Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 04, 2015, 05:44:16 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 611
12201  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What eras would you divide American history into? on: December 19, 2005, 04:13:05 pm
1. Pre-Columbian (Prehistory-1586)
2. Colonies (1586-1776) (Transition period, 1586-1607)
3. Antebellum (1776-1860) (Transition period, 1763-1792)
4. Industrialization (1860-1932) (Transition period, 1860-1877)
5. Superpower (1933-present) (Transition period, 1929-1945)
12202  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Oklahoma Lawmaker Proposes 'Unborn Child Ultrasound Imaging Act' on: December 18, 2005, 08:10:39 pm
The point is it does nothing to curtail a woman's ability to get an abortion, so it is in no sense 'anti-choice.'

Beyond the political motive, it curtails the right of doctors to offer abortion services without offering ultrasound services. Would you approve of a law that required all hot dog vendors to also sell hamburgers?
12203  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Oklahoma Lawmaker Proposes 'Unborn Child Ultrasound Imaging Act' on: December 18, 2005, 08:03:46 pm
Forgive me for being cynical, but this proposal probably didn't come out of the committee on education. The option being presented and its intended effect is a point of argument from one side of a political debate.
12204  General Discussion / History / Re: Did the Civil War mark the birth a new party system? on: December 18, 2005, 07:04:21 pm
I thought we were talking about party ideology. The Whigs and Republicans were similar in that regard.

Well the question was asking about whether there was a new party system brought about by the Civil War, which might be taken to include sectional bases.
12205  General Discussion / History / Re: Did the Civil War mark the birth a new party system? on: December 18, 2005, 06:52:30 pm
What do you mean, a "new party system?"

The Republicans remained centralizing mercantilists. The Democrats remained Jeffersonian federalists.
Some historians have suggested that the civil war was partly because of the breakdown of the Jacksonian democratic party.

Yes, the Whigs were not a regionally based party like the later Republicans; their doctrine of government works, aggressive foreign policy, and promotion of economic growth was competitive in both regions of the country.
12206  General Discussion / History / Re: Voting blocks throughout history on: December 18, 2005, 06:39:17 pm
What do you mean "aggregate voting data?" Do you mean state-by-state shifts?

At the electoral level this is exactly defined as state-level partisan vote shifts.
12207  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What president did the most to shape the modern presidency? on: December 18, 2005, 06:28:06 pm
I would say FDR, merely due to the vast expansion in the Executive Branch bureacracy and responsibility that came through the New Deal. If you think about the Harding and Coolidge administrations, then think about all the administrations we have had since 1945, its clear that the post-FDR executive branch is a radically different creature, both in its domestic and foreign responsibilities. The Reagan revolution did nothing to change this.
12208  General Discussion / History / Re: Voting blocks throughout history on: December 18, 2005, 06:03:29 pm
I've read some pretty specific things... for example, it's been said that virtually every group shifted to the GOP in 1896.

That's true (it is probably based on aggregate voting data, I dont think there were polls at that time), though the realignment theorists would say the long-term importance of the 1894-96 cycle is in solidifying the Northeastern Republican vote, since the GOP's gains in the South turned out to be useless and ephemeral. In the 1894 midterm, the GOP made no electoral gains in the South or West, despite making big gains in all other regions and picking up a record 125 seats.
12209  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Progress v. CTGuy on: December 18, 2005, 12:24:12 pm
CTGuy? He has not posted for a long, long time.
12210  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Defense of Marriage Act on: December 18, 2005, 10:39:59 am
Nay and Nay

Really, I don't understand why Clinton is hated by the right so much.  Most of his most recognizible achievments in the last 6 years of his presidency can best be classified as either 'conservative' or libertarian; Welfare reform, defense of marraige, NAFTA, and so on.

Who signed the semi-auto ban?

last six years

He signed that in 1994, when he was still a liberal with a Democratic congress.

Also, his achievements in the first 2 years like the semi-auto ban largely had sunset provisions, while others were struck down or mostly struck down by the Supreme Court, so they were even less than might first appear.

While his right-leaning reforms like NAFTA, DOMA, Telecom reform, welfare reform etc. have generally been permanent or even strengthend by the courts (as with Fox v FCC, 2002).
12211  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Posts that make you cringe on review on: December 18, 2005, 10:17:29 am
I cringe when I think back to the fact that I initially supported Nym90's re-election but then switched to Gustaf and the UAC after the convention, at which I gave a speech endorsing Nym90.
12212  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Person of the Year - 2005 on: December 18, 2005, 09:00:31 am
The Iraqi voter is actually starting to emerge as a serious contender to all the natural disaster doom&gloom.

Do you think they'll sell more copies if they put a distant foreign country on the cover or a bleak story about natural disasters? Neither of them seems to be a commercial smash.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for that reason, it's Bill Gates or some other prominent American.

