Irreconcilable Differences?

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Lazy chicken and egg argument that doesn't address the problem. No one wants unwanted pregnancies to occur. But the right isn't interested in addressing that part of the issue except to blame poor people and bang their Bible.
So dumb.

If you have a worker in your employ (have you ever managed anything?) and the worker doesn't work do you give him a raise or discipline the worker (warn or fire)? Society gives the person a raise.
If you have a student in a class that doesn't do his/her work, should the teacher subsidize their grade and give them a C and the A student a B?

It sounds ridiculous because it is. It's just a dumb way to run anything.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
An unwanted pregnancy is a failure. We can't reward failure. It's tough love.
Yes it is if you choose to abort it. If you are married and you got pregnant, suck it up and honor the life you have conceived. If you totally can't handle the baby- put it up for adoption. It's God's child - and you know that.
If you are single and you made a bad decision to have sex- then it's time to take responsibility. A lot of behaviors would change over a period of time.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
So dumb.

If you have a worker in your employ (have you ever managed anything?) and the worker doesn't work do you give him a raise or discipline the worker (warn or fire)? Society gives the person a raise.
If you have a student in a class that doesn't do his/her work, should the teacher subsidize their grade and give them a C and the A student a B?

It sounds ridiculous because it is. It's just a dumb way to run anything.
Are there people on welfare who shouldn't be? Yes. Are the majority of single mothers who are on welfare there because they thought "I want to have a few kids and live on welfare!" No. You could end all welfare tomorrow and it wouldn't make unwanted pregnancies disappear or even go down in a significant way.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
All these people who are getting jobs the first time in the Trump economy, why are they not staying on welfare?
Probably because the jobs finally outpay welfare and the employers have lowered the threshold for getting the jobs (in terms of experience and education levels).

All people, deep down, want a job and to create value (which is why Trump will win). Laziness and bad counsel can get in the way. If someone tells people that they can get welfare and be better off than a paying job- they will do it.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Are there people on welfare who shouldn't be? Yes. Are the majority of single mothers who are on welfare there because they thought "I want to have a few kids and live on welfare!" No. You could end all welfare tomorrow and it wouldn't make unwanted pregnancies disappear or even go down in a significant way.
False.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Probably because the jobs finally outpay welfare and the employers have lowered the threshold for getting the jobs (in terms of experience and education levels).

All people, deep down, want a job and to create value (which is why Trump will win). Laziness and bad counsel can get in the way. If someone tells people that they can get welfare and be better off than a paying job- they will do it.
So, if Obama had cut all welfare as we know it, what would have happened?
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Are there people on welfare who shouldn't be? Yes. Are the majority of single mothers who are on welfare there because they thought "I want to have a few kids and live on welfare!" No. You could end all welfare tomorrow and it wouldn't make unwanted pregnancies disappear or even go down in a significant way.
But yet it would be an awesome Dickens themed resort we could all visit.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Hint--the states with highest barriers to abortion currently have the highest out of wedlock birthrate. Well, duh, you say, the rest are aborted. Not so, but even if true, it shows the coercive effect of eliminating abortion is not strong. What does appear strong, and I can provide another map, if need be, is the correlation between having a child out of wedlock and child poverty.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
Yes, and can happen again. If the Democrats had accomplished their goal of overturning the election I would have joined the civil war faction. If we are not going to have elections that matter than war becomes the only choice left.
Hahaha

Sure go throw your rocks against a tank. Good luck
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Hint--the states with highest barriers to abortion currently have the highest out of wedlock birthrate. Well, duh, you say, the rest are aborted. Not so, but even if true, it shows the coercive effect of eliminating abortion is not strong. What does appear strong, and I can provide another map, if need be, is the correlation between having a child out of wedlock and child poverty.
barriers to abortion such as? ultimately, people's behavior needs to change. The biggest barriers to that are welfare and our poor education system. Abort, don't abort, the fundamentals won't change. Abortion is one part of our culture problem. Not the biggest, but a part of it. Abortion is just fundamentally wrong, regardless of religious leanings.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Number of clinics, mostly. That plus waiting periods keeps the rate down, which is what was intended. My point is that I don't think people think rationally in terms of "well, I can/can't have sex right now, because abortion".
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
barriers to abortion such as? ultimately, people's behavior needs to change. The biggest barriers to that are welfare and our poor education system. Abort, don't abort, the fundamentals won't change. Abortion is one part of our culture problem. Not the biggest, but a part of it. Abortion is just fundamentally wrong, regardless of religious leanings.
This is just one of S2’s party tricks.

- find some hyper charged emotional issue
- pretend to pick one side of it, even though he doesn’t really believe that
- waive his hands at near light speed
- present the solution as needing to abolish government

Just nod your head and keep walking
 

Crosby

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
75
Points
28
Swing and a miss. That’s literally the opposite of what he was saying.
Actually, there is some truth to that. I do believe that in the original founding, states were meant to have more power than the federal government. Pretty indisputable if you have an understanding of the Constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, and the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. I do believe the founding fathers would be shocked at the level of power the federal government holds today. Would I prefer a system today where states rights were stronger? Yes I think I would. But we have argued about this (state vs federal power) forever. We fought a civil war, at least partially, about that issue. Now times have changed. If we go to a heavier states rights model, that likely doesn't completely solve the divisiveness. Most state constitutions are not specific on issues that are divisive today. For example, there are laws on the books about abortion that vary somewhat by state. To my knowledge it is not specifically prohibited nor guaranteed as a "right" in any state constitution. I am suggesting that it should be. Answers to many other divisive issues could be written in as well. Gun rights. Hate speech. Universal health care. If those are not specifically laid out, then we could just end up with a bunch of smaller entities, filled with people who argue endlessly with each other. It would be a repeat of today, only on a more local level. That's why I would favor splitting into smaller regional countries, with some varying constitutional guarantees. At least one of these places would have to guarantee a woman's access to abortion. At least one of these would have to forbid the practice. One would have to guarantee the right to bear arms. At least one would have to prohibit gun ownership. You get the idea. I am not even beginning to suggest that I know how we could accomplish this, but I think it could be done via a Bill of Rights in these individual entities. Wouldn't it be nice to look at a list of smaller countries, review the Bill of Rights, and choose where you want to live? Might be fantasy land but it sure would be awesome.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
Looks like a 2016 election map it's so red! :rolleyes:. Looks like a lot of MAGA country needs a swift shot in the head from Beeg's bible.

I wonder if Gov. Hickenlooper ended welfare in Colorado since they have the lowest rate? Whatever he did, perhaps we should replicate that.
People have a tough time successfully procreate when they’re high and climbing mountains all the time.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
973
Points
113
To my knowledge it is not specifically prohibited nor guaranteed as a "right" in any state constitution. I am suggesting that it should be. Answers to many other divisive issues could be written in as well. Gun rights. Hate speech. Universal health care. If those are not specifically laid out, then we could just end up with a bunch of smaller entities, filled with people who argue endlessly with each other. It would be a repeat of today, only on a more local level. That's why I would favor splitting into smaller regional countries, with some varying constitutional guarantees. At least one of these places would have to guarantee a woman's access to abortion. At least one of these would have to forbid the practice. One would have to guarantee the right to bear arms. At least one would have to prohibit gun ownership. You get the idea. I am not even beginning to suggest that I know how we could accomplish this, but I think it could be done via a Bill of Rights in these individual entities. Wouldn't it be nice to look at a list of smaller countries, review the Bill of Rights, and choose where you want to live? Might be fantasy land but it sure would be awesome.
Largely agree with what you say here. Just wouldn’t wouldn’t force any of the new countries to be anything. Let each of them decide how they want to craft themselves.
 

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
8,871
Reaction score
264
Points
83
barriers to abortion such as? ultimately, people's behavior needs to change. The biggest barriers to that are welfare and our poor education system. Abort, don't abort, the fundamentals won't change. Abortion is one part of our culture problem. Not the biggest, but a part of it. Abortion is just fundamentally wrong, regardless of religious leanings.
I neutered my dog. Is that wrong?
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Actually, there is some truth to that. I do believe that in the original founding, states were meant to have more power than the federal government. Pretty indisputable if you have an understanding of the Constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, and the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. I do believe the founding fathers would be shocked at the level of power the federal government holds today. Would I prefer a system today where states rights were stronger? Yes I think I would. But we have argued about this (state vs federal power) forever. We fought a civil war, at least partially, about that issue. Now times have changed. If we go to a heavier states rights model, that likely doesn't completely solve the divisiveness. Most state constitutions are not specific on issues that are divisive today. For example, there are laws on the books about abortion that vary somewhat by state. To my knowledge it is not specifically prohibited nor guaranteed as a "right" in any state constitution. I am suggesting that it should be. Answers to many other divisive issues could be written in as well. Gun rights. Hate speech. Universal health care. If those are not specifically laid out, then we could just end up with a bunch of smaller entities, filled with people who argue endlessly with each other. It would be a repeat of today, only on a more local level. That's why I would favor splitting into smaller regional countries, with some varying constitutional guarantees. At least one of these places would have to guarantee a woman's access to abortion. At least one of these would have to forbid the practice. One would have to guarantee the right to bear arms. At least one would have to prohibit gun ownership. You get the idea. I am not even beginning to suggest that I know how we could accomplish this, but I think it could be done via a Bill of Rights in these individual entities. Wouldn't it be nice to look at a list of smaller countries, review the Bill of Rights, and choose where you want to live? Might be fantasy land but it sure would be awesome.
"States Rights" is code for white power, bing.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
Number of clinics, mostly. That plus waiting periods keeps the rate down, which is what was intended. My point is that I don't think people think rationally in terms of "well, I can/can't have sex right now, because abortion".
Actually they offered free birth control. But Beeg and friends would never go for that. Because Jesus.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,487
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
People have a tough time successfully procreate when they’re high and climbing mountains all the time.
Perhaps, but this data is from before they legalized Pot. Also most R Bible bangers are not OK with legalizing pot either.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,297
Reaction score
294
Points
83
"States Rights" is code for white power, bing.
I need to ask a question. Not picking a fight, serious question.

What would be the strongest argument against giving the states more money and more authority to make more intelligent decisions for their citizens and residents? I don't really understand hardly any way that that could be a BAD thing?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
So, if Obama had cut all welfare as we know it, what would have happened?
Short term pain, long term gain. Look at the history of entitlements.

We offered social security as a hedge against living too long (past the average life expectancy) - now most of America is not saving with retirement and dependent of social security.

Since then every entitlement has decreased personal responsibility and increased dependency.
 
Top Bottom