Palin Should Be Running for Prez Not Mccain

[Modern Nomad]

Palin was not bad. The stuff she said about going against the oil interests and the old boy's network was good stuff.

I think me and a lot of other people think she makes a better presidential candidate than John McCain.

Sarah should be the presidential candidate, and McCain should be vice president. Then I could consider voting for them. But with McCain as the lead dog, sorry no can do.

[murkrow]

Umm...

Really?

She's pretty inexperienced.

[ajblaise]

Nomad, if i say some good stuff in a speech, can i have your support for president too?

[sassafrassquatch]

Inexperienced, crazy fundie, fascist pig. DO NOT WANT.

Hopefully by 2016 the technology will become available to resurrect the Roosevelts.

T.R. ... F.D.R. ... ooohhh...I think I peed a little...

[ajblaise]

no former sportscaster should be allowed to become president.

[Modern Nomad]

Nomad, if i say some good stuff in a speech, can i have your support for president too?

sure!

but i can't tell u what to say beforehand. that would be cheating.

also, getting on tv is kind of hard. it can't be online, it has to be on nationally broadcasted television. Thats how I came to discover the George Foreman grill after all. ;)

either way, this i know for sure, palin is better than mccain! for sure! (but then again i think most people on this forum is better than mccain) LOL

[Lateralus]

Inexperienced, crazy fundie, fascist pig. DO NOT WANT.

Hopefully by 2016 the technology will become available to resurrect the Roosevelts.

T.R. ... F.D.R. ... ooohhh...I think I peed a little...
I don't think lack of experience is relevant. I haven't knocked Obama's inexperience, either.

She's a facist? Could you point to specific instances where she's shown this? I ask because I haven't seen it. I haven't seen how she's a 'fundie', either. Are you saying that just because she's pro-life? That automatically makes someone a 'fundie'?

What I didn't like about her speech is how she bashed 'Big Oil'. That's almost become cliche, and it's really getting annoying. 'Big Oil' isn't the reason oil prices are so high, the federal government is.

[Oberon]

It doesn't matter who's president, the system will rattle on its power-grabbing way regardless.

That being the case, you might as well have a president who's nice to look at.

The fascism is inevitable, 'squatch. Resurrect the Roosevelts and you'll just get more of it. It'll get worse before it gets better.

[miked277]

here's a good article (http://www.reason.com/news/show/126020.html) on something semi-related but important nonetheless i think. we've -- the american people with help from a handful of presidents, namely teddy roos -- have turned the presidency into a larger than life emperor-like position and we then get aggrivated when the president wields his power as an emperor would. instead of the system being able to restrain the president on incremental issues we're left with only the drastic option of impeachment or simply sitting back and weathering the remainder of the term(s).

the expansion of leadership powers usually happens under the tenure of a fair, balanced, popular and generally likable person. they are able to accomplish much, ask (or take) more power to accomplish more good and when their time in the top spot is over that spot which has to be filled now has all the added power the people agreed to but without that original leader wielding it. subsequent leaders' ability to abuse his powers are then nowhere near as limited as originally planned and what you have is a downward spiral of gradual power grabs that lead to very bad places.

oh and btw the great depression lasted all the way up to WWII *because* of and not inspite of FDR's new deal. he was a good example of someone who acted and looked great, giving the american people hope in their most dire hour while at the same time dashing any chance of a speedy recovery due to his poor policy choices. a mistake which was partially repeated in 2000 and partially relearned by 2008.

[pure_mercury]

Inexperienced, crazy fundie, fascist pig. DO NOT WANT.

Hopefully by 2016 the technology will become available to resurrect the Roosevelts.

T.R. ... F.D.R. ... ooohhh...I think I peed a little...


GROSS.

The Roosevelts, not the peeing.

[booyalab]

I'm tired of this "Palin is inexperienced" bullshit. She has more executive experience than Obama.

[Magic Poriferan]

Palin was not bad. The stuff she said about going against the oil interests and the old boy's network was good stuff.

I think me and a lot of other people think she makes a better presidential candidate than John McCain.

Sarah should be the presidential candidate, and McCain should be vice president. Then I could consider voting for them. But with McCain as the lead dog, sorry no can do.

Ermm... I don't agree with most of her policty stances, and she actually has less experience than Obama. She's also demonstrated remarkable ignorace of politics. I don't think the presidency is the place for her.



Hopefully by 2016 the technology will become available to resurrect the Roosevelts.

T.R. ... F.D.R. ... ooohhh...I think I peed a little...

For years I have been an advocate of returning Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency! America needs you now more than ever Teddy!

It doesn't matter who's president, the system will rattle on its power-grabbing way regardless.

That being the case, you might as well have a president who's nice to look at.

You're exagerating the hopelesness of the situation.


The fascism is inevitable, 'squatch. Resurrect the Roosevelts and you'll just get more of it. It'll get worse before it gets better.

You're really exagerating the hopelesness of the situation. Fascism is inevitable? And why on are earth would Teddy Roosevelt advance fascism?

[pure_mercury]

You're really exagerating the hopelesness of the situation. Fascism is inevitable? And why on are earth would Teddy Roosevelt advance fascism?

Fascism isn't inevitable. TR wasn't a fascist, although his "National Greatness" and imperial tendencies were troubling to say the least. And, of course, the FDR administration is the closest the United States ever came to fascistic economic organization, with huge (often unconstitutional) government bureaucracies administering "managed capitalism." They also shifted into a war economy in the run-up to and during WWII. This is pretty much the textbook example of state corporatism.

[Magic Poriferan]

I'm tired of this "Palin is inexperienced" bullshit. She has more executive experience than Obama.

Oh, yes, executive experience. This is the part where someone claims that because the presidency is in the executive branch, governors are more qualified for it. Well, you're wrong.

The presidency is a pretty unique job in this country. It demands things of a person that no previous position can really simulate. The variety of responsibilities that the president has is one of the reasons for this. For instance, being a governor in this country gives you virtually no foreign policy experience. A senator is more likely to have that, especially a senator on the foreign relations commitee.

Let's also note that the state you run makes a difference. Alaska is so barren that the whole mass of it has only one federal representative. Being the governor there for two years doesn't amount to much of anything.

Since McCain has mostly based the question of experience on foreign policy, it makes Palin look useless. If experience is an issue, then a four year senator is better than a two year governor of Alaska.

[pure_mercury]

Experience ad absurdum = Strom Thurmond, President of the United States 1993-2001.

Policy matters a lot more than does the date you showed up in Washington.

[CaptainChick]

Palin is a MORON!!!

UGH!!!

Her political views are nothing less than RETARDED!!!

Sarah Palin on the Issues (http://ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm)

[CaptainChick]

Palin was not bad. The stuff she said about going against the oil interests and the old boy's network was good stuff.

I think me and a lot of other people think she makes a better presidential candidate than John McCain.

Sarah should be the presidential candidate, and McCain should be vice president. Then I could consider voting for them. But with McCain as the lead dog, sorry no can do.
:doh:

You and I need to have a major ENFP powwow, for reals!!!!

[Lateralus]

Palin is a MORON!!!

UGH!!!

Her political views are nothing less than RETARDED!!!

Sarah Palin on the Issues (http://ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm)
I don't agree with a lot of her stances on social issues, but I like most (not all) of her economic views. I'm sure she's a very intelligent woman. I wouldn't classify her as a moron just because she disagrees with you on issues like abortion.

[CaptainChick]

I don't agree with a lot of her stances on social issues, but I like most (not all) of her economic views. I'm sure she's a very intelligent woman. I wouldn't classify her as a moron just because she disagrees with you on issues like abortion.

* Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
* Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008)
* Pro-life. (Nov 2006)
* Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006)
* Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006)

* Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
* Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
* Value our cultural diversity. (Nov 2006)
* Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
* No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
* Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

* Opposes legalizing marijuana, but meth is greater threat. (Aug 2006)
* Smoked marijuana when it was legal under Alaska law. (Aug 2006)
* Top priorities include gangs & drugs; they harm family life. (Jul 2006)

* Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
* Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
* 294 Alaska public schools progressed under NCLB. (Aug 2008)
* School debate should focus on accountability. (Jan 2008)
* Committed to providing strong education, including morals. (Jan 2008)
* Budget funds education, but will to work is also critical. (Jan 2008)
* Fully fund K-12 and support early funding of education. (Jan 2007)
* Supports $20 million needs-based aid for U. Alaska. (Nov 2006)
* Forward-fund K-12 schools to allow better planning. (Nov 2006)
* Supports charter schools, home schools, & other alternatives. (Nov 2006)
* Target early education programs to at-risk groups. (Nov 2006)
* Alignment between parents, teachers, schools, & business. (Nov 2006)
* Faith-based materials ok in homeschooling. (Nov 2006)
* ABC method: back to basics, plus patriotism & ethics. (Nov 2006)
* Supports parental choice for what is best for their children. (Nov 2006)
* Let parents opt out of schoolbooks they find offensive. (Jul 2006)
* Parents know best, about school spending & school age. (Jul 2006)
* Pledge of Allegiance with 'Under God' is good enough. (Jul 2006)

[disregard]

Well, she's a republican.. what is so surprising about all of that, CC?

