Tendo City

Quote:Agreed.

I'd say that that's a conservative site (or at least religious), but that article succeeds by not really saying which side is better but that both have flaws...

Quote:Translation: "I repeat what my liberal college professors tell me to believe, but I don't know why."

And parents (erm, one a liberal college professor), and relatives (...most of whom are liberals too, and several college professors), and common sense...

Either way I'd look harder if I didn't know you would never pay much attention to anything I found, so what's the point?

http://www.thismodernworld.com/ - the This Modern World website, and liberal blog... :)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/ -- Bush's exemplary military record!

Quote:The right for blacks to vote was established in the 15th amendment, a hundred years before the civil rights movement.

The thing is, there has been a lot of change. Again, our generation is more tolerant and accepting than any other before... and yet, things get worse.

As for it helping a lot of people, stop saying nonsense you can't prove. If you can't the time to show me, then don't bother telling me.

And blocked in the South by Jim Crow until the Civil Rights Movement succeeded.

And yes, each generation is more tolerant than the one before it. It gives me hope that in the long run we'll get past the hatred people like you have for some groups... though things like despising poor people are unlikely to change.

Quote:How are the helping people? Again, don't say what you can't prove.

With our wide variety of social programs of course...

Quote:What about the middle class? Liberals so often forget it exists, even though it's the largest economic class, the one that bears much of the tax burden.

My family was poor once. We aren't now. We're not rich but we're comfortable. And we never used government subsidies to get here. My parents worked hard and saved scrupulously. So no, I don't think all poor people are stupid and lazy, but I do think quite a few are and I think a good reason some are is because of free handouts. This is why I also know that poor people CAN in fact succeed without government handouts. It takes hard work and smarts. And if my family can do it, why can't anyone else?

The middle class? All anyone needs to do to know the Republicans aren't for them is look at their tax bill. Maybe Bush's tax cuts cut a couple hundred dollars. Then look at the tax bill of the top 5% and see how it was cut by thousands and thousands, and had a huge percentage drop.

If the tax burden was fair it would definitely help the middle class... same with health care. A lot of people either don't have any or have poor coverage, and we desperately need to improve that by increasing the amount of health care paid for by the government. This would be a huge help for everyone, from the uninsured to small business owners...

Oh, and so your family got out. It does happen sometimes. Just very rarely, especially when you consider how many people are poor. The "we got out so anyone could" fallacy has been one of conservatism's biggest fallacies about poverty for centuries now...

Quote:It's not a cause, just a very unfortunate effect.

Absolutely not. If social programs had really been tried, and had been given the time to work, this whole thing might have either been avoided or wouldn't have been as big... now I know that not everyone will escape poverty, but we should try as hard as we can to go for that goal.

A Black Falcon Wrote:I'd say that that's a conservative site (or at least religious), but that article succeeds by not really saying which side is better but that both have flaws...

Yeah. It'd be like this thread, minus a lot of anger, plus a lot more reason.

Quote:And parents (erm, one a liberal college professor), and relatives (...most of whom are liberals too, and several college professors), and common sense...

Wow, I had no idea how right I was. :|

Quote:Either way I'd look harder if I didn't know you would never pay much attention to anything I found, so what's the point?

Because I asked for it. And I'd refute it if I found it lacking. That's how debate works.

Quote:http://www.thismodernworld.com/ - the This Modern World website, and liberal blog... :)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/ -- Bush's exemplary military record!

:barf:

Quote:And blocked in the South by Jim Crow until the Civil Rights Movement succeeded.

In the south, yes. The south is just one part of America. Hell, there were blacks ELECTED before the movement.

Quote:And yes, each generation is more tolerant than the one before it. It gives me hope that in the long run we'll get past the hatred people like you have for some groups... though things like despising poor people are unlikely to change.

I have no more hatred for poor than you do for the rich. Take that for what you will.

Quote:With our wide variety of social programs of course...

Don't say what you can't prove PART IV.

Quote:The middle class? All anyone needs to do to know the Republicans aren't for them is look at their tax bill. Maybe Bush's tax cuts cut a couple hundred dollars. Then look at the tax bill of the top 5% and see how it was cut by thousands and thousands, and had a huge percentage drop.

I don't care if the rich pay less. Why should I? As long as I'm not paying more, I'm fine with it.

You're telling me the Republicans don't care about the middle class because they didn't cut our taxes as hard, but you expect me to believe liberals care about us because they want to RAISE taxes? To pay for things that don't benefit us to boot?

Wow. That's just insane.

Quote:If the tax burden was fair it would definitely help the middle class... same with health care. A lot of people either don't have any or have poor coverage, and we desperately need to improve that by increasing the amount of health care paid for by the government. This would be a huge help for everyone, from the uninsured to small business owners...

Everyone? You forget that most people do have insurance, I suppose.

Quote:Oh, and so your family got out. It does happen sometimes. Just very rarely, especially when you consider how many people are poor. The "we got out so anyone could" fallacy has been one of conservatism's biggest fallacies about poverty for centuries now...

Very rare? So that means my parents must be fucking geniuses. I don't give them enough credit.

And a little something else: Most people aren't poor. Percentage-wise, the poor are not that large a group. And most of those people aren't in dire straits anyway. Many are skirting the so-called poverty line. And imagine this, many people do just fine under the poverty level. They don't have the nicest clothes and the newest toys but they are well-fed and have adequate shelter.

