to wake up this morning and look at people talking about creating DNR situations, Do Not Resuscitate situations for patients, there is no situation in the United States right now that warrants that kind of discussion. You can be thinking about it in the hospital. Certainly, hospitals talk about this on a daily basis, but to say that to the American people and make the implication that when they need a hospital bed it's not going to be there or a ventilator, it's not going to be there, we don't have evidence of that. "

prior to that she said :


"I'm going to say something that is a little bit complicated but do it in a way we can understand it together. In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who [are] a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. We have not seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000. So either we are measuring the iceberg and underneath it, are a large group of people. So we are working hard to get the antibody test and figure out who these people are and do they exist. Or we have the transmission completely wrong



So these are the things we are looking at, because the predictions of the model don't match the reality on the ground in China, South Korea or Italy. We are five times the size of Italy. If we were Italy and did all those divisions, Italy should have close to 400,000 deaths. They are not close to achieving that.Models are models. We are — there is enough data of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20% of a population getting infected, it's very scary, but we don't have data that matches that based on our experience.



It's our job collectively to assure the American people, it's our job to make sure that doesn't happen. You can see the cases are concentrated in highly urban areas and there are other parts of the states that have lots of ventilators and other parts of New York state that don't have any infected. We can meet the needs by being responsive."

Everyone keeps talking about ventilators . But one could ask NY when considering their CONs ,do you have enough ICU trained nurses and respiratory therapy technicians who can operate these ventilators ? How's the supply of oxygen tanks ; lab technicians ? Do you have multiple changes of PPE gowning for them ?They get thrown away after use .Your ratio under these conditions is no more than 1 nurse for 2 patients. The proper procedure for gowning by an experiences nurse requires 10 minutes minimum and then removing and sanitizing the nurse probably as much time . For the technicians it is the same . Moisture gets in the tubing so that needs to be checked and replaced as needed . Blood samples need to be taken to check oxygen levels . Around the clock care for 30,000 patients would require a minimum of 45,000 trained critical care nurses . Who knows how many changes of PPE ? The ventilators ,the PPE all has to be produced . None of it is stock piled in any meaningful way. And I'll let you in on something . The workers at pharmaceutical and health care industries are also required to wear PPE . Maybe not as advanced as those in ICU . But close . I worked for a time in a sterile operation making prescription ophthalmics .From head to toe I was covered in PPE .Not any surface of the body exposed .

It's a logistics nightmare of scope and scale we have never seen and playing catch up to a fast moving train makes it that much more challenging. All you can really do is roll up your sleeves and get busy. Glad the private sector is stepping up, and hope to see more of it, since they have as much stake in a positive timely outcome as any body.

I think though we all would be better served with those daily WH briefings being more experts and less politicians.

I could say the same about il Duce Cuomo's pressers . At least Trump has either Dr Birx or Dr Anthony Fauci at every presser. Say what you want about them .They are rating as high or better as many cable shows .The hate Trump networks are doing their audience a huge disservice by not covering them . I don't care if Rachel Madcow;black hole Don Lemon , or Fredo Cuomo mocks them afterwards .The audience deserves to hear them , I suspect they do since Fox ratings reflect the increase in viewership

Dr. Birx's comments were really interesting. If the attack ratio of the virus is actually 1/1,000, then it would seem we have over-reacted significantly.

I could say the same about il Duce Cuomo's pressers . At least Trump has either Dr Birx or Dr Anthony Fauci at every presser. Say what you want about them .They are rating as high or better as many cable shows .The hate Trump networks are doing their audience a huge disservice by not covering them . I don't care if Rachel Madcow;black hole Don Lemon , or Fredo Cuomo mocks them afterwards .The audience deserves to hear them , I suspect they do since Fox ratings reflect the increase in viewership







Folks go where they get to hear what they want to hear I suppose. Conservatives love Fox, and everybody else goes elsewhere.

Folks go where they get to hear what they want to hear I suppose.Sadly true. A desire to simply hear the truth is what is needed.

Dr. Birx's comments were really interesting. If the attack ratio of the virus is actually 1/1,000, then it would seem we have over-reacted significantly.

You cannot take any numbers as accurate when testing is rationed. I think all the experts have made that point. No telling how many people that 1/1000 have infected that don't get tested. That should be very concerning going forward.


Sadly true. A desire to simply hear the truth is what is needed.

Less dufus and a lot more doctors.

So you don't want to listen to Trump, and now you don't want to listen to an expert despite your call for "a lot more doctors". I guess the famous scientist Rachel Maddow must not agree with that figure.

What was fascinating was the group in the UK who had predicted 500,000 deaths in their country just a few weeks ago have not reduced that figure to 20,000. Hard to see how they could have missed it by that much. It was probably the panic factor.

So you don't want to listen to Trump, and now you don't want to listen to an expert. I guess the famous scientist Rachel Maddow must not agree with that figure.

What part of a lot more doctors/health experts is it you don't get? I make no mention of the liberal talking heads and their opinions and listen to the way the doctors and experts answer questions and what questions they answer.

Then why aren't you listening to Dr. Birx's comments? She is the one who commented on the 1/1,000 attack rate.

The 500,000 deaths being "downgraded" to fewer than 20,000 is fascinating. It just goes to show how easily science can get it wrong, especially early on when the data is sparse.

https://www.gopusa.com/u-k-scientist-who-said-nation-could-suffer-500000-deaths-offers-new-figure-20000/

Then why aren't you listening to Dr. Birx's comments? She is the one who commented on the 1/1,000 attack rate.

The 500,000 deaths being "downgraded" to fewer than 20,000 is fascinating. It just goes to show how easily science can get it wrong, especially early on when the data is sparse.

https://www.gopusa.com/u-k-scientist-who-said-nation-could-suffer-500000-deaths-offers-new-figure-20000/

That's certainly the case with ONE UK scientist, but as to Dr. Birx's comments, There are plenty of caveats that make her words preliminary.


"I'm going to say something that is a little bit complicated but do it in a way we can understand it together. In the model, either you have to have a large group of people who [are] a-asymptomatic, who never presented for any test to have the kind of numbers predicted. To get to 60 million people infected, you have to have a large group of a-symptomatics. We have not seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000. So either we are measuring the iceberg and underneath it, are a large group of people. So we are working hard to get the antibody test and figure out who these people are and do they exist. Or we have the transmission completely wrong

What was fascinating was the group in the UK who had predicted 500,000 deaths in their country just a few weeks ago have not reduced that figure to 20,000. Hard to see how they could have missed it by that much. It was probably the panic factor. Just like climate "scientists " the Imperial College group created for themselves a vested interest in the outcome of their model .

Yes but even without the mass testing the numbers are going downward . When you expand the denominator then you may find that there is a greater threat to the population by keeping to business as normal during the flu season.

This ain't the flu though, and we cannot treat it a such. I refer you to J_9's very good thread on the subject. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medical-conditions-diseases/covid-19-vs-flu-847451.html)

I did not say they were the same . But the reality is that the flu affects all age groups ;returns annually ,kills 50,000-80,000 annually in this country .AND mutates so there is no guarantee that the annual flu shot will even be effective .Still we do not shut the country down for it . Don't have all the data in on this yet so I can't make sweeping statements about it . However ,it does appear to be much more deadly to a specific risk group than the rest of the population at large . Guidelines can be established to protect them the best we can . Then hopefully this one does not mutate in any significant way ,and the rest of the population can establish herd immunity .

