The problem is, you can't do that. Every issue turns into an incredible quagmire. Thankfully you've got a stalemate with the Republicans trying to take certain groups rights away, but they're winning the fight to destroy liberty.
If your friend expects to see rights in your lifetime, either you let the states handle it, or expect the moral majority and all those hateful assholes to try to TAKE your rights instead of releasing them. Then, let progressive people to try to release your rights.
Plus, people in the south are a bit ignorant, they don't want help. Until they do, then we can start working on something, but just trying to force help upon them using a federal government that unilaterally imposes the will of 51% on 49% is going to hurt feelings and waste the government's time.
Re:Homeopathy is pseudoscience:
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Intelligent, rational, and logical people support McCain / Palin.
I'm sorry, are you arguing for the party that has increased government spending and the size of government at twice the rate of the Democrats since the end of WWII, when you adjust for inflation(and far more if you don't)?
The same party that has also increased the accumulation of debt at 2.4 times the inflation adjusted rate of the democrats?
Intelligent, rational, logical people can only support 4 more years of Republican rule if they support increased government, increased spending, and shunting that cost to our children -- effectively stealing from them.
In a purely logical world of self-interest, it's entirely logical that taking a billion dollars every day from our children is perfectly logical. The more we can steal from them, the more we have for ourselves.
Of course, I think this is what this slashdot article really reaches to the heart to. If people knew math and economics, they'd be able to see for themselves that the Republicans are just Democrats who spend more money and happen to hate immigrants and gays.
It's a shameful day for the Republican party when people advocate voting Democrat because it means smaller government, less spending, balanced budgets, and greater liberty. The numbers don't like, however. If you love liberty, hate large government, want lower spending, balanced budgets, you vote Democrat as an empirical matter of fact.
Adjusting for Inflation, the Republicans have been ridiculously liberal spenders since WWII. They've increased the inflation adjusted size of the budget at twice the rate of Democrats, and they've accrued debt at almost 2 1/2 times the inflation adjusted rate Democrats did.
Republicans are blatantly lying when they pretend in any way to be fiscally responsible.
Clinton never had a surplus. My numbers indicate that he wasn't even close. Despite that, the numbers are extremely favourable for democrats.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have been in office for 26 years, Republicans 36. Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the debt by 2407 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 7994. Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the size of the budget by 687 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 1450.
Thus, adjusted for inflation, every year the Democrats were in office, they increased the budget by 26 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 92 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power. The Republicans have increased the budget by 40 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 222 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power. My numbers are charitable in that they don't take the wars in Iraq and Afganistan into account.
It's incredible to realise that the Republicans are incredibly fiscally irresponsible. They NEVER cut spending. They HATE cutting spending. They ALSO hate taxes. Basically, you're looking Republicans creating MORE government than Democrats, then NOT PAYING FOR IT.
This is only tangentally related, but I did the math to determine the change in budget size taking into account inflation.
3.1 trillion at the end of G.W. Bush's tenure(not including the war), increased from 2.29 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 26% over inflation. 1.8 trillion at the end of Clinton's tenure, DECREASED from 1.87 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of -3.7% over inflation. 1.52 trillion at the end of G. H. Bush's tenure, increased from 1.31 inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 13% over inflation 1.13 trillion at the end of Reagan's tenure, increased from 924 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 18% over inflation 678 billion at the end of Carter's tenure, increased from 604 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 10.9% over inflation
As you can see, Republicans increase spending at insane levels, whereas Democrats have actually decreased the size of the budget taking into inflation at times.
Also, look further in this thread, where I do the math. Republicans have increased the US federal budget between 13 and 26% taking inflation into account, where Democrats have changed the federal budget's size between -3.7% and 10.9%.
DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES. REPUBLICANS ARE SPENDAHOLICS STEALING OUR CHILDREN'S MONEY!
Oh, and under George H. Bush, the 1989 budget was 1.13 trillion, which equalled 1.31 trillion in 1992 dollars. More spending from the Republican party of reckless liberal spending.
In 1981, Reagan inherited a budget of 678.2 billion dollars(924 billion 1989 dollars) from Carter, who started with 409.2 billion in 1977. This seems pretty terrible, but this was a period of high inflation, so that 409.2 billion was worth 604.4 billion in 1989.
So let's look at the facts, since I'm obviously just another liberal who hates facts, using rhetoric to destroy america and the children.