Remember that money can't buy happiness.

Quote:Absolutely not. If social programs had really been tried, and had been given the time to work, this whole thing might have either been avoided or wouldn't have been as big... now I know that not everyone will escape poverty, but we should try as hard as we can to go for that goal.

They were tried. Some have been given as long as seventy years to work. They worked at first. They don't now.

And, yet again, how does welfare end poverty? Has it ever ended poverty for anyone?

Instead of coming up with witless responses to every little thing I say, you could focus all your boundless posting energy onto that one topic.

Quote:I have no more hatred for poor than you do for the rich. Take that for what you will.

The rich are rich and thus have more than enough and should be giving far more back to society than the people lower down.

Quote:Wow, I had no idea how right I was. :|

On my mom's side going back to my grandparent's generation I can think of five college professors... one's pretty strongly right-wing, though. The rest of the family doesn't talk about politics with them. :)

Quote:Because I asked for it. And I'd refute it if I found it lacking. That's how debate works.

Those are good sites. Not what you asked for, exactly, but good liberal sites with lots of stuff on them that proves how idiotic Bush and his administration are.

Quote:In the south, yes. The south is just one part of America. Hell, there were blacks ELECTED before the movement.

Most blacks live in the south...

Quote:Don't say what you can't prove PART IV.

It is impossible to prove this to you. I know I've found good things to say before and you've never listened for a second so why bother again?

Quote:I don't care if the rich pay less. Why should I? As long as I'm not paying more, I'm fine with it.

You're telling me the Republicans don't care about the middle class because they didn't cut our taxes as hard, but you expect me to believe liberals care about us because they want to RAISE taxes? To pay for things that don't benefit us to boot?

Wow. That's just insane.

You should care that they pay less because it means you pay more. SOMEONE has to pay. And yes, the Republicans do not, never did, and never will care about anyone other than the rich. It's been their position ever since soon after they were founded and still is.

And there are more things than taxes. Schools, for instance. Science. Health insurance. Etc. If taxes are higher it means we can better fund such essential programs as those, that always get cut under Republican administrations...

I'll bet that there are plenty of people out there who if they really thought about it would realize that if they paid more taxes, but got free (or cheaper, as is much more realistic in the short term) health insurance in return (or their employer got breaks to get them to give their employees better coverage, especially in small businesses which are getting hit really, really hard by health and accident insurance costs), that they'd be getting a very good deal? Especially if it came with actually good education improvement too...

Quote:Very rare? So that means my parents must be fucking geniuses. I don't give them enough credit.

And a little something else: Most people aren't poor. Percentage-wise, the poor are not that large a group. And most of those people aren't in dire straits anyway. Many are skirting the so-called poverty line. And imagine this, many people do just fine under the poverty level. They don't have the nicest clothes and the newest toys but they are well-fed and have adequate shelter.

Remember that money can't buy happiness.

As I've said before, the definition of "poor" is innaccurate and misleading...

Quote:They were tried. Some have been given as long as seventy years to work. They worked at first. They don't now.

And, yet again, how does welfare end poverty? Has it ever ended poverty for anyone?

Instead of coming up with witless responses to every little thing I say, you could focus all your boundless posting energy onto that one topic.

There is no way to end poverty completely... that isn't really a realistic goal... but we need to make it not as bad and make it easier for poor people to get out of poverty. Making them do it themselves does not do that, since most are unable to even begin...

And obviously welfare has helped people out of poverty. It helps you not completely fall apart while you try to improve your life... yes, getting people off the welfare rolls is a good idea... but again, only when the jobs they are going to are actually good enough to support a person or a family adaquately. So many, probably most, of the lower-end jobs just don't do that...

A Black Falcon Wrote:The rich are rich and thus have more than enough and should be giving far more back to society than the people lower down.

Does this mean "Yes, I hate the rich" or "No, I don't hate the rich"?

Quote:On my mom's side going back to my grandparent's generation I can think of five college professors... one's pretty strongly right-wing, though. The rest of the family doesn't talk about politics with them. :)

I bet they don't. But it's good to know your pedigree isn't completely tainted. ;)

Quote:Those are good sites. Not what you asked for, exactly, but good liberal sites with lots of stuff on them that proves how idiotic Bush and his administration are.

I asked for proof about social programs, not wide-based liberal propaganda machines.

Quote:Most blacks live in the south...

That is increasingly not the case.

Quote:It is impossible to prove this to you. I know I've found good things to say before and you've never listened for a second so why bother again?

Translation: I'm full of crap but too chicken to admit it.

Quote:You should care that they pay less because it means you pay more. SOMEONE has to pay. And yes, the Republicans do not, never did, and never will care about anyone other than the rich. It's been their position ever since soon after they were founded and still is.

The rich pay, percentage-wise, far, far more taxes than I do. So no, I don't feel the least bit of resentment against them. It's my goal to be rich one day. Why would I hate them?

Note: Having goals and working to achieve them is basically the centerpiece of my entire ideological belief. I don't feel resentment over not being rich because I haven't earned it. And if I do become rich, I won't feel the slightest guilt for anyone who isn't, because I did work for it.

As far as your statements on the middle-class, increased taxes hurt the middle-class. Reduced taxes help them. Liberals raise taxes. Conservatives tend to lower them.

2+2 still equals four.