Bottom line . you keep on saying it is a medical call. But ultimately public policy is a political call..... Made by leaders doing risk assessment .

Lack of testing has slowed the crucial data of which you speak Tom, and without it, we are blind, so an abundance of caution seems reasonable even though the disruption to the economy is scary as hell to everybody including those without resources in the first place. Just look at the countries and even our own states and localities that are slow to shut things down and implement restrictions and watch them become new hotspots. Heck all the big cities have become hotspots.

But the point remains the same. For the person who has the virus and yet is asymptomatic, the result is the same as not even having it other than they produce antibodies that give resistance to a future infection. It seems to be that, in terms of truly serious cases, the 1/1,000 attack rate is probably accurate. I guess we'll see in the next few weeks. I just wonder what all the libs are going to do if we can all go to church on Easter.

Well this is what the libs have asked for all along. They dont mind giving up rights over a little virus.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-27/rhode-island-police-to-hunt-down-new-yorkers-seeking-refuge

But the point remains the same. For the person who has the virus and yet is asymptomatic, the result is the same as not even having it other than they produce antibodies that give resistance to a future infection. It seems to be that, in terms of truly serious cases, the 1/1,000 attack rate is probably accurate. I guess we'll see in the next few weeks. I just wonder what all the libs are going to do if we can all go to church on Easter.

The a symptomatic can spread to others unknowingly, and if your church is open and you attend while irresponsible in my opinion, that's up to you but you should look up what happened in SKorea regarding those religious decisions before you take that action.


Well this is what the libs have asked for all along. They dont mind giving up rights over a little virus.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-27/rhode-island-police-to-hunt-down-new-yorkers-seeking-refuge

Rather extreme in my view. I guess crazy is not just restricted to conservatives.

The a symptomatic can spread to others unknowingly, and if your church is open and you attend while irresponsible in my opinion, that's up to you but you should look up what happened in SKorea regarding those religious decisions before you take that action.Unless, of course, the disease is trending downwards by then, but that's a fair statement.

Unless, of course, the disease is trending downwards by then, but that's a fair statement.

Hope for the best but plan for the worst. A few local churches will be broadcasting services.

Hope for the best but plan for the worst. A few local churches will be broadcasting services.

Yes definitely the trend, my local church was an early adopter since church gatherings are banned but now with gatherings of more than two banned even that will be difficult

Yes definitely the trend, my local church was an early adopter since church gatherings are banned but now with gatherings of more than two banned even that will be difficult

Maybe it's good that preachers have found the internet.

Maybe it's good that preachers have found the internet.

Preachers found the internet long ago, do you need to be reminded that both the good and the bad use the internet

You won't need an Easter bonnet this year. Heck you can attend services in your PJ's if the spirit so moves you.

If the spirit moves me, I'll be in my lounge room

The spirit moved me to go on a toilet paper run this morning, and I can proudly proclaim success after hitting 4 stores. Now I can hunker in peace.

Someone sent me this short video of an amazing invention to replace tp. Watch to the end.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQM__8Jn978&feature=youtu.be

That was hilarious!

That was rediculous, but nothing new, let's move on

No sense of humor Clete? Aw! Or have you tried it and had painful experiences that keep the smile off your face? You can "come clean" and tell us!

No sense of humor Clete? Aw! Or have you tried it and had painful experiences that keep the smile off your face? You can "come clean" and tell us!

actually, I had thought of the brush just not motorised

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB11Y2uT.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=907&y=273

Yes you prepared for the wrong war but a nuke in the right place might have made a difference

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB11Y4sl.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

that may have been a relevent cartoon in the 1960s . This is what it looks like today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7Xk5_s3QQ

Interesting. One robot blows up, the whole line goes down.

can't say welcome to the future . That is the present . ever see an Amazon pick and pack operation ? Robots bring the warehouse racks to the pickers . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLVCGEmkJs0

Get rid of the robots and there would be many more jobs, but costs would be considerably higher. Dilemma.

Get rid of the robots and there would be many more jobs, but costs would be considerably higher. Dilemma.

yeah they kill some jobs . But create more jobs then they destroy. That is the history of technology . Of course there has to be more investment in education .But the corporations should be tasked to provide the training and education. And they do . As old as I am ,my company still has me go to classes to upgrade my skill set . And that is not just for management level. Many of our employees take ESL classes provided by the company ;classes in computer skills are also provided for front line operators .

I doubt a robot replaces you Tom, but expect a young kid with computer skills and degree in what ever to come in at a lot less your pay, and experience, and benefits to do twice your work.

expect a young kid with computer skills and degree in what ever to come in at a lot less your pay, and experience, and benefits to do twice your work.What a cheerful outlook.

tal Technolgy has elevated the human condition . Always has and always will . The blacksmith became the auto mechanic. The trolly driver became the bus driver . The draftsman who worked with the compass ,triangle and divider became the cad operator ,and now the cad operator became the expert who is making 3D designs on AutoCad programs . The pharmaceutical compounder who used to physically dump 55 gallon drums of liquid into a kettle now operates the computer console that directs the robot to do the back breaking task . Do you think farming was better in the days before the combine harvester ? This is what the dash console looks like https://www.fueloyal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GPS-In-Agriculture-One-Step-Closer-To-Sustainability-1-650x434.jpg (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fueloyal.com%2Fgps-agriculture-one-step-closer-sustainability%2F&psig=AOvVaw2_6v7nbuykNr3dizoyezOg&ust=1586131417587000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCOC36pX-z-gCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAN)

beats the hell out of this
https://www.campsilos.org/mod2/images/9_haypeople.jpg (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.campsilos.org%2Fmod2%2Fteach ers%2Fr1_part5.shtml&psig=AOvVaw0IHVioC8S0l6horTdNPS5y&ust=1586131765583000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCMj6i7n_z-gCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ)

and yet agricultural labourers are still used, the machine has not taken over everything, but nevertheless humans are born lazy

yes haven't figured out how to use robotics to pick certain produce yet. Cheap illegal labor disincentives the need for the innovation .

Labour is not cheap everywhere, and when the backpackers flee home we may have to innovate and you will benefit

yes haven't figured out how to use robotics to pick certain produce yet. Cheap illegal labor disincentives the need for the innovation .

That and the costs of the innovative new machinery, often only available through a loan lease agreement. The whole process of retraining may take years and money, and even generations to achieve, and the First Bush certainly was the one who predicted and pushed the new world order Tom, which in many ways we have seen this affect our economy in some very profound ways much like your blacksmith adapting to autos. Cheap labor moved many innovations to other countries, and I doubt small farmers with no other viable options care if that labor is illegal or not. Try telling your kids of the many job opportunities their are to work in the fresh air and pick strawberries and potatoes, or whatever they cannot have a machine do.

Let me know what they tell you.

