patrick.net

SoftShell says

Liberals are geneticly hypersensitive to feelings of guilt

Keep thinking what you're thinking, Mr. Lysenko. Belief that acquired characteristics COULD be genetically transmitted (and an outright ban on mendelian theory research) kept Soviet research hopelessly backward well into the 70s.

Automan Empire says

SoftShell says

Liberals are geneticly hypersensitive to feelings of guilt

Keep thinking what you're thinking, Mr. Lysenko. Belief that acquired characteristics COULD be genetically transmitted (and an outright ban on mendelian theory research) kept Soviet research hopelessly backward well into the 70s.

Modern conservatives have embraced Soviet ideologies, because when it comes to choosing between a non-GOP president and a foreign leader, they ally with the foreign power.

Also, this helps them forget 50 years of savage red-baiting of anyone insufficiently anti-Communist, so they can pretend they would have opposed Korea and Vietnam.

TL;DR: They're ignorant.

As a member, I have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party, as currently designed, has only one purpose...and that is to be a bogeyman on all the social issues that drive people over the Democrat Party and its vision of a Centralized State managing all aspects of people's lives. Even when one or two top GOP leaders start to make sense (and when they do, confusion among pundits sets in as they try to attack plainspoken logic) the guy I call Old Uncle Republican gets wheeled out to make some absurd derogatory statement on a Non-White, Non-Male group.

I go so far as to wonder if the DNC has bought and paid for these guys to permeate the GOP so that there is no chance of us returning to a society of landowners and independent businessmen.

As far as hope for the future, Rand Paul comes closest to what I think a contemporary Republican should be. Focus on economics. Non-judgmental on mores. Libertarian in lawmaking. However, I also have this sense that the only candidate who could contend with Hillary in 2016 has to also be a woman, because it seems like America has already decided it must elect a woman because it's their turn. And I agree with that sentiment, women deserve to win the Presidency in 2016. The only question is can the GOP find a credible, intelligent, non-judgmental candidate to run.

Bellingham Bill says

Conservatives want to memory-hole this by bringing up whatever crap they can.

The arrogance of liberals !!

indigenous says

This asshole caused the most damage to the US of any president.

Having the private sector run the 4th branch of the government (aka the Fed) with only notional Congressional and Executive oversight would not have been a Progressive idea. The Fed was a shitty compromise, taking the Republican position and having it be the compromise between center-left (William Jennings Bryan) and center-right Democrats, just like ACA in our day, LOL.

A Progressive Republican Congress ratified the 16th Amendment before Wilson took office. As for making the Senate directly elected, that's more democratic but not really "Progressive", LOL.

Wilson did have a decent record supporting further trust-busting, anti child-labor laws, the FTC, etc. So he wasn't a neanderthal conservative like what we have today.

Back then the GOP was a pretty reasonable party, mostly, though they had their Roosevelt/Taft split that in it had the seeds of the modern conservative clownshow.

Yes, the best posting fuckups are from people posting about someone's intelligence, while bashing the english language in the process...ROTFLOL...

sbh says

SoftShell says

This is why you are the card-carrying village grammar idiot.

sbh says

This why you're the card-carrying village idiot.

Oh my. How powerful.

It's not "arrogant" to assert that the mistakes of the previous decade were entirely conservative misadventures in deregulation, deficit spending, offshoring, and militarism.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=v5S

Care to rephrase?

How I Discovered My Hypersensitivity or Highly Sensitive Personality (HSP)
I first learned about the genetic nature of hypersensitivity by reading Scattered, by Gabor Maté, M.D., a physician and psychotherapist. “People with ADD are hypersensitive,” says Maté. “That is not a fault, it is how they were born. It is their inborn temperament.”

http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/8945.html

Automan Empire says

SoftShell says

Liberals are geneticly hypersensitive to feelings of guilt

Keep thinking what you're thinking, Mr. Lysenko. Belief that acquired characteristics COULD be genetically transmitted (and an outright ban on mendelian theory research) kept Soviet research hopelessly backward well into the 70s.

Maybe modern "Republicans", definitely not "Conservatives"...

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Modern conservatives have embraced Soviet ideologies, because when it comes to choosing between a non-GOP president and a foreign leader, they ally with the foreign power.

Bellingham Bill says

Having the private sector run the 4th branch of the government (aka the Fed) with only notional Congressional and Executive oversight would not have been a Progressive idea.

Sure it was. As usual you mutts refuse to admit that crony capitalism IS government. It was written by a Dem congressman. And it was signed by a Dem Prez. Nope it was Dem all the way.

Bellingham Bill says

A Progressive Republican Congress ratified the 16th Amendment before Wilson took office.

Wilson signed it. And thus began the centralizing of the government.

Bellingham Bill says

As for making the Senate directly elected, that's more democratic but not really "Progressive"

What is the diff?

Either way very damaging, it turned the tyranny of the democracy loose and was antipathetic to the very intent of the framers. Completely oppressive.

Bellingham Bill says

Wilson did have a decent record supporting further trust-busting, anti child-labor laws, the FTC,

Yea what a joke, antitrust is a complete myth. Monopolies DO NOT exist without government.

Child labor laws put more control of the family into the governments hands, meaning that the family could not choose to put the child to work. The little cameo that you mutts like to portray is taken out of context and is an anachronism, when the country was agrarian based kids worked on the farm other wise the family did not eat, in much more dangerous environments.

jazz music says

Yea what a joke, antitrust is a complete myth. Monopolies DO NOT exist without government.

So true. The only thing the Anti-trust law did was exempt the Federal Reserve, American Bar Assoc and American Medical Assoc from anti-trust.

indigenous says

mutts

mutts?

Mutts = ignorance of one's own ignorance (not to be confused with ignorance)

And the inevitble hubris that accompanies this disposition.

Sbh

You're fucked up, maybe see a Dr?

Dbh

Seriously you are projecting, i.e. you can't get a hard on, you are an idiot, and are indigent...

indigenous says

Yea what a joke, antitrust is a complete myth. Monopolies DO NOT exist without government.

Idiotic statement. Corporations don't exist without government, laws don't exist without government, courts don't exist without government so of course monopolies don't exist without government. That's like saying life doesn't exist without air. True but totally meaningless.

Standard Oil used every trick in the book to get around government restrictions, which is how they invented the trust structure, and fought the governments attempts to restrict them tooth and nail. You are saying Standard Oil existed because Rockfeller was colluding with the government? Explain how that works.

indigenous says

Child labor laws put more control of the family into the governments hands, meaning that the family could not choose to put the child to work. The little cameo that you mutts like to portray is taken out of context and is an anachronism, when the country was agrarian based kids worked on the farm other wise the family did not eat, in much more dangerous environments.

Idiotic statement part duex. Child labor laws have never applied to working on the family farm. Are you seriously suggesting that prior to 1938 working in factories or coal mines 70 hours a week was less dangerous than working on a family farm? That brings the concept of ridiculous to an entirely new level. Very few farms were mechanized at all prior to WWII. The danger level was very low, especially compared to most factories where people were working with open exposed machinery 12 hours a day.

A libertarian is someone who hates all laws except the ones that benefit him directly.

bob2356 says

Standard Oil used every trick in the book to get around government restrictions, which is how they invented the trust structure, and fought the governments attempts to restrict them tooth and nail. You are saying Standard Oil existed because Rockfeller was colluding with the government? Explain how that works.

This has been covered extensively by Spyduh and Reality, I'm not going to go through the back and forth thing again on something you are not going to hear anyway.

In a nutshell the market levels out any business/industry quickly as the competition is always keen to supply what is in demand. Standard Oil had an initial advantage because of a lighting oil replacement it invented, kerosene, but by the time legislation had passed, it no longer had an advantage in kerosene.