Quote:And there are more things than taxes. Schools, for instance. Science. Health insurance. Etc. If taxes are higher it means we can better fund such essential programs as those, that always get cut under Republican administrations...

And if taxes are lessened, middle-class families can better afford far superior private schools for their children and better health insurance coverage. Zing!

Quote:I'll bet that there are plenty of people out there who if they really thought about it would realize that if they paid more taxes, but got free (or cheaper, as is much more realistic in the short term) health insurance in return (or their employer got breaks to get them to give their employees better coverage, especially in small businesses which are getting hit really, really hard by health and accident insurance costs), that they'd be getting a very good deal? Especially if it came with actually good education improvement too...

Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.

Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.

Quote:As I've said before, the definition of "poor" is innaccurate and misleading...

No matter how you look at it, percentage-wise there are not many poor people in America. If you count poor as making under a certain amount of money, there are few. If you count poor as destitute, that number is much smaller.

Quote:There is no way to end poverty completely... that isn't really a realistic goal... but we need to make it not as bad and make it easier for poor people to get out of poverty. Making them do it themselves does not do that, since most are unable to even begin...

Most are able to begin. Most people have the opportunity. But we can't tell because social programs stymie any hope of that happening.

Quote:And obviously welfare has helped people out of poverty. It helps you not completely fall apart while you try to improve your life... yes, getting people off the welfare rolls is a good idea... but again, only when the jobs they are going to are actually good enough to support a person or a family adaquately. So many, probably most, of the lower-end jobs just don't do that...

Again, I don't understand your logic. You have this crazed idea that it's better for people to not work for their money. Welfare usually doesn't pay anymore than a minimum wage job does.

Plus, I know you ignore most of what I say, but in the past I've said several times that I don't mind people recieving welfare IN ADDITION to income from a job, which would save money on welfare rolls AND give people more income! What I do NOT like is the idea of people getting it for absolutely nothing in return. And few of those people are physically incapable of working. What I do not like is people who intentionally create large families just to get free welfare money. I don't think it's the government's job to save you from being stupid.

Quote:Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.

It depends were in canada your talking about , If canada could just have more docters and nurses the national health care system would work, But the advantage of our health care is lower costs to the patients were only 60% of americans have health care insurance and not everyones insurance is acceptable in every clinic. What I reccomend for the U.S is a national medicare that is optional were if you are well off and can afford good hospitals you dont need to pay taxes for medicare, Were if you dont have good insurance you can get on medicare coverage for the price of additional taxes.

Quote:Keeping blacks poor and destitute ensures that liberals have a very safe voter base. To keep them poor, they create social programs, disguise them as beneficial, and the scam plays on. Blacks stay poor, Liberals not only have a loyal fanbase but something to blame Conservatives on.

Yeah! It's all one big giant, conspiracy, man, that the government designed to make sure that everybody stays poor. Duuude.

Quote:Yeah! It's all one big giant, conspiracy, man, that the government designed to make sure that everybody stays poor. Duuude.

And he actually believes it too. It's pretty scary.

Quote:

Quote:Perhaps that may be true. But it's short-term thinking again. Nationalized health-care will destroy private medical research, stagnating advancement and ultimately costing lives and money, since more efficient and more effective treatments will take longer to perfect and develop, if they ever do at all.Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.

Look at Canada, where simple surgeries take months and years to get approval for since the system is so backlogged and inefficient. I don't want that. Where the best doctors come to America because the pay up there is abysmal.

It depends were in canada your talking about , If canada could just have more docters and nurses the national health care system would work, But the advantage of our health care is lower costs to the patients were only 60% of americans have health care insurance and not everyones insurance is acceptable in every clinic. What I reccomend for the U.S is a national medicare that is optional were if you are well off and can afford good hospitals you dont need to pay taxes for medicare, Were if you dont have good insurance you can get on medicare coverage for the price of additional taxes.

The US overall has worse health care than pretty much the whole first world. We're way down on the list. Why? Because 40 million people have no coverage at all (not 40%, ASM...) and most of the rest don't have anything close to comprehensive coverage. National health care wouldn't be the best system ever but I'd take it over HMOs, no question... HMOs are awful if you ever are unlucky enough to actually need care. Slower? Maybe. But everyone would HAVE it, and would have a decent plan that might actually cover the things they need... in America today that just is not the case and that is why the Democrats are focusing so much on this issue.

Quote: Does this mean "Yes, I hate the rich" or "No, I don't hate the rich"?

Saying that the rich should be paying a lot higher percentage than everyone else and should not be getting tax cuts isn't hating them, it's saying that since they have the money they can afford to give a lot more and should give a lot more... corporations too. Corporate tax breaks shouldn't happen much.

Quote: I asked for proof about social programs, not wide-based liberal propaganda machines.

They have all kinds of links to articles that show how idiotic and evil this administration is on a wide variety of topics, especially the first one...

Quote: That is increasingly not the case.

But we were talking about pre-Civil Rights...

Quote: Translation: I'm full of crap but too chicken to admit it.

No, the translation is that I've given links before and it's never mattered and you are obviously not the type who will ever listen so what in the world would the point be? I think I've supported my case more than enough with evidence over the time we've been arguing these things...

Quote:The rich pay, percentage-wise, far, far more taxes than I do. So no, I don't feel the least bit of resentment against them. It's my goal to be rich one day. Why would I hate them?