It never ceases to amaze me to hear that farmers must use illegal labor to do jobs Americans won't do. That's being said when there are still Americans sitting on their duffs drawing welfare. Why not tell them to go pick strawberries? I guess it's just a lot easier to go out and borrow money. Try telling your kids to go pick strawberries? In the Great Depression, there would have been thousands of Americans heading that way to pick produce. They would have done so since picking produce is much better than being hungry. We have become such a soft country. Why not tell your kids to do what they need to do to take care of themselves rather than depending on someone else? Wouldn't that be a lot better than telling your grandchildren to get ready to be buried in a national debt caused by our unwillingness to simply pay for what we want?

Americans today don't sit on their duffs just collecting welfare...they must meet state requirements to even get assistance. That pretty much blows the premise for most of your argument out of the water. Even if we got a bunch of Americans to pick strawberries, or made those farmers pay the minimum wage you think those American strawberry pickers wouldn't need assistance from the state to survive?

Americans today don't sit on their duffs just collecting welfare...they must meet state requirements to even get assistance. That pretty much blows the premise for most of your argument out of the waterPrepare to be faced with (for you) an unpleasant truth.

https://medium.com/2016-index-of-culture-and-opportunity/most-work-eligible-welfare-recipients-are-not-working-17d0004523b (https://medium.com/2016-index-of-culture-and-opportunity/most-work-eligible-welfare-recipients-are-not-working-17d0004523b)


Even if we got a bunch of Americans to pick strawberries, or made those farmers pay the minimum wage you think those American strawberry pickers wouldn't need assistance from the state to survive?And again, prepare for the truth. According to the National Geographic, "Farm employers reported paying their hired, seasonal harvest workers—the folks picking and sorting everything from grapes to peaches to tomatoes—an average wage of $10.19 an hour in 2010. " And that stat is 10 years old, so you know it is higher now!! My friend, you must stop drinking all of that liberal kool aid.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/#close

http://www.eatingwell.com/article/291645/farmers-cant-find-enough-workers-to-harvest-cropsand-fruits-and-vegetables-are-literally-rotting-in-fields/

The whole process of retraining may take years and money, and even generations to achieve,
nonsense . I have had to learn 3 different operating system in my 30 years on this job. It took a matter of a few weeks .


and I doubt small farmers with no other viable options care if that labor is illegal or not. Try telling your kids of the many job opportunities their are to work in the fresh air and pick
strawberries and potatoes, or whatever they cannot have a machine do.

you think it is the small farmer hiring illegal cheap labor ? Nah ;
big agribusinesses does the most hiring of illegals .

Prepare to be faced with (for you) an unpleasant truth.

https://medium.com/2016-index-of-culture-and-opportunity/most-work-eligible-welfare-recipients-are-not-working-17d0004523b (https://medium.com/2016-index-of-culture-and-opportunity/most-work-eligible-welfare-recipients-are-not-working-17d0004523b)

And again, prepare for the truth. According to the National Geographic, "Farm employers reported paying their hired, seasonal harvest workers—the folks picking and sorting everything from grapes to peaches to tomatoes—an average wage of $10.19 an hour in 2010. " And that stat is 10 years old, so you know it is higher now!! My friend, you must stop drinking all of that liberal kool aid.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/#close

http://www.eatingwell.com/article/291645/farmers-cant-find-enough-workers-to-harvest-cropsand-fruits-and-vegetables-are-literally-rotting-in-fields/

Sorry could access the NG link, but I will use this one for a farm worker pay scale which is experienced based it seems and for a person starting off you will be part of the working poor and on assistance. So I'll stick with my original statement.

Your last link makes the case for that long put off immigration policy. The farmers would appreciate it. I know you aren't proposing forced farm labor for welfare recipients are you, or forcing poor people to move the farms? That NJ poor person has no resources for such migration without some assistance.

Surely you see and understand the complications in such an idea don't you?

nonsense . I have had to learn 3 different operating system in my 30 years on this job. It took a matter of a few weeks .

All you needed was those weeks of brush up instruction as you had previous experience, but that 50 year old miner may need a lot more than a few weeks to master a different OS. A fresh college grad may need just a general instruction if I may present a more realistic view across the board and not to minimize your own experience either. My company sent me to school too, back in the day, but it wasn't for a few weeks but 4 years.


you think it is the small farmer hiring illegal cheap labor ? Nah ;big agribusinesses does the most hiring of illegals .

What large corporations want cheap labor too? Who would have thunk that? My whole point is that Big Biz has moved new technology and whole factories over seas, and left us with a service economy rather than the industrial based one we had decades ago.

Prepare to be faced with (for you) an unpleasant truth.

https://medium.com/2016-index-of-culture-and-opportunity/most-work-eligible-welfare-recipients-are-not-working-17d0004523b (https://medium.com/2016-index-of-culture-and-opportunity/most-work-eligible-welfare-recipients-are-not-working-17d0004523b)

And again, prepare for the truth. According to the National Geographic, "Farm employers reported paying their hired, seasonal harvest workers—the folks picking and sorting everything from grapes to peaches to tomatoes—an average wage of $10.19 an hour in 2010. " And that stat is 10 years old, so you know it is higher now!! My friend, you must stop drinking all of that liberal kool aid.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/#close

http://www.eatingwell.com/article/291645/farmers-cant-find-enough-workers-to-harvest-cropsand-fruits-and-vegetables-are-literally-rotting-in-fields/
The main word in all that is "seasonal." When the season ends, then what?

Your last link makes the case for that long put off immigration policy. The farmers would appreciate it. I know you aren't proposing forced farm labor for welfare recipients are you, or forcing poor people to move the farms? That NJ poor person has no resources for such migration without some assistance.I'm all for immigration reform. I'm not in favor of forcing people to work, and I'm not in favor of forcing people who do work to support those who won't.


Surely you see and understand the complications in such an idea don't you?In the idea of people working and supporting themselves??? Really?


The main word in all that is "seasonal." When the season ends, then what?Then they need to find something else to do, just like those who already do this kind of work do. They need to do what they have to do to support themselves. It's not a really complicated idea.

You do realize the article was about farmers being unable to find enough workers to harvest the crops? We have people drawing welfare, and they can't find laborers. Hmmm. That seems awfully strange.

I'm all for immigration reform. I'm not in favor of forcing people to work, and I'm not in favor of forcing people who do work to support those who won't.

In theory we don't since those numbers, which are really hard to verify, represent the smallest number of people in our population unless you have those on hand. Be glad to see them. Big difference I think though between those that don't want to work, and those that cannot.



"Surely you see and understand the complications in such an idea don't you? "
In the idea of people working and supporting themselves??? Really?

The idea is an easy one but in real life it's complicated. Just getting one prepared to work can be a logistics nightmare.


Then they need to find something else to do, just like those who already do this kind of work do. They need to do what they have to do to support themselves. It's not a really complicated idea. [/QUOTE]

Seasonal workers often return home and do other work.


You do realize the article was about farmers being unable to find enough workers to harvest the crops? We have people drawing welfare, and they can't find laborers. Hmmm. That seems awfully strange.

Strange that people don't want to leave family and cities to work on a farm? What's strange about that? What's strange about a migrant seasonal worker skipping places that they might get screwed by the law?

