Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I should mention that there's an excellent OTC thread
about evolution and the evidence for it. I'm mentioning it because if you're supporting a politician who thinks the jury is still out on evolution, it would be worth your time to learn why that politician is wrong. Obviously, that thread is very willing to discuss arguments against evolution if they haven't been answered there already.
Evolution is quite simple, but I've gone to some length in explaining the main concepts so my posts there tend to be rather long. If you care about the subject, though, I think the thread is worth a read.
This post about the evidence for evolution
contains info about radiometric dating, so hopefully it'll help you understand what that's all about.
I know this post is off-topic, but hopefully it'll direct some potential derail material into the correct topic - or rather, one of the correct topics - for it.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.@Starship
: With all due respect, I know exactly what I'm talking about, as I was pointing out the implications of your weak ass argument, not what you actually believe in.
You yourself are a ball of contradictory thoughts, because yes, you actually have been manipulated into believing conservative ideals, but you've also come to conclusions (i.e. those "liberal tendencies") that go against your manipulated ideas of reality. Your argument for right-wing economic ideals that essentially fucks over the poor and needy so entitled moochers get fucked over as well goes against your liberal economic ideals of helping those who actually need help.
The whole "holding people accountable for for the state of the world" idea has been seen. It has lead to people living and dying in the projects because they simply can't even consider that there's more out there. It has lead to people living and dying in trailer parks because, doggone it, their daddy did it, and his daddy did it, and they're gonna too. It has lead to rich slobs hoarding and squeezing the very life out of the economy just so their 2% appreciation rate is protected. It has lead to ozone layer thinning and the seas rising because people just can't be troubled to even consider that maybe, just maybe, there's something to reusing grocery bags and exploring solar power.
And it has lead to people like you who actually want to help, but won't, because you're voting in/agree with assholes who've thoroughly manipulated you into thinking some of their ideas might be the right thing to do, that rising up above a shitload of needless challenges in life is somehow beautiful when every single person who could have done so much more couldn't do it as well because you've been lead to believe a comprehensive welfare system will lead to a shitload of lazy entitled fucks mooching off the success of everyone else, when that shouldn't even fucking matter to you since you'll still be helping the people you want to help.
Starship, the liberal-conservative/regressive divide is essentially rational, intelligent, wholesome people (though all of those qualities vary in each liberal and on each issue) fighting for a better world vs. rich assholes and the unfortunate people they've manipulated (like you, for example, although I'm betting we can snap you out of it).
You also ignored the rest of my post
. You still haven't even attempted a rebuttal to the Nordic Model leading to some of, if not the, best countries in the world to live in.
@Postmodernism in politics: Fuck that shit. Even though we can never prove anything (including what I just said), we'll fucking base our acts on what best appears to be true. That's what science is, and that's how rational people makes decisions.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:04:07 PM by Ekuran
That and my family was one of those who suffered from Republican unwillingness to reign in the Medical Insurance Industry. We nearly went bankrupt because of trying to pay for medical bills, doctor visits and keeping up our old insurance.
:| As a result, I have 0 tolerance for Republican Lawmaker bullshit and shenanigans.
I think the two of you are speaking from a personal observation or experience of the harm caused by the Republicans. I understand that; I too think the rich isn't doing enough.
But I think we have to be careful not to let the blame get overextended.
Anyway, I'm wondering how you would answer Barkey's opinion
.
Some of us don't want that. Some of us are competitive, and want to try and cross first, and strive to be better than others. It's healthy, it's human, and it's normal. Now I recognize that there are people that legitimately need help in order to get on their feet and get back to their lives. I've been unemployed before, I've been there(though I didn't use any government aid).
It's why I support social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, I support those programs. But I think welfare needs its limits, because sometimes it isn't just the economy, I know people on welfare who are legitimate leeches of society who just don't do shit, or are too picky about where they want to work and thus botch the jobs they don't want on purpose to stay on unemployment, or a lot of people who are on "disability" when it's absolutely bullshit. Democrats don't know that sometimes, you have to cut the fucking cord and just let people go.
The fuck did I just say. If some entitled fuckers mooch off the success of everyone else, then fuck them, but just cause we don't want to pay for these fuckers it doesn't stop our duty as fellow citizens (or just plain-old fucking people) to help those in need. Yes, some people will use this to their advantage, but that doesn't matter, since we'll still be helping those who genuinely need help.
This argument against welfare is weak as shit.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:18:49 PM by Ekuran
Ekuran, I like you. You skip strawmanning and go for straw villages complete with highways. But you do it with style. Okay, let's unpack your assumptions shall we?
I'm going to ignore the whole "I don't care about your clearly stated beliefs, I'm going to address your argument." Exactly what argument are you referring to?
I could see how it would come off as contradictory. But if you actually understood my position you'd see it's consistent. I want equal opportunity for an open competitive economic model and I don't want the lazy or the rich and entitled to negate that model.
I might've had a clever retort if anything you'd written applied to me in actuality.
Hm, interesting. It might also be "good, well-intentioned people who are so driven by their righteous mission that they forget they make wrong assumptions and rather than admit to being wrong, continue in that wrong, all the while demanding other people admit when they're wrong and then being shocked that people don't listen to them."
I didn't address because there's no point. I agree with the Nordic model. I can see how you might've missed that.
Like I said, sadly, Willful Ignorant is a very real Character Alignment.
Dude, please don't take too much offense to this, but....you're constantly inventing this imaginary argument against welfare is what is really weak as shit.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:20:00 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYeah, I'm kind of curious too. Because you keep making the exact same arguments as the people who are all for getting rid of welfare, but then say that you're not saying that. It's confusing as heck.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:23:18 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianAh, somebody actually asked. I can work with this.
I actually want to expand our current social welfare programs significantly. I think the United States is rich enough to pull off the Nordic model, and I'd love to see it happen.
I also want to overhaul basic education and social awareness in general so that we create the kind of culture where people consider paying rent and springing for a new suit for interviews is a better purchase rather than rims.
I want the trailer park dweller to know that he doesn't have to be there. I want the rich WASP guy in the Hamptons to not panic because his taxes are going up 1.5% percent.
That's my position.
To be honest though DG, it's only confusing because certain liberals have this Hitler Ate Sugar mindset of "Starship said some people are looking to the government when the should be looking in the mirror. Another guy who wanted to eliminate free school lunch said the same thing. Starship must want to eliminate free school lunches, that fucking dog rapist."
If some people would simply accept that you can agree with one slice of someone's viewpoint, or even a lot of it, and still reject their conclusions, then people like me become less confusing.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:30:16 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorI believe in the goods of welfare. Frankly, I enjoy working. It gives me a sense of pride and happiness. But I believe that a lack of GOOD welfare in this country is fucking it over in the long run (Personally, I think America should be investing in Universal Health Care and State-Paid Higher Education.)
I don't want me or anyone else to live on the dole, but I don't believe the country is doing enough to give an equal starting chance to people. It's hard to put. I believe someone who is an absolute dumbass deserves to crash and burn. But at the same time, there's something severely wrong in my eyes with families who have done nothing wrong get bankrupted out of their life savings because of a sudden illness (be it Auto-Immune Diseases, Cancer, etc.).
And well, the majority of Republican lawmakers I read up about seem to think the above, while they might not say it say it, are encouraging the same systems.
Frankly I'd rather be in Europe with high taxes paying for better education and healthcare, than where I am now.
People are ultimately in it all together. What one person does, realistically, affects dozens to hundreds to thousands to millions of lives.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:32:05 PM by PotatoesRock
I do not strawman, except when I fuck with people, and I explicitly say I'm fucking with people when I do it.
Your argument against welfare because some people are entitled fucks.
Then why do you say you're conservative. That's center-left economics as far as anyone is concerned.
You say you're conservative. It applies to you. Except, no, your ideals seem to be liberal.
Which is it, again?
I did say unfortunate people, didn't I. Unless you're referring to liberals, who you agree with so you think they have the right assumptions, except you say you're conservative, so...
Then why are you even bitching about welfare queens, or say you're conservative. Stop being contradictory.
And don't say you're not conservative when you explicitly said that.
Starship, my argument-fu is stronger than yours.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:44:48 PM by Ekuran
Newt Gingrich has made some loose and questionable comments in the primary season; now it looks like he's being a reformer. I'm impressed.
I think Starship wants to be a conservative, because he believes in the value of fiscal freedom of capitalism. It's just that he's molding it under social support as necessary while keeping that freedom intact as much as possible. There's a wishful conservative sentiment inside the center-left decision-making.
edited 19th Nov '12 3:37:15 PM by Trivialis
Newt Gingrich is a principle-less opportunist who believes his own press. Do not think for a minute that this conciliatory "reformer" version is any more real than the hyper-conservative primary season one.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That's a mighty broad brush there Potatoes.
Edit: Okay, Tomu, that was pretty damn funny.
edited 19th Nov '12 2:50:04 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor