The right's view of women is as demeaning as I thought it was.
|
The right's view of women is as demeaning as I thought it was.
And the left's sense of humor is as non-existent as I thought it was.
P.S. Unless you're gay I'm sure I'm supposed to believe you've never ogled a woman.
Gay people "ogle" women too. But I'm pretty sure it's not related to political policy.
Aren't you reading all the questions that come in to this site from teen girls who are looking for love and romance and end up pregnant with the bio-father having disappeared? Again, what are the parents teaching their daughters--and [added, thanks to Tal] their sons?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Takes two to tango. They both should be taught better.
No I'm referring to your words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
When I admire a pretty woman it has nothing to do with political policy either.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Rush does have some other great quotes that you likely admire and find funny as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You don't pay attention very well. I said I admire a pretty woman, not everything Rush says.
Hello:
I LOVE Rush Limprod. Is that who we're talking about now?
I'm just saying... We covered the whole gambit, and didn't solve a damn thing. But, it WAS fun.
Let's do gay's and guns now.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Did someone mention guns??
:)
What do guns have to do with churches?
Its obvious you have never heard of a shotgun wedding before.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Ask anyone. Our rights were endowed upon us by our creator.. Looks to me, therefore, like our gun rights are God given...
excon
Yes but until the 20th century... dating back to the Magna Carta , our rights were what the King couldn't do to you . Now apparently our rights have changed to what the benevolent king deems you should get from the government .(even JFK said 'ask not what your country can do for you').
As you should know ,those are rights that can be easily taken by the king at the king's will ,and also rights granted to you at the expense of someone else since the king's treasury is completely dependent on revenue collect in fees and taxes or other confiscations .
In the Obama world an administrator (czar ) is given the task to decide what is "the appropriate balance " between an absolute right ,and a welfare plan .
According to the Senate Budget Committee those freebies in our system under Obama's plans will generate an obligation of $75,000 per person in the country (from the already swollen $44,000per person) . Greece is belly up at $39,000 per person .Spain is on the ropes at $18,000 per person . All these "free "rights are unsustainable .You know it and I know it.
You guys are going to have to stop whatever it is you are doing and get to work, aren't you? I suggest you start with abstinance, if you get my drift, it will give you more time to worship the holy dollar
Yeah there's plenty to do like converting that abundance of algae into gasoline.It's time to leave reality and enter Obama's virtual Farmville .
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is a misunderstanding. There is no balance "between an absolute right and a welfare plan. There are no "free rights". All rights under this heading are classified as rights men OUGHT to have. They are not interpreted as rights in any universal sense.
Tut
If that is so then why justify welfare spending in the context of rights ? I keep hearing on this page about 'women's reproductive rights ' which for the purpose of this discussion is that they have access to "free " contraception that trump the right of free exercise of religion.
Rights that are 'ought ' instead of natural rights are not rights at all in the real world ,but only in the mind of the utopian idealist.
Well a quick bit of googling would have helped: Reproductive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hope this helps!Quote:
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.
I am fully aware of what you think reproductive rights are .They include such remedies of snuffing out a babies life .
It is not a right if it has to be paid for by someone else. It becomes a benefit then . Hope that helps .
From a legal standpoint I have no problem with contraception or that there is access to it. . When the state can impose by decree that a church has to pay for it then it violates a real right.
Some people would argue that all rights are in fact 'ought' rights. It is just than some rights are given special status. That is, a universal right.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If someone can show that an 'ought' right is really a universal right then it becomes an 'is' rather than an 'ought'. For example, if someone could show that universal health care really is a natural right then it would be a trump card for those who support universal health care.
However,recent history has shown this very difficult to do. Hence we have health care in your country taking a different direction.
Are repoductive rights an 'is or an 'ought'? I guess that depends on how good your constitutional lawer is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omder55,303
Tom, that's a bit rude isn't it? This is the basis of most of our rights.
Not at all . All your so called 'positive rights' are ought rights because they depend on someone else's dime . Positive rights are better defined as entitlements .Entitlements as you know come and go at the whim of the next decree or election... they are constantly subject to refining ,additions ,subtractions ,modifications . They are not rights. Negative rights are the boundries between subject to the will of the sovereign and liberty .Are you saying that natural rights are only in the mind of the idealist ?
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Pretty much means the same thing. For example in our country welfare is a postiive right. Yes, in this case what the parliament gives it can take away.
There are many things that I could object to in terms of my taxes going to projects and things I find reason to object. We generally don't worry about where our dime is going. For example, I don't object to my taxes going to pay for universal health care. Yes, I don't mind paying for other people's health care. Some people in this country might have an objection but it is not an issue.
Am I saying that natural rights are only in the mind of the idealist?
No, I am not saying this. What I am saying is that some people would say this.
Tut
I didn't think you Aussies were so trusting . Here is the problem . All these promises or and entitlements to deliver these ought rights are not sustainable .Quote:
We generally don't worry about where our dime is going.
The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government
Again I look to the constitution and I see nothing that charges the government with the responsibility or power to distribute the wealth of the nation or to coercively champion 'fairness' .
To be clear your premise is from the Heritage Foundation,
They drew there own conclusions which is the shrinking tax base, as they cite the growing number of people who pay 0 taxes, which is growing, but do not address the WHY a growing number of people pay 0 taxes, nor account for the ones who do pay, but get a refund. Nor does it account for those who pay NO TAXES or get a refund after loophole deduductions.Quote:
The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".[1]
The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[2] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.[3]
That's the error in the premise you make, because though there are many who are to poor to pay any taxes at all, either no wage or a poverty level wage, they pay a payroll tax, which government deducts before they even get there wages, or account for the millions who make middle class wages, have payroll deductions, and loopholes who gets a refund. THEY ALL PAY Through PAYROLL TAXES.
Yet never mentioned are those who pay NO payroll deductions at all, yet make millions and pay NO taxes because of their corporate or individual loopholes.
So if welfare for the poor is a bad thing, so is welfare for the rich, and welfare for corporations. Over the last decade or so, this has contributed to government spending and deficits as much as anything else, as traditional revenue streams for those that need it have been eliminated, as the economy has made MORE people need it. A situation that can be adjusted to in the tax code, and while it seems unfair for your rich gods to pay more, to help more, was it not unfair that they benefited the most during good times, and even through the current situation that they have caused now?
That's what makes the conservative view so erroneous, and hypocrital in that they not only corrupt the whole system, make it unfairly balanced, but also make the criticism, solutions and responsibility unfair, and unbalanced.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of AmericaQuote:
Again I look to the constitution and I see nothing that charges the government with the responsibility or power to distribute the wealth of the nation or to coercively champion 'fairness' .
Making laws and policy is not coercion, even if some don't like it and rather not do it. But the JOB of government. And it's the conservatives who believe that power should be weak, and is why they scream so loudly about there rights, while the rest of us have to fight for OUR rights, that you don't seem to WANT to recognize.
I keep telling you Tom, that while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Nor your own solutions that benefit the few, not the many.
Tal take your class warfare rhetoric to Europe where you can see 1st hand where policies such as the ones you advocate are close to bearing their logical outcome. You say that I have my own facts when you completely distort the preamble to the Constitution to make it seem as a preamble to the Communist Manifesto .
I'll say it again. If "your rights " are dependent on picking my pocket ,they cease being a right and become at BEST an entitlement granted by the government .
The Heritage Foundation is stating facts .Don't tell me about the money shuffling bs games the government plays. The fact is that fewer people are paying for increasing levels of largess. And as my signature states.. That is the death of democracy.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. "Alexis de Tocqueville
LOL, its evident that we disagree on what facts are. My interpretation doesn't fit yours but I agree that not everything the government does is fair or equitable. Where we disagree is that you see to think its okay for corporations to corrupt the government and extract whatever they can get their greedy mitts on, make policy and rules that favor that greedy behavior, and make poor people and ordinary workers pay for it.
No doubt that you would defend the RIGHTS of business to have slaves and whip them into submission also. I say this because of your rhetoric that others have rights that some others do not.
Its pretty simple when you see where the levels of largess is most manifested where the inequities are, that create the inequality that you so conveniently ignore and defend. I agree with your signature quote though, NOT your interpretation of it.
The answer to wealth distribution is fair wealth distribution. But of course that's the conflict the left and right has as to what's fair. The shame that makes resolution, and solutions is the right unwillingness to meet in the middle and go forward. Indeed its evident when ever you guys open your mouth its about doing it YOUR way or no way, so there can never be an OUR way, until we the people take back our country from the GODS you worship, Corporations, religion, and the so called free market of slavery created and controlled by a few elites.
You cry class warfare of those that want fair to hide the fact that you practice class warfare YOURSELF, and don't want it to stop. Your fear, and hate is showing, rendering your facts suspect, and your opinion misled.
You speak of my facts when in fact you have NEVER heard me say anything close to this diatribe .
And with that line I am finished discussing this with you.Quote:
No doubt that you would defend the RIGHTS of business to have slaves and whip them into submission also. I say this because of your rhetoric that others have rights that some others do not.
In that case our government will modify or take them away.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I look at our constitution and see very little. Our 'fairness' is derived from our early history. Australia was going to be a paradise for working class people. It didn't take too long to work out that was going to be utopian and just plain wrong. What it do however, was to create a belief in equity and fairness that has extended through time up until the moment.
I have sometimes thought about a constitution that guarantees various rights and freedoms for the individual. I am against this being applied to to Australia. Why? Because in this day and age I see your natural rights being challenged by smart constitutional lawyers who are following a recently established tradition. That recent tradition is to try and turn 'is' rights into 'ought' rights.
When Ex asked the question , "Can the government take away our rights?" My asnwer was "no", but they can change the status of your rights.
Tut
Interesting set of statistics Tom it demonstrates your country is out of control. What is the problem?you have maintained all these programs without being willing to pay for them, because the only way you can pay for them is through taxation. A situation where there is increased government dependence while the burden falls on fewer and fewer people is not only unsustainable it is stupid. For all the money you have invested in education you have not gotten any smarter. You have correctly identified these things are unstainable. Like your inalienable rights these things are self evident, okay now be part of the solution, how do you fix a system that is broken?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You criticise us aussies but no welfare program was put in place without the corresponding revenue measures to pay for it, so unlike the Greeks and dare I say it your own country, we are not faced with a crisis although we have noted the same trends as yourself. One great difference we have is the taxation powers belong to the federal government and so there is a single coordinated approach to funding. Big government maybe, but it has advantages. The other is structure, no government can stay in office if its budget measures are not approved and there is no stapling appropriation bills to other legislation.
It may be a few more election cycles until we get the right wing ultra conservatives to negotiate again. We have to wait and see what happens with the republican war. I mean presidential primaries. Over the years they have gotten rid of moderates and called them bad names (rino-republican in name only), so only the most ultra conservative will do.
Tal I think the war is decided only a few skermishes left. You will move towards the middle so there will be nothing to distinguish between the opponents but the name on the door. We had the same problem a few years ago and look at the mess we are in now.
Clete it's not just the US at 100% debt to GDP ration .Across the globe there is way too much debt . The Europeans are a basket case at over 100 % . The Japanese are at 200% . God knows what the real China debt is with their Potamkin economy . There is no growing out of it with the most optimistic Keynesian fantasies. What is needed is the shrinking of the size and power of national governments . Let the private sector work and recovery will begin.
You Aussies aren't immune either even if you think you are in a better position . The world is too interconnected to not be affected .
I am sure of one thing... giving more "freebies " will not get it done.
Not suggesting freebees Tom they have to be paid for so they are not free, it's the learning of that that is hard for these economies that have been on the government teat for too long. I think you could say we have experiemented with many things and along the way we have found a balance, but there has been pain, we had a great deal of pain twenty years ago but we have transformed our economy from a manufacturing based economy. You see if our government decided that it needed say an additional 0.5% to fund Medicare there might be some debate but it would happen. They decided they wanted a 1% levy for disaster relief, it went through without a murmur. Even in the GFC we didn't really have a recession. We might even see a resurgence of european migration. I don't doubt we will see more pain as we have to deal with the loss of Aluminium, motor industries and a number of others particularly agriculture but we have a government that is focused on bringing the budget into surplus in the short term so you could say our policy is "don't ask" like the other day someone wanted $5 billion for education and the answer was not now, but come the election we will see if it remerges. We might dig minerals and it's a big export earner but it isn't that big an employer, our mining industries are the most efficient in the world and they are now talking of robot trains, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What I know Tom is the old capitalist theorums aren't working right now and that is because there is surplus capacity, so no reinvestment and innovation has stalled so no new industries. But even if you have a great idea, can you get backing to develop it. I doubt it. We shot ourselves in the foot by thinking that low cost is good for business, that shutting down a factory and building a new one offshore is a great idea, ultimately you kill demand
That's the problem, it's the private sectors that are creating the global economic crisis in the first place. They are the ones with the surpluses.Quote:
Let the private sector work and recovery will begin.
The private sector is focused only on profits and right now all they see is reduced margins so no recovery. They are also gun shy when it comes to new investment, they want assured returns in an uncertain world, so the return on leaving your money in the bank looks pretty good, you can earn more that way right now and little risk, why would you invest.
I wonder what the overnight return on short term notes is? It is probably pretty good
That's what the right wing middle class fails to understand about a weakened government, corporations and banks can fill the vacuum while the government cannot act, or act swiftly enough, and have effectively blocked those short term fixes that call for that .05% tax increase on 300, 000 people who make above a million bucks, that can fund an infrastructure program that employees millions.
Mind you these are the guys that have benefited most the last 10 years, and were bailed out, and have made even more during the down turn that has made all those poor people even poorer, and dependent on the government that they want to weaken.
What do you call someone who works against there OWN self interest? I call then crazy conservatives. They government that freed the slaves is their enemy, so they themselves have become the slaves.
The government that freed the slaves did so out of self interest, if the Democrats had seen sense and did so first they would have won hands down, but that is 150 years ago and this is now. We are talking about self satisfied conservatives sitting back and watching and obstructing while they do so. The idea that a government has a right to govern has eluded themQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Governments have no rights .They only have power.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 PM. |