Server Help

Trash Talk - ONE ring to rule them all...
K' - Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:59 am
Post subject: ONE ring to rule them all...


Keep in mind I have a sadistic cynic unique most-twisted sense of humor.
The Apache - Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:14 am
Post subject:
yes you most certainly do...
Animate Dreams - Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:24 pm
Post subject:
Wow, that took me a while.
LearJett+ - Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:06 pm
Post subject:
i don't get it.
Assassin2684 - Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:23 pm
Post subject:
Not funny.
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:30 pm
Post subject:
Yea, I would rather see welfare go, rather then poverty it's self.
Bak - Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:36 pm
Post subject:
why's that blah-er?
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:45 pm
Post subject:
Bak wrote:
why's that blah-er?

Hmmm... Let's see.
Most people make more money off of welfare, then actually working. It takes the hard working peoples money, and gives it to the lazy ass white trash. I'm pretty sure, that if we got rid of welfare, then we would have less unemployed people, because then they don't have a source for money, so they go out and get a job for once, and then we have less unemployed people.
If you can't go out and get a job, in the US, then you deserve to be poor, because your obviously lazy. My dad recently lost his job, because our family business went down, and he's only a excavator, and he's had over hundreds of job offers in the past week, willing to anything to get him to join them. And he doesnt even have a degree, nor is her certified.

As for other third world countries that are poor, well I feel bad for them. And we need to help that, but we are having problems of our own, with losing most of our income to China and other places.

But I also think if we get off welfare, then maybe we'll have more people wanting work, meaning that wages can be lower, so the price of a dollar bill goes back up, and then we have more companies that will make more here, then over in China. But I don't know if that would be correct.

Probably better school districts, along with nation wide taxing for schools (for a more stable, even system), would probably make a bigger difference.

As for our government themselves, have you seen there retirement benefits?!?!?!? They draw in more then most people make, just because they were a senator or something for a few years.....
Quan Chi2 - Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm
Post subject:
There are a ton of people on welfare in my neigborhood. They stand on the corner and smoke weed. There is a postive and a negative:

Postive: These people have kids and thier kids aren't doing that bad.

Negative: These people are lazy. Too many of them are getting by way too easy while people are busting thier asses working.

But I wouldn't really know. Im 15 and haven't had a job since I was born. Just school.
Muskrat - Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:46 pm
Post subject:
You've got to get the poor some concessions, how will you keep them satisfied? It's not like the old days when they were too uneducated to leave the manor.

Some ppl are just asking for riots. :\


That's a cool ring design btw, I wish I'd seen that when I had the materials to make that stuff. Jewelrymakingclass2win.
Quan Chi2 - Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:52 pm
Post subject:
K, no offense, but you'd be called a spammer if you posted things like this on my forum.
Doc Flabby - Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:45 am
Post subject:
The problem is not welfere pays too much. It is the minimum wage is too low. Removing benefits is not a good idea. People who choose not to work or cannot find work are unlikly to work and get jobs if you remove there benfits. They are more likly to steal.

The miminum wage for and adult over 22 is £5.05 an hour = $9.51 an hour.

thats almost double the us minium wage of $5.15 an hour.

In the uk we have free world class health care for all. If people are healthy they are more likly to want to work.
The Apache - Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:46 pm
Post subject:
lol i love you Bak.
SamHughes - Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Post subject:
Doc Flabby wrote:
The problem is not welfere pays too much. It is the minimum wage is too low.


Really? In the U.S., the minimum wage is why black people have been achieving equality in the work force much more slowly than women.
Quan Chi2 - Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:09 pm
Post subject:
Whats that supposed to mean?

Minimum Wages

Minimum wage in new york is goood. Oh and Washington
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:49 pm
Post subject:
Doc Flabby wrote:
The problem is not welfere pays too much. It is the minimum wage is too low.