In theory we don't since those numbers, which are really hard to verify, represent the smallest number of people in our population unless you have those on hand. Be glad to see them. Big difference I think though between those that don't want to work, and those that cannot.How do you know it represents such a small number? Yes, those who cannot work are a different case, but I assure you there are many people just in my area here who find it easier and more convenient to sit on their duffs and collect a check.


The idea is an easy one but in real life it's complicated. Just getting one prepared to work can be a logistics nightmare.Getting prepared to pick strawberries is a logistics nightmare? Mexicans sneak in illegally and manage to get to the fields to work. The "logistics nightmare" doesn't seem to apply to those who do want to work.


Strange that people don't want to leave family and cities to work on a farm? What's strange about that? What's strange about a migrant seasonal worker skipping places that they might get screwed by the law?No one said that was strange. Read more carefully. The strange part is that we are paying people not to work while farmers cannot get enough workers. Yes, that is REALLY strange. Strange and disgusting both.

Then they need to find something else to do, just like those who already do this kind of work do. They need to do what they have to do to support themselves. It's not a really complicated idea.
I grew up in a farm and orchard community. When the harvest was finished, there were no other jobs available.

You do realize the article was about farmers being unable to find enough workers to harvest the crops? We have people drawing welfare, and they can't find laborers. Hmmm. That seems awfully strange.
Those farmers live where. And those people drawing welfare live where?

I grew up in a farm and orchard community. When the harvest was finished, there were no other jobs available.Things have changed in the intervening...uhm, decades. There are crops to be gathered most of the time of the year.


Those farmers live where. And those people drawing welfare live where? There is this concept of going to where the jobs are. It's well known in most places. Mexicans WALK across hundreds of miles to do it. Amazing. To keep people on welfare when it is strictly a dead-end road is terrible. It is doing them a disservice.

Things have changed in the intervening...uhm, decades. There are crops to be gathered most of the time of the year.
What other jobs are available now, young sir? Harvests take place in various parts of the country at different times of the year. How will someone travel and not use up his earnings?

There is this concept of going to where the jobs are. It's well known in most places. Mexicans WALK across hundreds of miles to do it. Amazing. To keep people on welfare when it is strictly a dead-end road is terrible. It is doing them a disservice.
I'm sure the welfare recipients in NYC will happily walk to the Finger Lakes to pick grapes and up to the lakeshore to pick cherries and apples. Just like you would if you were in that situation.

How do you know it represents such a small number? Yes, those who cannot work are a different case, but I assure you there are many people just in my area here who find it easier and more convenient to sit on their duffs and collect a check.

Getting prepared to pick strawberries is a logistics nightmare? Mexicans sneak in illegally and manage to get to the fields to work. The "logistics nightmare" doesn't seem to apply to those who do want to work.

No one said that was strange. Read more carefully. The strange part is that we are paying people not to work while farmers cannot get enough workers. Yes, that is REALLY strange. Strange and disgusting both.

1)Do the lazy bums you know of in your area represent a large number, or just a few?

2)I was speaking in broader terms than just strawberry pickers and referring to Americans in general. Like those city dwellers who ain't moving for field work.

3)You are mixing two different subjects together and the solution to one is not a solution to both. Unless you find it equally strange we don't force or require those lazy people to work for those farmers. Now unless you are more specific, am I wrong for thinking it strange that farmers can't find workers, when your article explains why to a great extent? Why do you think people get paid not to work since that would require a waiver for good reasons for that to happen?

Methinks I was right about the complications of us humans in such regard, and await your rebuttal to this and other STRANGE logistical nightmares.


Things have changed in the intervening...uhm, decades. There are crops to be gathered most of the time of the year.

There is this concept of going to where the jobs are. It's well known in most places. Mexicans WALK across hundreds of miles to do it. Amazing. To keep people on welfare when it is strictly a dead-end road is terrible. It is doing them a disservice.

Mexicans ain't dumb enough to go where the law will roust them and deport them for walking across that line for a few bucks. They want to work, which is why they take the chances they do as it is. They would probably sign up legally if you let 'em.

You do the working poor a disservice calling them lazy because they need assistance. While it may apply to a few you know, you cannot assign it to those you don't.

You could try agricultural visas ( the imported slave labour solution) where the workers are allowed in short term and must return home after the season

Like those city dwellers who ain't moving for field work.That's fine by me. We just shouldn't force other working Americans to support them. If they want to be hungry in Chicago, then that's their choice.


3)You are mixing two different subjects together and the solution to one is not a solution to both. Unless you find it equally strange we don't force or require those lazy people to work for those farmers. Now unless you are more specific, am I wrong for thinking it strange that farmers can't find workers, when your article explains why to a great extent? Why do you think people get paid not to work since that would require a waiver for good reasons for that to happen?

Methinks I was right about the complications of us humans in such regard, and await your rebuttal to this and other STRANGE logistical nightmares.Complete nonsense. As long as illegals somehow find a way to get in here and get to the work, then your "logistical nightmares" comment is foolishness.


They want to work, which is why they take the chances they do as it is. Thank you for providing the answer to the entire dilemma.


They would probably sign up legally if you let 'em.I'm not stopping anyone.


You do the working poor a disservice calling them lazy because they need assistance. While it may apply to a few you know, you cannot assign it to those you don't.I haven't called anyone lazy. I have pointed out that there are Americans sitting around doing nothing when jobs are available.

What other jobs are available now, young sir? Harvests take place in various parts of the country at different times of the year. How will someone travel and not use up his earnings?Plenty of harvesting going on in Florida and Cally. Young sir? I am flattered!


I'm sure the welfare recipients in NYC will happily walk to the Finger Lakes to pick grapes and up to the lakeshore to pick cherries and apples. Just like you would if you were in that situation.That's what buses are for. Good grief you must think those people are all barnyard stupid. When they want to go somewhere, they find a way. When I was in that situation? When I was teaching school, I worked at Walmart evenings and weekends to make ends meet. I've mowed yards, bagged groceries, worked at a sawmill, and hauled furniture in my lifetime and never thought anything of it, so don't talk to me about if I was "in that situation". You picked the wrong person for that liberal rhetoric.

Right now anyone who is willing to work can make a ton of money in oilfields, and you don't need to know much to start other than how to work hard and show up on time. Had a friend who did it. Wasn't fun up in ND in the winter, but he did it.

That's fine by me. We just shouldn't force other working Americans to support them. If they want to be hungry in Chicago, then that's their choice.

Complete nonsense. As long as illegals somehow find a way to get in here and get to the work, then your "logistical nightmares" comment is foolishness.

Thank you for providing the answer to the entire dilemma.

I'm not stopping anyone.

I haven't called anyone lazy. I have pointed out that there are Americans sitting around doing nothing when jobs are available.

1) You aren't being forced since you agreed to obey the law as an American citizen. Don't like the laws, change them LAWFULLY.

2)You under estimate they hardships they endure for a few bucks yet they still come for work despite the dangers.

3)You're welcome, but it's just insights and observations as the solution is obviously a better system.

4)Not you personally maybe, but the system does or tries to.

5)Maybe the jobs aren't where they are sitting and they have no money or support to make a move, even though some have. Not everyone has the same ability, or aptitude.

