Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Buzzfeed article does show why it's good to be a Democrat.
1. The Media will continue to print your bogus stats without question (Women paid less, 97% of scientists, etc.)
2. You get to say that you are for education because you want someone else to provide more funding (but you don't have to explain why Detroit schools (which have $12,500 per student) suck compared to my county's top rated school district ($8,500 per student). You just scream for more money and feel smug that you are "doing something."
3. Being a Democrat means smugly feeling good about demanding more money for social programs while not having to donate your own time or money. Being a conservative means you know the government is terribly inefficient, so I have to spend my actual money and time to help people in need.
I could go on, but the Buzzfeed article has convinced me to switch. I will now cancel my volunteer work, stop writing checks to help people, and spend my time screaming for other people to pay higher taxes and continuously post false stats. Whew, this is much easier. Can another liberal please pass me a Starbucks?
Where did the "97% of climate researchers" stat come from in the first place? Is this woven from the same cloth as "9 out of 10 dentists recommend..." and "humans only use 5% of their brain power" (well, maybe libs do...)?
The Buzzfeed article does show why it's good to be a Democrat.
1. The Media will continue to print your bogus stats without question (Women paid less, 97% of scientists, etc.)
2. You get to say that you are for education because you want someone else to provide more funding (but you don't have to explain why Detroit schools (which have $12,500 per student) suck compared to my county's top rated school district ($8,500 per student). You just scream for more money and feel smug that you are "doing something."
3. Being a Democrat means smugly feeling good about demanding more money for social programs while not having to donate your own time or money. Being a conservative means you know the government is terribly inefficient, so I have to spend my actual money and time to help people in need.
I could go on, but the Buzzfeed article has convinced me to switch. I will now cancel my volunteer work, stop writing checks to help people, and spend my time screaming for other people to pay higher taxes and continuously post false stats. Whew, this is much easier. Can another liberal please pass me a Starbucks?
Get your own Starbucks. I am a democrat they say and i have donated quite a few hours by becoming a Legal Guardian for a chronic Paranoid Schizophrenic since 1998. Saved the state quite a bit of money as well.
Says the person who mostly likely will vote for Hillary.
I hope she gets primaried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
How am I not qualified to judge that?
If I had it my way, education (or dare I say, intellect) would not be viewed as only coming from schools.
I'm not against public schools, but increasing access to vouchers is a great solution that will lessen the strain on public schools.
Public schools cannot be "strained." Children are not a strain. Children are also not little profit centers that can just be discarded. You have two choices; educate them or don't educate them. Which one do you prefer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Like I said, it depends. Like it or not, the law is the law. Coming here illegally is wrong. If parents bring their kids over illegal, they've done something stupid. They should have gone through the legal process (which needs to be adjusted and simplified, but that's a different discussion entirely).
Obviously, if deportation can be avoided, that's fine. But something needs to be done.
You can't play both sides. My question was crystal clear;
Do you suggest deporting children?
No one is asking for a lecture about people's thinly veiled sense of morality. We want to hear solutions. Are you going to advocate shipping illegal immigrants (including all the children) out of this country or are you just going to complain about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Voter ID laws are to ensure only citizens can vote and that it's done in an organized way. I know we like to say it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but it easily could exist, and problems with voting have happened before.
Let's review this logic:
"Let's make it more difficult for citizens to vote so that we can catch voter fraud. Voter fraud hasn't happened in any significant numbers yet, but it could happen so we need to pre-emptively stop what may or may not happen. Let's also institute provisions that have no credibility in thwarting voter fraud to prevent this problem."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
A law that requires people to have a card proving citizenship, as well as detailing the location in which they are registered to vote is hardly unreasonable. If it actually starts to hurt Americans, like it does with ex-cons who have their voter rights taken away unconstitutionally, I'll want that solved.
......those laws already exist. They are called voter registration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Reaganomics failed due to a number of factors, the primary being the closer relationship of the state and business. Big business bullies the government and is basically funding elections, allowing them to get what they want. Reaganomics is a perfectly workable system in a genuine free market, which we no longer are.
Reaganomics failed because it is big fat lie. The wealth was never going to "trickle down." Gutting unions and tax cuts for the wealthy cannot help the Middle Class because it was never meant to. It's called a lie.
Public schools cannot be "strained." Children are not a strain. Children are also not little profit centers that can just be discarded. You have two choices; educate them or don't educate them. Which one do you prefer?
Yes it can. School still costs money. You pay for it with your taxes, and then the schools must pay for the expenses with the money they were given by the government. Each student costs money and if there are more students than funds, the school will be strained. This is fairly common from my experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
You can't play both sides. My question was crystal clear;
Do you suggest deporting children?
No one is asking for a lecture about people's thinly veiled sense of morality. We want to hear solutions. Are you going to advocate shipping illegal immigrants (including all the children) out of this country or are you just going to complain about it?
My answer was clear and this is a new question.
If I were president Obama, I would not have granted amnesty. I would have granted temporary amnesty, then required that all illegal immigrants register as citizens with a 3-6 month period. Any who do not register in this time will be deported. That would have been my solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Let's review this logic:
"Let's make it more difficult for citizens to vote so that we can catch voter fraud. Voter fraud hasn't happened in any significant numbers yet, but it could happen so we need to pre-emptively stop what may or may not happen. Let's also institute provisions that have no credibility in thwarting voter fraud to prevent this problem."
How will it make it more difficult for citizens to vote? You keep saying that, but you never explain how you got to that conclusion.
Voter ID will simply allow us to verify who has voted. If people can't commit voter fraud, is that not a good thing? Does it ever matter if it currently is happening? As it stands, it would be fairly easy to do. Doing this will make that next to impossible. How is that a bad thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
......those laws already exist. They are called voter registration.
And voter ID will make identification of voters easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Reaganomics failed because it is big fat lie. The wealth was never going to "trickle down." Gutting unions and tax cuts for the wealthy cannot help the Middle Class because it was never meant to. It's called a lie.
Whatever. I have no interest in arguing about he past. Every president since Reagan has made our economy more and more unstable. The solutions have all become too complicated. If you ask me, a flat income tax of 10-20% (20% only being used if absolutely necessary, as in times of war) should be the norm and that goes to the state. The state will take what it needs and send the rest to the federal government. The Fed is entitled to at least 25% of all tax revenue from each state, unless extreme circumstances arise.
We also need a balanced budget, something neither party has actually accomplished.
Yes it can. School still costs money. You pay for it with your taxes, and then the schools must pay for the expenses with the money they were given by the government. Each student costs money and if there are more students than funds, the school will be strained. This is fairly common from my experience.
Like I said; we either educate students or we choose not to. An uneducated child is more likely to end up in the privatized prison system. Stop making up excuses to send children to prions; fund the schools and educate these kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
My answer was clear and this is a new question.
If I were president Obama, I would not have granted amnesty.
Confirmed. You didn't pay attention. President Obama did not grant amnesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I would have granted temporary amnesty, then required that all illegal immigrants register as citizens with a 3-6 month period. Any who do not register in this time will be deported. That would have been my solution.
So... you would allow them to sign up for amnesty.. then give it to them?
You are playing both sides... again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
How will it make it more difficult for citizens to vote? You keep saying that, but you never explain how you got to that conclusion.
There are many registered voters that do not have easy access to their birth certificates (most of whom are eldery and African-American). If they are already registered voters, why should they be disenfranchised?
Fact: Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout.
Making voting a more time consuming process reduces the amount of people who vote. It just works that way. If I have to travel long to go vote through long lines during restricted hours (all of which have been done in states approving voter ID laws), I am more likely to say "forget it." We need to be encouraging voter turnout, not discouraging it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Voter ID will simply allow us to verify who has voted.
How do they do that? What does a photo ID provide that voter registration doesn't already cover?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
If people can't commit voter fraud, is that not a good thing? Does it ever matter if it currently is happening? As it stands, it would be fairly easy to do. Doing this will make that next to impossible. How is that a bad thing?
First you have to prove that voter fraud is a serious problem. Yes it does matter because you are making it more difficult for legal citizens to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
And voter ID will make identification of voters easier.
How? Picture IDs don't prove citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Whatever. I have no interest in arguing about he past. Every president since Reagan has made our economy more and more unstable. The solutions have all become too complicated. If you ask me, a flat income tax of 10-20% (20% only being used if absolutely necessary, as in times of war) should be the norm and that goes to the state. The state will take what it needs and send the rest to the federal government. The Fed is entitled to at least 25% of all tax revenue from each state, unless extreme circumstances arise.
Pulling tax rate suggestions out of thin air just shows you have no comprehension of economics. As long as it sounds good though, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
We also need a balanced budget, something neither party has actually accomplished.
No, we don't. We will never balance the budget for extended periods of time. Balanced budgets are irresponsible for the economy.
Just ask Europe how that Austerity is doing for their economies.
Like I said; we either educate students or we choose not to. An uneducated child is more likely to end up in the privatized prison system. Stop making up excuses to send children to prions; fund the schools and educate these kids.
That is the most asinine line of thinking I've ever seen.
I've never advocated for withholding education. I'm advocating for more creative solutions that what currently exist.
I've also vocalized my disdain for the American prison system, especially regrind private prisons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Confirmed. You didn't pay attention. President Obama did not grant amnesty.
Then enlighten me. What is it that he did do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
So... you would allow them to sign up for amnesty.. then give it to them?
You are playing both sides... again.
I'd allow them to have the opportunity to go through a legal process that allows them to become citizens. I'd show mercy but still expect some initiative.
I however would have tightened up immigration policy, making it harder to come here illegally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
There are many registered voters that do not have easy access to their birth certificates (most of whom are eldery and African-American). If they are already registered voters, why should they be disenfranchised?
Fact: Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout.
Making voting a more time consuming process reduces the amount of people who vote. It just works that way. If I have to travel long to go vote through long lines during restricted hours (all of which have been done in states approving voter ID laws), I am more likely to say "forget it." We need to be encouraging voter turnout, not discouraging it.
Take a look at Canadian voter ID laws. This is what I want. Tell me what's so 'inconvenient' about having to prove who you are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
How do they do that? What does a photo ID provide that voter registration doesn't already cover?
It's more efficient and thorough as a process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
First you have to prove that voter fraud is a serious problem. Yes it does matter because you are making it more difficult for legal citizens to vote.
Are you saying voter fraud isn't a big deal? Our elections are already corrupted. That last thing I want is for the elections to not have anything that's genuine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
How? Picture IDs don't prove citizenship.
You'd have to prove citizenship to get the ID. If you have the ID, it means you've proven citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Pulling tax rate suggestions out of thin air just shows you have no comprehension of economics. As long as it sounds good though, right?
Less taxes for everyone means everyone has less of a financial burden. It also means the government has to prioritize and be smart about what they spend money on, unlike now when they can just dump money into whatever short sighted project they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
No, we don't. We will never balance the budget for extended periods of time. Balanced budgets are irresponsible for the economy.
Just ask Europe how that Austerity is doing for their economies.
A balanced budget is a bad thing? Ok...
There are times when we have to have a pretty irresponsible budget. There are times when it is entirely avoidable, but we do it anyway. That is unacceptable. If we have a desperate need to spend more money that we currently have, then we can. But if there is no need, then it's a short term solution that will create a long term problem.
Do we become the developing world's orphanage? I think its rather common knowledge that kids put into government systems have a bleak outlook. Liberals want to vilify deportation of children but they ignore the practical realities associated with not deporting them. That's what pisses me off about liberals, always trying to vilify the other side instead of addressing critical issues that are presented. I get it though, its easier to point the finger at the mean old right wing instead of talking about what you are going to do with all these kids. I think anyone wanting to put kids in the social services system is just as cold hearted as the people who want them deported.
I rather put kids back with their families than place them in social services plus its not practical for the US to become the worlds orphanage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