Really? If you think about that, why do you think companies are moving away to china and other foreign countries? That's because we are asking for to much money, to work...
If you raise the minimum wage anymore, then the amount of a dollar is just going to keep getting lower and lower.
Don't you remember the days where you could get gas for $0.50 a gallon, that's because you could actually buy something with a dollar, like a full meal.
K' - Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:59 am
Post subject:
No retard.
It's becouse those countries are poor as shit, or rather, their people are and becouse they're dictatorships.
So (people = slaves) && (people != workers);

Quote:
Don't you remember the days where you could get gas for $0.50 a gallon

You mean the days where the notorious regular American short-sighted complacent peaked so high, they all thouht they're doing so great and forgot about WW II taking place right across the street and how heavily they're funding the allied countries, which couldn't possibly ever return the debt, so they can win the nazis and then Wall Street crashed (as any analyst worth his salt could tell, when the stock market is running high steep, it's the sunshine before the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) driving the dollar back down to its real worth?
DarthVader - Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:42 am
Post subject:
How much does that ring cost? biggrin.gif
SamHughes - Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:36 am
Post subject:
Quan Chi2 wrote:
Whats that supposed to mean?


What it says. Why do you think women are gaining equality in the workforce? Because they've been in the workforce a while, and familiarity breeds knowledge that they're not spineless idiots who can't do anything. How did they get in the workforce in the first place? They had to take lower salaries, since some people wouldn't hire them, while those with reasonable opinions about women realized that they could hire good women employees at lower salaries, or the best women employees at a salary an average man would take.

This was possible because women (on average) were more likely to be well-educated (being just as likely to be born into wealthy families as men). So when they took a lower salary, that was possible. But black people happen to be more likely to be born into a poor family and end up less educated. The sort of employers who weren't racists, who'd think they could hire a black person for less, weren't allowed to do so, because of minimum wage laws. So why would they bother?

And if the minimum wage is $7 but an employer can make only $6 extra gross per hour by hiring an employee, the employee ends up fired. If that sort of employee could bring $15 of extra revenue per hour, then competing businesses would bid up the rate anyway.

And how could a homeless person ever convince anybody to hire him, with a minimum wage law?


If the minimum wage is a good thing, how do you calculate the optimal minimum wage? It certainly wouldn't make sense for it to be $100/hr or more, so somewhere between 0 and 100, there must be a 'best' minimum wage that's best for whatever sort of goals you have. What is that number?
K' - Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:28 am
Post subject:
You could make a special contract per job done and avoid minimum wage.

Although I doubt someone would hire a homeless, regardless of the fee involved.
LearJett+ - Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:20 am
Post subject:
SamHughes wrote:
[..]What it says. Why do you think women are gaining equality in the workforce? Because they've been in the workforce a while, and familiarity breeds knowledge that they're not spineless idiots who can't do anything. How did they get in the workforce in the first place? They had to take lower salaries, since some people wouldn't hire them, while those with reasonable opinions about women realized that they could hire good women employees at lower salaries, or the best women employees at a salary an average man would take.

it's nothing like this any more. there are plenty of jobs where women make more money than men -- substantially more. also, you have to take into account the fact that men and women work different kinds of jobs. women are most commonly associated with secretary/desk work. men are usually associated with higher-paying labor jobs.


Quote:
This was possible because women (on average) were more likely to be well-educated (being just as likely to be born into wealthy families as men). So when they took a lower salary, that was possible. But black people happen to be more likely to be born into a poor family and end up less educated. The sort of employers who weren't racists, who'd think they could hire a black person for less, weren't allowed to do so, because of minimum wage laws. So why would they bother?

it wasn't likely to be born into a wealthy family white/black or man/woman. you keep changing your verb tenses, so i have no idea what time period you are speaking of... but i will assume the past. in the past, (when racism and sexism were more rampant) education mattered very little for labor jobs and other industrial employment.

Quote:
And if the minimum wage is $7 but an employer can make only $6 extra gross per hour by hiring an employee, the employee ends up fired. If that sort of employee could bring $15 of extra revenue per hour, then competing businesses would bid up the rate anyway.

then hire less/more people. that's simple business.

Quote:
And how could a homeless person ever convince anybody to hire him, with a minimum wage law?

by taking a fucking shower and applying for a job.