Not everyone has the same ability, or aptitude.

or the same level of intelligence it seems. The fact is more of the same just doesn't cut it

1) You aren't being forced since you agreed to obey the law as an American citizen. Don't like the laws, change them LAWFULLY.Sounds good to me.


2)You under estimate they hardships they endure for a few bucks yet they still come for work despite the dangers.I haven't estimated their hardships one way or the other.


3)You're welcome, but it's just insights and observations as the solution is obviously a better system.Nope. The solution is for people to depend upon their own work to provide for their own needs.


4)Not you personally maybe, but the system does or tries to.
That's possible.


5)Maybe the jobs aren't where they are sitting and they have no money or support to make a move, even though some have. Not everyone has the same ability, or aptitude.Once black people escaped slavery in the south, many of them walked hundreds of miles to northern cities to find a better life. I think they would be astonished at your reasoning that because it is difficult, then those people shouldn't even try.

Not everyone has the same ability or aptitude. So? Get out and get with it. Remember the three keys. 1. Don't get pregnant before marriage. 2. Graduate from high school. 3. Get a job (or two) and work hard at it (or them). I would add a fourth. Don't listen to ANYONE who provides you with excuses for not making it.

Once black people escaped slavery in the south, many of them walked hundreds of miles to northern cities to find a better life. I think they would be astonished at your reasoning that because it is difficult, then those people shouldn't even try.

That's not my reasoning just your perception, which is in error, as obviously the struggle continues and it's always been difficult!

That's not my reasoning just your perception, which is in error, as obviously the struggle continues and it's always been difficult!Maybe so, but it's comments like this one that makes it sure sound that way. "Strange that people don't want to leave family and cities to work on a farm? What's strange about that?" You seem to be saying that if someone doesn't want to have to go to the trouble to leave place A and move to place B to get a job, then they should be able to simply take money from other working Americans. Perhaps I have misunderstood you?

Plenty of harvesting going on in Florida and Cally. Young sir? I am flattered!
One of us has to be nice....

That's what buses are for. Good grief you must think those people are all barnyard stupid. When they want to go somewhere, they find a way. When I was in that situation? When I was teaching school, I worked at Walmart evenings and weekends to make ends meet. I've mowed yards, bagged groceries, worked at a sawmill, and hauled furniture in my lifetime and never thought anything of it, so don't talk to me about if I was "in that situation". You picked the wrong person for that liberal rhetoric.
Yeah, yeah. I'd keep you up all night if I listed all the crummy, low-paying jobs I've had. And I stopped taking buses between home and college because they got to be too expensive. So we car-pooled for the 700-mile ride.

One of us has to be nice....Ouch!!


Yeah, yeah. I'd keep you up all night if I listed all the crummy, low-paying jobs I've had. And I stopped taking buses between home and college because they got to be too expensive. So we car-pooled for the 700-mile ride.Exactly. That's why your taxpayer money should NEVER go to someone who simply doesn't want to work. "Might have to move to another place? So? Get moving and get on with your life."

Ouch!!
But I still love you....


Exactly. That's why your taxpayer money should NEVER go to someone who simply doesn't want to work. "Might have to move to another place? So? Get moving and get on with your life."
There are too many who would LOVE to work but are saddled with those born-kids conservative Christian shamed them into keeping during pregnancy -- and then those same "pro-life" Christians refuse to give those strugglng moms any financial help, leaving that mission to us liberal Christians -- "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me."

But I still love you....Thank goodness!


There are too many who would LOVE to work but are saddled with those born-kids conservative Christian shamed them into keeping during pregnancy --If that's your beef, that those women listened to evil pro-lifers and did not kill their unborn children, then maybe we can pass a law to allow them to kill those darn pesky kids now before they can cause any more problems. After all, if it's OK to kill them before they're born, then why not kill them after they're born, especially since they are causing so many problems?


and then those same "pro-life" Christians refuse to give those strugglng moms any financial help, leaving that mission to us liberal Christians WG, I'm sorry to say this, but that's a flatly false statement. In our area you can count on no help at all from liberal dems, Christian or otherwise. The crisis pregnancy centers and church based help ministries are all supported by evangelical Christians or conservative Catholics. You don't know what you're talking about. You won't even join in a call for young single women (as well as single men) to postpone sex until after marriage to prevent this very kind of situation.

And besides, just a few days ago you were loudly proclaiming on this board that you are not a liberal, but rather are a conservative. Remember that I asked you then to provide your conservative bonafides? So which way is it?

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/92025922_10217354674960798_5280332767656148992_n.j pg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=HwA518OsnRkAX9lvBqm&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=1305520fc532605734c8b70d8d018666&oe=5EB0C187

WG, I'm sorry to say this, but that's a flatly false statement. In our area you can count on no help at all from liberal dems, Christian or otherwise. The crisis pregnancy centers and church based help ministries are all supported by evangelical Christians or conservative Catholics.


Wonder what kind of help that you provide? What about those Southern Baptists and Methodist church folk I've read about? Who runs the hospitals and clinics?


You don't know what you're talking about. You won't even join in a call for young single women (as well as single men) to postpone sex until after marriage to prevent this very kind of situation.

Never heard of WG advocating premarital sex ever, and she has been very clear about her choices many times. She doesn't seem to be keen of those fundies though from what I've read.



And besides, just a few days ago you were loudly proclaiming on this board that you are not a liberal, but rather are a conservative. Remember that I asked you then to provide your conservative bonafides? So which way is it?

What kind of requirements to be a conservative do you accept? What are your conservative bonafides? I didn't know you had to be certified to be identified for and ideological standing. Or does it take just one drop of liberal blood to not be a conservative?

Never heard of WG advocating premarital sex ever, and she has been very clear about her choices many times. She doesn't seem to be keen of those fundies though from what I've read.I have NEVER claimed she advocates for premarital sex. However, I've asked both you and her to advocate for postponing sex until marriage. You have both repeatedly refused.


What kind of requirements to be a conservative do you accept? What are your conservative bonafides? I didn't know you had to be certified to be identified for and ideological standing. Or does it take just one drop of liberal blood to not be a conservative?People can debate those requirements, but she claimed to be a conservative last week while self-identifying as a liberal just now. Can't have it both ways.


Wonder what kind of help that you provide? What about those Southern Baptists and Methodist church folk I've read about? Who runs the hospitals and clinics?Of the pregnancy help centers I have heard of and participated in, I've never run across one staffed and funded by "liberal Christians". It is always evangelicals and Catholics.

She won't answer this question. Perhaps you will. "After all, if it's OK to kill them before they're born, then why not kill them after they're born, especially since they are causing so many problems?" It's a perplexing question for me. If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born? And please don't go down the old, worn out road of, "Yeah, but you conservatives don't want to take care of children with welfare."

Oh well. It seems to be the question that no one ever cares to answer. " If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?"

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB11Y4sl.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZbDg24dfN0

I have NEVER claimed she advocates for premarital sex. However, I've asked both you and her to advocate for postponing sex until marriage. You have both repeatedly refused.

People can debate those requirements, but she claimed to be a conservative last week while self-identifying as a liberal just now. Can't have it both ways.

Of the pregnancy help centers I have heard of and participated in, I've never run across one staffed and funded by "liberal Christians". It is always evangelicals and Catholics.

She won't answer this question. Perhaps you will. "After all, if it's OK to kill them before they're born, then why not kill them after they're born, especially since they are causing so many problems?" It's a perplexing question for me. If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born? And please don't go down the old, worn out road of, "Yeah, but you conservatives don't want to take care of children with welfare."

I've answered your question many times but it's up to you to accept it, agree or disagree or even dismiss it. It's quite redundant and rhetorical for sure.


https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB11Y4sl.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZbDg24dfN0

Anything that breaks our dependence on other nations for our crucial supplies are a good thing.

I've answered your question many times but it's up to you to accept it, agree or disagree or even dismiss it. It's quite redundant and rhetorical for sure.You've answered this question? "If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" When did you do that?


Anything that beaks our dependence on other nations for our crucial supplies are a good thing.Yes and yes!

You've answered this question? "If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" When did you do that?

LOL we post so much in these forums I can forgive an old coot like yourself for not remembering stuff. This is America and while we are entitled to our beliefs and individual morality, the law prevails and so it's a simple matter to follow the law. So what does the law say about abortions and killing a child that's been born?

I understand you start a child at conception, and many others don't, so there you go back to the LAW of the land.

LOL we post so much in these forums I can forgive an old coot like yourself for not remembering stuff. This is America and while we are entitled to our beliefs and individual morality, the law prevails and so it's a simple matter to follow the law. So what does the law say about abortions and killing a child that's been born?Thank you for your non-answer. I find that liberal dems will absolutely run away from that question. They know there is really no acceptable answer to it, and that being the case, it bothers their consciences. "If it's morally wrong to kill children, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" You and I both know that an appeal to the law is not the same as an appeal to moral values. I'm really disappointed when people do not want to engage in genuine discussion.

I have NEVER claimed she advocates for premarital sex. However, I've asked both you and her to advocate for postponing sex until marriage. You have both repeatedly refused.

I haven't refused; I just haven't responded to that gotcha question.


People can debate those requirements, but she claimed to be a conservative last week while self-identifying as a liberal just now. Can't have it both ways.

I grew up liking Ike and registered as Republican. I still am one, though a moderate one who looks at each candidate as an individual and votes accordingly, not blindly for the party.


She won't answer this question. Perhaps you will. "After all, if it's OK to kill them before they're born, then why not kill them after they're born, especially since they are causing so many problems?" It's a perplexing question for me. If it's morally wrong to kill children, and I certainly think it is, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born? And please don't go down the old, worn out road of, "Yeah, but you conservatives don't want to take care of children with welfare."

Yes, she'll answer this with a question. Why do conservatives wait to kill that child AFTER it's born?

Thank you for your non-answer. I find that liberal dems will absolutely run away from that question. They know there is really no acceptable answer to it, and that being the case, it bothers their consciences. "If it's morally wrong to kill children, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" You and I both know that an appeal to the law is not the same as an appeal to moral values. I'm really disappointed when people do not want to engage in genuine discussion.

I didn't think you would understand my response, being the judgmental hard core right winger that you are who sees his moral values as higher than anyone else's. It's not even a genuine discussion but a set up to elevate yourself by putting others down. Nothing new as we have played that song before so many times and no doubt you knew my position well before you asked the question.

By now I figured you had gleaned from my responses that while I understand your position, it matters little to my own. I engage just for the discussion and get insights into the positions of others.

I haven't refused; I just haven't responded to that gotcha question.How sad that you consider such a serious question to be so trivial. It seems to be the condition of our day, that people do not want to think through serious issues, but rather prefer to just blow it off as a "gotcha question". Well, the question still stands, and it stands unanswered because, truthfully, there is no answer acceptable to abortion supporters.


I still am one, though a moderate oneFirst you were a conservative. Yesterday you were a liberal. Now you are a moderate. How confused you seem to be.


Why do conservatives wait to kill that child AFTER it's born?Nothing more than an outrageous accusation designed to placate the conscience of a supporter of abortion.


I didn't think you would understand my response, being the judgmental hard core right winger that you are who sees his moral values as higher than anyone else's. It's not even a genuine discussion but a set up to elevate yourself by putting others down. Nothing new as we have played that song before so many times and no doubt you knew my position well before you asked the question.

By now I figured you had gleaned from my responses that while I understand your position, it matters little to my own. I engage just for the discussion and get insights into the positions of others.So you have no answer, and yet that's my fault as a "judgmental hard core right winger". Wow. When you have no answers, you always resort to name calling. It's not my fault that you support the killing of unborn children. You'll have to deal with that yourself.

I have an answer that works for me no matter how opposed to it you are, so your purity tests are up to you. They don't work for me. Seems you'll have to deal with that yourself.



you always resort to name calling

It's not name calling if it's true! Just another thing for you to deal with.

Still the same. No answer, but that's OK. You are entitled to your own views. BTW, it is name calling. Asking serious questions does not make me a "judgmental, hard core right-winger". It makes me a person who has thought these issues through carefully for years and arrived at some pretty clear decisions.

That's good for you and am truly glad, but let's be clear here, it's not your questions that are objectionable, but the reaction to responses. Dismiss a response that doesn't agree with your own as a non answer is judgmental in my book. If you don't understand another position then keep asking questions. You are hardly the only one here who has given thought to their own positions.

That's good for you and am truly glad, but let's be clear here, it's not your questions that are objectionable, but the reaction to responses. Dismiss a response that doesn't agree with your own as a non answer is judgmental in my book. If you don't understand another position then keep asking questions. You are hardly the only one here who has given thought to their own positions.Fair enough until you remember that the question was, "If killing a child is morally wrong, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" Your reply was essentially an appeal to the law. But then you gripe and complain all day long about tax laws that supposedly favor the rich, so the law clearly does not establish morality even in your mind. That's why I referred to it as a non-answer. It didn't strike me as anything you have seriously thought through, and it still doesn't. When you consider that, do you really believe just stating the law actually resolves a moral question? If that's true, then slavery was moral in 1850, but then immoral in 1870. That fairly clearly doesn't make sense, does it?

In your own words from another post, "The absence of data, rhyme or reason often illicits a negative response from me."



This is America and while we are entitled to our beliefs and individual morality, the law prevails and so it's a simple matter to follow the law. So what does the law say about abortions and killing a child that's been born?

what people don't realise is the law is not the moral abiteur, it is the lowest standard of behaviour

Very true. Laws are a very imperfect reflection of moral values.

Fair enough until you remember that the question was, "If killing a child is morally wrong, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" Your reply was essentially an appeal to the law. But then you gripe and complain all day long about tax laws that supposedly favor the rich, so the law clearly does not establish morality even in your mind. That's why I referred to it as a non-answer. It didn't strike me as anything you have seriously thought through, and it still doesn't. When you consider that, do you really believe just stating the law actually resolves a moral question? If that's true, then slavery was moral in 1850, but then immoral in 1870. That fairly clearly doesn't make sense, does it?