Omg Hugh, your psychic powers are amazing Cheesy

Yeah, they have not picked a non-American since John Paul II in 1994, which is a record run of 11 consecutive years now I believe. The previous record was the tumultous 1963-69.

Bill Gates.. what did he do THIS YEAR exactly, as opposed to all the other years?

All I can think of is XBOX360, which didn't even sell that well.

Maybe he donated an extra-large, even by his standards, amount of money to charity.

Well at least one forum member got picked !! Cheesy
12213  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Person of the Year - 2005 on: December 18, 2005, 08:55:32 am
The Iraqi voter is actually starting to emerge as a serious contender to all the natural disaster doom&gloom.

Do you think they'll sell more copies if they put a distant foreign country on the cover or a bleak story about natural disasters? Neither of them seems to be a commercial smash.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for that reason, it's Bill Gates or some other prominent American.

Omg Hugh, your psychic powers are amazing Cheesy

Yeah, they have not picked a non-American since John Paul II in 1994, which is a record run of 11 consecutive years now I believe. The previous record was the tumultous 1963-69.

Bill Gates.. what did he do THIS YEAR exactly, as opposed to all the other years?
12214  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who are the five worst presidents? on: December 17, 2005, 11:33:32 am
1. James Buchanan
2. Franklin Pierce
3. Warren Harding
4. Ulysses Grant
5. Herbert Hoover-Jimmy Carter tie

That's a pretty good list, though I'd part Carter on there in his own right.

Carter? I haven't made you think any better of him? Sad
12215  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: 2005 Person of the Year on: December 17, 2005, 09:23:46 am
This is like our own little Prom King.

That's cool.
12216  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Rasmussen: Schwarzenegger Trails Two Democrats on: December 17, 2005, 06:23:11 am
The way I see it is pretty simple. If Schwarzenegger doesn't think he can get anything done, he shouldn't run for governor. Or, if he thinks the only way he can get anything done is to have a GOP legislature, this should be part of his campaign. Otherwise, unless he thinks he can work with the legislature, or at least accomplish something significant without the legislature, he should just go back to Hollywood. That's not an anti-Schwarzenegger sentiment, I don't really oppose him, it's just a fact of life. I don't see why he would want to be governor if he can't accomplish anything.

Now on the other hand, if he is running for the office, that tells me that he believes he can get something accomplished. Why? Because he is asking the voters to put their trust in him... he is asking something from the voters. When the voters deliver that, and give him what he asks, presumably he has something he thinks he can deliver in return. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked. And up until this November, the voters have given him everything that he's asked for.

The only way I would oppose Schwarzenegger has nothign to do with his policies but rather the way government is run. If he wants to turn California into a direct democracy, rather than a state government on the republican model of representative democracy, this I would oppose, as I'm a supporter of the republican model, for the most part, on the state as well as national level. I believe states should have legislatures, and for the most part it should be legislatures and not the people who decide the bulk of policy. But other than this I'm not exactly a big anti-Schwarzenegger. There are worse Republicans around than him...
12217  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Person of the Year - 2005 on: December 16, 2005, 02:58:24 pm
The Iraqi voter is actually starting to emerge as a serious contender to all the natural disaster doom&gloom.

Do you think they'll sell more copies if they put a distant foreign country on the cover or a bleak story about natural disasters? Neither of them seems to be a commercial smash.
12218  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The hypocrisy of liberal tolerance? on: December 16, 2005, 02:33:25 pm

The problem is not that liberals/Democrats are intolerant of bigotry.

Which was my only point; that someone who is intolerant of intolerance can still support tolerance, and further that to support the idea of tolerance in society practically requires some intolerance of intolerance. Its just a general point independent of any individuals' behaviors or even of labels.

Quote
The problem is that they largely ignore objective definitions of bigotry, and twist the definition to mean anything that they don't agree with, while dismissing their own bigotry as justified.  That is what is hypocritical.

What are some examples of this?

Well, as an example, some liberals claim that those who don't support racial quotas, or other liberal positions on race, are racist.  This is not necessarily the case.  It could be that they believe there are better ways than the largely failed ways the liberals have suggested to achieve a better measure of racial equality.

Ditto for those who don't like feminism, and are called anti-woman.  Liberals have a habit of tarring those who don't agree with their positions with ugly names, even if they are not bigoted.

Well I don't defend ad hominem attacks , I think they're wrong. Your example is particularly ironic because race-based affirmative action is itself racist.

In general, one way of looking at these statements is that the accuser knows that people who actually are bigoted most of the time will couch their arguments in more implicit terms. Thus their types of accusations are because people think the other person is being deceptive like that. But regardless, I don't think that is a justification or defense of ad hominem attacks-- one should always focus on the arguments.
12219  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Name that Poster... on: December 16, 2005, 02:17:37 pm
Except that Central Phase Blue Opebo's hypocrisy has long been exposed, so that would precisely make it not worthy of a post.

(Now I should maybe define the term, "Central Phase Blue Opebo". Smiley )

Just wanted to point that since the "revolution" of the opedo's mind, he went from being polite and reasonable to having a depraved mind full of evil, greed, depravity, murder, strife, deceit, malice, slander, God-hating, insolent, arrogant, boastful, senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless.

Or perhaps he's just become more honest. Frankly, I don't think his views have changed as much as he claims. Deep down he's still an economic conservative, and foreign policy far right. He just thinks he can get more attention and offend more people the way he is now.
12220  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The hypocrisy of liberal tolerance? on: December 16, 2005, 02:04:20 pm
If they believe that a higher power will intercede through the power of prayer and cure their child, who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to say they’re wrong?  I don’t care what the statistics say, and I’d like to know how much higher of a chance it would be if the child did get “treatment” for their illness.  Sometimes, things go beyond human understanding of scientific statistics.

Well no one has a right to say that they're wrong, that's not what I was saying at all.

There are certain diseases, such as acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), which commonly affect young children, is a cancer of blood cells which is fatal if left untreated for it quickly spreads to the vital organs. Of course the fatal assignment of this disease is both statistical and directly flows from the medical observation. Various kinds of chemotherapy/radiation can improve the survival rate from zero to about three-quarters, according to statistics.

Now, science does not make normative judgements: it can't be used to prove there is no spiritual force, and it can't be used to prove that one position is right and another is wrong; that someone is justified and another is unjustified. That is up to people to decide. However, a person who believes that protection of childrens' lives is a civic as well as familial responsibility can utilize medical knowledge, with the assumption of their belief system, to make an argument that civic authorities would intervene and force the treatment. I'm not saying they are necessarily right or wrong, I'm just saying it's a logically consistent argument to make: (1) sanctity of life, (2) some civic responsibility over these lives, and (3) reason derived from scientific experience. Logically consistent.

Quote
Wanting to kill somebody and just not wanting to save them through medicine are totally different things.

Of course, as it involves a difference in intentions. But in the case where the parent did want to kill their child, I would argue that one could take a logically consistent position that civic authorities have a 'right' to intervene to save the child's life. Once again, I'm not necessarily stating that civic authorities would be justified in doing so, only that it would be a logically consistent action, given the assumptions regarding the sanctity of life and civic responsibility laid out above.

Quote
I see your point, but in my mind, the parents usually know what’s best, even if it might not seem that way to some, they know far better than anyone else how to raise their children.

I'm not disputing this much! Cheesy

Quote
This would be where you and I disagree.  I find that anyone not wanting to educate themselves aren’t gonna want to get a job, either.

Hmm, perhaps you have found an area where we aren't in exact agreement. But I would argue this is a difference in the way we judge human nature and not in an intolerance on my part. When I see people, even illiterate people, who have never shown an interest in education, nevertheless working, presumably out of a desire to buy food, I cannot help but believe one can be interested in work yet not in education.

Quote
That’s what the parents are for, to guide them.

That's true, but once you introduce parental guidance, I would argue that's kind of like homeschooling, and no longer pure unschooling. As I said I have no problem with homeschooling. Smiley

Quote
I never argued to abolish all school programs and I certainly did not do so here.  But I think all children are capable of learning by themselves, since all unschooling dictates is to learn in the way the child best sees fit.  Some would be lazy bums, but I don’t think they’re gonna do much with their life when they become 20 or even 30 if they’re to lazy to learn basic skills when they’re 16.  Still, this is all besides the point.

Well school extends often back to as early as ages 5 or 6. From personally experience I think there are children who aren't interested in any learning at ages 5 or 6 yet by the time they're 16 they're regularly industrious. But yeah, it's besides the point.
12221  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: CNN District 4 Runoff Results. on: December 16, 2005, 01:26:10 pm
Why's it going down so much?
12222  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: massachusetts, 1984. on: December 16, 2005, 01:24:12 pm
What's with the solid Democratic colors on Cape Cod and... is that Nantucket?

Cape Cod is all blue except for Provincetown, which is a gay haven.  I think you mean Nantucket, which is a refuge for limousine liberals.

I see, yeah I was just saying Cape Cod while referring only to its tip so I should have been more clear. Nantucket seems to be blue on this map-- perhaps they were still voting economic interests in '84.
12223  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The hypocrisy of liberal tolerance? on: December 16, 2005, 01:18:04 pm
My problem with the Democratic Parties tolerence:  It's only tolerent towards those who the Republicans are intolerent towards, and vice-versa.

The main point is just that complaints that Dems are not truly tolerant because they don't tolerate bigotry, etc. are invalid. It's not saying that Democrats are necessarily tolerant toward everything. A true libertarian (there are many conservatives who claim to be libertarians) for example is probably more tolerant than either libs or cons.

Quote
I haven't seen many Democratic Politicians be very tolerent of homeschoolers, and more so unschoolers.

Unschoolers I'll admit Dems aren't very tolerant of, because we generally see lack of high school education as a bad thing. Homeschoolers though I haven't seen criticism of except from myself-- I used to think homeschooling should be banned, but I was pretty much alone on this and changed my mind later on. I've never heard anyone else say homeschooling was wrong.

Quote
I also see a lot of Democrats who are intolerent of anybody raising their children in way they don't think is conventional.

What do you mean don't think conventional? If you mean teaching them the Bible and religion etc. at homeschool, I haven't seen any Dems say this was wrong (as long as they were still able to meet high school level standards of biology), though if they didn't I'd certainly disagree and I think the vast majority of Dems would agree that this is a perogative of the parents.

Quote
They also are very intolerent of stay at home moms.

Again I've seen a lot more accusations like this than actual Dems saying that it's wrong to be a stay at home mom. It's possible to celebrate women with successful careers as opening doors or breaking the mold without denigrating stay at home moms (or dads).

The problem is not that liberals/Democrats are intolerant of bigotry.

Which was my only point; that someone who is intolerant of intolerance can still support tolerance, and further that to support the idea of tolerance in society practically requires some intolerance of intolerance. Its just a general point independent of any individuals' behaviors or even of labels.

Quote
The problem is that they largely ignore objective definitions of bigotry, and twist the definition to mean anything that they don't agree with, while dismissing their own bigotry as justified.  That is what is hypocritical.

What are some examples of this?
12224  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: what jobs have you had? on: December 16, 2005, 01:00:48 pm
Because of our incredibly dumb and bigoted child labor laws: none.
That's unfortunate. Sad

Though, the best (and worst) jobs often allow you to get around these. When I was about 12 I could make about $20 per week mowing lawns, when I was about 15 I could make about $65/hour doing website design. Granted, this was back in the late 1990s when things were a bit more freewheeling than they are now.
12225  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: The hypocrisy of liberal tolerance? on: December 16, 2005, 12:53:22 pm
Of course society is incapable of love, that’s my point.  When things are on a personal level, and you actually know the person that you’re taking care of, everything’s far better.  Society cannot learn each and every person they’re paying taxes to protect, so, while I can see the justification of having these programs, I cannot see them justifying “society” having any say in how that person raises their child.

I'm not sure what you mean by "society cannot learn each and every person"? Also, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think an argument can be made in particular instances. For example, if the parents' believe in a religion that prohibits the child from being treated for a life threatening disease, for they believe that a higher power will intecede through the power of prayer to cure the child. Now suppose from historical experience with this religious treatment, the success is not higher than children with no treatment and there is a very high death rate, suppose something like two-thirds. Then someone could argue that there are univeral values contained in society about the care of children, not deriving from societal love but from civic values, that justified intercession.

It is a much stronger case, and generally accepted, that if a parent were to want to kill their child, civic authorities would be obligated to intervene to save the life of the child if they could. Now I concede these authorities do not love the child, they are merely intervening out of fulfillment of their assigned civic role. However, their actions are not without utility.

But in the case of a mere life-threatening illness where the parents oppose medical treatment, the case against intervention is stronger, I concede as well. But a strong case in favor of intervention in this instance could still be made.

Quote
Perhaps I did, and I apologize.  Unschooling is the lack of any kind of “school.”  Unschooling understands that all children have a want and a need for information, and will seek it out on their own.  So the parents don’t push them, but rather guide their learning.

Then perhaps I was mistaken about believing you'd misinterpreted me, for that' just the definition of unschooling I inferred originally. Yet in your last response you spoke heavily about homeschooling, not unschooling, so I guess I thought you might have been mixing the two. I'm not adverse to unschooling, I don't think it's wrong, in fact I'm very tolerant of the idea because I've some inkling of what it would be like. There are some children however, who if not given any educational expectations might choose not to educate themselves at all, or to educate themselves at a much lower standard, without the understanding that this would have negative consequences for them as they don't have a high school diploma. There are also some children who perhaps just aren't smart enough to teach themselves how to read and write by themselves, even if they did have the initiative to do so. And it's not always easy to see which children are better at educating themselves than others, for the requirements of education at one age is very different from that at another. That said, there are clearly those children who are smart enough to benefit from a completely independent, unguided lifestyle, where they will of their own volition choose a highly rewarding course of study. Since these children are not all children however, to abolish all school programs I think might put other children at a disadvantage.
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 611


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines