 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 20
|
|
16
|
Political Discussions / United States / campaign finances
|
on: June 21, 2008, 10:16:32 AM
|
|
It interests me that Obama's decision to opt-out of (McCain's) public campaign funding is not discussed here, I'd like to fix that.
I think this is a strong indicator that people are interested in the man and not the party or the ideas. The loopholes I'm aware of in public finances allow for limitless money to be applied uncoordinatedly to any issue, but what Obama is (really really) good at is getting a lot of people to give money to him personally.
I hear Obama says that because of the large numbers of donors he is not as at risk to special interests, and while I don't believe he's in someone's pocket I'd be interested in the breakdown of where the 1/4 billion he's collected has come from, if anyone has the info laying around.
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: polygamist marriage
|
on: June 19, 2008, 01:33:04 PM
|
My position is simply that consenting adults should be allowed to enter any form of marriage that they wish. A narrow definition of marriage is just another example of the State imposing its own morality on people, which is overstepping the mark in my opinion. Well, considering the state is the front man for the people I'm not sure I follow. The state has morality in other places without dispute, how does a line form here? Either the state should offer marriage to anyone who wants it, or it should not offer marriage to anyone.
As long as they meet certain requirements, like age, species and separate immediate families? I don't really understand why government is dealing in marriage, but if we allow a foot in the door I don't get where else we should stop it. Since bigamy is illegal, though there remain many living in polygamous families such as those in TX, AZ and UT, specifically among those who follow Mormon beliefs even though illegal, how many with single mothers, though the father is hardly absent, are collecting AFDC. Is this true? I thought that required some sort of oversight and I'd figure polygamists would like to avoid attention. That is very interesting. But I'm not sure what that means, so some people are scamming us, I understand that happens with a lot of programs and I'd bet pretty hard that polygamists don't account for 1% of AFDC fraud. Though I'm not sure how one would get an objective estimate of it. In many cultures, primarily outside western ones, polygamy is still the norm. And even in some where it is banned, it is quite acceptable for
some to have a "second" wife though they are never officially married. Hardly, unusual as i learned during the years I lived as a family member of a military member in Japan.
ok. I've heard of such things, but they way other people's deal with things isn't a precedent I'd really count on. Either the state should offer marriage to anyone who wants it, or it should not offer marriage to anyone. States "offer" marriage? You continue to expose yourself. I hope you mean something more clever than god makes marriages. Marriage licenses existing and judges doing weddings is what's being discussed. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Political Discussions / United States / polygamist marriage
|
on: June 19, 2008, 12:01:23 PM
|
|
I apologize for derailing the discussion of the other thread, but I'm curious about several posted views on the issue.
Cass has posted it is illegal as bigamy, which is true, but isn't it as much a personal issue as other non-traditional arrangements? So far as I know the lobby for polygamist rights isn't very powerful, but I don't understand the difference between this and gay marriage as far as the aclu is concerned.
CharlesMartel posted a desire to add several women to his marriage and seems to suggest it may be bad for children. Which I don't really understand how to reconcile.
Iamme and Abraxas seem to offer the name and legal protections of marriage to any people desiring it, which I'm not sure I understand. Is this an intentional shaping of society like a super slowmo Cultural Revolution, is it disinterest, or do I miss the point entirely?
I by no means mean to limit the discussion to these posters or views, I'd appreciate any insight.
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Get to Know Obama
|
on: June 18, 2008, 06:55:00 AM
|
|
Some one who is pragmatic can really only prove that to me with an inconsistent record. This is something Obama looks to have avoided.
"cure health care inflation" -- what does that mean? I thought he was trying to increase people's use of medicine.
This is a nice thing for him to say, I'm not sure I believe it, but at least he's talking about why I don't like him.
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Communists in public schools
|
on: June 17, 2008, 12:53:06 PM
|
|
I didn't know people still checked under their beds for communists. I thought the terrorists pushed them out.
But yeah commies were hunted here I don't think we had death squads but a lot of people lost their livelihood. There was real fear that the USSR would try to win by propaganda and corrupting our youth (and bodily essences) or any number of sinister plots.