The law can be and has been changed supposedly in the interest of the fairness and equality as set out in our constitution, and other documents to form a better union. Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level and they have a right to vote that morality or conscious. Thus we have laws subject to review and change.


what people don't realise is the law is not the moral abiteur, it is the lowest standard of behaviour

I can agree but you must have a structure of LAW to set that standard.


Very true. Laws are a very imperfect reflection of moral values.

So are humans.

Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level and they have a right to vote that morality or conscious. Thus we have laws subject to review and change.Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?

Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?
It's called free will.

Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?

Most belief systems are imperfect, you have just demonstrated that, but we are called to a higher standard

Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?

There are many that indeed do feel those things are okay, FOR THEM. People of like morality tend to flock together, and they do have a right to their beliefs in free nations anyway. Now you can disagree with whatever, and believe it's wrong, but changing people hearts and minds isn't an easy thing, and darn near impossible. It's not easy being human JL, whatever your positions are and for sure those that go in different directions and add to that the ordinary stressors of life's daily events it can be quite difficult.

If Tal is correct, there is no higher standard. There is just individual moral beliefs, but no higher standard to which a person can appeal. So if I believe that being a racist is morally acceptable, then for me it is. The result, ultimately, is that there is really no such thing as morality. It's all just opinion. It's pretty much the exact opposite of Christian beliefs.

If Tal is correct, there is no higher standard. There is just individual moral beliefs, but no higher standard to which a person can appeal. So if I believe that being a racist is morally acceptable, then for me it is. The result, ultimately, is that there is really no such thing as morality. It's all just opinion. It's pretty much the exact opposite of Christian beliefs.

Not at all JL, as maybe the law reflects the lowest standard, there is nothing stopping anyone from having a higher standard for themselves is there?

there is nothing stopping anyone from having a higher standard for themselves is there?There is no such thing as an individual higher standard. If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were "wrong"?

There is no such thing as an individual higher standard. If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were "wrong"?
So what's that higher standard?

There is no such thing as an individual higher standard. If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were "wrong"?

As an individual, I have my own standards for morality, that's between me and my God so what exactly are you aiming for? That's how I can say what's right and wrong.

So what's that higher standard?The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.." He appealed to a higher standard. It's interesting to me that you cannot get to human rights in the Declaration of Independence without first going through a Creator.

Tal, my question was, "If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were wrong?"

Your answer was, "As an individual, I have my own standards for morality, that's between me and my God so what exactly are you aiming for? That's how I can say what's right and wrong." Without wanting to hurt your feelings, please allow me to point out that you completely dodged the question. You gave an answer that basically says, "It's wrong because Tal says so." I know you are plenty smart enough to know just how lame that is.

Now you might be appealing to a "god" of some sort, but if you are, then doesn't that contradict what you said earlier? "Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level." So is morality guided by people, or is it guided by a higher standard you are calling "my God"? And if your god really is "God", and not simply a figment of your imagination, then shouldn't everyone listen to what He says? In what way should people have a right to outvote God?

So what's that higher standard?


The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.."



right on right on right on !!!!

The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.." He appealed to a higher standard. It's interesting to me that you cannot get to human rights in the Declaration of Independence without first going through a Creator.
That says nothing about a higher standard of morality.

It says nothing about a higher standard of morality? Well, it certainly speaks of a higher standard which is Jefferson's point. Those certain rights are inalienable because they did not come from man but from God, and what higher standard do you want?

And you want to suggest that human rights bear no relationship to moral values? You really believe that the rights of humans have nothing to do with morality? It IS morality. Your liberal political persuasions have driven you away from the most obvious thing in world.

It says nothing about a higher standard of morality? Well, it certainly speaks of a higher standard which is Jefferson's point. Those certain rights are inalienable because they did not come from man but from God, and what higher standard do you want?

And you want to suggest that human rights bear no relationship to moral values? You really believe that the rights of humans have nothing to do with morality? It IS morality. Your liberal political persuasions have driven you away from the most obvious thing in world.
It isn't a definition of morality. And that ain't liberal thinking. Morality and human rights are not synonymous terms. Both are in the fruit basket, but one's an apple and one's an orange.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
You are confused. That's not part of this discussion. Morality is NOT the same as human rights. The two terms are not synonymous.

Morality is NOT the same as human rights.Now you're ducking TWO questions. I frequently think that "Evasion" must be your middle name.

Now you're ducking TWO questions. I frequently think that "Evasion" must be your middle name.
No, YOU are the stubborn one who refuses to admit that morality and human rights are two different animals. Do you own a dictionary?

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little.
I made a statement you disagreed with. The burden is on you now.

Guess I'll send you a dictionary for your birthday?

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions yet again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little. Are all liberals as afraid to answer questions as you are? So fearful. So hesitant. So devoid of answers.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

It's what I like about Tal. I don't usually agree with him, but he will generally answer questions UNLIKE YOU.

Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions yet again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little. Are all liberals as afraid to answer questions as you are? So fearful. So hesitant. So devoid of answers.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.
Mr. Evasion, I'm waiting.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you so much!!

I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.

I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.
I'll parrot that back to you -- I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.

I'll parrot thatThat made me laugh. I hope you know why. Parroting seems to be what you are good at! You do at least amuse me.

Probably a vain hope, but just in case.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

That made me laugh. I hope you know why. Parroting seems to be what you are good at! You do at least amuse me.
You, dear sir, are a master of deflection -- almost as good as Trump.


Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
I have yet to hear your explanation of how morality is the same as human rights.

Here's a question for you, why am I obligated to feel as you do about anything because you think you are right? Haven't you ever noticed morality changes as does the laws around them. You seem to be stuck in your own ideas of morality, and there is no room for any other ideas. It's small wonder that when you disagree with someone you think they haven't answered the way you think they should.

Hey we all have those character flaws that keep us from being perfect. You're no different even assigning labels to people which is a form of name calling though it's okay when you do it. If you think it's true fine, if not that's okay too, but no matter what you think don't expect people to bend to your way of thinking and that doesn't make them wrong either.

It's okay to believe sticking your head up the dufus's arse shoulder deep is the right and moral thing to do, but rather foolish to expect me or anyone else to do it too.

I have yet to hear your explanation of how morality is the same as human rights.Since I haven't said that, then I don't need to explain it. You must learn to read more carefully. MUCH more carefully.


Here's a question for you, why am I obligated to feel as you do about anything because you think you are right? You're not.


Haven't you ever noticed morality changes as does the laws around them.
Personal morality changes with the winds. The higher standard of morality that Jefferson appealed to does not change. That's why the rights he referred to are "inalienable".

You see, WG, how easy it is to simply answer questions? Try parroting me on this one.


It's okay to believe sticking your head up the dufus's arse shoulder deep is the right and moral thing to do, but rather foolish to expect me or anyone else to do it too.A completely stupid and moronic thing to say. It's about what I'd expect from an ignorant fifth grader. I have to think you can express yourself better than that.

Since I haven't said that, then I don't need to explain it. You must learn to read more carefully. MUCH more carefully.
Always the putdown that you think strengthens your comment. (It doesn't.)

Personal morality changes with the winds. The higher standard of morality that Jefferson appealed to does not change. That's why the rights he referred to are "inalienable".