Any collusion came decades later when Standard Oil was force to " play the game".

The TBTFs do have a monopoly on banking, as they enjoy lower interest rates,
and other perks the other banks do not. And would not have reached the size they are if not for this monopoly. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would be gone if not for the taxpayer largess.

"The four biggest U.S. banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- today have about $7.8 trillion in assets, or about 47 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, up from $6.4 trillion, or 43 percent of GDP, at the time of the crisis in 2008. The six biggest banks, a group that now includes Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, now have $9.6 trillion in assets, or nearly 58 percent of GDP."

bob2356 says

Child labor laws have never applied to working on the family farm.

Not what I said. I'm saying they are comparable in hours and danger, but most of all if they did not work the hours it was a hardship on the family. This is why the farmers had big families back then.

bob2356 says

The danger level was very low

Bullshit they have been automating farms since the mid 1800s.

bob2356 says

A libertarian is someone who hates all laws except the ones that benefit him directly.

Nope just the ones that coerce people to do things that they would not do other wise, which are the ones that take away personal freedom.

indigenous says

This has been covered extensively by Spyduh and Reality, I'm not going to go through the back and forth thing again on something you are not going to hear anyway.

In a nutshell the market levels out any business/industry quickly as the competition is always keen to supply what is in demand. Standard Oil had an initial advantage because of a lighting oil replacement it invented, kerosene, but by the time legislation had passed, it no longer had an advantage in kerosene.

Any collusion came decades later when Standard Oil was force to " play the game".

Nice dodgem. Do you ever bother to look up anything before you type it or does purity of ideology an acceptable substitute for facts in your world? Kerosene was invented sometime before the civil war, around 1840 something if memory serves me correctly. Standard Oil was incorporated in 1870. Standard Oil became a monopoly in spite of the government because they invented an efficient method of manufacturing, transporting, and selling kerosene as well as an efficient corporate structure. What "legislation" are you referring to? The one that broke it up. How exactly did they "play the game" after the breakup? Standard Oil dominated the market for 40 years, that's hardly leveling out the market quickly,

If you don't like Standard Oil, how about discussing some others. IBM was very much a monopoly in the 1950's and 1960's. They had almost as much market share as Standard Oil. Microsoft? US Steel? De Beers? Maybe even Coke since Pepsi went bankrupt a few times in the early days. Any examples of how the government colluded with these?

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Child labor laws have never applied to working on the family farm.

Not what I said. I'm saying they are comparable in hours and danger, but most of all if they did not work the hours it was a hardship on the family. This is why the farmers had big families back then.

bob2356 says

The danger level was very low

Bullshit they have been automating farms since the mid 1800s.

You are delusional. Pre depression and even up till WWII very little equipment was used on farms, especially family farms. Some farms hired in threshing equipment for harvest, really big farms might have had a steam tractor but most of the work on family farms was done with horses. I grew up working summers on a dairy farm and my grandparents just bought a tractor in the mid 50's, but were still using horses till that point. If you really believe that fencing, plowing with horses, threshing with a scythe, shooking, putting up hay with pitchforks, milking cows, sheering sheep etc. etc. is compatible to the danger of working in a typical factory (never mind coal mines) of the era 12 hours a day 5 1/2 days a week you are just plain batshit crazy.

bob2356 says

Nice dodgem.

"The mechanism of predatory exploitation of consumers requires substantial monopoly power that is used to increase prices, thereby reducing the outputs sold. But Standard Oil had no initial market power, with only about 4 percent of the market in 1870. Its output and market share grew as its superior efficiency dramatically lowered its refining costs (by 1897, they were less than one-tenth of their level in 1869), and it passed on the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices for refined oil (which fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897). It never achieved a monopoly (in 1911, the year of the Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf) that would enable it to monopolistically boost consumer prices. So it can hardly be argued seriously that Rockefeller pursued a predatory strategy involving massive losses for decades without achieving the alleged monopoly payoff, which was the source of supposed consumer harm."

"Standard Oil is not the only example of alleged predation to be rejected upon investigation. And that has long been known. Thirty years ago, in an investigation of over 100 federal predation cases, Ronald Koller found no evidence of monopoly created via predatory pricing in the eight decades following the Sherman Act's passage in 1890. Or, as summarized by Thomas DiLorenzo,"

http://mises.org/daily/5274/100-Years-of-Myths-about-Standard-Oil

All "monopolies" are alleged by competitors who cannot compete. They cost a great deal of money to defend and only exist to give jobs to self righteous government mutts. And they deny the benefits of lower pricing to the customer.

bob2356 says

I grew up working summers on a dairy farm and my grandparents just bought a tractor in the mid 50's

I had a similar experience in the 60s and the farms in the area had equipment for harvesting etc with NO horses. Also run by children for very long hours at least at harvest time from sunrise to sundown. This equipment would rival anything in any factory. I leave it up to you to fetch real information to back up your anecdotal stories.

In any case the government should not be making these decisions for families. Which in the case of farming is literally taking food out of the mouths of the farm family.

A further benefit of keeping children from working is that the economy produces workers like Jojo who are "entitled".

sbh says

Yep.

Said the mutt

indigenous says

I had a similar experience in the 60s and the farms in the area had equipment for harvesting etc with NO horses. Also run by children for very long hours at least at harvest time from sunrise to sundown. This equipment would rival anything in any factory. I leave it up to you to fetch real information to back up your anecdotal stories.

In any case the government should not be making these decisions for families. Which in the case of farming is literally taking food out of the mouths of the farm family.

A further benefit of keeping children from working is that the economy produces workers like Jojo who are "entitled".

Not sure how you jumped from WW11 to the 60's to make your point.

The fact is that different parts of the country mechanized their farming practices at different times and speeds. My father began farming 1946 and they had 3 tractors and IH M an H and an old clunker from the late 30's they also had a pair of workhorses but didn’t use them much. He had what was at the time a big mixed grain and livestock operation. on 350 acres. To use those tractors in production today would be hoot.

As Bob said farm mechanization really took off after the war. The country was geared up for industrial production and technology really advanced. The first herbicides which allowed the individual farmer to farm more and more land began to be used as well as the wide spread use of nitrogen fertilizers. So yes of course there was mechanization of farming prior to the War but there was a sea change after the War.

Children have always been used on the farm and still are. Dangerous yes, abuses yes but not even a close call to what pre labor law work was like in factories and mines. Just use logic who would you prefer to entrust a child to; his parents on the farm or some mine or factory owner for whom the child is just another way to make a buck and if hurt was not his problem. We have decided as a society that children should go to school and until they are a certain age need work permits if they are under a certain age, I am good with that.

rdm says

Just use logic who would you prefer to entrust a child to; his parents

Exactly, what parent would send his child to work in a dangerous place, unless they had to to survive? I guarantee you it is a far more horrific for a parent to see his child starve to death.

The government passed minimum wage laws for similar reasons, these just result in unemployment.

Where does the boundary get drawn, for what government should decide and the citizen should decide?

indigenous says

Lets see who started the wars over the past 100 years or so:

WWl Wilson Dem

WWll FDR Dem

Korean Truman Dem

Vietnam War Kennedy/LBJ Dem

Afghanistan Bush R (RINO)

Iraq Bush R (RINO)

I'm thinking the Dems have cost infinetly more than the Rs in this category

You would be wrong for three reasons.

1. Pre-1950s Dems were basically modern day Republicans and pre-1950s Republicans were basically modern day Dems. See The Southern Strategy and the reversal of the two parties.

2. It was not until after WWII that presidents unilaterally waged wars.

3. Winston Churchill, the fat bastard, was far more responsible for America's entry in WWI than Woodrow Wilson.

4. You are neglecting all the unrecognized wars fought in the past 30 years. Since America no longer declares war, it often engages in many covert and smaller wars.

5. It was Reagan who dramatically increased warfare spending.

6. It was Reagan and Bush I who allowed the warfare industry to invent a new boogie man after the cold war ended in order to keep revenue streams flowing.

7. It was Bush II who used a national tragedy to further increase warfare spending while undermining human and civil rights.

So, no, the Republicans are far, far worse on big government spending and national security.

dodgerfanjohn says

There's studies showing that Republicans donate much more money to charitable causes than Democrats do.

And that makes up for?
1. Slavery
2. Segregation
3. Lynching
4. Imprisoning millions of people for bullshit offenses just to ensure that they cannot vote
5. Institutionalize poverty
6. Removing social safety nets and food stamps

The real difference is that Democrats believe that anti-poverty programs and social safety nets should be the function of the state and therefore available to all people rather than the function of a church and available only to people who submit to that church's religion.

SoftShell says

Liberals are geneticly hypersensitive to feelings of guilt rooted from declarations of war too numerous to enumerate. You really cant blame them for feeble attempts at blameshifting..

Once again Shrek shows his inability to distinguish among the terms liberal, leftist, progressive, socialist, communist, and pedophile. They all mean the same thing to him, which is why everything he says is nonsense.

Who's "shrek"??
If you are going to call me by someone else's name, the least you can do is identify him/her....

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Liberals are geneticly hypersensitive to feelings of guilt rooted from declarations of war too numerous to enumerate. You really cant blame them for feeble attempts at blameshifting..

Once again Shrek shows his inability to distinguish among the terms liberal, leftist, progressive, socialist, communist, and pedophile. They all mean the same thing to him, which is why everything he says is nonsense.

Dan8267 says

2. It was not until after WWII that presidents unilaterally waged wars.

Don't the presidents still have something to do with War either way?

Dan8267 says

3. Winston Churchill, the fat bastard, was far more responsible for America's entry in WWI than Woodrow Wilson.

He might of had more to do with WWll than Woodrow Wilson, but WWl?

Dan8267 says

4. You are neglecting all the unrecognized wars fought in the past 30 years. Since America no longer declares war, it often engages in many covert and smaller wars.

Yea I just stuck to the highlights.

Dan8267 says

5. It was Reagan who dramatically increased warfare spending.

Not a terrible idea when your enemy is building nuclear missiles as fast as they can?

Dan8267 says

6. It was Reagan and Bush I who allowed the warfare industry to invent a new boogie man after the cold war ended in order to keep revenue streams flowing.

Fellers that really are trying to kill you are not boogie men

Dan8267 says

7. It was Bush II who used a national tragedy to further increase warfare spending while undermining human and civil rights.

Cepting there were 3000 people killed in one of our biggest cities. But yes he went way too far on this.

Dan8267 says

So, no, the Republicans are far, far worse on big government spending and national security.

Non sequitur, please review the wars started by dems 1 & 2, Korean, Vietnam, vs Afghanistan and Iraq, no comparison the Dems were more destructive.

Not to mention the 2 gifts that keep on giving SS and Medicare.

Nope sorry but the country would have been much better off if no democrat had been elected in the last 100 years.

In your view, a major attack on an american city is not an 'act of war', but a 'national tragedy'??
Jesus christ...I thought we were just fuckin around in here, but you are something else....

Dan8267 says

7. It was Bush II who used a national tragedy to further increase warfare spending while undermining human and civil rights.

Dan8267 says

Once again Shrek shows his inability to distinguish among the terms liberal, leftist, progressive, socialist, communist, and pedophile. They all mean the same thing to him, which is why everything he says is nonsense.

so is it some liberal, leftists, progressives, socialists, communists are pedophiles or is it all liberal, leftists, progressives, socialists, communists are pedophiles?

This is damning evidence....

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Once again Shrek shows his inability to distinguish among the terms liberal, leftist, progressive, socialist, communist, and pedophile. They all mean the same thing to him, which is why everything he says is nonsense.

so is it some liberal, leftists, progressives, socialists, communists are pedophiles or is it all liberal, leftists, progressives, socialists, communists are pedophiles?

rdm says

Not sure how you jumped from WW11 to the 60's to make your point.

Because he can't make a point on the merits. So he chooses to compare 1960's farming with 1920's factories. But his argument is still bullshit. Comparing the teen agers working the relatively short harvest period to children as young as 8 working 52 weeks a year in a factory is bullshit. People don't put children into million dollar harvesters or 300k tractors.

bob2356 says

Because he can't make a point on the merits. So he chooses to compare 1960's farming with 1920's factories. But his argument is still bullshit. Comparing the teen agers working the relatively short harvest period to children as young as 8 working 52 weeks a year in a factory is bullshit. People don't put children into million dollar harvesters or 300k tractors.

I was using my anecdotal experience in the 60s, when the neighbor kid (7) was running the hay baler.

Would these children be better off working in factories or being left in this emaciated condition?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

2. It was not until after WWII that presidents unilaterally waged wars.

Don't the presidents still have something to do with War either way?

It is inaccurate to portray WWI and WWII as wars created by presidents. In contrast, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I and II, and Afghanistan are wars waged by presidents.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

3. Winston Churchill, the fat bastard, was far more responsible for America's entry in WWI than Woodrow Wilson.

He might of had more to do with WWll than Woodrow Wilson, but WWl?

Yes, WWI, not WWII. Churchill is the sole person most responsible for America's entry into WWI as he used American civilians as cannon fodder. He deliberately placed ammunition on civilian vessels carrying Americans in order to draw America into the war. The German U-boat commander, in contrast, did everything possible to disable the Lusitania without sinking it.

If Americans weren't so easily duped, they would have consider Churchill's actions the act of war. Churchill was a bastard who used the lives of American citizens for political gain.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

5. It was Reagan who dramatically increased warfare spending.

Not a terrible idea when your enemy is building nuclear missiles as fast as they can?

MAD is a stupid philosophy and the most likely reason our galaxy wasn't completely colonized by any of the possibly thousands of extra-terrestrial species that could have gained space travel capabilities before man descendant from ape.

indigenous says

Fellers that really are trying to kill you are not boogie men

Our warfare industry created every enemy we have today. We armed Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

7. It was Bush II who used a national tragedy to further increase warfare spending while undermining human and civil rights.

Cepting there were 3000 people killed in one of our biggest cities. But yes he went way too far on this.

Are you one of those people who, 13 years later, still believes that there was ANY connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11? If so, there is no point in discussing history with you. There is a certain level of sanity required to have a productive conversation.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

So, no, the Republicans are far, far worse on big government spending and national security.

Non sequitur,

Social Security is by far the most popular program every carried out by the federal government. Americans overwhelmingly support Social Security

“Fully 74% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats agree that ‘it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.’”

Even if Republicans had both houses of Congress and the White House, they could not repeal Social Security as they would be recalled in mass by their constituents and replaced with politicians who would restore and expand the program. But your point is taken, Republicans would fuck over Americans by taking away Social Security if they could. More reason to never vote Republican.

Nonetheless, the warfare industry has cost America far more than Social Security and produced absolutely nothing. Social Security, on the other hand, has prevented the elderly and the disabled from living in squalor like they did in the 19th century.

SoftShell says

In your view, a major attack on an american city is not an 'act of war', but a 'national tragedy'??

Jesus christ...I thought we were just fuckin around in here, but you are something else....

A laughable Straw Man argument. I never said nor implied that 9/11 was insignificant. However, it was a national tragedy, not an act of war. By definition, only nation-states can perform acts of war. 9/11 was carried out by criminal civilians, not a state. Furthermore, most of those civilians came from Saudi Arabia. None of them had connections to Saddam Hussein. Bush did not wage war against Saudi Arabia even though the mastermind, Osama bin Laden, was from that country and had close ties to the Saudi royal family. So, yes, Bush fucked up.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

2. It was not until after WWII that presidents unilaterally waged wars.

Don't the presidents still have something to do with War either way?

It is inaccurate to portray WWI and WWII as wars created by presidents. In contrast, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I a
nd II, and Afghanistan are wars waged by presidents

Non Sequitur, the prez has final say in matters of war. It is inaccurate to portray this any other way.

Also given the proclivities and legacies of Wilson or FDR it would be illogical to think their actions in matters of war would be any different

Dan8267 says

Yes, WWI, not WWII. Churchill is the sole person most responsible for America's entry into WWI as he used American civilians as cannon fodder. He deliberately placed ammunition on civilian vessels carrying Americans in order to draw America into the war. The German U-boat commander, in contrast, did everything possible to disable the Lusitania without sinking it.

Non Sequitar. You are saying that Churchill, not the prime minister made national strategic policy. MO of the US has always been to provoke war, so as to seem like little bo peek, what seems more plausible is that Wilson instigated the operation, which would be more in alignment with US policy.

Dan8267 says

MAD is a stupid philosophy and the most likely reason our galaxy wasn't completely colonized by any of the possibly thousands of extra-terrestrial species that could have gained space travel capabilities before man descendant from ape.

Don't know it seemed to have worked as it drove the USSR to break apart although not so much in Dr Strangelove. The more likely reason with space invasion is that it would take generations to reach the earth and then return home. What would be the motivation? You know the universe is much bigger than it used to be...

Dan8267 says

Are you one of those people who, 13 years later, still believes that there was ANY connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11? If so, there is no point in discussing history with you. There is a certain level of sanity required to have a productive conversation.

The theory was that Iraq was the breeding ground of terrorism. But it was just a thinly disguised mission to keep the defense contractors busy...

Dan8267 says

Social Security is by far the most popular program every carried out by the federal government. Americans overwhelmingly support Social Security

Shocking, giving away free stuff is popular. AKA the tyranny of democracy.

Dan8267 says

Even if Republicans had both houses of Congress and the White House, they could not repeal Social Security as they would be recalled in mass by their constituents and replaced with politicians who would restore and expand the program. But your point is taken, Republicans would fuck over Americans by taking away Social Security if they could. More reason to never vote Republican

It is a ponzi scheme that will be taken away willy nilly. Do you have any arguments on why the Republicans would do this or is conjecture your idea of an argument?

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, the warfare industry has cost America far more than Social Security and produced absolutely nothing. Social Security, on the other hand, has prevented the elderly and the disabled from living in squalor like they did in the 19th century.

I will not defend the defense industry, agreed. But there are times when it comes in handy like when Japan is attacking you or rag heads are blowing up your tallest buildings. Which could leave the elderly dead. But theoretically the wars end, which is more than I can say for SS. If the money could be invested by the individual it would make a modicum of sense, instead it is squandered on insane spending.

indigenous says

Non Sequitur, the prez has final say in matters of war. It is inaccurate to portray this any other way.

You can repeat "non sequitur" as many times as you like. It doesn't make it true. It is highly relevant if the entire nation is calling for war as in WWI and WWII as oppose to the entire nation calling for peace as in Vietnam. And how Congress behaves did matter a lot during and before WWII, although it's debatable whether or not Congress has any real war powers anymore.

So it is highly disingenuous to say that the president is the only important character in a war, especially the two world wars. It follows highly.

Before a standard of living can be raised it has to have some commerce, it has to have some production, it has to make capital goods.

Manufacturing is preferable to agriculture. If it were not people would not come into factories from the farms, as they have in China and in the US at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The 40 hour work week can only be put in place if the economy produces enough to support a short work week. Otherwise it might be in excess of 100 hours a week. Nobody dictates this, it is just what is required.

A simple thing like light at night cost about 1/2 seconds wages for 1 hours reading light today, in 1950 it was 8 seconds, in 1880 it was 15 minutes (because of kerosene), in 1800 it was 6 hours for a tallow candle. So regular people could not afford a candle.

The point is that children working in a factory was preferable to them working on the farm or the parents would not have done it. That is how the Chinese work force grew so much in the past decade.

So this was a necessity to the people at the turn of the last century, that the children work long hours. It was not some bucolic scene, it was hand to mouth.

When the economy could support child labor laws the politicians passed the laws but that was after the need for children to work had passed. Of course they took credit but as always it had nothing to do with them.

Dan8267 says

You can repeat "non sequitur" as many times as you like.

Good as with you it is often...

Dan8267 says

It is highly relevant if the entire nation is calling for war as in WWI and WWII as oppose to the entire nation calling for peace as in Vietnam.

I'm sure you believe that but that dismisses the idea that the presidents look for an excuse for war and provoke the enemy, so as to have an excuse.

Dan8267 says

So it is highly disingenuous to say that the president is the only important character in a war, especially the two world wars.

Au Contraire it highly disingenuous to say otherwise. The prez signs off or he don't. All the while he manufacturers a case on why we should. The Lusitania, embargoes on Japan, totally made up story at the gulf of Tonkin, Fort Sumter, WMDs, etc.

indigenous says

Non Sequitar. You are saying that Churchill,

Read up on Churchill's role in WWI. I can't educate you on everything, especially when you're resisting like a mule. The knowledge is commonplace, read damn it and learn for yourself.

indigenous says

What would be the motivation?

Economic. A civilization starting at one side of the galaxy traveling at a mere 1% of the speed of light with continuous migrations from areas of higher population to lower population would colonize the entire galaxy in a mere 10 million years, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

The colonization would not have to be deliberate or planned.

indigenous says

Shocking, giving away free stuff is popular.

Social Security is hardly giving away free stuff. It's forced savings coupled with an insurance plan that protects people against outliving their savings.

But as I said, the fact that Republicans would gut this program is a good enough reason for those 80% of Americans to never vote Republican again.

indigenous says

It is a ponzi scheme that will be taken away willy nilly. Do you have any arguments on why the Republicans would do this or is conjecture your idea of an argument?

Your statement answers the question that follows it.

indigenous says

But there are times when it comes in handy like when Japan is attacking you or rag heads are blowing up your tallest buildings. Which could leave the elderly dead.

Pollution is a far greater threat to your life than terrorism is. Recently 7,500 gallons of crude 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol was released into the drinking water of West Virginians. This poison can cause death and birth defects. Had a terrorist organization done this act, we would be at war with some random nation. But since a corporation did it, our government ignores the act.

If you're going to be scared of things, be scared of the right things. 9/11 could have been prevented simply by locking the cabin door and letting passengers know they would not be legally prosecuted for taking down a hijacker. Polluting corporations are a far greater threat to your life. Be scared of the things most likely to kill you: polluters.

Dan8267 says

Read up on Churchill's role in WWI. I can't educate you on everything, especially when you're resisting like a mule. The knowledge is commonplace, read damn it and learn for yourself

You're not qualified to patronize me, don't flatter yourself.

Dan8267 says

Social Security is hardly giving away free stuff. It's forced savings coupled with an insurance plan that protects people against outliving their savings.

But as I said, the fact that Republicans would gut this program is a good enough reason for those 80% of Americans to never vote Republican again.

Bullshit, this is why we have 60-150 trillion of unfunded liabilities. Where do you get this shit?

Dan8267 says

Pollution is a far greater threat to your life than terrorism is. Recently 7,500 gallons of crude 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol was released into the drinking water of West Virginians. This poison can cause death and birth defects. Had a terrorist organization done this act, we would be at war with some random nation. But since a corporation did it, our government ignores the act.

Yea yea there is something everyday.

Dan8267 says

Be scared of the things most likely to kill you: polluters.

The only thing that scares me is that you are allowed to vote.