1.52 trillion at the end of George H bush's tenure, increased from 1.31 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 13% over inflation. 3.1 trillion at the end of G.W. Bush's tenure(not including the war), increased from 2.29 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 26% over inflation. 1.8 trillion at the end of Clinton's tenure, DECREASED from 1.87 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of -3.7% over inflation. 1.52 trillion at the end of G. H. Bush's tenure, increased from 1.31 inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 13% over inflation 1.13 trillion at the end of Reagan's tenure, increased from 924 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 18% over inflation 678 billion at the end of Carter's tenure, increased from 604 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 10.9% over inflation
Go back to your hole. Democrats spend less, adjusted for inflation, than the republicans do. George W. Bush, with 6 years of a Republican congress and senate, managed to increase spending a full QUARTER, taking inflation into account.
Science: It works, bitches. Hyperbole is yours, it seems. Republicans LOVE to spend.
And 1.8 trillion 2000 dollars is only 2.29 trillion 2009 dollars. Republicans can't stop spending. They've never seen a spending increase they didn't like.
1.8 billion, eh? That's pretty huge. That's massive! That's terrible! Democrats just can't stop spending! We're all fucked! I can't believe that anyone would spend that much money! I hate that...
Wait.
So George H. Bush's budget in 1992 was 1.52 billion? And 1.52 billion dollars in 2000 dollars is equal to 1.87 billion? Actually, that seems pretty good then. The budget actually didn't grow as quickly as inflation.
The President's budget for 2009 is $3.1 trillion?! That's before the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan?!?!
We've got new federal departments under the Republicans. We've got new police powers. We've got torture A-OK. We've got illegal prisons in Cuba A-OK. We've got "The government doesn't need to worry about habeus corpus".
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. The actions of the Republicans are those of nanny state loving goons, of lovers of huge government, of haters of future generations.
Democrats are infinitely more conservative than Republicans, economically. Republicans suffer from runaway spending and reckless tax cuts paid for by debt. Democrats tend to try to balance the budget, and thusly spend within their means.
My words are backed by data. Look it up, and quit being such an ignoramus. Just because you don't like a group doesn't mean they're automatically wrong in all things.
No sane economist would vote for failed supply-side economics. It has less to do with academia and more to do with simple facts. The Republicans have increased the debt 10,000% since Reagan first took office. Ironically, from what I hear, the best time for workers were years before he took office, and it's been a downhill slide ever since.
Having an overarching federal government dictating moral laws is a massive failure. Red states deserve red laws, blue states deserve blue laws. Demanding that 51% rule 49% is just going to result in the same hurt feelings we see here.
Of 7 years since WWII that had reduction in the overall debt, 5 were done under a Democratic president, and 5 were done under a Democratic house and congress. The last president to reduce the debt was Kennedy, under a Democratic house and congress.
Until Reagan, the trend of the debt as a % of gdp was downward. During his time and George H. Bush, the trend has been massively upwards. Bill Clinton stopped that trend and reversed it. For the first time since Reagan, in 2000 the debt as a % of gdp actually fell. With the induction of George W. Bush, the trend returned to Reagan trends of increase in debt as % of gdp.
Since the introduction of Reganomics into the Republican doctrine, the debt has increased 10,000%. A full third of that came about during the tenure of George W. Bush, during a time of a Republican Congress and Senate.
He's been consistently principled for 40 years in the congress.
He's never voted for a tax increase. He voted against the war in Iraq, and protested against it. He's voted against anti-abortion legislation because while he's anti-abortion, he doesn't believe it ought to be a federal issue. He's voted against constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, because while he's against gay marriage, he thinks preventing the supreme court from forcing states to abolish legislation prohibiting such marriage is sufficient within the federal context.
Talk is cheap. Reality isn't. Ron Paul has reality on his side.
One of the duties of the federal government is regulating inter-state commerce. The only problem with that is the supreme court has wrongly decided this means they can regulate things that have absolutely nothing to do with inter-state commerce.
If one state goes power-mad, we'll see what happens with other countries that have governments we don't agree with: Nobody will trade with them, and they'll suffer until they get with the program. Democracy and capitalism aren't always mutually exclusive.
Correction: Republicans don't spend any less than Democrats. All they do is cut taxes by stealing money from our kids. Since the end of WWII, Republicans have increased the debt at a much higher rate than democrats.