You see, WG, how easy it is to simply answer questions? Try parroting me on this one.
Jefferson wasn't talking about morality; he was talking about human rights. (Hmm, haven't I posted that already? Sounds familiar....)

Always the putdown that you think strengthens your comment. (It doesn't.)You want me to explain something I've never said. You are putting yourself down when you do that. Don't blame me for it.


Jefferson wasn't talking about morality; he was talking about human rights. (Hmm, haven't I posted that already? Sounds familiar....)That's fine as long as you can explain how you can have human rights without moral standards. You plainly can't, so the discussion is over.

You want me to explain something I've never said. You are putting yourself down when you do that. Don't blame me for it.
You equated morality with civil rights. They aren't even close to being the same.

That's fine as long as you can explain how you can have human rights without moral standards. You plainly can't, so the discussion is over.
That isn't the question! You can't explain the difference, so you cut and run. You conservatives!

You equated morality with civil rights.No, I didn't. Once again you debase yourself. How much shame can you handle?

Whatever. Suit yourself. We can have human rights without moral standards. Congratulations on likely being the only person on the planet to believe such a ridiculous idea. I'll stick with Jefferson.

Hilarious, the guy with his head shoulder deep up the dufus arse is lecturing people on morality! Only in America, is crap in your ears a status symbol.

Hilarious, the guy with his head shoulder deep up the dufus arse is lecturing people on morality! Only in America, is crap in your ears a status symbol. Oh good grief. Try coming up with something intelligent to say.

You first! Let me know when that happens. I thought I was use to your inane circular arguments but man you really found a new place to bury your head today.

inane circular argumentsName one. I know you can't. You know you can't. Now everyone knows you can't. That's why you get offensive. You can't think of anything meaningful to say.

Enough of this. This is too close to being hateful. I'm out.

Good, go get some sunshine and fresh air and learn some manners.

learn some manners. Like this?


Don't forget to clean the crap from your ears from being shoulder deep up the dufus arse.

Insulting people for their views often elicits an equal if not more potent reaction.

Insulting people for their views often elicits an equal if not more potent reaction.

I just noticed an insult to me by JL and I haven't even been here. He projects onto others what he himself is guilty of. Trump does that all the time.

Anytime you're ready. Remember these? It's like I said several days ago, your problem is that there are people on this board who remember what you have said, and who also remember what you have refused to do.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

Honestly guys, I like discussions. However, trying to have a serious discussion with people who won't answer honest questions simply because they know it will take them to an uncomfortable place, who treat serious serious issues as though they are merely trivial, "gotcha" questions, or who become so angry as to suggest someone has their head up someone else's rear end has become really tiresome. I have little patience with it, and then I allow myself to make unkind comments I'm not accustomed to making, and I feel convicted of God for doing so. Now that's on me, but continuing to pursue this is on me as well, and I'm really not ready to continue that for the reasons mentioned earlier. If anyone (other than Tom who makes good posts) becomes ready to get serious, I might take another stab at it. For now, not so much.

Honestly guys, I like discussions. However, trying to have a serious discussion with people who won't answer honest questions simply because they know it will take them to an uncomfortable place, who treat serious serious issues as though they are merely trivial, "gotcha" questions, or who become so angry as to suggest someone has their head up someone else's rear end has become really tiresome. I have little patience with it, and then I allow myself to make unkind comments I'm not accustomed to making, and I feel convicted of God for doing so. Now that's on me, but continuing to pursue this is on me as well, and I'm really not ready to continue that for the reasons mentioned earlier. If anyone (other than Tom who makes good posts) becomes ready to get serious, I might take another stab at it. For now, not so much.
1. You don't answer honest questions (or stay on topic -- deflect, deflect, deflect!!!);
2. You treat serious questions as trivial;
3. You blame and refuse to take any responsibility.
Yet I've found you to be an interesting person with a multiplicity of interests and at times worthy of engagement.

I have never posted to you out of anger, maybe it seems that way, but rather matching your rudeness with my own since the semblence of serious discussion was gone, and you became a insulting dictator of thought. I tried through several posts to point that out NICELY, but you ignored or dismissed it continuously. Why assume anyone is afraid of answering because they are not comfortable with their answers? I find that they are more wary of getting blasted as being wrong, which has been your pattern when faced with honest disagreement. Does a serious discussion have to be THAT serious? Or maybe your venting your cabin fever?

Anytime you're ready. About the fifth time I've posted these, and I'm quite certain it will be the fifth time you have refused to answer.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

Anytime you're ready. About the fifth time I've posted these, and I'm quite certain it will be the fifth time you have refused to answer.

1. Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

2. While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.
1. You have yet to define each (morality and human rights). They are not the same.
2. First, please tell me why it's okay to kill children after they're born, especially brown and black children.

OK. I'll take one more stab at it. I will answer your two questions first if you will PROMISE to immediately answer mine. Deal?

It says nothing about a higher standard of morality? Well, it certainly speaks of a higher standard which is Jefferson's point. Those certain rights are inalienable because they did not come from man but from God, and what higher standard do you want?

And you want to suggest that human rights bear no relationship to moral values? You really believe that the rights of humans have nothing to do with morality? It IS morality. Your liberal political persuasions have driven you away from the most obvious thing in world.

Funny you bring that up about Jefferson a slave owner who preached inalienable rights and practiced slavery. So much for a higher standard, individual rights, and all that so called morality. Where they LIARS? Or were they hypocrites? Or were they disobeying the God they claimed so great?

Or were they just doing what humans do and still do, practicing a double standard to justify their high moral standards that only applied to some and not others. Yes that double standard that allows for the high and mighty to discriminate and treat other humans unequally. So I guess morality and human rights is in the eye of the beholder ultimately, the strong subjugating the weak. How else to you put Jefferson on such a pedestal, when his words, and actions didn't match?

Such humans that talk God and do the devil are prevalent throughout history which makes your question more of who can make and enforce the law is who decides morality and human rights. Just ask Adolph Hitler.

a sense of destiny and what ought to be, nothing more, much mia culpa and hand wringing, but yet one man is powerless to overturn the establishment. That persists to the present day

Sometimes the best you get is a compromise between two opposing groups. Somebody still gets the short stick when self interest is involved. Especially when one justifies ones superiority by pointing to another's inferiority.

Sometimes the best you get is a compromise between two opposing groups. Somebody still gets the short stick when self interest is involved. Especially when one justifies ones superiority by pointing to another's inferiority.

Yes compromise, sometimes also known as consensus. I would have thought that in times of crisis all things become possible

Even in times of crisis, agendas make compromise difficult, but that's the price you pay for diverse populations. The balance of power has been tilted, and when things are unequal it gives slight advantages in those compromises to those it tilts toward. The virus though in this current crisis have certainly motivated states to act in unison though, and that's not a bad thing in absence of an fed response. The communications and consensus formed by those frontline governors is refreshing and they seem to have gotten a regional unified front to deal with the crisis.

There is no quick fix or miracle cure apparent, but a lot of hard work on the ground being done.

So perhaps your union is acting as it should, with states taking the lead according to their need, and the federal government becomes lender of the last resort

Somewhat accurate, but we have a federal reserve that acts supposedly independent, as do you, on behalf of the nation for fiscal support.