Note: Having goals and working to achieve them is basically the centerpiece of my entire ideological belief. I don't feel resentment over not being rich because I haven't earned it. And if I do become rich, I won't feel the slightest guilt for anyone who isn't, because I did work for it.

Very few people are rich. Most will not be joining them. And when you are rich you have money so can afford to give more in taxes. Making the poor and lower-middle pay an increasing share of the tax burden while the rich get massive cuts should be criminal...

Quote:And if taxes are lessened, middle-class families can better afford far superior private schools for their children and better health insurance coverage. Zing!

Nope. Not with conservative tax cuts that barely cut anything for people below the top 5%.

Quote:No matter how you look at it, percentage-wise there are not many poor people in America. If you count poor as making under a certain amount of money, there are few. If you count poor as destitute, that number is much smaller.

Few? I disagree. Tens of millions of people are far from "few"... especially when you consider both rural and urban poverty...

Quote:Most are able to begin. Most people have the opportunity. But we can't tell because social programs stymie any hope of that happening.

No, most people are not able to begin. Not at all.

Quote:Again, I don't understand your logic. You have this crazed idea that it's better for people to not work for their money. Welfare usually doesn't pay anymore than a minimum wage job does.

Plus, I know you ignore most of what I say, but in the past I've said several times that I don't mind people recieving welfare IN ADDITION to income from a job, which would save money on welfare rolls AND give people more income! What I do NOT like is the idea of people getting it for absolutely nothing in return. And few of those people are physically incapable of working. What I do not like is people who intentionally create large families just to get free welfare money. I don't think it's the government's job to save you from being stupid.

The government should not abandon people to poor, unhappy lives... yes some people cannot be helped or do things to themselves that are stupid but for most poor I wouldn't say that that's the case... if there were decent jobs they could get, they should, but those are rare, especially in an economy like this...

Without welfare (and other programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, etc...) I am absolutely certain that the number of homeless in this country would be a lot higher.

A Black Falcon Wrote:And he actually believes it too. It's pretty scary.

You say there are conservative conspiracies to do the following:

1. Keep the poor poor.
2. Make the rich richer.
3. Keep Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Orientals, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Lesbians, Buddhists, Hindus, Women, Hobbits, Elves, The French, and Cute Little Kittens safely subservient and destitute, so that they will pose no threat to some imaginary Rich White Christian Male oligarchy.
4. Pollute the environment as much as humanly possible, as if we were Captain Planet villians.
5. Conquer the world, one step at a time.

All in all, you have no right to speak about ridiculous conspracies.

Besides, if blacks, et. al., were financially stable and realized that there isn't nearly as much racism as liberals claim there is, they'd never vote Democratic.

Quote:The US overall has worse health care than pretty much the whole first world. We're way down on the list. Why? Because 40 million people have no coverage at all (not 40%, ASM...) and most of the rest don't have anything close to comprehensive coverage. National health care wouldn't be the best system ever but I'd take it over HMOs, no question... HMOs are awful if you ever are unlucky enough to actually need care. Slower? Maybe. But everyone would HAVE it, and would have a decent plan that might actually cover the things they need... in America today that just is not the case and that is why the Democrats are focusing so much on this issue.

It depends on the HMO really.

I'm not saying the existing system is perfect, it's hardly that. But nationalizing health care will be an economic catastrophe that we, and frankly, the world, cannot handle. Imagine how America's economy would suffer when taxes have to go up to 50%... 60%... 70%... just to pay for everyone to have bare-bones health coverage.

And again, the devastating effects such an idea would have on medical research would also, in the long run, make the plan save more lives short term, and cost lives long-term.It's not worth it.

Quote:Saying that the rich should be paying a lot higher percentage than everyone else and should not be getting tax cuts isn't hating them, it's saying that since they have the money they can afford to give a lot more and should give a lot more... corporations too. Corporate tax breaks shouldn't happen much.

I agree that corporations do not need tax breaks. But, I do not think people with more money deserve to have a higher percentage of it taken away from them. That boils down to punishment for having too much money.

Conversely, expecting the poor to at least attempt to become self-sufficient and not lounge on free government money until they drop dead isn't hating the poor either. It's saying that I expect people to be as industrious and hard-working as anyone else.

Quote:They have all kinds of links to articles that show how idiotic and evil this administration is on a wide variety of topics, especially the first one...

I don't care to see stupid lies from humorless rich white liberals. I want information on one specific topic.

Quote:But we were talking about pre-Civil Rights...

That we were. And the right to vote for blacks was not created or birthed in the 1960s.

Quote:No, the translation is that I've given links before and it's never mattered and you are obviously not the type who will ever listen so what in the world would the point be? I think I've supported my case more than enough with evidence over the time we've been arguing these things...

You did ONCE, in all the times I've asked. The one time you did, I was able to successfully refute many of their broad claims. You wouldn't respond in kind.

You haven't supported your position with a single shred of evidence. It's "What I say is true, just because I say it is."

Quote:Very few people are rich. Most will not be joining them. And when you are rich you have money so can afford to give more in taxes. Making the poor and lower-middle pay an increasing share of the tax burden while the rich get massive cuts should be criminal...

I support the flat-tax rate. It's more fair than any other method could possibly be. Cuts and raises would be universal and based only on percentage of wealth.