[Lateralus]

* Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
* Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008)
* Pro-life. (Nov 2006)
* Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006)
* Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006)

* Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
* Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
* Value our cultural diversity. (Nov 2006)
* Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
* No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
* Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

* Opposes legalizing marijuana, but meth is greater threat. (Aug 2006)
* Smoked marijuana when it was legal under Alaska law. (Aug 2006)
* Top priorities include gangs & drugs; they harm family life. (Jul 2006)

* Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
* Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
* 294 Alaska public schools progressed under NCLB. (Aug 2008)
* School debate should focus on accountability. (Jan 2008)
* Committed to providing strong education, including morals. (Jan 2008)
* Budget funds education, but will to work is also critical. (Jan 2008)
* Fully fund K-12 and support early funding of education. (Jan 2007)
* Supports $20 million needs-based aid for U. Alaska. (Nov 2006)
* Forward-fund K-12 schools to allow better planning. (Nov 2006)
* Supports charter schools, home schools, & other alternatives. (Nov 2006)
* Target early education programs to at-risk groups. (Nov 2006)
* Alignment between parents, teachers, schools, & business. (Nov 2006)
* Faith-based materials ok in homeschooling. (Nov 2006)
* ABC method: back to basics, plus patriotism & ethics. (Nov 2006)
* Supports parental choice for what is best for their children. (Nov 2006)
* Let parents opt out of schoolbooks they find offensive. (Jul 2006)
* Parents know best, about school spending & school age. (Jul 2006)
* Pledge of Allegiance with 'Under God' is good enough. (Jul 2006)

What's the point of this post? You already linked to this information.

I agree with a few things in your list here, too. They're bolded. Some of them were too vague for me to know what they mean.

[CaptainChick]

^ She is a MORON

[disregard]

1. Define moron
2. Explain how she is a moron

[Oberon]

Thank you for showing us, Captain, why people generalize so unfairly about NFs. :D

[CaptainChick]

Well, she's a republican.. what is so surprising about all of that, CC?
LOL, but she is INCREDIBLY conservative and BACKWARDS in her social views, even for a republican, imo.

What's the point of this post? You already linked to this information.
My point was to display, in a more viewer-friendly manner why she is a MORON!

[Lateralus]

All I can do is laugh.

[CaptainChick]

1. Define moron
2. Explain how she is a moron

1.) Moron- a person who is intellectually and morally challenged.

2.) Her political views (on the issues below), clearly show just how moronic and backwards she is:

* Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
* Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008)
* Pro-life. (Nov 2006)
* Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006)
* Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006)

* Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
* Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)

* Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
* No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
* Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

* Opposes legalizing marijuana, but meth is greater threat. (Aug 2006)
* Smoked marijuana when it was legal under Alaska law. (Aug 2006)
* Top priorities include gangs & drugs; they harm family life. (Jul 2006)

* Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
* Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)

* School debate should focus on accountability. (Jan 2008)
* Committed to providing strong education, including morals. (Jan 2008)
* Budget funds education, but will to work is also critical. (Jan 2008)

* Alignment between parents, teachers, schools, & business. (Nov 2006)
* Faith-based materials ok in homeschooling. (Nov 2006)
* ABC method: back to basics, plus patriotism & ethics. (Nov 2006)
* Supports parental choice for what is best for their children. (Nov 2006)
* Let parents opt out of schoolbooks they find offensive. (Jul 2006)
* Parents know best, about school spending & school age. (Jul 2006)

[disregard]

So someone that has smoked (or even smokes) pot cannot be against the legalisation of it? Why not?

[booyalab]

So CaptainChick, are you saying that anyone who agrees with her on any of those points is intellectually and morally challenged and backwards?

[Jen]

Palin was not bad. The stuff she said about going against the oil interests and the old boy's network was good stuff.

I said some good stuff during sex last night. Can I run for President?

[CaptainChick]

Thank you for showing us, Captain, why people generalize so unfairly about NFs. :D
Pfft!!

All I can do is laugh.
All I can do is cry.

People, what a disappointment.

[Jen]

Pfft!!


All I can do is cry.

People, what a disappointment.
Eh. People will always disagree so don't let it bother you.

[ygolo]

* Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)

* Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
* Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
* Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
* No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
* Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

* Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
* Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
* 294 Alaska public schools progressed under NCLB. (Aug 2008)
* Budget funds education, but will to work is also critical. (Jan 2008)
* Let parents opt out of schoolbooks they find offensive. (Jul 2006)
* Parents know best, about school spending & school age. (Jul 2006)


This subset of the list gives me pause. But I am never in a position to pick candidates due to policy.

The stories of how she dealt with people in Alaska makes her seem more like a Bush-type autocrat as we learn more about her. This is a matter of approach, not policy, and her approach to dealing with colleagues is one I never want to see in the white-house again.

I am still undecided between the two candidates. Initially, after the VP picks, I was intrigued, and admittedly swung a bit in favor of McCain-Palin (irrationally, I admit). But now, I believe Palin was actually a detrimental choice for VP.

My main reason for not wanting her as VP, is due to her executive style. She seems like she would be a young, female, Alaskan version of Dick Cheney. Though the extreme social conservatism is a turn off as well.

[Lateralus]

All I can do is cry.

People, what a disappointment.
What do you expect? You haven't presented a strong argument. If you believe she's a 'moron' for her view on a particular issue, explain why her view is 'moronic'.

[CaptainChick]

So someone that has smoked (or even smokes) pot cannot be against the legalisation of it? Why not?
Ehh, good question, I am unsure, what I am am sure about is that the use and distribution of marijuana should be decriminalized, in a MAJOR way.

So CaptainChick, are you saying that anyone who agrees with her on any of those points is intellectually and morally challenged and backwards?No, but someone who agrees with her on all of her points is. ;)

I said some good stuff during sex last night. Can I run for President?
LOL!!!

:hug:

[Oberon]

Pfft!!


I should point out that a significant fraction of the US population thinks that all the points you posted (thank you) are pretty good ideas. Palin has garnered quite a bit of support for the Republican ticket among the red-staters.

They have a different perspective than you do. That doesn't make them morons.

[booyalab]

Eh. People will always disagree so don't let it bother you.
It should bother her, as much as it bothers anyone with an ounce of rationality when the basis for someone's argument relies exclusively on ad hominem attacks, bolded bullet points, and an overabundance of exclamation points and capital letters.

[CaptainChick]

It should bother her, as much as it bothers anyone with an ounce of rationality when the basis for someone's argument relies exclusively on ad hominem attacks, bolded bullet points, and an overabundance of exclamation points and capital letters.
You rational enough to see the irony and hypocrisy of this post?

Probably not.

:wubbie:

[pure_mercury]

I said some good stuff during sex last night. Can I run for President?

Of course. Are you 35 years of age or older, and a native-born American citizen?

[Lateralus]

Of course.
She's too young (I think).

[pure_mercury]

She's too young (I think).

Yeah, I edited it. Anyone can campaign, though.

[Jen]

I am over 35 (thank you Lat ;)) and all American.

[Lateralus]

You rational enough to see the irony and hypocrisy of this post?
booyalab is lives for irony, just like all other hipsters.

[CaptainChick]

AHHHHHHHHHHH HIPSTERS!!!!!

Don't get me started on them, please, I haven't had my coffee yet.

:)

[Jen]

Maybe you two should get nekkid for the boys while you're batting back and forth. For American of course.

[pure_mercury]

Maybe you two should get nekkid for the boys while you're at it. For American of course.

That reminds me of "Generation Sex" by The Divine Comedy.

"Generation sex
Respects
The rights
Of girls
Who want to take their clothes off
As long as we can all watch thats okay
And generation sex
Elects
The type
Of guys
You wouldnt leave your kids with
And shouts "Off with their heads!" if they get laid

Lovers watch their backs
As hacks
In macs
Take snaps
Through telephoto lenses
Chase mercedes benzes through the night
A mourning nation weeps
And wails
But keeps
The sales
Of evil tabloids healthy
The poor protect the wealthy in this world

Generation sex
Injects
The sperm
Of worms
Into the eggs of field mice
So you can look real nice for the boys
And generation sex
Is me
And you
And we
Should really all know better"

YouTube - The Divine Comedy - Generation Sex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfTnCN9d00)

[booyalab]

You rational enough to see the irony and hypocrisy of this post?


Did you just hear those words the other day, liked the way they sounded, and decided to use them the first chance you got without looking them up first?

:wubbie:

[CaptainChick]

Did you just hear those words the other day, liked the way they sounded, and decided to use them the first chance you got without looking them up first?

:wubbie:
Aww, sweetie-boo, it took you that long to come up with that?!?!??

I'm a little disappointed but, honestly, B- for your effort!!!

:hug:

[Oberon]

Cap'n... you don't appear to be at your best today. Honestly, I recommend you withdraw and compose yourself for a bit before posting again.

[Enyo]

Umm...

Really?

She's pretty inexperienced.

LOL, she's not much less experienced than Obama.

[SillyGoose]

Palin scares me. Honestly, the McCain-Palin ticket scares me even more.

McCain is pretty old, 4 time cancer survivor with a high likely hood of getting it again.