If you like screwing kids, vote Republican. Personally, I'm against paedophilia.
The problem has existed for at least 7 years. It seems to be caused by the fact that Slashdot's page counter doesn't handle nested threads well. It will only create a new page at a top-level thread, so where there are 3-4 pages of one thread, none of the other threads will show up until you've made it to some arbitrary point in the page list where the algorithm punts you to the next top-level comment.
The nice thing about letting the states decide is that if a bad decision gets made, you can move to another state. Right now, decisions made by people who have never been to many of the places they're making decisions about are forced through by an overpowered federal government.
The vast majority DO want to be controlled, do want socialism, as Paul's complete pantsing in the primaries show.
The reason for the difference is that Republicans are opposed in doctrine to a balanced budget. Supply-side economics demand tax cuts, with the justification that they'll make back what they spend when the economy grows. The economy DOES grow, but they cut taxes again. This cycle means that their doctrine demands perpetual debt, and our kids are effectively subsidizing our economic development, becuase the doctrine will NEVER allow for taxes to be high enough to pay any of it back.
I'm not going to specuate as to WHY governments with a democratic president have run tighter ships. It's irrelevant. Science works, and the science shows that governments with a democratic president run tighter ships.
If I had to fathom why, I'd say it's because supply-side doctrine demands taxes be lowered whenever there's the opportunity, under the lie that it'll pay back when the economy grows. The fact is, it never pays back because they keep on lowering taxes and never reap the dividend of a new, more developed economy before spending more money.
Yeah, you need to DOMINATE your subjects like a KING. EVERYONE needs to follow YOUR rules. You simply can't have a large number of people in self-governing states and a weak federal government like you do in Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, you can't do that. Every issue turns into an incredible quagmire. Thankfully you've got a stalemate with the Republicans trying to take certain groups rights away, but they're winning the fight to destroy liberty.
If your friend expects to see rights in your lifetime, either you let the states handle it, or expect the moral majority and all those hateful assholes to try to TAKE your rights instead of releasing them. Then, let progressive people to try to release your rights.
Plus, people in the south are a bit ignorant, they don't want help. Until they do, then we can start working on something, but just trying to force help upon them using a federal government that unilaterally imposes the will of 51% on 49% is going to hurt feelings and waste the government's time.
Intelligent, rational, and logical people support McCain / Palin.
I'm sorry, are you arguing for the party that has increased government spending and the size of government at twice the rate of the Democrats since the end of WWII, when you adjust for inflation(and far more if you don't)?
The same party that has also increased the accumulation of debt at 2.4 times the inflation adjusted rate of the democrats?
Intelligent, rational, logical people can only support 4 more years of Republican rule if they support increased government, increased spending, and shunting that cost to our children -- effectively stealing from them.
In a purely logical world of self-interest, it's entirely logical that taking a billion dollars every day from our children is perfectly logical. The more we can steal from them, the more we have for ourselves.
Of course, I think this is what this slashdot article really reaches to the heart to. If people knew math and economics, they'd be able to see for themselves that the Republicans are just Democrats who spend more money and happen to hate immigrants and gays.
It's a shameful day for the Republican party when people advocate voting Democrat because it means smaller government, less spending, balanced budgets, and greater liberty. The numbers don't like, however. If you love liberty, hate large government, want lower spending, balanced budgets, you vote Democrat as an empirical matter of fact.
Here are final calculations in 2007 dollars, done with data available commonly off the Internet.
Republicans have increased the debt at almost 2.5 times the rate the democrats have, while increasing spending at nearly twice the rate.
Republicans love love LOVE big government. They can't get ENOUGH of it.
I did further research. Here are my results.
Adjusting for Inflation, the Republicans have been ridiculously liberal spenders since WWII. They've increased the inflation adjusted size of the budget at twice the rate of Democrats, and they've accrued debt at almost 2 1/2 times the inflation adjusted rate Democrats did.
Republicans are blatantly lying when they pretend in any way to be fiscally responsible.
Clinton never had a surplus. My numbers indicate that he wasn't even close. Despite that, the numbers are extremely favourable for democrats.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have been in office for 26 years, Republicans 36.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the debt by 2407 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 7994.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the size of the budget by 687 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 1450.
Thus, adjusted for inflation, every year the Democrats were in office, they increased the budget by 26 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 92 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power.