So the rich can afford to give more in taxes. That doesn't in any way justify making them do so. They already pay a great deal of the taxes as it is. One billionaire pays several thousand times as much in taxes as the average joe.

Quote:Nope. Not with conservative tax cuts that barely cut anything for people below the top 5%.

Okay, you're obviously not on the same page. Again. That has nothing to do with what I said.

Quote:Few? I disagree. Tens of millions of people are far from "few"... especially when you consider both rural and urban poverty...

It is few, especially when you consider that most people in America are not poor. Simple.

Quote:No, most people are not able to begin. Not at all.

Yes they are. It's easier now in America than ever before in human history to raise your standard of living. There are more opportunities than people even fifty years ago could have dreamed of.

Quote:The government should not abandon people to poor, unhappy lives... yes some people cannot be helped or do things to themselves that are stupid but for most poor I wouldn't say that that's the case... if there were decent jobs they could get, they should, but those are rare, especially in an economy like this...

Jesus. What defines a decent job? It's not like they'd pick produce in a sweltering field all day. Working retail or other entry-level jobs are not the most fun, dignified jobs in the world, but they do pay well enough that in conjunction with a token amount of government support most poor people could live with some comfort and save money for whatever sort of investment they wish, be it financial investment, education, etc.

I just can't believe you think that because they wouldn't be able to get a $25K per year job right off the bat means they'd be better off not working at all. That is stupid. That is purely stupid.

Quote:Without welfare (and other programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, etc...) I am absolutely certain that the number of homeless in this country would be a lot higher.

And with a much more tightly-controlled and regulated welfare system, things would be infinitely better. Not to mention, less burdensome to taxpayers.

See the difference is that there is solid evidence behind the things in your little list here.

Quote:1. Keep the poor poor.

anti-everything improving poverty related

Quote:2. Make the rich richer.

tax policy, corporate tax breaks, corporations writing laws in special meetings with administration officials (like the energy industry for instance), corporate giveaways, ex-CEOs in high office, major environmental law rollbacks (helping corporations), etc, etc, etc

Quote:3. Keep Blacks,

anti-AA, anti-poverty programs, serious tax cuts on the poor

Quote:Mexicans,

anti-immigration policy

Quote:Indians, Orientals, Jews,

Muslims,

just plain hatred

Quote:Gays, Lesbians,

anti-gay rights, hatred/fear

Quote:Buddhists, Hindus,

Women,

anti-reproductive rights

Quote: Hobbits, Elves,

The French,

more hatred

Quote:and Cute Little Kittens safely subservient and destitute, so that they will pose no threat to some imaginary Rich White Christian Male oligarchy.
4. Pollute the environment as much as humanly possible, as if we were Captain Planet villians.
5. Conquer the world, one step at a time.

4. if you could you would, and are trying your best to get rid of all those silly environmental laws that stop you. There's a reason that this administration has been called the worst environmentally in an extremely long time...

5. Again you would if you could, but can't right now because the troops are tied down in Iraq... which of course was a step on that path.

Quote: It depends on the HMO really.

I'm not saying the existing system is perfect, it's hardly that. But nationalizing health care will be an economic catastrophe that we, and frankly, the world, cannot handle. Imagine how America's economy would suffer when taxes have to go up to 50%... 60%... 70%... just to pay for everyone to have bare-bones health coverage.

And again, the devastating effects such an idea would have on medical research would also, in the long run, make the plan save more lives short term, and cost lives long-term.It's not worth it.

The existing system is badly flawed and more government control and coverage is desperately needed. See, unlike you I think that when given a chance the government can do decent work... and as for "crippling recearch", they'd have more than enough money if they didn't spend such insane amounts advertising.

Quote:I agree that corporations do not need tax breaks. But, I do not think people with more money deserve to have a higher percentage of it taken away from them. That boils down to punishment for having too much money.

Conversely, expecting the poor to at least attempt to become self-sufficient and not lounge on free government money until they drop dead isn't hating the poor either. It's saying that I expect people to be as industrious and hard-working as anyone else

The Bush Administration's policy is "whatever a corporation wants, it gets" -- at least as long as it's a conservatively-run one...

Cutting taxes on the poorer groups (or getting rid of them alltogether) and coorspondingly raising them on high incomes would be a great idea.

Quote:That we were. And the right to vote for blacks was not created or birthed in the 1960s.

A vast majority definitely lived in southern states...

Quote:I support the flat-tax rate. It's more fair than any other method could possibly be. Cuts and raises would be universal and based only on percentage of wealth.

So the rich can afford to give more in taxes. That doesn't in any way justify making them do so. They already pay a great deal of the taxes as it is. One billionaire pays several thousand times as much in taxes as the average joe.

The flat tax. Blatant and barely-concealed attempt to dramatically lower taxes on the rich even MORE and raise taxes on the poor. Very, very bad idea.

Quote: It is few, especially when you consider that most people in America are not poor. Simple.

So because 260 million have some kind of coverage the 40 that don't don't matter. No way. No one is unimportant.

Quote:Jesus. What defines a decent job? It's not like they'd pick produce in a sweltering field all day. Working retail or other entry-level jobs are not the most fun, dignified jobs in the world, but they do pay well enough that in conjunction with a token amount of government support most poor people could live with some comfort and save money for whatever sort of investment they wish, be it financial investment, education, etc.

