patrick.net

I can't speak for republicans, and I'm no afraid of ppaca

I do however, have a healthy fear, of contracting whatever it is that has infected the thoughtless dolts the likes of marcus and homeboy, that has turned them into walking dead state controlled propaganda drones.

curious2 says

The problem that Republicans have is substantive, not stylistic, but you refuse
to see it, you prefer to dismiss whatever issues you don't care about as
"girly," it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you.

In this very thread, I listed a number of key national issues where I believe the majority of the US population supports the Republican approach. Look at the list of "important issues" polled by Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

The Democrat girly wedge issues of guns, gays, race and abortion are pretty far down the list. Yet, what has Obama and the Democrats spent most of the last 5 years on?

What were the main themes Obama and the Democrats campaigned on in 2012? Life of Julia? Romney's Dog? Binders full of women? 47%

Of course the Democrats win on style. They have a balkanized constituency of various "victim groups" and they have everyone in the Media, Hollywood and Academia on their side pushing these wedge issues so they don't have to confront the more important issues that faces the MAJORITY of this country.

socal2, you're boring me to sleep, wake me when Republicans have better substantive policies for "the MAJORITY" (hint: more tax cuts for the 1% won't work, you can't balance the budget simply by cutting taxes), and when they're ready to apologize for insulting so many people that what you call "victim groups" add up to a majority.

errc says

whatever it is that has infected the thoughtless dolts the likes of marcus and homeboy, that has turned them into walking dead state controlled propaganda drones.

In the case of homefool, it's his addiction to SSRIs that he insists are "not habit forming," parroting the TV ad claims that stopped after overwhelming evidence proved physical dependence. That probably scares Republicans about Obamacare too: there's too much money in making more people dependent on toxic pills that they can't even afford, and votes in it too because once they're hooked they have to vote for more subsidies. In the case of marcus, it's early religious programming and an emotional temperament that elevates feeling above reason, the latter being particularly ironic in someone who claims to be a math teacher.

curious2 says

socal2, you're boring me to sleep, wake me when Republicans have better
substantive policies for "the MAJORITY" (and no, more tax cuts for the 1% don't
work, you can't balance a budget simply by cutting taxes),

As I pointed out earlier. The MAJORITY of the country agree with Republicans on these issues.

Obama and the Democrats are against the MAJORITY of Americans on these issues. So they have to run on divisive cultural/social issues instead of dealing with the hard and important stuff that affects everybody.

- Pension reform?
- Education reform? (Getting unions out of education and providing our kids school choice)
- Lower taxes?
- Smaller welfare state?
- Immigration enforcement - border security first before amnesty?
- Domestic energy production?
- Mild restrictions on abortion (i.e. 20 weeks to match most of the civilized world)?

socal2 says

Mild restrictions on abortion (i.e. 20 weeks to match most of the civilized world)?

You're becoming even more of a drone than the opposite partisans you claim to disagree with. I linked above to the Republicans' actual platform, you reply by copying and pasting your selective revision. The same with the other issues, btw. Your family and friends might let you get away with that if they want to agree with you (or at least keep the peace at dinner), but it doesn't work elsewhere, especially online where people can see the actual platform for themselves. You're committed to "your team" and you want to believe they share your views, but they don't, and most people can see through it, pity you can't. Without Obamacare, the Republicans have nothing to campaign on, and that should scare them into actually changing their other positions, but they don't want to accept that fact, and you're enabling their denial, which isn't helping your team actually.

As if posting the party planks trumps actual legislation? In terms of my partial list, look at all of the ACTIONS Republicans are taking to try and support the will of the majority of the people.

- Which party actually reformed pensions? Remember Walker in Wisconsin? Remember Christie in New Jersey?
- Which party is trying to reform education and get unions out? Again, remember Wisconsin? How about Mitch Daniels in Indiana? How many Republican Governors are supporting vouchers and minimum standards?
- Which party wants lower taxes? No brainer
- Which party wants smaller government and welfare state? Seen any of the House budgets?
- Which party is fighting for border security before amnesty? What is the House doing right now?
- Which party favors domestic energy? Who is blocking Keystone and drilling on Federal lands?
- Which party is imposing mild reforms to abortion on demand? See Texas.

Call me crazy, but I think actual Republican legislation seems to be a better gauge of Republican policies instead of proposed policy planks or whatever war on "insert victim group here" cooked up by MSNBC or OFA.

socal2 says

Call me crazy....

I was refraining, but since you insist, it's true. If the Republicans are not committed to the planks of their losing platform, then let them apologize, change their platform and try again. They should be asking forgiveness, but instead you're saying something like: "when we campaign, it's only the liquor talking, or the religious fanaticism, don't pay any attention to what we say." That doesn't work. If you want forgiveness for insulting people, you have to apologize and stop doing the thing that you apologized for, you can't continue without apology and expect people simply to ignore it and vote for you anyway.

socal2 says

What is the House doing right now?

Probably voting to repeal Obamacare, which can't be repealed in this Congress because the Republicans lost the 2012 election by campaigning on the platform that you disingenuously revise and then unconvincingly de-emphasize. Earlier in the year, they were borrowing and spending millions of dollars in a futile effort to stop gay couples from getting married, which is yet another issue where Republicans are not even trying to help "the MAJORITY", in fact a majority support marriage equality. The Republicans have become less like a serious national political party and more like a tent full of faith-healers trying to stage a revival. The only reason they even control the House is because of gerrymandering, most voters chose Democrats in 2012.

curious2 says

Earlier in the year, they were borrowing and spending millions of dollars in a
futile effort to stop gay couples from getting married, which is yet another
issue where Republicans are not even trying to help "the MAJORITY," in fact a
majority support marriage equality.

See - there is another one of those "important issues" that ranks about dead last in the Gallup polls as priorities. That's all you got......girly social wedge issues.

No one cares about Gay Marriage except a vocal segment of our pop culture in Hollywood. Obama and Hillary were against Gay Marriage just a few years ago. That is how quick our cultural norms can change when Hollywood relentellessly pushes their agenda down our throats.

You cite polls favoring gay marriage, but in virtually every State where it is put up to an actual vote (even California) it goes down in flames. So they have to resort to the courts to get around the will of the people.

IRT - Republican plank. Just read your link. Where does it say that they would ban all abortions even in cases of incest and rape? You are just making it up.

Just amazes me how people like you who presumably don't want any restrictions on abortions on demand including late term abortions really think you have science or history on your side. The Democrats hold the most extreme views on this issue and can't even begin to discuss the details of what they are advocating - so they have to hide their positions behind fluffy sounding euphemisms like "pro-choice" or "women's health".

All style - no substance.

socal2 says

there is another one of those "important issues" that ranks about dead last in the Gallup polls as priorities.

So why did the Republican House borrow and spend millions of dollars waging a futile court battle to oppose "the will of the people"?

socal2 says

You cite polls favoring gay marriage, but in virtually every State where it is put up to an actual vote (even California) it goes down in flames.

In all four states where the issue appeared on the November ballot, voters supported it or at least didn't oppose it. California elected Democrats, who campaigned in favor as well; even California's most recent Republican gubernatorial nominee, who campaigned against it and lost, now supports it. If the issue isn't important, why don't Republicans apologize, adopt the will of the people, and move on?

My bad - a couple very liberal states finally voted for gay marriage in 2012. Yet the majority of States in our country have voted against it or ammended their state constitutions to prevent liberal judges from legalizing it. And you wonder why Republicans would stand with the majority of the people on this issue?

Republicans have been consistently against the caveman practice of abortion even when it was much more popular in the past when people were more ignorant of science and biology.

With polls showing increased pro-life sentitment with the younger generation, do you really think the Republican's incremental effort to restrict abortion has been futile?

socal2 says

And you wonder why Republicans would stand with the majority of the people on this issue?

No, I asked why Republicans insist on standing against the majority of the people. Please try again, if you're an actual thinking human and not a partisan drone.

curious2 says

No, I asked
why Republicans insist on standing against the majority of the
people. Please try again, if you're an actual thinking human and not a
partisan drone.

As I pointed out with the abortion example, the Republicans are putting their principles ahead of fickle pop culture in the case of gay mariage. Very few cultural issues have changed so quickly as they did for gay marriage. I think attitudes may change after a few decades of data etc.

I still believe that Republicans and the majority of Americans are on the same side of the top (and more important) issues polled in the Gallup link I provided earlier.

For instance, the majority are clearly against the implementation of Obamacare. Why are Obama (and you?) standing in the way of the majority of the people?

socal2 says

(and you?) standing in the way of the majority of the people?