Quote:
If the minimum wage is a good thing, how do you calculate the optimal minimum wage? It certainly wouldn't make sense for it to be $100/hr or more, so somewhere between 0 and 100, there must be a 'best' minimum wage that's best for whatever sort of goals you have. What is that number?

you take into account the cost of living for an area. a national minimum wage is a good idea, but states or even cities need to make up their own based on the cost of living.
the minimum wage needs to then be raised according to inflation.
K' - Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:21 am
Post subject:
Quote:
higher-paying labor

Since when do maenial laboring pays more than minimum wage or a step or two above at most?
LearJett+ - Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:53 pm
Post subject:
are you serious? the people that flip the signs from 'stop' to 'slow' at construction sites get paid 17$ an hour or more in pennsylvania. it's a common misconception that laborers get paid cheaply.
Dr Brain - Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Post subject:
If raising the minimum wage helps, why not just raise it to $1,000,000 per hour? Surely that will help raise people out of poverty, right?

Snap out of it, idiots, minimum wage increases only hurt.
K' - Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:46 pm
Post subject:
Too stupid and idiotic to even bother with.
Cyan~Fire - Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:22 pm
Post subject:
Brain wrote:
Snap out of it, idiots, minimum wage increases only hurt.

Unless it's just to keep up with inflation.
Dr Brain - Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:26 pm
Post subject:
How does that make any sense at all? Inflation is a decline in the purchacing power of money. Increasing the minimum wage will only add to inflation.
Cyan~Fire - Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:04 pm
Post subject:
How does that make any sense at all? I wasn't saying increase the minimum wage and thus create inflation, I was saying increase the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. If most jobs are paying more, then the minimum wage should be increased.
Dr Brain - Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:11 pm
Post subject:
That's not keeping up with it. That's creating it.
Quan Chi2 - Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:21 pm
Post subject:
Hes got you there.
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:49 pm
Post subject:
Finally some one that's not too stubborn for their own self's, and understands something.
Ever hear of the term "if something is working fine, don't change it.", well we never needed to raise the wage in the first place, and due to the problems that it cause, people kept raising it higher and higher, which one day we will end up like that country in Africa (I forget what one it was), and it takes $2,000 (I forget what the true currency it was) to buy a loaf of bread.
Solo Ace - Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:16 pm
Post subject:
blah-er wrote:
I forget...
Cyan~Fire - Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:35 am
Post subject:
Dr Brain wrote:
That's not keeping up with it. That's creating it.

I don't understand what you're saying at all. Are you trying to say that inflation is solely caused by raising the minimum wage? That's all that makes sense, and here's why:

The purpose of minimum wage is to make sure everyone working is getting a substantial amount of money, right? That granted, if inflation (the type not caused by raising minimum wage) decreases the "real" amount of money a worker getting minimum wage receives. Now using our good old friend limit here, this worker's "real" salary will drop to 0 over time.

So if you don't want minimum wage, say so, but don't be a two-faced republican and make some sinister plan to emasculate it. icon_rolleyes.gif
Animate Dreams - Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:24 am
Post subject:
I can see how raising minimum wage may cause some inflation... but most people that are against minimum wage increases have never worked minimum wage jobs. We need a minimum wage, and as the value of a dollar changes, minimum wage will need to change with it. Unless you'd like to turn into Mexico?
Dr Brain - Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:35 pm
Post subject:
Cyan~Fire wrote:
The purpose of minimum wage is to make sure everyone working is getting a substantial amount of money, right?


The purpose and the effect are two vastly different things.

Cyan~Fire wrote:
That granted, if inflation (the type not caused by raising minimum wage) decreases the "real" amount of money a worker getting minimum wage receives. Now using our good old friend limit here, this worker's "real" salary will drop to 0 over time.


Very, very few people live off of minimum wage (I'm not saying nobody), most people that make it are teenagers that have just entered the work force. By increasing it, you put the people that were ABOVE minumum wage AT minumum wage, see?

You're not really effecting the little guys (teenagers, in my example), because with a change in minumum wage, the cost of living goes up by about the same. Instead, you're putting the people who were doing just a little better all the way down at the bottom, so that they ARE living off minumum wage.

Cyan~Fire wrote:
So if you don't want minimum wage, say so, but don't be a two-faced republican and make some sinister plan to emasculate it. icon_rolleyes.gif


I *DON'T* want one. They are bad things all around. The only reason that we have them is that they sound good to people who can't think all the way through some issue, and the politician can say "I raised the minumum wage" and igrone the fact that people are worse off.

If you're worth $1 an hour, do you really thing companies are going to just give in and give you the $8 minimum wage? No, they're gonna fire you instead. It doesn't help the people at the bottom, it only hurts them. It tends to hurt the people in the middle too. I'll leave the rich out of it, but they're not unaffected (not that you care about them).
Cyan~Fire - Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:04 pm
Post subject:
Everything you said above is assuming inflation doesn't happen independently of a minimum wage increase. For example,
Brain wrote:
By increasing it, you put the people that were ABOVE minumum wage AT minumum wage, see?

Not if the ABOVE minimum wage people's salaries have already increased.

And just to let you know, I'm not a rabid supporter of minimum wage, but if we have one, I'd like for it to accopmlish something good.
Dr Brain - Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:22 am
Post subject:
Minimum wages change all at once. Not gradually over time.

And why would their salaries go up?
Cyan~Fire - Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:10 am
Post subject:
Brain wrote:
And why would their salaries go up?

As inflation occurs! Ahhhh!
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:21 am
Post subject:
Cyan~Fire wrote:
[..]


As inflation occurs! Ahhhh!


Because the wages go up, and they need more money to pay the people to make the products. Ahhhh!

It's just a big cycle, and we need to stop it soon.

BTW, I was just trying to make a point, your two's arguing is in a cycle (brain, cyan, brain, cyan) and it's just going to keep getting worse. So if I break that cycle, then maybe it'll relive the tension for a while.
Dr Brain - Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:41 pm
Post subject:
Cyan~Fire wrote:
[..]


As inflation occurs! Ahhhh!



Minimum wage is $5
A makes $5
B makes $7
Minimum wage is raised to $8
A makes $8
B makes $8

B is royally screwed, as B now makes 40% less than before the increase.

This all happens instantaneously, so no time for "inflation".
K' - Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:51 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Very, very few people live off of minimum wage


Ah, yes.
The narrow scope that is both American, blissful ignorance of youth and snobbish attitude of those that don't live in rat hotels.

I wouldn't presume to pretend that I'm dirt poor.
But I've worked in plenty of minimum wage jobs to encounter many people (adults, family-carrying ones) who live off of overtime in minimum wage jobs or carry two minimum wage jobs at once.
And I am aware of similar situation in America and other states.
To say that very few people live off of it is like saying very few people live off of Law-practice, or garbage disposal or government cleragy(sp?) or medical field or otherwise.
It be about as common place as any work force, and sometimes even at a slightly higher percentage than the rest.
Dr Brain - Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:44 am
Post subject:
You seem to have missed the part in parens, Grav, where I said that some people do.
Cyan~Fire - Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:30 pm
Post subject:
Dr Brain wrote:
Minimum wage is $5
A makes $5
B makes $7
Minimum wage is raised to $8
A makes $8
B makes $8

B is royally screwed, as B now makes 40% less than before the increase.


How about...

Step 1:
Minimum wage is $5
A makes $5
B makes $7

Step 2:
Minimum wage and A remain the same.
B makes $14

Step 3:
People realize inflation has occured, and thus:
Minimum wage is $10
A makes $10
B makes $14

See what I'm saying now?
Doc Flabby - Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:51 pm
Post subject:
wage increases do not necessery mean that inflation will increase.

Inflation can only increase if people spend an amount to increase demand greater than supply can keep up. If there is excess supply in the market wage increases will not increase inflation. inflation around the 1-3% level is seen as normal and healthy for the economy.

Wages increasing is not necessery a bad thing.

Wages being increased to keep up with inflation does no lead to more inflation. It keeps inflation the same, as the amount the person earning the money has the same spending power. If wages are not increased to keep up with inflation people lose spending power as everything starts to cost more. So they spend less. As people spend less companies go bust. People lose jobs. If this continuues for too long you end up with a recession.....
SamHughes - Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:38 pm
Post subject:
You gotta love the oversimplistic views of how the economy works that are given in this thread. Here's the next question to divide you people: Does the progressive income tax have a long term effect on disposable income levels?
K' - Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:49 am
Post subject:
Dr Brain wrote:
You seem to have missed the part in parens, Grav, where I said that some people do.


You mean this one?
Quote:
Very, very few people live off of minimum wage (I'm not saying nobody),

I would say I've missed nothing from your (rather dismissive, disregarding & degrative in its approach) state of mind towards the issue.
Cyan~Fire - Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:34 am
Post subject:
SamHughes wrote:
You gotta love the oversimplistic views of how the economy works that are given in this thread.

Don't be retarded. That's like saying v=at is "oversimplistic" because it doesn't take Lorentz factors into account. When discussing general principles, you don't need to include every minute detail.
Dr Brain - Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:12 pm
Post subject:
I fail to see how your scenerio works. It looks to me like B gets a promotion, then the government mandates that A should get one too, disregarding the fact that the company would raise A's wages if he/she were worth it.

That's increasing inflation, not keeping up with it.
Muskrat - Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:14 pm
Post subject:
Dr Brain wrote:
the fact that the company would raise A's wages if he/she were worth it.
I don't believe that to be as common a practice as you imply.
Dr Brain - Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:47 pm
Post subject:
No, more often, A leaves and finds someone that will pay more. Cyan, however, had B's pay rate raised in his example, so I was merely following along.
Cyan~Fire - Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:48 pm
Post subject:
His pay was raised because of inflation. There is a long timespan between steps 1 and 2.
Muskrat - Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:13 pm
Post subject:
It just seems to me that brain is disregarding the entire unskilled labor force. Sure, employers will search for and pay more to people with skills, but what about agriculture, for example?
A white kid can't go to the next farm looking for a better wage or his job will be filled by the time he realises that a mexican will more gladly live in a trailor and eat canned food than him.
Dr Brain - Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:31 pm
Post subject:
It's not the government's job to regulate those kinds of things. By doing it half way, they're making the problem much worse.
Cyan~Fire - Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:18 pm
Post subject:
Tsk Tsk Muskrat, you should know that conservatives don't care about those dumb poor people.
SamHughes - Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:30 pm
Post subject:
Cyan~Fire wrote:
Don't be retarded. That's like saying v=at is "oversimplistic" because it doesn't take Lorentz factors into account. When discussing general principles, you don't need to include every minute detail.


Don't be retarded. Economics is completely different from mechanics. When discussing general principles, you do need a grasp on the effects of the more powerful bodies. It'd be like trying to fire a projectile from Minneapolis to Mexico City by aiming at Mexico City. It doesn't work. Some people are thinking "Minimum wage means poor people get higher pay," and others are thinking "minimum wage means people lose jobs." Both are simplistic views of how a minimum wage increase affects things. And what about short- vs. long-term effects? The effect a high minimum wage has on worker productivity? The incentives that are created by these laws? It's not just the effect of changing the minimum wage that matters; what people do in reaction to the change has a powerful effect on the world. If you ignore human behavior, you'll end up thinking communism is a good idea.
Dr Brain - Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:48 pm
Post subject:
Cyan~Fire wrote:
Tsk Tsk Muskrat, you should know that conservatives don't care about those dumb poor people.


No, that's not it at all. We just don't want the government to care (about anyone, not just poor dumb people). There's a huge difference.
Muskrat - Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:09 pm
Post subject:
And the conservatives say they have morals!

The whole conservative rights of privacy thing, what happened to that? I like many parts of conservatism, I just wouldn't in the least call the Republican party today such a thing!
K' - Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:40 am
Post subject:
How do you interpret raising minimum wage as?
Do you find it as a temporary solution which merely elevates the problem of the poor or do you find it as a final solution which helps them poor out of their poverty?

In refererence to Franklin who has said:
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it
Cyan~Fire - Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:34 pm
Post subject:
Sam wrote:
And what about short- vs. long-term effects? The effect a high minimum wage has on worker productivity? The incentives that are created by these laws? It's not just the effect of changing the minimum wage that matters; what people do in reaction to the change has a powerful effect on the world. If you ignore human behavior, you'll end up thinking communism is a good idea.

Yes, you're right, all that would be relevant if we were discussing whether minimum wage should exist in the first place. Sadly, that's not what we were discussing. My analogy still stands. If we're talking about a bicycle accelerating, then we can use the simple equations. In a different situation, such as dealing with really fast spaceships, we'd have to use the relativistic transformations. That's the point I was trying to make.

Muskrat wrote:
The whole conservative rights of privacy thing, what happened to that? I like many parts of conservatism, I just wouldn't in the least call the Republican party today such a thing!

Hear hear!
Dr Brain - Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:03 pm
Post subject:
Can you show me the passage in the bill of rights where the right to privacy is outlined?

By the way, I wouldn't call the republican party conservative either, but for entirely different reasons.
Muskrat - Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:36 am
Post subject:
Why would that be in the bill of rights, of course it needs SOME reform. I simply said that conservatism has some virtues, one of which is that they wish to hold back laws invading privacy more than other people.

The bill of rights means nothing, you should know that. Why are you always harping on the constitution anyways? tongue.gif

And you're right, the republican foreign policy certainly isn't conservative. icon_surprised.gif
Dr Brain - Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:21 am
Post subject:
Muskrat wrote:
The bill of rights means nothing, you should know that. Why are you always harping on the constitution anyways? tongue.gif


Because it's the foundation for all laws in the country?

Muskrat wrote:
And you're right, the republican foreign policy certainly isn't conservative. icon_surprised.gif


WTF?
Muskrat - Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:14 am
Post subject:
Disregard the past 35 years and you will find that the Democratic(and more liberal) party was traditionally tougher and more ambitious in their foreign policy. Remeber Truman? FDR?
Eisenhower stuck to pretty conservative values and stayed out of Vietnam.

And if you discredit the historical significance of the above, how can you continue to cite the constitution as if it was written with the insanity of today's America in mind?
Dr Brain - Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:51 pm
Post subject:
FDR? Wasn't he the guy that waited so long to get into the war that Brittan was nearly overrun? Oh, and Truman only got the job because FDR died. IIRC, he wasn't reelected.

If JFK ran for office today, he'd be a Republican.
Mine GO BOOM - Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:42 pm
Post subject:
Dr Brain wrote:
FDR? Wasn't he the guy that waited so long to get into the war that Brittan was nearly overrun? Oh, and Truman only got the job because FDR died. IIRC, he wasn't reelected.

Been reading the wrong newspapers, have we?



And he waited so long because US is a democracy. The people didn't want to go to war, so they elected people who promised them to say out of the war. FDR always wanted to enter the war, but ran by saying he'd keep us out. The History Channel ran some long documentaries on FDR a while ago.
Dr Brain - Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:33 pm
Post subject:
Muskrat said that the democrats were traditionally strong on foreign policy, and cited FDR and Truman. Campaigning on a desire to stay out of the war doesn't change my counterpoint at all. Yes, I happened to know the reasons behind FDR's reluctance, and was merely oversimplifying.

My recallection on Truman's term wasn't up to par, but I'd qualified it as possibly untrue in my own statement (and I try to do that with any statement I make that I know may be false).

And for the record, MGB, the United States is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.
Cyan~Fire - Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:41 pm
Post subject:
Brain wrote:
Can you show me the passage in the bill of rights where the right to privacy is outlined?

The fourth amendment?
Muskrat - Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:51 pm
Post subject:
Brain, if you still don't believe that democrats were traditionally tougher on foreign policy, try remembering Teddy, Wilson, and even better, Johnson.

You could never make the claim that Pearl Harbor was FDR's motivation, it was only what convinced the country.

Look up the Truman Doctrine. That kept us at war for many a year... tongue.gif

But, back to the matter at hand.... oh bugger, I forgot.

PS. Would the Republicans let a Catholic run?
Dr Brain - Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:16 pm
Post subject:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Whether or not privacy should be a right isn't in question. The fact is that it currently isn't.

It's true that the fourth provides you with some measure of privacy in certain cases, but it doesn't provide it in all cases, and it certantly doesn't define it as a right.
Muskrat - Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:34 pm
Post subject:
What you're arguing there seems prety obscure to me... but nevertheless, stronger rights of privacy and rights of contract were always one of the main points of any conservative platform, and please consult any authority on history for this before arguing the point.

Today those things don't mean a damn of course, because Politics has become a fight of "issues". People will vote for or against abortion before any policy concerning privacy is ever brought to the table.
Cyan~Fire - Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:41 am
Post subject:
Muskrat wrote:
Today those things don't mean a damn of course, because Politics has become a fight of "issues".

To be fair, this has almost always been the case. Consider the Prohibition Party, for example.
Muskrat - Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:52 pm
Post subject:
True enough, but I do feel that more widespread communications have increased the occurence of this sort of thing.
All times are -5 GMT
View topic
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group