I just can't believe you think that because they wouldn't be able to get a $25K per year job right off the bat means they'd be better off not working at all. That is stupid. That is purely stupid.

For one thing not really far away so they don't spend lots of time in transit, especially if they're single parents with young kids... that would be really, really hard on their children...

Quote:And with a much more tightly-controlled and regulated welfare system, things would be infinitely better. Not to mention, less burdensome to taxpayers.

Fundamental disagreement. The only way to improve things is to make the welfare system bigger. Regulate it well and reduce waste? Fine. But I do not think that there are nearly as large amounts of it as you imply.

A Black Falcon Wrote:See the difference is that there is solid evidence behind the things in your little list here.
anti-everything improving poverty related
tax policy, corporate tax breaks, corporations writing laws in special meetings with administration officials (like the energy industry for instance), corporate giveaways, ex-CEOs in high office, major environmental law rollbacks (helping corporations), etc, etc, etc
anti-AA, anti-poverty programs, serious tax cuts on the poor
anti-immigration policy
just plain hatred
anti-gay rights, hatred/fear
anti-reproductive rights
more hatred
4. if you could you would, and are trying your best to get rid of all those silly environmental laws that stop you. There's a reason that this administration has been called the worst environmentally in an extremely long time...
5. Again you would if you could, but can't right now because the troops are tied down in Iraq... which of course was a step on that path.

There are a lot of assumptions in there that are simply untrue. Being anti-immigration isn't hating Mexicans. Being anti-AA isn't hating Blacks. Respecting the rights of unborn children isn't hating women.

So no. Your conspiracy theories are just plain wacky lies.

Quote:The existing system is badly flawed and more government control and coverage is desperately needed. See, unlike you I think that when given a chance the government can do decent work... and as for "crippling recearch", they'd have more than enough money if they didn't spend such insane amounts advertising.

You do think that. It just so rarely happens that I don't understand why.

And, you have to advertise. That's an integral part of business, of making money. Not that you'd know that.

Quote:The Bush Administration's policy is "whatever a corporation wants, it gets" -- at least as long as it's a conservatively-run one...

How is this any different from liberal tax breaks to 'non-profit organizations' that are slanted to the left, or outright liberal activist groups?

Quote:Cutting taxes on the poorer groups (or getting rid of them alltogether) and coorspondingly raising them on high incomes would be a great idea.

Sure it would. Poor people would be DYING to get out of poverty so they can start paying taxes! What an incentive!

This is cardinal proof of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to make poor people happy. Conservatives want to make poor people not be poor.

Making poverty enjoyable and bearable will not end it. You have to kill poverty, by hard work and investment. Of course, such ideas are alien to liberals, who are headed by rich people and who want to give everyone else's money away to the poor.

Some charity. Why are there rich liberals, anyway? Obviously they don't mind it that much. It's only rich conservatives that are evil, I guess.

Quote:A vast majority definitely lived in southern states...

No shit!

Quote:The flat tax. Blatant and barely-concealed attempt to dramatically lower taxes on the rich even MORE and raise taxes on the poor. Very, very bad idea.

Wow. Suddenly, the liberal is AGAINST fairness! Hilarious! You act as though the rich don't already pay inordinately high taxes and the poor as often as not pay inordinately little!

Every post you make, you get just a little more out of this world. We ought to stop this soon.

Quote:So because 260 million have some kind of coverage the 40 that don't don't matter. No way. No one is unimportant.

No, but when 80% have it and 20% don't, I don't think it constitutes being considered a crisis. Certainly not one worth destroying our economy by instituting a failed socialist concept.

Quote:For one thing not really far away so they don't spend lots of time in transit, especially if they're single parents with young kids... that would be really, really hard on their children...

Because I see you keep continually ignoring the part of my idea where I say that

welfare is okay as a supplement to working people, not as a sole source of income.

I hope that issue is resolved. As for those who use their inability to keep their legs closed as an excuse for not working:

Deal with it. Or starve. I don't fucking care anymore. Give your kids up for adoption if you can't raise them. Stop making them if you can't raise them, because I shouldn't have to pay for that. One of the most widespread and dispicable abuses of the welfare system is people who kept having babies to ensure continued welfare support.

Quote:Fundamental disagreement. The only way to improve things is to make the welfare system bigger. Regulate it well and reduce waste? Fine. But I do not think that there are nearly as large amounts of it as you imply.

Wait a second. It's a total failure. How in the bleeding hell is making it BIGGER going to help it?

Since you used cancer as an allusion once, I will too: What you're saying is akin to telling someone that the only way they'll get better is to let their tumor grow even more!

Making that decrepit monster of a mistake larger is the very last thing we should EVER do. It's ruined enough people already. It needs to get SMALLER.

Ah God, your insanity is making me want to scream.

Oh yes, yet another post without proof. I won't stop reminding you until you pony it up. While you're at it, add in how enlarging the welfare monster will bring people out of poverty. That ought to be good.

As you can tell from the shortness of my replies, I'm getting very tired of this.

Quote:There are a lot of assumptions in there that are simply untrue. Being anti-immigration isn't hating Mexicans. Being anti-AA isn't hating Blacks. Respecting the rights of unborn children isn't hating women.

So no. Your conspiracy theories are just plain wacky lies.

Hating? There's certainly dislike among many conservatives for all those (serious) groups, but hating is stronger than that and I think I said 'hate' when I thought it was a major concern... what my focus was mostly there was policies that make those people dislike conservatives, and/or policies that (no matter your personal feelings) are things that those groups do not support and do not like your side supporting. Issues that should keep them from being Republicans, as it were.

Quote:You do think that. It just so rarely happens that I don't understand why.

And, you have to advertise. That's an integral part of business, of making money. Not that you'd know that.

Not the amount they do. The huge amounts of ads, among other things, put the lie on the statement that if we paid more fair prices for drugs the whole system would fail.

Quote:How is this any different from liberal tax breaks to 'non-profit organizations' that are slanted to the left, or outright liberal activist groups?

\

For one thing there's a difference between a non-profit and a for-profit organization... and for another those groups don't write the laws... if they did Democrats would pass much more liberal legislation on a lot of issues when they are in power.

Quote: Sure it would. Poor people would be DYING to get out of poverty so they can start paying taxes! What an incentive!

This is cardinal proof of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want to make poor people happy. Conservatives want to make poor people not be poor.

Making poverty enjoyable and bearable will not end it. You have to kill poverty, by hard work and investment. Of course, such ideas are alien to liberals, who are headed by rich people and who want to give everyone else's money away to the poor.

Some charity. Why are there rich liberals, anyway? Obviously they don't mind it that much. It's only rich conservatives that are evil, I guess.

People who cannot feasibly afford to pay taxes should not be forced into hardship just to pay their unfairly high share of them.

Quote: No shit!

So why argue this point?

Quote:Wow. Suddenly, the liberal is AGAINST fairness! Hilarious! You act as though the rich don't already pay inordinately high taxes and the poor as often as not pay inordinately little!

Every post you make, you get just a little more out of this world. We ought to stop this soon.

Nope. My definition of fairness includes the idea that it's fair for people with more to give more... you can't use one bar for everyone, people (and classes) are too different.

Quote:No, but when 80% have it and 20% don't, I don't think it constitutes being considered a crisis. Certainly not one worth destroying our economy by instituting a failed socialist concept.

Nobody is unimportant and the system should not fail anyone. That should be the goal -- no one slipping through the cracks and wasting their lives.

Quote: Because I see you keep continually ignoring the part of my idea where I say that

welfare is okay as a supplement to working people, not as a sole source of income.

I hope that issue is resolved. As for those who use their inability to keep their legs closed as an excuse for not working:

Deal with it. Or starve. I don't fucking care anymore. Give your kids up for adoption if you can't raise them. Stop making them if you can't raise them, because I shouldn't have to pay for that. One of the most widespread and dispicable abuses of the welfare system is people who kept having babies to ensure continued welfare support.

Better education is the best solution there. ... but wait, you don't want to FUND better education for low-income areas, you want vouchers which will help make schools WORSE for the 95 out of 100 kids who don't go to private schools! Great idea!

Quote: Wait a second. It's a total failure. How in the bleeding hell is making it BIGGER going to help it?

Since you used cancer as an allusion once, I will too: What you're saying is akin to telling someone that the only way they'll get better is to let their tumor grow even more!

Making that decrepit monster of a mistake larger is the very last thing we should EVER do. It's ruined enough people already. It needs to get SMALLER.

Ah God, your insanity is making me want to scream.

Oh yes, yet another post without proof. I won't stop reminding you until you pony it up. While you're at it, add in how enlarging the welfare monster will bring people out of poverty. That ought to be good

Within its limited applications, welfare is mostly successful. It'd be more successful without people like you trying to destroy it, but it's a great program that definitely has helped this nation.

Oh yeah, and you've gone to great lengths to prove your case, I've noticed!

And making welfare bigger will help poverty because children will get better home lives, thus increasing their chances of success in school, which can lead places. What we need now is better programs for low-income kids going to college, big government subsidies for college tuition, etc... that would make a huge dent, if more low-income people could afford college. If they didn't have to pay much and could work to make some extra money maybe larger numbers of low-income people could go, and with that would be advancement in society...

As for the parents, they should obviously be trying for work of some kind, but shouldn't lower their standards so all they try for is register jobs at part time pay...

I'm getting tired of this too. It never goes anywhere anyway. It's just fun to shoot the shit with you every once in awhile, being that our very beliefs are so totally contrasted in almost every possible way.

Shake and be friends until the next one comes up?

Probably a good idea, I'm definitely tired of it.

Interesting thread.

I forgot what the original topic was.

The French banning religious symbols in public schools.

It never changed. :) You started it to set off a arguement...

And Geno, why delete your post? Huh? What secrets did it hide?

Just two comments I thought needed to be said here.

Here you misunderstood what I meant by when I took apart that list of yours...

Quote:There are a lot of assumptions in there that are simply untrue. Being anti-immigration isn't hating Mexicans. Being anti-AA isn't hating Blacks. Respecting the rights of unborn children isn't hating women.

So no. Your conspiracy theories are just plain wacky lies.

Hating? There's certainly dislike among many conservatives for all those (serious) groups, but hating is stronger than that and I think I said 'hate' when I thought it was a major concern... what my focus was mostly there was policies that make those people dislike conservatives, and/or policies that (no matter your personal feelings) are things that those groups do not support and do not like your side supporting. Issues that should keep them from being Republicans, as it were.