Palin has obvious family issues. You can argue about experience or inexperience all you want, but when crunch time comes how is her family going to hold up when they are already shaky to begin with?

Neither of them are a good choice to run for anything at the moment. It actually seems pretty stupid either way you look at Palin running as VP. Either McCain did not fully vet her and still picked her - stupid. Or did fully vet her and still picked her - stupid.

[Enyo]

oh and btw the great depression lasted all the way up to WWII *because* of and not inspite of FDR's new deal. he was a good example of someone who acted and looked great, giving the american people hope in their most dire hour while at the same time dashing any chance of a speedy recovery due to his poor policy choices. a mistake which was partially repeated in 2000 and partially relearned by 2008.

And this is one of the reasons that I dread the possibility of an Obama administration. It's also the main reason that I believe that the government screws things up worse when they try to fix it and why I believe that a free and open market is one of the best fixes.

[Enyo]

Palin is a MORON!!!

UGH!!!

Her political views are nothing less than RETARDED!!!

Sarah Palin on the Issues (http://ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm)

Disagreement doesn't equal "moron" or "retarded". She's intelligent. That doesn't mean that I like or agree with her views on most social issues (because I don't).

But is it necessary for you to personally attack her because you disagree with her?

If so, then that says a lot more about you than it does about her.

[Enyo]

* Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
* Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008)
* Pro-life. (Nov 2006)
* Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006)
* Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006)

* Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
* Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
* Value our cultural diversity. (Nov 2006)
* Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
* No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
* Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)

* Opposes legalizing marijuana, but meth is greater threat. (Aug 2006)
* Smoked marijuana when it was legal under Alaska law. (Aug 2006)
* Top priorities include gangs & drugs; they harm family life. (Jul 2006)

* Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
* Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
* 294 Alaska public schools progressed under NCLB. (Aug 2008)
* School debate should focus on accountability. (Jan 2008)
* Committed to providing strong education, including morals. (Jan 2008)
* Budget funds education, but will to work is also critical. (Jan 2008)
* Fully fund K-12 and support early funding of education. (Jan 2007)
* Supports $20 million needs-based aid for U. Alaska. (Nov 2006)
* Forward-fund K-12 schools to allow better planning. (Nov 2006)
* Supports charter schools, home schools, & other alternatives. (Nov 2006)
* Target early education programs to at-risk groups. (Nov 2006)
* Alignment between parents, teachers, schools, & business. (Nov 2006)
* Faith-based materials ok in homeschooling. (Nov 2006)
* ABC method: back to basics, plus patriotism & ethics. (Nov 2006)
* Supports parental choice for what is best for their children. (Nov 2006)
* Let parents opt out of schoolbooks they find offensive. (Jul 2006)
* Parents know best, about school spending & school age. (Jul 2006)
* Pledge of Allegiance with 'Under God' is good enough. (Jul 2006)


I disagree with quite a few of these things. That still doesn't make her stupid.

But let's go line-item here, just for the sake of conversation.

* Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)

Okay, so I disagree with her here. I very much support the concept of stem cell research. However, it is still remarkably consistent with her pro-life stance.

* Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008)
* Pro-life. (Nov 2006)
* Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006)
* Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006)

So I don't agree with her pro-life stance, nor do I agree with her views on homosexuality. I'm still not seeing anything in here that supports calling her a moron.

But let's look at the things that do make sense in here. We're going to take it for granted that she has a very pro-life stance, anti-gay stance and also a very Christian stance, just to save time.

* Opposes legalizing marijuana, but meth is greater threat. (Aug 2006)

So, while I do favor legalizing marijuana, I can't argue with the thought that meth is the greater threat. What does one have to do with the other? The implication here is that she's anti-pot but pro-meth. I don't see anything in this statement that would indicate that.

* Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
* Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)

Okay, so I, personally, believe in teaching the theory of evolution in schools. However, it is still a theory. *shrugs* If the schools want to teach evolution, creationism, and intelligent design side by side, then that's fine. As long as the teacher himself (or herself) does not promote one above the other. (I actually had an awesome experience with my own Bio teacher who taught the theory of evolution. When we got to that section, he stopped the class and told us very frankly that this is the material that he is required to teach. He understands that it is a very controversial subject, but he will teach it. His own personal views on the subject were not relevant to the course curriculum and would not be discussed. I see no harm if creationism and intelligent design are taught the same way. But creationism would be far better taught in an elective class with other creation myths.)

* 294 Alaska public schools progressed under NCLB. (Aug 2008)
* School debate should focus on accountability. (Jan 2008)
* Committed to providing strong education, including morals. (Jan 2008)
* Budget funds education, but will to work is also critical. (Jan 2008)
* Fully fund K-12 and support early funding of education. (Jan 2007)
* Supports $20 million needs-based aid for U. Alaska. (Nov 2006)
* Forward-fund K-12 schools to allow better planning. (Nov 2006)
* Supports charter schools, home schools, & other alternatives. (Nov 2006)
* Target early education programs to at-risk groups. (Nov 2006)
* Alignment between parents, teachers, schools, & business. (Nov 2006)
* Faith-based materials ok in homeschooling. (Nov 2006)
* ABC method: back to basics, plus patriotism & ethics. (Nov 2006)
* Supports parental choice for what is best for their children. (Nov 2006)
* Let parents opt out of schoolbooks they find offensive. (Jul 2006)
* Parents know best, about school spending & school age. (Jul 2006)

Y'know, I don't really see a problem with any of this. It's putting the power to teach our children back in the hands of the parents and helping to get away from the nanny state of the government dictating your child's education.

Now, tell me, why the Hell *shouldn't* a parent who homeschools their child be allowed to include faith-based materials? Aren't a good portion of parents who homeschool doing so because they don't like the godless education that comes from public schools?

You FAIL at showing me anything that makes her a moron. I don't agree with any of her social policies regarding abortion and gay rights. That doesn't, however, impact her intelligence.

[Enyo]

LOL, but she is INCREDIBLY conservative and BACKWARDS in her social views, even for a republican, imo.


My point was to display, in a more viewer-friendly manner why she is a MORON!

You clearly have an inability to disagree with someone's views without it denigrating into personal attacks. Very mature of you.

[Ivy]

I got that email forward too, CC, and I really failed to see why it was such a huge deal. I already knew I disagreed with her about a lot of things. It doesn't make her a moron.

[Enyo]

Palin scares me. Honestly, the McCain-Palin ticket scares me even more.

McCain is pretty old, 4 time cancer survivor with a high likely hood of getting it again.

Palin has obvious family issues. You can argue about experience or inexperience all you want, but when crunch time comes how is her family going to hold up when they are already shaky to begin with?

Neither of them are a good choice to run for anything at the moment. It actually seems pretty stupid either way you look at Palin running as VP. Either McCain did not fully vet her and still picked her - stupid. Or did fully vet her and still picked her - stupid.

None of our choices are any good this time around.

We have the options of a candidate who wants to increase taxes and strengthen the nanny state mentality, another four more years of the Bush doctrine, or a third party candidate.

Personally, I'll be voting for the third party candidate, and hope that enough of our citizens are as disenchanted with the choices that our two-party system has brought us to do the same.

Bob Barr FTW. :(

[pure_mercury]

None of our choices are any good this time around.

We have the options of a candidate who wants to increase taxes and strengthen the nanny state mentality, another four more years of the Bush doctrine, or a third party candidate.

Personally, I'll be voting for the third party candidate, and hope that enough of our citizens are as disenchanted with the choices that our two-party system has brought us to do the same.

Bob Barr FTW. :(

And Bob Barr isn't even that great a choice. Maybe Republicans will wise up and put together a Hagel/Flake ticket? Somehow, I doubt it. :(

[SillyGoose]

None of our choices are any good this time around.

We have the options of a candidate who wants to increase taxes and strengthen the nanny state mentality, another four more years of the Bush doctrine, or a third party candidate.

Personally, I'll be voting for the third party candidate, and hope that enough of our citizens are as disenchanted with the choices that our two-party system has brought us to do the same.

Bob Barr FTW. :(

I'm actually okay with Obama. I agree with most of his views. His inexperience was a touch worrisome, but he picked Biden so that helps.

[Enyo]

And Bob Barr isn't even that great a choice. Maybe Republicans will wise up and put together a Hagel/Flake ticket? Somehow, I doubt it. :(

Agreed. It's just a matter of which choice (out of all the bad choices) do I find the least unacceptable?

[SillyGoose]

Agreed. It's just a matter of which choice (out of all the bad choices) do I find the least unacceptable?


:yes: You have to hold your nose and pick.

[Ivy]

:yes: You have to hold your nose and pick.

That's unsanitary.

[FDG]

I totally think Americans don't understand how completely crazy they look from an external POV for the mere fact that teaching creationism in public schools is debated. It should be a non-issue, really.

[SillyGoose]

That's unsanitary.

It is. Bring hand sanitizer with you, it's not provided.

[Jack Flak]

I totally think Americans don't understand how completely crazy they look from an external POV for the mere fact that teaching creationism in public schools is debated. It should be a non-issue, really.
Dude, shut up. There is no "Americans." It just happens that the small segments of America which are concerned with Creationism and Public School happen to overlap. And some of us "Americans" can't stand it.

[Lateralus]

I totally think Americans don't understand how completely crazy they look from an external POV for the mere fact that teaching creationism in public schools is debated. It should be a non-issue, really.
Americans don't care what Europeans think. Well, besides Obama and his followers.

[FDG]

Dude, shut up. There is no "Americans." It just happens that the small segments of America which are concerned with Creationism and Public School happen to overlap. And some of us "Americans" can't stand it.

I sincerely hope it's small and it's not representative of all the voters of the Republican party.

[Lateralus]

But let's go line-item here, just for the sake of conversation...

...You FAIL at showing me anything that makes her a moron. I don't agree with any of her social policies regarding abortion and gay rights. That doesn't, however, impact her intelligence.
:wub:

Why aren't there more women who can think this clearly and logically out there? I can't be the only guy who finds this attractive.

[Jack Flak]

I sincerely hope it's small and it's not representative of all the voters of the Republican party.
I vote Republican; I'm not religious. You have yourself an example.

[FDG]

I vote Republican; I'm not religious. You have yourself an example.

Allright then.

[Enyo]

:wub:

Why aren't there more women who can think this clearly and logically out there? I can't be the only guy who finds this attractive.

LOL! More than once, I've come very close to suggesting that I should have your baby. ;)

[pure_mercury]

:yes: You have to hold your nose and pick.

Sounds like you advised him to pick his nose.

[Ivy]

That's it, I'm writing in my nose this year.

(I hope it washes out)

[Lateralus]

LOL! More than once, I've come very close to suggesting that I should have your baby. ;)
And what a child it would be!

[SillyGoose]

Sounds like you advised him to pick his nose.

Sigh. That's what it sounds like, but not what it looks like. :cheese:

[SillyGoose]

That's it, I'm writing in my nose this year.

(I hope it washes out)

What color?

[Enyo]

What color?

Blue, for the sadness of the state of our union?

[Eileen]

She didn't say much in terms of policy, imo. She did unequivocally state her support for offshore drilling, I guess. I am now officially horrified by the Republican ticket. I was wary of McCain, but I could swallow the thought of him. Palin, however, freaks me the -fuck- out. I can sometimes get fiscal conservatism, but social conservatism gives me hives.

[Jeffster]

Wait, so CaptainChick, you don't think every baby has potential and a future? :huh:

Or that parents should have choices about what is best for their children? :huh:

I mean, those views are "backwards" to you? The mind seriously boggles.

[disTant_eCHo]

Umm...

Really?

She's pretty inexperienced.

Obama is even less experienced and yet he's taken seriously. :coffee:

Palin has executive experience at least (which details many similar things - she managed a multi-billion dollar budget, oversaw her state's national guard, made important economic decisions for her state: things a senator [or 'community organizer'] can't say they've done). Obama, not the case. Obama's 4 years in the senate amount for nothing if he hasn't voted on anything. Only voting 'present' isn't going to get you elected president (unless you are black). We need a president that can make a decision.

[Ivy]

That PTA stint is really going to come in handy, I'll bet.

[Lateralus]

That PTA stint is really going to come in handy, I'll bet.
This isn't a very good argument for Obama. And here's one big difference, Obama is the top of the ticket. Palin is the bottom. You should be comparing Obama's experience to McCain's, or Palin's to Biden's.

That said, I'll reiterate something I said earlier. Experience is overrated. Some of the greatest men in this nation's history had almost no political experience when they took office, like Alexander Hamilton when he became the first treasure secretary. (that's my Hamilton plug for today)

[Ivy]

This isn't a very good argument for Obama. And here's one big difference, Obama is the top of the ticket. Palin is the bottom. You should be comparing Obama's experience to McCain's, or Palin's to Biden's.

That said, I'll reiterate something I said earlier. Experience is overrated. Some of the greatest men in this nation's history had almost no political experience when they took office, like Alexander Hamilton when he became the first treasure secretary. (that's my Hamilton plug for today)

No, I agree. I've said the same thing about experience before. It's not a big part of the equation for me. I just have to laugh at the concept of the PTA thing- like I said on the other thread, it's stay-at-home-mom pandering, IMO.

This business of claiming her time on the PTA as "executive experience" reminds me so much of the custom of claiming stay-at-home-moms have experience as chefs, chauffeurs, doctors, nurses, CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, etc.

I've been a SAHM. I wasn't a C-anything-O. And I've been on the PTA, and I'm definitely not ready to lead the nation.

I don't care if her son is pregnant. I just disagree that her PTA experience is worth jack. I don't highly value experience, though- I want a president who is whip-smart and level-headed, and whatever they haven't experienced they will figure out just fine. It just doesn't sit right after all the digs about Obama's experience.

[Magic Poriferan]

This isn't a very good argument for Obama. And here's one big difference, Obama is the top of the ticket. Palin is the bottom. You should be comparing Obama's experience to McCain's, or Palin's to Biden's.

Palin's experience to Biden's? I'd like to see someone spin that one in favor of the Republican ticket.

I got an idea! Why don't we add them up and compare? The less experienced member of the Dem ticket is Obama, and he's more experienced than the less experienced member of the Rep ticket, who is Palin. The more experienced member of the Dem ticket is Biden, who has more experience than the more experienced member of the Rep ticket, who is McCain. So, the Democrats wins on the experience issue!



That said, I'll reiterate something I said earlier. Experience is overrated. Some of the greatest men in this nation's history had almost no political experience when they took office, like Alexander Hamilton when he became the first treasure secretary. (that's my Hamilton plug for today)

I agree that the whole experience issue is over-rated. It's just that I think the notion that Palin is more experienced than Obama is so wrong that I can't resist attacking it.

[Jen]

Why won't she hold her own child? Every time I see the baby, someone else is holding him.

[booyalab]

Why won't she hold her own child? Because she's evil.

Every time I see the baby, someone else is holding him.

But do you see the baby every time it's being held?

[Beat]

Palin is just what the McCain campaign needs. Otherwise the media wouldn't be so hard after her throat. This should really help out with gaining support from the Conservative crew as well.

[Jack Flak]

Tags: "Republicans are morons!!1". That's kind of an asshole manoeuver. Excuse me while I smash a Dem in a political debate. Nah, I don't want to talk to a Democrat, what am I thinking? Note: I'm not a Republican, but I don't vote for Democrats.

[booyalab]

Oh, yes, executive experience. This is the part where someone claims that because the presidency is in the executive branch, governors are more qualified for it. Well, you're wrong.


Hey, I never said she was more qualified for the vice-presidency because she has executive experience. I only pointed out that it's a type of experience that is being overlooked when people say she doesn't have any. She may not have presidential executive experience, but who the hell does in this race? At least she has made political decisions whose consequences she actually had to live with. That's more than anyone can say for Obama.

[Mr Galt]

Did anyone else attempt to count how many times she either lied or connected two things that had nothing to do with one another?

I found it funny though when, about 60 seconds after she talked about how she stood up to "big oil", she went on to brag about how she had been responsible for one of the biggest oil contracts in Alaska state history.

[Jen]

But do you see the baby every time it's being held?Don't be ridiculous.

[Mr Galt]

Why won't she hold her own child? Every time I see the baby, someone else is holding him.

I noticed that ever since her daughter's pregnancy was announced, she has been holding the baby (awkwardly I might add) so that the American public can see what a wonderful mother she'll be to her child. :rolleyes:

[booyalab]

Don't be ridiculous.

You also never see her brush her teeth. Why doesn't she practice dental hygiene I wonder? Why doesn't she use the toilet? Why doesn't she eat? Why doesn't she sleep?

[Oberon]

You also never see her brush her teeth. Why doesn't she practice dental hygiene I wonder? Why doesn't she use the toilet? Why doesn't she eat? Why doesn't she sleep?

That's it, booya, that's it! She's...

...A ROBOT!!!

[Jack Flak]

You also never see her brush her teeth. Why doesn't she practice dental hygiene I wonder? Why doesn't she use the toilet? Why doesn't she eat? Why doesn't she sleep?
All very interesting points, and I hope they're brought up at the next Obama love fest, er, I mean "Nightly News."

[disTant_eCHo]

I find it ironically frustrating that we can't discuss Obama's family without getting reprimanded (or being accused of racism) but Sarah Palin's family is entirely open for discussion.

[Oberon]

I find it ironically frustrating that we can't discuss Obama's family without getting reprimanded (or being accused of racism) but Sarah Palin's family is entirely open for discussion.

Heh.

To quote my favorite rhetorician, "Don't be ridiculous."

[Magic Poriferan]

Did anyone else attempt to count how many times she either lied or connected two things that had nothing to do with one another?


Yes, it's a lot of fun! All you people should look at some transcripts of the speech and come back with all the fallacies you found. Also, please note if the fallacy was formal or informal, what kind it was, and extra points will go to anyone that finds implicit fallacies.

[Ivy]

Heh.

To quote my favorite rhetorician, "Don't be ridiculous."

Balki?

[pure_mercury]

Balki?

"Get out of the city!"

[Enyo]

She didn't say much in terms of policy, imo. She did unequivocally state her support for offshore drilling, I guess. I am now officially horrified by the Republican ticket. I was wary of McCain, but I could swallow the thought of him. Palin, however, freaks me the -fuck- out. I can sometimes get fiscal conservatism, but social conservatism gives me hives.

And my voting choices are hellishly miserable, since I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

The conservative candidates are too damned conservative, and I fear the loss of rights that may come from it.

The liberal candidates are too damned liberal, and I fear turning into a nanny state.

There is no major party candidate that doesn't make me ill. I really wish that Romney had won the GOP ticket, or at least made VP. He was the least offensive option from the GOP ticket.

[Magic Poriferan]

And my voting choices are hellishly miserable, since I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

The conservative candidates are too damned conservative, and I fear the loss of rights that may come from it.

The liberal candidates are too damned liberal, and I fear turning into a nanny state.


Economic liberalism equates to a nanny state? :huh:

[Oberon]

Balki?

I dunno, whoever the bikini babe is in post 91.

If you squint just right, you can't see the cellulite. :D

[Enyo]

Eonomic liberalism equates to a nanny state? :huh:

The desire for universal health care, for bigger government interfering in American lives in more ways? Yeah, that's just one step closer to the nanny state.

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't think there's any correlation between liberalism and bigger government.

[Jack Flak]

Nanny state=:steam:

I'm as tired of the gun control debate as the religion debate, but I will say that the legal right to protect what I may value with deadly force is something I hold dear (there are no natural rights; we have what we take or what we're given). It's as much symbolic of freedom as it is a much-desired physical tactic. I'm not always armed, but the right to be is very important.

[Oberon]

I don't think there's any correlation between liberalism and bigger government.

There is, I promise.

I forget who said it, but it was once famously said that "any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."

And that's how it works.

[Jen]

I dunno, whoever the bikini babe is in post 91.

If you squint just right, you can't see the cellulite. :DI honestly don't know whose body that is, but if she sat on your face I doubt you'd notice such trivialities. ;)

[Oberon]

I honestly don't know whose body that is, but if she sat on your face I doubt you'd notice such trivialities. ;)

I try to refrain from eating doctrinaire liberals.

They're too bitter. :D

[Enyo]

I don't think there's any correlation between liberalism and bigger government.

Prior to George W, I would disagree with you. Liberal/Democratic governments = lots of federally managed social programs = need for a larger government to oversee those larger social programs.

Do you realize how many government employees it would take to run this universal health care system if they do it like Canada does? I have tried to find the numbers, but my best guess would be 1000 people just in the role of MSP. I suspect I am grossly underestimating, but that would include just the MSP folk: call center agents, judging by the wait, I'm going to guess 500. Average call center is 1:20 ratio for supervisors, so... 25 supervisors. Quality assurance, an average of 1:40 ratio, so 13 QA. An operations manager. A... Oh, hell, just looking at the call center aspect alone, I have grossly underestimated. There are a minimum of 600 just involved with answering the phones.

So, figure a minimum of 3000 government employees at various levels handling this just in British Columbia. BC has a population of 4.1 million. 4.1 mil \3000 =

1 MSP employee for every 1367 people.

According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html
as of July 2007, the estimated population was 301,139,947.

Assuming the same ratio, that comes out to over 220,000 jobs required for managing a universal health care. The government would ultimately be paying for those 220,000 jobs with our tax dollars, whether it be because they employ the agents required to manage the roll, or whether it's because they outsource it to a company like one that I used to work for.

This is, of course, based on the assumption that my figures are correct for the number required in British Columbia. However, I doubt that. If anything, I believe that I have underestimated in an effort to keep my numbers conservative.

Any way you slice it, 220,000 new government jobs definitely fits the definition of bigger government.

[Magic Poriferan]

Technically, someone could increase expenditures without making an effort to increase oversight, so the government wouldn't expand. The idea is horribly rittled with flaws of course, but it is an alternative. In fact, I think it's actually been the current administration's policy.

I'd just like to note that an idea of a bigger government doesn't actually bother, depending on how it is expanded. Having tons of people employed by the government could be positive, since it could fit my "be the government" philosophy. That would mainly be true so long as the government were run more like a cooperative than a corporation.

[ajblaise]

The McCain campaign is really reaching when it comes to pumping up Palin. Maybe this will backfire if the media and public become savvy to it.

Factcheck.org: A Maverick Misleads | Newsweek Politics: Conventions | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/157019)

[Enyo]

I'd just like to note that an idea of a bigger government doesn't actually bother, depending on how it is expanded. Having tons of people employed by the government could be positive, since it could fit my "be the government" philosophy. That would mainly be true so long as the government were run more like a cooperative than a corporation.

I can't see it. Honestly and truly, if our largest employer is the government, then we are so screwed. Especially since it's our tax dollars that pay for it.

I have a very hard time seeing how tons of people employed by our government and funded by our tax dollars can be a good thing.

[SillyGoose]

The McCain campaign is really reaching when it comes to pumping up Palin. Maybe this will backfire is media and public become savvy to it.

Factcheck.org: A Maverick Misleads | Newsweek Politics: Conventions | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/157019)

:yes:

I think they were hoping to draw in a lot of Hillary supporters.

[ajblaise]

I have a very hard time seeing how tons of people employed by our government and funded by our tax dollars can be a good thing.

One could argue that the social welfare state in many parts of europe is working in terms of quality-of-life.

[GZA]

Is it true that she is strongly against gay marrage/rights?

I know that this idea doesn't work with current american ideas and culture in many places, but I think being against gay marrage itself could almost make someone not qualified for presidency in itself. I mean, why the hell are people still against it, I'm flabbergasted. But my opinion is worthless cause I don't even live in the US and thus don't understand the ideaology behind it...

Does the issue of gay marrage have large importance in this election, like it did when Bush got elected? Is "family values" still important.

[scantilyclad]

Is it true that she is strongly against gay marrage/rights?

I know that this idea doesn't work with current american ideas and culture in many places, but I think being against gay marrage itself could almost make someone not qualified for presidency in itself. I mean, why the hell are people still against it, I'm flabbergasted. But my opinion is worthless cause I don't even live in the US and thus don't understand the ideaology behind it...

Does the issue of gay marrage have large importance in this election, like it did when Bush got elected? Is "family values" still important.

She stated that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.. She also voted that its okay to deny benefits to homosexual couples, and no spousal benefits for same sex couples.

it just seems wrong to me to deny people of rights based on who they choose as a partner, but that is just my opinion.

[pure_mercury]

One could argue that the social welfare state in many parts of europe is working in terms of quality-of-life.

Their generous welfare state and stringent employment laws and strong unions are also making their labor markets inflexible and unemployment high. Unemployment for those under 30 in France is at something like 20%. That is insane.

[ajblaise]

Their generous welfare state and stringent employment laws and strong unions are also making their labor markets inflexible and unemployment high. Unemployment for those under 30 in France is at something like 20%. That is insane.

Half of the social welfare states in northern europe have a higher GDP per capita than the US, the other half are just below.

Economically (France of course has room for improvement) these places are doing fine, despite their welfare states.

[Magic Poriferan]

Their generous welfare state and stringent employment laws and strong unions are also making their labor markets inflexible and unemployment high. Unemployment for those under 30 in France is at something like 20%. That is insane.

If the economy is strong, and the lives of these unemployed people are still fairly good, then it doesn't strike me as an immense problem.

Half of the social welfare states in northern europe have a higher GDP per capita than the US, the other half are just below.

Higher GDP per capita and among the lowest GINI levels in the world! It's such a wonderful combination.

[pure_mercury]

If the economy is strong, and the lives of these unemployed people are still fairly good, then it doesn't strike me as an immense problem.

If unemployment is sitting at 8-9%, the economy is NOT doing as well as it could be. It's one of the main determinants.



Higher GDP per capita and among the lowest GINI levels in the world! It's such a wonderful combination.

Would be nice, if it were true. Norway is the only Northern European country with a higher GDP per capita than the United States.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)


And Gini coefficient isn't really that important.

[Lateralus]

Tags: "Republicans are morons!!1". That's kind of an asshole manoeuver. Excuse me while I smash a Dem in a political debate. Nah, I don't want to talk to a Democrat, what am I thinking? Note: I'm not a Republican, but I don't vote for Democrats.
Haha, I see you like my tag. ;)

[ajblaise]

If unemployment is sitting at 8-9%, the economy is NOT doing as well as it could be. It's one of the main determinants.





Would be nice, if it were true. Norway is the only Northern European country with a higher GDP per capita than the United States.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)


And Gini coefficient isn't really that important.

NationMaster - GDP (per capita) (most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita)
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)

[Enyo]

One could argue that the social welfare state in many parts of europe is working in terms of quality-of-life.

One could argue that the social welfare state isn't helping, too.

I've already come to the conclusion that your socialist leanings and my capitalist leanings are far too entrenched for either of us to give way. Therefore, I'm not playing.

[pure_mercury]

NationMaster - GDP (per capita) (most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita)

You DO know what purchasing power parity is, right?

[ajblaise]

You DO know what purchasing power parity is, right?

Nominal better reflects the measure of the nations importance in the world economy, but some say PPP is better at measuring quality-of-life....however most QOL rankings measure up more closely to Nominal GDP rankings.

[Magic Poriferan]

If unemployment is sitting at 8-9%, the economy is NOT doing as well as it could be. It's one of the main determinants.

What if the GDP growth is good, the GDP PC is high, and the country has no no public, internal, or external debt? If that country had high unemployment, would you still state that it's economy was failing? (this is purely hypothetical).



Would be nice, if it were true. Norway is the only Northern European country with a higher GDP per capita than the United States.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)


And Gini coefficient isn't really that important.

You're right, one of them is higher, and all the rest are close. Good enough for me. And I would say that the Gini coefficient is way more important than you think, but you have this inexcplicable disregard for inequality. If I had to make a choice between two countries based only on GDP PC and the Gini, and they both had the same GPD PC, but the one had a higher Gini, I'd go with that one. A very high Gini indicates very imbalanced wealth demographics. To me, the fact that a country is making tons of money is little consolation if most of it is owned by a minority that floats above a poor majority.

[pure_mercury]

Nominal better reflects the measure of the nations importance in the world economy, but some say PPP is better at measuring quality-of-life....however most QOL rankings measure up more closely to Nominal GDP rankings.

I completely disagree. When comparing different countries, nominal GDP is only better at reflecting which countries are growing or slowing when you take into account their currency values (which are related to their relative economic strength, but are not determinative of them). Besides, Quality of Life is a far more subjective ranking than something that can be measured in dollars. Ireland is #1 in the world in many of those rankings, and they have a freer economy with lower tax rates than does the United States. Their welfare state is much less generous than that of continental Europe, as well.

[ajblaise]

I completely disagree. When comparing different countries, nominal GDP is only better at reflecting which countries are growing or slowing when you take into account their currency values (which are related to their relative economic strength, but are not determinative of them). Besides, Quality of Life is a far more subjective ranking than something that can be measured in dollars. Ireland is #1 in the world in many of those rankings, and they have a freer economy with lower tax rates than does the United States. Their welfare state is much less generous than that of continental Europe, as well.

Whether you are looking at The Economist's or the UN's QOL rankings, the top countries on the list are dominated by nations with welfare states, of course there are exceptions. It's not a surprise, the main purpose of having generous social welfare programs is to raise people's quality of life.

[pure_mercury]

Whether you are looking at The Economist's or the UN's QOL rankings, the top countries on the list are dominated by nations with welfare states, of course there are exceptions. It's not a surprise, the main purpose of having generous social welfare programs is to raise people's quality of life.

The cynic in me would argue that the main purpose of having generous social welfare programs is to create more government jobs. Plus, we declared War on Poverty in the 1960s here in the United States, and the percentage of poor Americans has barely changed in the last 40 years, despite the numbers of Americans getting government assistance shot through the roof.

[ajblaise]

The cynic in me would argue that the main purpose of having generous social welfare programs is to create more government jobs. Plus, we declared War on Poverty in the 1960s here in the United States, and the percentage of poor Americans has barely changed in the last 40 years, despite the numbers of Americans getting government assistance shot through the roof.

5% of the people in the US own 95% of the wealth, perhaps that's why we don't have the highest quality of life compared to the countries that have wealth more spread out.

And conservatives have had more power in the US over the past 40 years than the ones in nations with the high QOL and social welfare.

[pure_mercury]

5% of the people in the US own 95% of the wealth, perhaps that's why we don't have the highest quality of life compared to the countries that have wealth more spread out.

And conservatives have had more power in the US over the past 40 years than the ones in nations with the high QOL and social welfare.

Both not true! LOL Wow, this is easy. The top 5% wealthiest in the country have 59% of the net worth in the United States, and 68% of the wealth. Your statistic is flat-out wrong.

Also, you can't compare our so-called "conservatives" with those in other countries. Like I wrote before, the poverty rate in the United States has barely decreased since the beginning of the War on Poverty. We've seen both Democratic and Republican presidents and houses of Congress in power in that span. The biggest down period of that time actually coincided with Bill Clinton's signing the Republicans' Welfare Reform bill in 1996, and his second term in office, when people were starting to be taken off welfare. If a very generous welfare state would lead automatically to less poverty (as you seem to state), what happened? The increase in the size of the welfare state between 1950 and 1970 was substantial (especially by U.S. standards).

[Lateralus]

Whether you are looking at The Economist's or the UN's QOL rankings, the top countries on the list are dominated by nations with welfare states, of course there are exceptions. It's not a surprise, the main purpose of having generous social welfare programs is to raise people's quality of life.
Social welfare programs do not raise the overall GDP of a nation. Those programs produce nothing of substance. They only serve to take resources from one group and distribute them to another. If anything, they serve to lower overall GDP by reducing the incentive to do something productive (the magnitude of this effect is debatable).

[ajblaise]

Both not true! LOL Wow, this is easy. The top 5% wealthiest in the country have 59% of the net worth in the United States, and 68% of the wealth. Your statistic is flat-out wrong.

Also, you can't compare our so-called "conservatives" with those in other countries. Like I wrote before, the poverty rate in the United States has barely decreased since the beginning of the War on Poverty. We've seen both Democratic and Republican presidents and houses of Congress in power in that span. The biggest down period of that time actually coincided with Bill Clinton's signing the Republicans' Welfare Reform bill in 1996, and his second term in office, when people were starting to be taken off welfare. If a very generous welfare state would lead automatically to less poverty (as you seem to state), what happened? The increase in the size of the welfare state between 1950 and 1970 was substantial (especially by U.S. standards).

The top 5% own more than the other 95% of the population, I put it wrong. The point is we have more income inequality than northern europe.

Because our government is considerably more conservative and to the Right of northern europe and has a much smaller and arguably mismanaged welfare state than northern europe.

You can't really compare the welfare state in the US to northern europe, it doesn't work as well with raising QOL because it doesn't do as much.

[Magic Poriferan]

Both not true! LOL Wow, this is easy. The top 5% wealthiest in the country have 59% of the net worth in the United States, and 68% of the wealth. Your statistic is flat-out wrong.

Still a disturbing figure.


Social welfare programs do not raise the overall GDP of a nation. Those programs produce nothing of substance. They only serve to take resources from one group and distribute them to another. If anything, they serve to lower overall GDP by reducing the incentive to do something productive (the magnitude of this effect is debatable).

You know what does increase GDP? Oil spills! Repairing collateral damage! There's all kinds of other funny stuff that can make the GDP go up. It's quite comical what does and doesn't have worth as represented by the GDP.

I think you put too much emphasis on negative incentive, by the way. May be people would really have incentive in this country if they actually thought they had a shot at upward mobility.

[ajblaise]

Social welfare programs do not raise the overall GDP of a nation.

Did I say they did? I was talking about the Economist and UN quality of life rankings, not GDP. GDP is only one factor when figuring out a nations quality of life.

[pure_mercury]

The top 5% own more than the other 95% of the population, I put it wrong. The point is we have more income inequality than northern europe.

Income inequality is not the same as wealth inequality. You're all over the place here.

Because our government is considerably more conservative and to the Right of northern europe and has a much smaller and arguably mismanaged welfare state than northern europe.

Our welfare state is actually much LARGER than any country's in Europe, but it is less generous by individual or family. What makes it "mismanaged?" That sounds like a baseless assertion.

You can't really compare the welfare state in the US to northern europe, it doesn't work as well with raising QOL because it doesn't do as much.

How? Why? You have to explain yourself here.

[pure_mercury]

I think you put too much emphasis on negative incentive, by the way. May be people would really have incentive in this country if they actually thought they had a shot at upward mobility.

Poor and middle-class Americans, on average have a greater belief in their upward mobility than do poor and middle-class Europeans. We are a very optimistic people in that regard.

[ajblaise]

Income inequality is not the same as wealth inequality. You're all over the place here.



Our welfare state is actually much LARGER than any country's in Europe, but it is less generous by individual or family. What makes it "mismanaged?" That sounds like a baseless assertion.



How? Why? You have to explain yourself here.

Income inequality, wealth inequality...the US has more of both than northern europe. You're splitting hairs here.

It is larger, we are a larger country, population-wise the size of all of europe. Our welfare state provides less benefits (no universal health care, no free college, less worker and consumer rights...).

[pure_mercury]

Income inequality, wealth inequality...the US has more of both than northern europe. You're splitting hairs here.


They're two different things. Take my parents, for instance. Together (both working full-time, in their 50s), they make what would put them in the government's definition of the upper-middle class. However, their net worth (including equity in their house, which has been twice mortgaged) is definitely middle-class. Their total liabilities are high when compared to their total assets. There is definitely an appreciable difference between wealth and income.


It is larger, we are a larger country, population-wise the size of all of europe. Our welfare state provides less benefits (no universal health care, no free college, less worker and consumer rights...).

The United States' population is far lower than that of all of Europe. Come on, that information is easily available. Europe has approximately 728 million people (including Russia's 140 million+). The United States is at 310 million. The whole of Europe (including Russia west of the Urals) is almost the exact same size as the whole of the United States. The EU in aggregate is a bigger economy than the United States'.

Again, I have to ask: what exactly is mismanaged in our welfare state? I'd be very interested to see what you believe is the percentage of the federal budget spent on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment/welfare, as compared to everything else.

[Lateralus]

Did I say they did? I was talking about the Economist and UN quality of life rankings, not GDP. GDP is only one factor when figuring out a nations quality of life.
GDP is a major factor in those calculations. Your comments implied that welfare states would also have the highest GDP, which might lead some people to believe that welfare programs add to GDP.

[Magic Poriferan]

GDP is a major factor in those calculations. Your comments implied that welfare states would also have the highest GDP, which might lead some people to believe that welfare programs add to GDP.

I presume he was trying to disprove the myth that welfare states have low GDP, not prove that welfare states create higher GDPs.

[Lateralus]

I presume he was trying to disprove the myth that welfare states have low GDP, not prove that welfare states create higher GDPs.
His figures neither prove, nor disprove any such assertions.

[Enyo]

I think you put too much emphasis on negative incentive, by the way. May be people would really have incentive in this country if they actually thought they had a shot at upward mobility.

They don't? I grew up in a glorified trailer park. Sure, they were double wides, and everyone lived on an average of an acre of land, but it was a Florida trailer park, nonetheless. Now, I live in a nice house.

John Edwards grew up the son of a steel worker or something like that.

Oprah Winfrey grew up poor and molested.

Barrack Obama didn't exactly have a wealthy upbringing.

Someone on this board posted about coming over from Russia as a child with two suitcases.

Clearly, the opportunities are there. The trick is, you have to work for them and take them. They won't (and shouldn't) be handed to you on a platter.

This isn't to say that I wouldn't like to see post-secondary education become a bit easier to obtain, or be a bit more affordable. But if it were too easy, it wouldn't be so meaningful to those who have the drive to seek it.

[Maabus1999]

Nomad, if i say some good stuff in a speech, can i have your support for president too?

You aren't making fun of Obama now are you?

[Magic Poriferan]

His figures neither prove, nor disprove any such assertions.

Well, it is actually pretty easy to show that there are welfare states with high GDPs, high GDP PCs, and GDP growth rates that are at least better than the USA's. So that would disprove that all welfare states will have GDP trouble.

All welfare states are bad at generating GDP. Or, all welfate states are GDP impaired. Or, all A are B. If we say that all A are B, but then introduce some A that are not B, then it obviously proves the first assertion wrong.

[ajblaise]

To get a good view of what effect welfare states have on poverty look at the "Effects on poverty" graph here: Welfare state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state)

[Lateralus]

I liked this part of his speech.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who--with their hands, their intelligence and their heart--built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance. -Nicolas Sarkozy

[Lateralus]

Well, it is actually pretty easy to show that there are welfare states with high GDPs, high GDP PCs, and GDP growth rates that are at least better than the USA's. So that would disprove that all welfare states will have GDP trouble.
Nice strawman. I don't recall anyone saying that.

[Magic Poriferan]

They don't? [etc. etc.]

Since the 70s the vast majority of all wealth developed in the USA has gone to the top 20 richest percentile of the country. So, that implies bad odds that you will get much richer, especially proportionately richer, in your lifetime if you are starting from the bottom steps.

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

So says the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

[Magic Poriferan]

Nice strawman. I don't recall anyone saying that.

Well, even if you think it's a strawman, it's not technically mine since I was just giving the best explanation I could of what they other guy was trying to say.

[Lateralus]

Since the 70s the vast majority of all wealth developed in the USA has gone to the top 20 richest percentile of the country. So, that implies bad odds that you will get much richer, especially proportionately richer, in your lifetime if you are starting from the bottom steps.
Read Economic Facts and Fallacies, by Thomas Sowell. He refutes your points far better than I could.

[Magic Poriferan]

Read Economic Facts and Fallacies, by Thomas Sowell. He refutes your points far better than I could.

Let's do a book swap! You can send me that and a few others you like while I can send you some stuff by Mancur Olson(and probably a few other things).

EDIT: I'm not sure which part of statement was supposedly a fallacy, but I hope it wasn't th fact about income going to the top 20%. It's starting to get silly if you really want me to consider you a more reliable source than the CIA.

[ajblaise]

GDP is a major factor in those calculations. Your comments implied that welfare states would also have the highest GDP, which might lead some people to believe that welfare programs add to GDP.

I think you mis-interpreted what I said. And GDP is just one of like 10 main factors in those QOF studies, do you think GDP should be the sole or main factor for determining QOL? Why?

[pure_mercury]

To get a good view of what effect welfare states have on poverty look at the "Effects on poverty" graph here: Welfare state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state)

Did you bother to look at the top?

"This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favour of certain viewpoints." I mean, it was under the Social Democracy portal, for Christ's sake.

[ajblaise]

Did you bother to look at the top?

"This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favour of certain viewpoints." I mean, it was under the Social Democracy portal, for Christ's sake.

Did you look at the graph? Makes social welfare look very impressive. Do you have a reason to not believe their figures? The graph cites it's sources, like the American Sociological Review.

Do you just not like the graph because it doesn't support your viewpoint?

[Enyo]

Since the 70s the vast majority of all wealth developed in the USA has gone to the top 20 richest percentile of the country. So, that implies bad odds that you will get much richer, especially proportionately richer, in your lifetime if you are starting from the bottom steps.





So says the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

Your odds for obtaining wealth may not be as good as if you were born a Rockefeller, but, regardless, the opportunities *are* there.

I've moved up the ranks. Other poor folks that I grew up with have moved up the ranks. Other poor folk that I grew up with are still poor white trash. The difference between them and me is that I swore I wouldn't stay poor white trash. Personal drive has a lot to do with it.

And you know what? I worked hard to crawl out of the trailer park. It wasn't a welfare trailer park (so no government handouts for me or mine), but it was still a trailer park. The fact that I had to work to get out made me a stronger person. It shaped who I am. And it shows that anyone can do it, if only they are willing to work for it. It sure as hell shouldn't be a hand out.

What you're missing is that someone in those extremely rich families that you're referring to busted their ass along the way to generate that wealth. It wasn't handed to them without someone earning it.

Let's pick on Paris Hilton, since she's everyone's favorite party slut girl. Her great-grandfather, the founder of the Hilton chain, was the son of two immigrants. He was a self-made man who fought in WWI as an enlisted soldier who went on to become an officer.

Or Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. He grew up dirt poor in the Depression. His father had a job, but not a very nice one. His dad's job was to foreclose farms for the bank. He died the richest man in the United States. And that was because he worked hard for it.

There's something to be said about the self-made man. I'd prefer that than for my government to go and reassign wealth, and take away incentive for those who generate wealth to continue to do so. I'd rather see the ambitious kid from the hood maintain his drive to work his way out, rather than to see the government pat him on the head and tell him that it's okay to be inferior, because they'll just give you money to make you feel more equal, anyway.

Fuck that noise. If you work hard, anything is possible. If you don't want to work hard, then you still get the opportunity to blame the system for keeping you down.

[ajblaise]

Your odds for obtaining wealth may not be as good as if you were born a Rockefeller, but, regardless, the opportunities *are* there.

I've moved up the ranks. Other poor folks that I grew up with have moved up the ranks. Other poor folk that I grew up with are still poor white trash. The difference between them and me is that I swore I wouldn't stay poor white trash. Personal drive has a lot to do with it.

And you know what? I worked hard to crawl out of the trailer park. It wasn't a welfare trailer park (so no government handouts for me or mine), but it was still a trailer park. The fact that I had to work to get out made me a stronger person. It shaped who I am. And it shows that anyone can do it, if only they are willing to work for it. It sure as hell shouldn't be a hand out.

What you're missing is that someone in those extremely rich families that you're referring to busted their ass along the way to generate that wealth. It wasn't handed to them without someone earning it.

Let's pick on Paris Hilton, since she's everyone's favorite party slut girl. Her great-grandfather, the founder of the Hilton chain, was the son of two immigrants. He was a self-made man who fought in WWI as an enlisted soldier who went on to become an officer.

Or Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. He grew up dirt poor in the Depression. His father had a job, but not a very nice one. His dad's job was to foreclose farms for the bank. He died the richest man in the United States. And that was because he worked hard for it.

There's something to be said about the self-made man. I'd prefer that than for my government to go and reassign wealth, and take away incentive for those who generate wealth to continue to do so. I'd rather see the ambitious kid from the hood maintain his drive to work his way out, rather than to see the government pat him on the head and tell him that it's okay to be inferior, because they'll just give you money to make you feel more equal, anyway.

Fuck that noise. If you work hard, anything is possible. If you don't want to work hard, then you still get the opportunity to blame the system for keeping you down.

It's easier to move up the social and economic ladder in Europe. I don't remember the exact study referenced when I saw a report a this, but I know a funny quote that went with it "If you want to live the American dream, move to Europe."

[pure_mercury]

Let's do a book swap! You can send me that and a few others you like while I can send you some stuff by Mancur Olson(and probably a few other things).

EDIT: I'm not sure which part of statement was supposedly a fallacy, but I hope it wasn't th fact about income going to the top 20%. It's starting to get silly if you really want me to consider you a more reliable source than the CIA.

Funny that he suggested Thomas Sowell, who is a libertarian, and that you suggested Mancur Olson, who was into public choice theory and was a firm believer in limited government, although I don't know if I would call him a full-blown libertarian.

[pure_mercury]

Did you look at the graph? Makes social welfare look very impressive. Do you have a reason to not believe their figures? The graph cites it's sources, like the American Sociological Review.

Do you just not like the graph because it doesn't support your viewpoint?

You think the American Sociological Review and Social Forces are unbiased sources? Those statistics show absolutely NO causation there. They show nothing of economic growth in those nations during the same period of time. They don't even list the dates at which these programs began! I could show stats that say that the Dow Jones had an up year in 2003, and, therefore, it was higher than it was in 2000 (which is false).

[Magic Poriferan]

Funny that he suggested Thomas Sowell, who is a libertarian, and that you suggested Mancur Olson, who was into public choice theory and was a firm believer in limited government, although I don't know if I would call him a full-blown libertarian.

Nothing funny about it. Mancur Olson certainly was not a "full-blown libertarian". He stops to point out why various libertarian beliefs are wrong from time to time. The last book he wrote was called "Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships". The point being that he didn't think much better of capitalism...

Olson believed in allowing markets to be "distorted" as you would say, predominately for the purpose of preventing predation. He supported "market augmenting government". That's just one example. The recurring theme of Olson's beliefs is to put decisions in the hands of encompassing interests instead of narrow interests. Whether it meshes with libertarianism or not doesn't really matter.

[pure_mercury]

Nothing funny about it. Mancur Olson certainly was not a "full-blown libertarian". He stops to point out why various libertarian beliefs are wrong from time to time. The last book he wrote was called "Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships". The point being that he didn't think much better of capitalism...

Yes, I know Olson likes to debunk the more radical Austrian-style libertarian economists. However, his work in public choice theory has done a lot to show how government agents and special interest groups can game the system (and that IS quite libertarian).

Olson believed in allowing markets to be "distorted" as you would say, predominately for the purpose of preventing predation. He supported "market augmenting government". That's just one example. The recurring theme of Olson's beliefs is to put decisions in the hands of encompassing interests instead of narrow interests. Whether it meshes with libertarianism or not doesn't really matter.

It matters when he supported limits on the state's power to favor certain groups and interests over others, doesn't it?

[ajblaise]

You think the American Sociological Review and Social Forces are unbiased sources? Those statistics show absolutely NO causation there. They show nothing of economic growth in those nations during the same period of time. They don't even list the dates at which these programs began! I could show stats that say that the Dow Jones had an up year in 2003, and, therefore, it was higher than it was in 2000 (which is false).

Well they are serious mainstream sociology journals, and this is a sociological issue.

Look how much poverty goes down post-transfer for every single country listed, many times reducing by 4x or 5x, it would be a bizarre coincidence if anti-poverty programs only correlate with lowered poverty rates lol.

As the study rightfully concludes "Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in all developed countries"

[Magic Poriferan]

Yes, I know Olson likes to debunk the more radical Austrian-style libertarian economists. However, his work in public choice theory has done a lot to show how government agents and special interest groups can game the system (and that IS quite libertarian).

True. He was very open to the potential flaws of government, but he did not denounce it as much as most libertarians, including ones like you. He wanted the government to preside over business more than you do.

Also note "special interests". That's really just another way of saying narrow interest. It comes back to his general aim. Always give cause for encompassing interest. As you may well know, the pursuit of encompassing interest sometimes takes very, very communitarian turns.


It matters when he supported limits on the state's power to favor certain groups and interests over others, doesn't it?

I would say all of his clashes with libertarianism matter at least just as much. Basically, the summary of what I've said in this post is that I think Olson's agreements with libertarianism are incidental.

[FDG]

Social welfare programs do not raise the overall GDP of a nation. Those programs produce nothing of substance. They only serve to take resources from one group and distribute them to another. If anything, they serve to lower overall GDP by reducing the incentive to do something productive (the magnitude of this effect is debatable).

Let's also make it clear, though, that the marginal propensity to consume is not homogeneous among the population. This is the Keynesian principle upon which all the social welfare policies are ultimately based, given that their primary effect would be one of demand upswing.
In practice, welfare policies are often used as a means to gain electorate. But this problem does not discount the fact that they definitely can be useful, given the right circumstances.

Different tools are made for different purposes in different situations. That's why I have already stopped voting here, and I probably will never get back to it. A completely technical and non-ideological government would be the best for applying the right methods when needed, without any prescription due to them being "republican" or "liberal".

[Modern Nomad]

Ermm... I don't agree with most of her policty stances, and she actually has less experience than Obama. She's also demonstrated remarkable ignorace of politics. I don't think the presidency is the place for her.


i can't see her acting like george bush. i can definitely see mccain acting like bush though.


:doh:

You and I need to have a major ENFP powwow, for reals!!!!

pshhhhhh! is that all the attention I get???????? :steam:

http://www.ktown213.com/forum/images/smiles/^_^;.gif

[Lateralus]

Let's do a book swap! You can send me that and a few others you like while I can send you some stuff by Mancur Olson(and probably a few other things).

EDIT: I'm not sure which part of statement was supposedly a fallacy, but I hope it wasn't th fact about income going to the top 20%. It's starting to get silly if you really want me to consider you a more reliable source than the CIA.
The point is, the top 20%, today, is vastly different than the top 20% of 30+ years ago. A substantial portion of that top 20% was poor or middle class back in the 70s.

[pure_mercury]

True. He was very open to the potential flaws of government, but he did not denounce it as much as most libertarians, including ones like you. He wanted the government to preside over business more than you do.

Also note "special interests". That's really just another way of saying narrow interest. It comes back to his general aim. Always give cause for encompassing interest. As you may well know, the pursuit of encompassing interest sometimes takes very, very communitarian turns.

It would seem to me that his showing that very narrow interests often winning out over a broad-based interest due to money and government influence would make a fine argument for limiting the amount of government influence there is, wouldn't it?



I would say all of his clashes with libertarianism matter at least just as much. Basically, the summary of what I've said in this post is that I think Olson's agreements with libertarianism are incidental.


I think I see a good amount of intellectual heritage descended from Locke and Mill in Olson, although I have not read all of his stuff. I think one could safely put him in the "friend of liberty" pile. He certainly was for property rights and basic market frameworks.

[pure_mercury]

Well they are serious mainstream sociology journals, and this is a sociological issue.

Look how much poverty goes down post-transfer for every single country listed, many times reducing by 4x or 5x, it would be a bizarre coincidence if anti-poverty programs only correlate with lowered poverty rates lol.

As the study rightfully concludes "Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in all developed countries"

No, it doesn't! There is NOTHING there to suggest that! You have to understand that. There is no causation shown whatsoever.

[Jen]

I'm so depressed. I feel like our country is heading for disaster. I have my neighbor telling me that Obama is going to ruin us, while I feel McCain isn't the right choice. Maybe once the debating commences I'll feel more reassured.

[pure_mercury]

I'm so depressed. I feel like our country is heading for disaster. I have my neighbor telling me that Obama is going to ruin us, while I feel McCain isn't the right choice. Maybe once the debating commences I'll feel more reassured.

I don't think any one man can "ruin" a country as big and as rich as the United States without a lot of help. We've had bad U.S. Presidents before and survived them. Hell, my life is actually better than it was in January of 2001, when Bush took over. People attribute way too many things to government leaders (especially the executive branch).

[Enyo]

I don't think any one man can "ruin" a country as big and as rich as the United States without a lot of help. We've had bad U.S. Presidents before and survived them. Hell, my life is actually better than it was in January of 2001, when Bush took over. People attribute way too many things to government leaders (especially the executive branch).

You're right, we have survived some pretty craptastic Presidents.

But never before have we had only three not so great choices with a country that is in decline to the point of parallels being drawn to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Two years ago, I wrote a paper comparing the current state of our union to the fall of the Roman Empire. If anything, we've only progressed further down that path.

[pure_mercury]

You're right, we have survived some pretty craptastic Presidents.

But never before have we had only three not so great choices with a country that is in decline to the point of parallels being drawn to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Two years ago, I wrote a paper comparing the current state of our union to the fall of the Roman Empire. If anything, we've only progressed further down that path.

A big step in the right direction would be drop the imperial aspect of our nation-state. I keep saying, over and over, we have too many troops in too many countries doing too many things. We involve ourselves in bullshit all the time. We need to stop being the boss country, and get back to being the example country.

[Enyo]

A big step in the right direction would be drop the imperial aspect of our nation-state. I keep saying, over and over, we have too many troops in too many countries doing too many things. We involved ourselves in bullshit all the time. We need to stop being the boss country, and get back to being the example country.

I'd love to see us get out of Iraq. I never wanted to go there to begin with, but now that we're there and we've destabilized the region, we need to see it to the finish. Invading Afghanistan in searc