[quote=tallguy;140572]skeptical of Chicken Little liberal "everything is terrible and unjust" hand-wringing, etc.[/quote]Are you also skeptical of conservative Chicken Little hand-wringing?

When I tune into TV channel 30 here, there's a pretty good chance I'll find the middle of a talk about "the last days", or "times of tribulation coming", or such doom-and-gloom stuff. They certainly are not liberal.

[quote]There are many many Christians though who draw from Jesus a focus on serving the poor (which I do as well, although I think it should be privately driven rather than through a welfare state)[/quote]So, those New Orleans residents who don't own cars should have to find private transportation out of town rather than have the government line up enough buses for all of them and ensure they all had the opportunity (the latter is a liberal notion if I ever heard one)? The good Christians of the Bush administration (and the local churches ...?) tried that in 2005.

[quote]Despite being a conservative myself, I think that very few conservative political beliefs -- with the notable exception of pro-life and believing homosexuality to be a sin -- are driven by Biblical principles.[/quote]What happens, of course, is that everyone picks and chooses among the variety of guidelines presented in the Bible, according to their own worldviews. That's why there are multiple lines of monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion.

[quote]There is Biblical reference to the notion that we shouldn't expect to eat unless we are willing to work ([URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:6-12;&version=31;"]2 Thessalonians 3:6-12[/URL])[/quote]Hmmm ... Manna in the desert for the Hebrews led by Moses out of Egypt? Loaves and fishes by the Sea of Galilee?

[quote]Guns? Nothing that I can infer.[/quote]God didn't inform folks about future inventions back then.

[quote]Economic policy? Ditto.[/quote]Parable of the talents? Rich-man-entering-Heaven vs. camel-through-eye-of-needle?

[quote]Intervention vs. Isolationism? Nada.[/quote]Israelites generally weren't interventionist, IIRC. And back then, isolationism pretty much meant having 100 leagues of desert between you and the neighboring tribes.

[quote]Christians[/quote]... moderate-to-left-wing Christians, that is ... [quote]need to wake up to the fact that the right-wing is co-opting Christianity (or at least the label) as a political faction.[/quote]Are there plans to take it back to a non-political position?

[quote=ewmayer;140604]So cheesehead, you appear to essentially agree with me that McCain has sold his soul to the Christian right, although you prefer to use the less vivid language of "pandering" to describe his selling-out.[/quote]Okay, but you got to admit: those Chinese bears [I]are[/I] cute.

[quote]I for one am not comforted by the hope that he might lurch back toward the center once elected

< snip >

not-at-all-negligible chance that he would not finish his first term, or would spend significant portions of it in an incapacitated state.[/quote](* sigh *) Yeah, I know.

On Futures Exchange (FX) at ideosphere.com you can see claims that Bush will not finish his term of office, but they're trading at very low values.

(Don't read too much into the word "claims". That's just the term for statements about future events, for which FX participants can purchase Yes or No coupons. Authoring an FX claim doesn't mean you think the event [I]will[/I] or [I]is likely to[/I] happen, just that you are setting up one of those statements about some [I]possible[/I] future event.)

"Bush impeached or resigns" [URL]http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BuImp[/URL], currently trading at 4 on scale of 1-99

"Bush dies or incapacitated" [URL]http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=BUSHXX[/URL], currently trading at 1 on scale of 1-99

If McCain is elected, you'll see analgous claims proposed for him on Election Night.

[QUOTE=rogue;140606]Let's see what happens if she gets an abortion...:whistle:

For me it boils down to the major evil of each candidate. For Obama, he will raise taxes and spend as if there were no tomorrow.
).[/QUOTE]


What do you think Bushie has been doing?? What do you think the war
is costing? This retard has run up the biggest deficit in history!!! Do
you know what percentage of your taxes goes JUST TO PAY THE
INTEREST ON THE DEBT????

"spend as if there were no tomorrow" is HORESHIT. Bush is already
doing it!!! McCain will just continue it!

Exactly how do you think we will ever pay off this debt without
raising taxes??? I want to see taxes raised AND spending reduced.

The difference between the republitards and the demotwits is not
that one spends and the other doesn't. They both spend, but on
DIFFERENT THINGS.

We are leaving a legacy of debt for our children.... And I think that it
sucks.

[QUOTE=jrk;140615]Why would they do that? It isn't like the baby will cost them anything.[/QUOTE]

You missed the sarcasm in my statement. Clearly an abortion won't happen in this case because to them it isn't an option. If they were even to consider an abortion (imagine that the pregnancy was due to rape or incest), that would destroy the right-to-lifer's credibility.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140625]Exactly how do you think we will ever pay off this debt without raising taxes??? I want to see taxes raised AND spending reduced.

The difference between the republitards and the demotwits is not that one spends and the other doesn't. They both spend, but on DIFFERENT THINGS.[/QUOTE]

I would prefer to see spending reduced without affecting taxes but as there is no incentive to control costs, it won't happen. That is one of the major reasons I would like to see more privatization (re competition) and less socialization of government.

Without the war in Iraq, I wonder where Bush would have wasted a trillion dollars? Then again, I probably should be careful about that. He probably would have started a war with Iran instead. Personally, I'm terrified (based upon what I've been reading) that an Israel-Iran war is imminent. I couldn't care less if they bomb each other to ashes. I'm more concerned how the neighboring countries and the world powers will get involved.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140625]We are leaving a legacy of debt for our children.... And I think that it sucks.[/QUOTE]

It certainly does. [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/10/movement_warns_of_us_bankruptcy/"]This[/URL] should scare a few people, even if it is alarmist. I doubt it will be on the radar for the campaign. Too many people don't want to talk about it. The largest voting block (the elderly) will not be around in a generation. They would prefer to ignore it as long as they can "get theirs" before they die, thus they do not have any desire to solve the problem.

[QUOTE=rogue;140631]It certainly does. [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/10/movement_warns_of_us_bankruptcy/"]This[/URL] should scare a few people, even if it is alarmist. I doubt it will be on the radar for the campaign. Too many people don't want to talk about it. The largest voting block (the elderly) will not be around in a generation. They would prefer to ignore it as long as they can "get theirs" before they die, thus they do not have any desire to solve the problem.[/QUOTE]

You complained about Obama raising taxes.

Exactly how do you think this debt will be paid down *without*
raising taxes??? It would take [b]massive[/b] spending cuts. Such
cuts would have the voters screaming because each would think he/she
was being deprived of "their cut".... It is politically infeasible. The
public wants "bread and circuses" and to ignore economic reality.

What is needed is for each of us to pair our fair share. Determining
"fair share" is a political process. Under Bush (IMO) the rich and U.S.
corporations have avoided paying their fair share.

Obama has said that he wants a "middle class" tax cut. While
"soaking the rich and corporations" has appeal to the plebes, I don't
see it happening. There just aren't ENOUGH rich people and corporations.
Yes, I think the upper class is underpaying on taxes. Something needs to
be done to correct that. But it won't pay off the debt.

[QUOTE=rogue;140631]It certainly does. [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/10/movement_warns_of_us_bankruptcy/"]This[/URL] .[/QUOTE]

One thing the article discusses is the cost of health care.
This will not happen without major tort reform. One thing driving the
cost is litigation/malpractice suits.

One possible (and very simple) way to alleviate this is to shift the
burden of malpractice insurance from doctors (who pay obscene amounts
for insurance and who practice "defensive" medicine as a consequence)
to patients.

People who want malpractice insurance (e.g. before surgery) should be
allowed to buy it themselves. Let's recognize that noone is perfect
and that doctors make mistakes as a matter of national policy.
After all, don't people by auto insurance in case someone else makes
a driving error and causes them harm? Why should medicine be any
different?

Another thing driving costs is hospitals having to treat uninsured.
I say "f*ck 'em". Why should the general public have to pay for
treating people who won't get insurance? Here in Massachusetts,
[b]everyone[/b] is required by law to have insurance. TANSTAAFL.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140605]Another bomb just hit.

The religious right, socially repressive, anti-free-choice, anti-women's
rights, anti-gay, republican party, whose male members keep cheating
on their spouses while prattling about "FAMILY VALUES" just announced:

Palin's 17 year-old, unwed daughter is 5 months pregant!!!

Now personally, I [b]don't care[/b]. What I do care about is the hyprocrisy
of Palin. She's had 5 kids (which I think is disgusting in this day and age;
how can one give proper care to your children when you have 5 of them?)
Indeed, this pregnancy shows, that Palin FAILED to properly care for
her daughter. She failed to teach her that one doesn't get pregnant
when 17 and unmarried.

Can't these Palin women keep their legs crossed on occasion?

Republians are such fu**ing hypocrites in their attempts to impose
their socially repressive views on everyone else. They want to drag
the U.S. back to their idealized view of the 1950's social environment,
while at the same time the men can't keep their pants zipped, and the
women can't keep their legs crossed.

I think this is great news! It certainly can't help the republitards.[/QUOTE]

Bigotry and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy and bigotry.

Last time I posted here, over a month ago, I spent a good five hours of my work day trying to convey my thoughts. After saying something like, "People should not be judged according to their genetics" I was accused of supporting eugenics. I decided I needed to take a break, and not spend so much time here, although I've occasionally lurked now and then.

This post has brought me out of lurk mode. Not due to the content, but because of the lack of response. It got me thinking about racism. I think many of us have asked the questions, "If I was alive in the 1950's and 60's, what would have been my responses to racism? Would I have joined in? Would I have watched silently? Would I actively have opposed it?" Sometimes we get to test ourselves. When we see racist attitudes online we have the opportunity to refute them. Call them for what they are. Some people feel that a modern cause, such as women's rights, or gay rights, show how they would react.

What troubled me about this post is that no one called it for what it is: bigotry and hypocrisy. We know that the actions of Sarah's daughter do not make Sarah a hypocrite. We know that the failings of a child do not imply that the parents are to blame.

It is so easy to accuse others of hatred and hypocrisy, when they espouse values. They've made themselves ready targets. And if they actually haven't gone against what they believe, we can group them with others who are hypocritical.

Frankly, it isn't a virtue to espouse no values. And espousing no values does not prevent one from being a hypocrite. Do you readers really buy the argument that believing Christians would be hypocrites to vote for Sarah Palin because she has a wayward daughter? Do you buy the argument that Republicans are more hypocritical than Democrats when their elected officials break their trust; merely because they are more vocal about their beliefs and values?

Anyway, back into lurker mode. Maybe I'll be back in another month.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140634]You complained about Obama raising taxes.

Exactly how do you think this debt will be paid down *without*
raising taxes??? It would take [b]massive[/b] spending cuts. Such
cuts would have the voters screaming because each would think he/she
was being deprived of "their cut".... It is politically infeasible. The
public wants "bread and circuses" and to ignore economic reality.

What is needed is for each of us to pair our fair share. Determining
"fair share" is a political process. Under Bush (IMO) the rich and U.S.
corporations have avoided paying their fair share.

Obama has said that he wants a "middle class" tax cut. While
"soaking the rich and corporations" has appeal to the plebes, I don't
see it happening. There just aren't ENOUGH rich people and corporations.
Yes, I think the upper class is underpaying on taxes. Something needs to
be done to correct that. But it won't pay off the debt.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree on the fact that some don't pay enough in taxes. As for the spending cuts, I would be more in favor of an approach that would be concerned with controlling costs. That is not the same thing as spending cuts. How much of the cost of government is buried in bureaucracy and administrative overhead? Certainly a level of service would be lost by controlling costs. Can costs be reduced by 20% or more, yet services reduced by 10% or less? I would bet that they could, but I don't know.

I would like to see a law passed the prevents government from exceeding revenue, last year's revenue, not next years. If they want to exceed it, they must go to the taxpayers and ask for it.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140634]One thing the article discusses is the cost of health care.
This will not happen without major tort reform. One thing driving the
cost is litigation/malpractice suits.

One possible (and very simple) way to alleviate this is to shift the
burden of malpractice insurance from doctors (who pay obscene amounts
for insurance and who practice "defensive" medicine as a consequence)
to patients.

People who want malpractice insurance (e.g. before surgery) should be
allowed to buy it themselves. Let's recognize that noone is perfect
and that doctors make mistakes as a matter of national policy.
After all, don't people by auto insurance in case someone else makes
a driving error and causes them harm? Why should medicine be any
different?

Another thing driving costs is hospitals having to treat uninsured.
I say "f*ck 'em". Why should the general public have to pay for
treating people who won't get insurance? Here in Massachusetts,
everyone is required by law to have insurance. TANSTAAFL.[/QUOTE]

I believe that studies have shown the malpractice costs are actually a small piece of the pie compared to other factors. I read this past weekend that doctors control 90% of health care spending. The article also stated that 30% of the spending is on unnecessary tests and procedures. Are you saying that people who want malpractice insurance should buy it is a type of "umbrella" policy? That's an intriguing thought, but how could you hold the doctors/hospitals responsible for their mistakes?

My opinion on health care is that we will probably see universal health care in the U.S. in my lifetime. I can't say if that is right or wrong, but it is clear that health care in the U.S. is worse than most countries that have it. I would prefer that a universal health care program would cover some things, but not all. Not everybody is entitled to an organ transplant or open heart surgery and have the government pay for it. If you want additional coverage, you can pay for it out of your own pocket.

WRT entitlements, I would prefer to see every item in the budget have a sunset clause and no automatic "renewals". That would force a discussion on each program every few years so they can be evaluated and left to pasture if they are no longer needed. How many people in this forum remember seeing taxes on their phone bill associated with the Spanish-American war in 1898?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;140647][i][In response to Bob's "hypocrites" post][/i]

What troubled me about this post is that no one called it for what it is: bigotry and hypocrisy. We know that the actions of Sarah's daughter do not make Sarah a hypocrite. We know that the failings of a child do not imply that the parents are to blame.[/QUOTE]
Normally I would probably agree with you, and take the Obama line that this is a "private family affair" for the Palins.

But when you have a politician who [as Gov. Palin does] loudly advocates against teaching sex education in public schools [and uses the typical conservative argument that sex education *promotes* teen pregnancy] and advocates attempting to prevent teen pregnancy by preaching "abstinence" despite the utter failure [b]in her own family[/b] of such wishful-thinking-based ideology, then that is blatant hypocrisy of the worst kind.

If it's not even working for you with your own kids, what right do you have to ram it down the throats of others?

More hypocrisy, this time on the "crusader against wasteful government spending front": It has [url=http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html]now emerged[/url] - someone dug up a several-years-old article in the [i]Anchorage Daily News[/i] proving it - that Palin actually *supported* the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" project before later flip-flopping when it became too big a political hot potato.

But [and this is surely the kind of short-circuiting of reasoning faculties the McCain campaign intended] ... [b]she's really very attractive[/b], so all is forgiven. As the GOP is spinning it, it's not hypocrisy, it's touching proof of her warts-and-all humanity. People want their leaders to have humans flaws and failings [especially when they are holier-than-thou religious conservatives, apparently] - in fact, the more flawed they are, the better. Just look at Dubya.

But y'know, [b]she's actually remarkably good-looking...[/b]

[QUOTE=rogue;140631]I would prefer to see spending reduced without affecting taxes but as there is no incentive to control costs, it won't happen. That is one of the major reasons I would like to see more privatization (re competition) and less socialization of government.[/QUOTE]Privatisation of railways in the United-Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands has lead to an increase in accidents, an increase of fares and a general disorganisation. In Europe the European Institutions want everything privatised, meaning a transfer of a government monopoly to a private monopoly, raising bills for the consumers after having sold public assets for a bargain price. At the moment the ROI asked by private investors is much higher than the possible inefficiency of state management.

At the moment the only "socialisation" I see in the "rich" world is socialisation of the losses incurred by private companies.

As for competition being a good thing for a society I have my doubts, did you ever inquire about the costs of "marketing" (ads campaigns, studies...) on the price of something as basic as washing powder ? Emulation is a good thing, but competition is more like war most of the time. And war is destructive per se.

To return to a previous most of mine Cheesehead has expressed what I wanted to convey in a much clearer fashion.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;140637]Another thing driving costs is hospitals having to treat uninsured. I say "f*ck 'em". Why should the general public have to pay for treating people who won't get insurance? Here in Massachusetts, [b]everyone[/b] is required by law to have insurance. TANSTAAFL.[/QUOTE]Because some people just can not get insurance at reasonable costs. Insurance is a way to spread the risks, but if the categories with the smallest risks want to pay accordingly, the people with most risks are asked to pay for their risks as well. Try getting health insurance if you have a history of diabetes for instance...

Jacob

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140651]
But y'know, [b]she's actually remarkably good-looking...[/b][/QUOTE]

McCain must have a thing for beauty queens...