The Republicans have increased the budget by 40 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 222 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power. My numbers are charitable in that they don't take the wars in Iraq and Afganistan into account.
Here are the calculations, done with data available commonly off the Internet.
It's incredible to realise that the Republicans are incredibly fiscally irresponsible. They NEVER cut spending. They HATE cutting spending. They ALSO hate taxes. Basically, you're looking Republicans creating MORE government than Democrats, then NOT PAYING FOR IT.
This is only tangentally related, but I did the math to determine the change in budget size taking into account inflation.
3.1 trillion at the end of G.W. Bush's tenure(not including the war), increased from 2.29 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 26% over inflation.
1.8 trillion at the end of Clinton's tenure, DECREASED from 1.87 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of -3.7% over inflation.
1.52 trillion at the end of G. H. Bush's tenure, increased from 1.31 inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 13% over inflation
1.13 trillion at the end of Reagan's tenure, increased from 924 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 18% over inflation
678 billion at the end of Carter's tenure, increased from 604 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 10.9% over inflation
As you can see, Republicans increase spending at insane levels, whereas Democrats have actually decreased the size of the budget taking into inflation at times.
Also, look further in this thread, where I do the math. Republicans have increased the US federal budget between 13 and 26% taking inflation into account, where Democrats have changed the federal budget's size between -3.7% and 10.9%.
DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES. REPUBLICANS ARE SPENDAHOLICS STEALING OUR CHILDREN'S MONEY!
Oh, and under George H. Bush, the 1989 budget was 1.13 trillion, which equalled 1.31 trillion in 1992 dollars. More spending from the Republican party of reckless liberal spending.
In 1981, Reagan inherited a budget of 678.2 billion dollars(924 billion 1989 dollars) from Carter, who started with 409.2 billion in 1977. This seems pretty terrible, but this was a period of high inflation, so that 409.2 billion was worth 604.4 billion in 1989.
So let's look at the facts, since I'm obviously just another liberal who hates facts, using rhetoric to destroy america and the children.
1.52 trillion at the end of George H bush's tenure, increased from 1.31 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 13% over inflation.
3.1 trillion at the end of G.W. Bush's tenure(not including the war), increased from 2.29 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 26% over inflation.
1.8 trillion at the end of Clinton's tenure, DECREASED from 1.87 trillion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of -3.7% over inflation.
1.52 trillion at the end of G. H. Bush's tenure, increased from 1.31 inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 13% over inflation
1.13 trillion at the end of Reagan's tenure, increased from 924 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 18% over inflation
678 billion at the end of Carter's tenure, increased from 604 billion inflation adjusted dollars, a change of 10.9% over inflation
Go back to your hole. Democrats spend less, adjusted for inflation, than the republicans do. George W. Bush, with 6 years of a Republican congress and senate, managed to increase spending a full QUARTER, taking inflation into account.
Science: It works, bitches. Hyperbole is yours, it seems. Republicans LOVE to spend.
s/billion/trillion
And 1.8 trillion 2000 dollars is only 2.29 trillion 2009 dollars. Republicans can't stop spending. They've never seen a spending increase they didn't like.
1.8 billion, eh? That's pretty huge. That's massive! That's terrible! Democrats just can't stop spending! We're all fucked! I can't believe that anyone would spend that much money! I hate that...
Wait.
So George H. Bush's budget in 1992 was 1.52 billion? And 1.52 billion dollars in 2000 dollars is equal to 1.87 billion? Actually, that seems pretty good then. The budget actually didn't grow as quickly as inflation.
The President's budget for 2009 is $3.1 trillion?! That's before the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan?!?!
YOU FAIL. YOUR SKILL IS NOT ENOUGH.
Talk is cheap and bullshit walks.
We've got new federal departments under the Republicans. We've got new police powers. We've got torture A-OK. We've got illegal prisons in Cuba A-OK. We've got "The government doesn't need to worry about habeus corpus".
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. The actions of the Republicans are those of nanny state loving goons, of lovers of huge government, of haters of future generations.
Yeah, I remember 2000-2006, when those bastard Democrats in the....erm...
Fuck. I guess you're just an idiot?
Democrats are infinitely more conservative than Republicans, economically. Republicans suffer from runaway spending and reckless tax cuts paid for by debt. Democrats tend to try to balance the budget, and thusly spend within their means.
My words are backed by data. Look it up, and quit being such an ignoramus. Just because you don't like a group doesn't mean they're automatically wrong in all things.
No sane economist would vote for failed supply-side economics. It has less to do with academia and more to do with simple facts. The Republicans have increased the debt 10,000% since Reagan first took office. Ironically, from what I hear, the best time for workers were years before he took office, and it's been a downhill slide ever since.
point->*------------------:)<-you
Slashdot mangled my line feeds.
Having an overarching federal government dictating moral laws is a massive failure. Red states deserve red laws, blue states deserve blue laws. Demanding that 51% rule 49% is just going to result in the same hurt feelings we see here.
Of 7 years since WWII that had reduction in the overall debt, 5 were done under a Democratic president, and 5 were done under a Democratic house and congress. The last president to reduce the debt was Kennedy, under a Democratic house and congress.
Until Reagan, the trend of the debt as a % of gdp was downward. During his time and George H. Bush, the trend has been massively upwards. Bill Clinton stopped that trend and reversed it. For the first time since Reagan, in 2000 the debt as a % of gdp actually fell. With the induction of George W. Bush, the trend returned to Reagan trends of increase in debt as % of gdp.
Since the introduction of Reganomics into the Republican doctrine, the debt has increased 10,000%. A full third of that came about during the tenure of George W. Bush, during a time of a Republican Congress and Senate.
Science works, bitches!
He's been consistently principled for 40 years in the congress.
He's never voted for a tax increase.
He voted against the war in Iraq, and protested against it.
He's voted against anti-abortion legislation because while he's anti-abortion, he doesn't believe it ought to be a federal issue.
He's voted against constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, because while he's against gay marriage, he thinks preventing the supreme court from forcing states to abolish legislation prohibiting such marriage is sufficient within the federal context.
Talk is cheap. Reality isn't. Ron Paul has reality on his side.
You can't say that about any other politician.
One of the duties of the federal government is regulating inter-state commerce. The only problem with that is the supreme court has wrongly decided this means they can regulate things that have absolutely nothing to do with inter-state commerce.
If one state goes power-mad, we'll see what happens with other countries that have governments we don't agree with: Nobody will trade with them, and they'll suffer until they get with the program. Democracy and capitalism aren't always mutually exclusive.
* --point .o .| ---you /.\
\|/
None of your points are remotely relevant. Congratulations, you don't understand the discussion.
Correction: Republicans don't spend any less than Democrats. All they do is cut taxes by stealing money from our kids. Since the end of WWII, Republicans have increased the debt at a much higher rate than democrats.
If you like screwing kids, vote Republican. Personally, I'm against paedophilia.
The problem has existed for at least 7 years. It seems to be caused by the fact that Slashdot's page counter doesn't handle nested threads well. It will only create a new page at a top-level thread, so where there are 3-4 pages of one thread, none of the other threads will show up until you've made it to some arbitrary point in the page list where the algorithm punts you to the next top-level comment.
The nice thing about letting the states decide is that if a bad decision gets made, you can move to another state. Right now, decisions made by people who have never been to many of the places they're making decisions about are forced through by an overpowered federal government.
The vast majority DO want to be controlled, do want socialism, as Paul's complete pantsing in the primaries show.
There are a number of different places that show this, but this is the first one I found in google.
The reason for the difference is that Republicans are opposed in doctrine to a balanced budget. Supply-side economics demand tax cuts, with the justification that they'll make back what they spend when the economy grows. The economy DOES grow, but they cut taxes again. This cycle means that their doctrine demands perpetual debt, and our kids are effectively subsidizing our economic development, becuase the doctrine will NEVER allow for taxes to be high enough to pay any of it back.
I'm not going to specuate as to WHY governments with a democratic president have run tighter ships. It's irrelevant. Science works, and the science shows that governments with a democratic president run tighter ships.
If I had to fathom why, I'd say it's because supply-side doctrine demands taxes be lowered whenever there's the opportunity, under the lie that it'll pay back when the economy grows. The fact is, it never pays back because they keep on lowering taxes and never reap the dividend of a new, more developed economy before spending more money.
Yeah, you need to DOMINATE your subjects like a KING. EVERYONE needs to follow YOUR rules. You simply can't have a large number of people in self-governing states and a weak federal government like you do in Europe.
Wait. What?