And other than that all I want to say is that I disagree completely with the idea that because a group (or opinion...) is smaller, or not the majority, it is bad or wrong or should be ignored. Just because "only" 45 million working poor (read that in the paper today) don't have any health care, we should forget them because they're too lazy to get a better job?

Not at all. People who work deserve help. They contribute and thus should benefit. I still don't believe in full coverage for every single person courtesy of taxpayers though. For working people, and for people who are incapable of working due to physical disability and have no means of support, I agree that they should receive partial coverage, and enough to cover their families.

The rest? No. If you refuse to contribute to society, it isn't worth it for society to save you.

I'm still done with this, by the way.

Just wanted to show that you'd kind of misunderstood me... :)

Misunderstood? You're still frighteningly liberal.

But I love you anyway.

In a non-gay, I-don't-even-know-what-your-look-like kinda way.

That I didn't mean you hated all those groups, I mean. :)

Ah...

I do hate Hobbits, though. That's why Fittisize gets on my nerves all the time.

So I posted that response twice but you didn't read it either time?

I didn't quite get what you meant.

Quote: Issues that should keep them from being Republicans, as it were.

isn't that clear?

If I could remember the context, perhaps.

Honestly, I'd like to not remember. :)

:)

A Black Falcon Wrote:And Geno, why delete your post? Huh? What secrets did it hide?

I posted it after looking at only Page 1, without even noticing Page 2 was there and that the debate had drawn to a close, and I didn't want to revive a dead debate.

Good thinking.

Its moving forward...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/intern...1FRAN.html

Quote:French Assembly Votes to Ban Religious Symbols in Schools
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

Published: February 11, 2004

ARIS, Feb. 10 — The National Assembly voted by an overwhelming majority on Tuesday to ban Muslim head scarves and other religious symbols from public schools, a move that underscores the broad public support for the French secular ideal but is certain to deepen resentment among France's large Muslim population.

Advertisement

The 494-to-36 vote, with 31 abstentions, came hours after the minister of national education, Luc Ferry, said in a radio interview that the law would stretch much further than religious symbols and require all students to attend physical education classes and accept what is taught on the Holocaust and human reproduction.

Three weeks ago, Mr. Ferry, a philosopher and best-selling author, said bandannas and excessive hairiness would be banned from public schools if they were considered religious signs.

The draft law bans "ostensibly" religious signs, which have been defined by President Jacques Chirac and a government advisory commission as Islamic head scarves, Christian crosses that are too large in size and Jewish skullcaps. Sikh turbans are also likely to be included.

But the legislation also includes a lengthy preamble that demands that public schools guarantee total equality, including "coeducation of all teachings, particularly in sports and physical education." Schools, it said, are "the best tool for planting the roots of the republican idea."

On Tuesday, Mr. Ferry made clear that religious beliefs could not be used as an excuse to avoid gym or biology classes, and that questioning the veracity of the Holocaust would not be tolerated.

Mr. Ferry also said the law "will keep classrooms from being divided up into militant religious communities," noting that there had been a "spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the past three years."

In recent years, teachers have complained that some Muslim students have been so disruptive in rejecting the veracity of the Nazi slaughter of the Jews that it is impossible to teach the subject.

Teachers have also said some Muslim girls have boycotted classes on human reproduction because they are too graphic, and have demanded sexually segregated gym classes. There are also reports that male and female Muslim students have demanded prayer breaks within the standardized baccalaureate exams at the end of high school and a ban on pork in school cafeterias.

In the Europe 1 interview, Mr. Ferry did not single out Muslims for censure, but he did not have to. Most Orthodox Jewish schoolchildren who would object to mixed-sex gym and biology classes, for example, go to private Jewish schools that are already sex-segregated, keep kosher kitchens and teach the Torah. The first — and only — private Muslim high school in all of France opened last fall in Lille.

Despite France's insistence that secularism must govern French schools, there are exceptions. France spends billions of dollars a year to finance private religious schools, most of them Catholic, for example.

Private religious schools that receive state financing are required to follow the national curriculum strictly, but policing by the state is not universal.

For example, at the Merkaz Hatorah School for Orthodox Jews in the Paris suburb of Gagny, which receives state financing and was vandalized in an arson attack last November, evolution is taught as a theory, not as fact.

"We don't teach that man comes from monkeys," said Jacques Benisty, the school's deputy director, in an interview shortly after the attack.

The Catholic catechism is taught and the crucifix is hung in public schools in Alsace-Lorraine, which is exempt from France's 1905 law strictly separating church and state because the area was still in German hands when it was adopted.

Meanwhile, during a brief debate in Parliament, before the adoption of the law, Alain Bocquet, a Communist Party deputy who voted against the law, said that it would "stigmatize" citizens of immigrant origin and "set things on fire rather than calm them down."

The draft legislation now goes to the Senate, which is also expected to pass it by a wide margin when it votes on March 2.

I also saw on the news how the French government is trying to force this guy to take down a giant cross that he erected in a field. A field that he OWNED. They said something about it would increase religious tension in the area, but most people in the town said they didn't care because it was his property.

Depends on how giant I'd think... if it's too big you could go against zoning laws... :)

But I'd say that's more of an annoyance thing than anything else. I've heard of people in the US with giant crosses... usually they can leave them up but I'm sure some have been made to been taken down.

I don't know how big it was exactly, maybe 15-20 feet. They didn't really say, but that's what it looked like from the picture.