It does kinda strike at freedom of speech, but it was national security, and with how the game was played in eastern europe and germany I'm not sure I disagree. I'm not sure I'd respect that argument for the current situation, communists countries aren't dangerous that way anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban
|
on: June 17, 2008, 12:09:07 PM
|
While the State continues to offer marriage it must offer marriage to all adult couples. It is not the State's job to discriminate. Do you draw a line at polygamy? I agree the state shouldn't be in the marriage business, but I think that if the state has the power to shape culture (fighting racism homophobia) it should be allowed to use that power to shape into something rather than only banning practices. |
|
|
|
|
23
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: The Global Bell Curve
|
on: June 17, 2008, 09:17:44 AM
|
|
I understand IQ correlates well with education despite affirmative action. I'd think that would put IQ as a genetic attribute in question. If the IQ test isn't testing what we're talking about the conclusions can't be trusted.
It's interesting that the countries mentioned all have similar racial hierarchies despite different immigration patterns, and the rags to riches of several Asian ethnicities can be attributed to genetic intelligence, but I think culture is at least as plausible an explanation without a good test for future success that is education independent.
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
Political Discussions / Europe and Asia / Re: Ireland rejects EU consitution
|
on: June 16, 2008, 06:41:25 AM
|
But it seems difficult to understand. Ireland has received a lot of money from Europe, and perhaps that might be one reason, among others, of the wealthy Irish economy.
Ireland has received €56 billion in structural funding from the EU since 1973.
I guess we all agree regarding this point. It is a lot of money, so IMO we must give something in exchange in order to be fair.
Ireland is the second richest country in Europe due, among other reasons, to a special tax system, that has forced many entreprise to move to Ireland because of these benefits on taxes.......I'm not Irish and I don't know how things are going over there, but I'm Spanish and I know for sure what Europe has given us and what we've done with that economic and fiscal aid. My country is better than what it used to be.We've received a lot of money too and our country has grown better in infraestructures, but now we are 27 countries and it's our turn to help others in Europe who are in a worst position than we are.
I mean, since Google set its Europe headquater in Ireland, the US internet company has saved 100 million $...
Do ut des
Saludos
thwarting the spamfilter. I'm not well versed on the EU or Ireland, but I do have a thought and a half. Is the leadership, or whomever normally approves treaties really behind this development in the EU? Complicated things put to a popular vote almost always fail where I'm from. If my leadership didn't want some law, but didn't want to say that I'd expect something similar to this. Also I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that a democracy is about following leaders. |
|
|
|
|
27
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: John McCain, Fiscal Terrorist
|
on: June 12, 2008, 11:34:40 AM
|
|
I understand that a lot of law making is compromise between parties or faction in parties, and I'd think every use of a line item veto would go against the spirit of those compromises, one side changing the deal after it's been agreed on.
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban
|
on: June 11, 2008, 01:51:48 PM
|
|
I haven't the least problem with people who care to call any relationship they want 'marriage', based on whatever theory they care to follow, never have never will. It is in attempting to foist their personal views on me, and claiming privileges they are not entitled to that one will find my disagreement. A factor that changes public policy to give special privileges to a minority is clearly what is practiced by um... whatdoyoucallems and er... I lost my trian of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
Political Discussions / Middle East / Re: Balance Of "Power"? Nuclear For Saudis, But Not For Iran?
|
on: June 11, 2008, 08:44:58 AM
|
|
I'm unclear on why one needs to hit a particular brick with a weapon that destroys cities. I'm also under the impression that we are not giving away nuclear weapons, we are giving away knowledge that a cleaver group of people with time and resources can use to make nuclear weapons. And I suggest that since Iranians have been working longer with nuclear physics they are a reasonable bet to come up with a usable nuke first.
My other thoughts center on the strength of American observation and retaliatory capabilities. Why should we give the Saudis a dangerous weapon that we can use on their behalf at least as well as they could?
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Bush's Legacy
|
on: June 11, 2008, 08:17:11 AM
|
Has he greatly altered the Judiciary by the appointments of Alito and Roberts? Yes but that alteration in the balance of views will be undone as president Obama will no doubt appoint one maybe two justices durring his administation. I thought the buzz of retirement was around three liberal judges, with the one Ford picked maybe going before the election. I'm curious why expansion of executive power has not been mentioned. Homeland security, the patriot act, executive privilege, wire taps on americans. These are the kind of thing that change the nature of society, every time he runs roughshod over legislative objections or law he is setting precedent for future presidents to do likewise. |
|
|
|
|