You and the Republicans are the ones standing in the way of a majority of the people on issues that you call "girly". Where am I standing in the way of a majority of the people? Without the power to gerrymander House districts, how would I even do that?

curious2 says

Where am I standing in the way of a majority of the people?

Just on the important things that affect all of us in terms of the economy and most private and personal decisions about our healthcare.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/obamacare-approval_n_3511401.html

socal2 says

curious2 says

Where am I standing in the way of a majority of the people?

Just on the important things that affect all of us in terms of the economy and most private and personal decisions about our healthcare.

You've made a seriously false accusation there - please check my comment history and find evidence to support it, or apologize and retract it. Please don't expect me to waste more of my time on you until you've completed that.

socal2 says

- Which party actually reformed pensions?

Brown in California. Finally, now that we have a dem. governor

socal2 says

- Which party wants lower taxes?

That's how Obama won in 2008. But he made it for everyone, not just the top tiers. The only tax increase under Obama is on the end of the Bush cuts which was supposed to occur in 2010, but which Obama agreeed to postpone to 2012.

socal2 says

- Which party is trying to reform education and get unions out?

Yeah, because everyone knows that unions are the problem with education, and it's not about lower socio economic culture or the gap between the haves and the have nots.

I know what we should do. Let's compare our education stats to countries where not everyone s expected to be on a track that is college bound.

Also, let's lie about how much worse public schools are in the US now than they were 50 years ago.

LEt's make teaching a highly respected profession like it is in some countries that do so much better than we do, and lets compensate them well, but first lets kill the teachers unions.

Also let's take examples of the highest compensated teachers in the country, in the suburbs of New York or Chicago, and hold them up as examples of how teachers nationwidewide who make an average pay of about 50K (not that much in 2013) are so grossly over paid.

Damn unions.

In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:

"To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

Baldwin (D-WI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bennett (D-CO)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Coons (D-DE)

Cowan (D-MA)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hirono (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kaine (D-VA)

King (I-ME)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schatz (D-HI)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Udall (D-CO)

Udall (D-NM)

Warner (D-VA)

Warren (D-MA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Please send this to Everyone

Did you notice all were Democrats

This is why republican voters mistrust democrats. Because they have no problem voting away the rights of the people to satisfy ideological concerns. That's why they keep voting for a party which champions rich people's rights to live virtually tax free and which sells out jobs to every cut-rate country in the Asian hemisphere. It's the rights issue with some people. They hate to lose them because some fuck with a JD and a hate-on for independence wants to lock them up for doing what's been legal for 220 years in this country.

Demoncrats will never understand this, however. If they'd drop their rights-hating agenda, I'd switch parties. But they are in gay-love with bringing George Orwell's "1984" to reality in our lifetimes. SO fuck em.

Quigley says

If they'd drop their rights-hating agenda, I'd switch parties.

People in each major party say that about the other. The pattern is deliberate: divide & misrule. It's a reason to consider independent parties, though those always lose.

Sounds like you have a clear understanding of what the treat y is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

http://allafrica.com/stories/201308120866.html

http://www.rollcall.com/news/send_the_arms_trade_treaty_to_the_senate_commentary-226498-1.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/03/arms-trade-treaty-united-nations/2386271/

Yes, Quigley, we really need more gun violence. There just isn't enough of it. Thank god for the republicans.

Who am i believe ? Senator Murphy's commentary where he says this:

Representatives from countries all over the world, including the United States, voted at the United Nations in April to do just that — create an international treaty to establish basic rules and procedures governing the cross-border flow of weapons and to close the loopholes that allow irresponsible arms brokers to operate outside the international regulatory system. Now the treaty has to be signed by President Barack Obama and ratified by the U.S. Senate.
The goal of the Arms Trade Treaty is to prevent weapons from reaching the hands of warlords and human rights abusers; it does not interfere one bit with domestic arms sales or legitimate international trade.

Or should I believe the paranoid fantasies of right wing fringe wackos who think all these countries are signing this as a conspiracy to help the liberal commie shadow government of the US take away everyone's guns.

Quigley says

Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

"give your rights to the UN"

good one Quigley.

Agenda 21 rolling along

More...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/tell-the-truth-about-the-arms-trade-treaty.html?_r=0

http://rt.com/usa/nra-un-ban-arms-trade-treaty-us-380/

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/nra-must-drop-its-campaign-of-lies-against-un-global-arms-trade-treaty

Kind of amazing that in 2013, it's still the wild west in much of the world, and that we don't already have this.

The A.T.T. would help prevent the irresponsible and illegal transfer of conventional arms to commit violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. It would stop unscrupulous arms dealers from operating with impunity. It would provide at least some transparency and accountability in the arms trade. And it would establish common international standards for the trade in conventional arms — rules of the game, essentially — that countries must incorporate into national control systems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/tell-the-truth-about-the-arms-trade-treaty.html?_r=0

Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners’ rights. It would do nothing of the kind.

The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms” within its territory. The treaty’s preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.

Homeboy says

Yes, Quigley, we really need more gun violence. There just isn't enough of it. Thank god for the republicans.

Yep, all these thugs in inner cities who are responsible for the lion share of violence in this country are card-carrying Republicans.

marcus says

The treaty’s preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.

Self-defense is conspicuously absent from this "specific reference".

marcus says

Brown in California. Finally, now that we have a dem. governor

Huh?

Did Moonbeam intervene in the Stockton and San Bernardino bankruptcies or something? Is LA or San Jose suddenly flush with cash and have their pension liabilities fixed?

Last I checked, Stocton and San Bernardino are still going through bankruptcy and everyone is getting screwed from the taxpayer with higher taxes and reduced services to the bond holders losing over 60% of their investment - while Stockton is arguing that the pensioners shouldn't have to give anything up to save the City they helped bankrupt.

IRT teachers. The US ranks between #1 to #3 in the world on spending per pupil. Poorer communities with high minority populations often get more money per pupil than the national average. The average US teacher is paid more than other OECD countries.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html

Where does all that money go if not to teachers, union dues, school books and buildings? Administrators?

Are American kids uniquely more stupid than the rest of the planet where we need to spend so much more to educate them?

marcus says

LEt's make teaching a highly respected profession like it is in some countries
that do so much better than we do, and lets compensate them well, but first lets
kill the teachers unions.

What planet do you live on? Of course teachers are a respected profession in the US and they are well compensated for working 2/3 of the year. US teachers make more on average than teachers in other OECD countries.

"The average first-year high school teacher in the United States earns about $38,000. OECD nations pay their comparable educators just more than $31,000."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html

Just sick and tired of teachers deflecting ANY blame for the terrible education results we get for the money we spend.

Also tired of teachers claiming they live in poverty when many have fat pensions that require no personal contribution.

socal2 says

No one cares about Gay Marriage except a vocal segment of our pop culture in Hollywood.

That's bullshit. In 30-40 years the issue of gay rights will be looked at in the same way civil rights are today. Those who were opposed will look like fools. Everyone in the US should care about this issue because its about the rights of others and if there are those who think that not all should have the same rights, then they are clearly in defiance of the US constitution.

edvard2 says

That's bullshit. In 30-40 years the issue of gay rights will be looked at in
the same way civil rights are today. Those who were opposed will look like
fools. Everyone in the US should care about this issue because its about the
rights of others and if there are those who think that not all should have the
same rights, then they are clearly in defiance of the US constitution.

So Obama and Hillary were "fools" for being against gay marriage a year ago?

Polygamy was cool in parts of the West a long time ago. It's still cool in many primitive cultures in the Middle East and Africa. Are we fools now for not accepting Polygamy in our culture? Do we owe the Mormons a big apology?

Libs are real keen on thinking they can tinker with our culture and traditional family structure with no harm to civilization. Wasn't too long ago that Libs were telling us that a "good" single mother was just as good as a 2 parent household to raise children as long as they got government assistance or assistance from an extended family.

Now the child illegitimacy rates have SKYROCKETED in a few short decades creating massive social dysfunction and a generation born into guaranteed poverty.

Great work!

socal2 says

Libs are real keen on thinking they can tinker with our culture and traditional family structure with no harm to civilization. Wasn't too long ago that Libs were telling us that a "good" single mother was just as good as a 2 parent household to raise children as long as they got government assistance or assistance from an extended family.

That sort of rhetoric was used as a lame counter-argument all during the debate on gay marriage. Clearly that did not work, and those who held those ideas lost. And they will continue to lose. So keep arguing. You have no argument to make because the choice was made. Gay rights are a fact of life now and time marches on....

You don't think the culture can shift again as it is currently doing on abortion? We have virtually no longterm data on the benefits/detriments of same sex couples raising children. Give it 10-20 years and see where we are. Especially when more and more private groups and churches are forced to accomodate these alternative sexual lifestyles.

All we have had in the last 10-15 years is a relentless marketing campaign by Hollywood to change our culture to be inclusive to a tiny percentage of the population that have physical attractions to the same sex.

It is mentally much easier to simply say "what's the harm"? Some people want it, lets just give it to them.

Since I believe the only interest the government has in the marriage business is to help foster stable families to create and raise future tax payers to fund our entitlement Ponzi Schemes, I don't see why the government needs to change the definition of marriage for non-procreative couples.

I'm all for civil unions and giving gay couples equal benefits in terms of leaving their estates to each other etc. I think monogomy is a safer and more stable bonding arrangement for everyone, so we should make it easier for gay couples to stick together.

But I also think that all things being equal, it is obviously preferable for a heterosexual couple to raise children than gay couples. If you are State adoption agency, who would you adopt a child to if everything else is equal in terms of loving couple, education, finances, location etc.?

Anyway - you are proving my point how Democrats have been successful in diverting attention away from the important issues that affect the majority to focus on what (2-3%) of the population by playing on identy politics and wedge issues. Is gay marriage going to be a big issue in 2014-16?

socal2 says

The average US teacher is paid more than other OECD countries

I don't know about that. We spend very close to the same per student. SOmetimes more sometimes less. But we spend a lot more on testing, consultants and other BS. THe money doesn't all go to the teachers and the schools. As a high school teacher with 200 students, it's like having 40 students all day. If the govt is paying $9000 + per students for 40 students, that's about 400K. How much do I and my greedy teachers union get of that ?

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system – more than any other nation covered in the report.

That sum was slightly higher than some developed countries and it far surpassed others. Switzerland's total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.

LAUSD is in the $9 - 10K level, right at the average for OECD countries.

No our kids aren't any more difficult to educate. But we don't track a big number of kids for non-college careers at a young age. So those international tests are sometimes comparing apples with oranges.

socal2 says

We have virtually no longterm data on the benefits/detriments of same sex couples raising children

Um, wrong.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/parenting/goldberg-smith-jpf-jul-2013/

socal2 says

Now the child illegitimacy rates have SKYROCKETED in a few short decades creating massive social dysfunction and a generation born into guaranteed poverty.

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

socal2 says

But I also think that all things being equal, it is obviously preferable for a heterosexual couple to raise children than gay couples. If you are State adoption agency, who would you adopt a child to if everything else is equal in terms of loving couple, education, finances, location etc.?

You have no point. I know plenty of same-sex couples who are raising children and doing so a whole hell of a lot better than some of the straight couples I grew up around. You lost this argument a long time ago. So no- it isn't "Obvious" that it is preferable for straight couples to raise children than gay couples.

To end this argument once and for all, all you have to do is answer a very simple question: Do you support the Constitution of the United States of America? Its really that simple.

Well I'm sure they have their reason, and I'm sure at the end of the day, it will protect us all from John Boehner.

Love
You're average Obama voter...

From Marcus' linked Wikipedia article on the arms treaty:

"On 12 July 2012, the United States issued a statement condemning the selection of Iran to serve as vice president of the conference. The statement called the move "outrageous" and noted that Iran is under Security Council sanctions for weapons proliferation"

So this vaunted international organization that will be protecting the rights and security of citizens worldwide has selected IRAN to be the Vice President of itself. And you are willing to hand over any control at all to these people? Outrageous is certainly the word, and I'd apply it to the level of stupidity needed to swallow the lie that this arms treaty will have no domestic affect on the rights and privileges of citizens. It's what you call a first step, a foot in the door, making the next treaty easier to accomplish by our crooked legislature and our puppet POTUS.
And if countries like Iran will be making decisions on which groups of people can get guns for self defense, this will be a major step backward for world security. This arms treaty council will effectively pick the winners and losers of every political conflict worldwide, simply by restricting arms to the side they want to see fail. So we will see more tyrants and less democracy in the world.
Awesome sauce.

Homeboy says

socal2 says

Now the child illegitimacy rates have SKYROCKETED in a few short decades creating massive social dysfunction and a generation born into guaranteed poverty.

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

See? I believe socal has made his point. People like you always try to bring everything around to gay marriage. Thhhhhuper!