(chortle!)
Madanthonywayne said:
Statements like the above serve only to expose your bias and hostility towards conservatism. An open mind, or at least the appearance of one, would make for a more convincing argument.
Having an open mind does not require one to give credibility to obviously disingenuous excrement. Nor does it demand that after repeated and consistent demonstration of an outcome, one should reasonably expect a spontaneous, wholesale change.
People are competitive. In a capitalist system that competitive urge is turned towards peaceful economic competition that benefits society. Adam Smith's "invisible hand", now better understood as an example of emergence
People can be competitive without capitalism as it has come to be known.
Perhaps you forget that there is much in the Universe that can ruin our species. Quite literally, there's enough to deal with out there that we needn't be cutting each other's throats as we are.
Even Ronald Reagan understood that.
The problem is that competition can often stunt progress. I know, I know; y'all believe in innovation and all that. But good ideas aren't given credence in the marketplace until they are
profitable. So there's a lot that people come up with that hasn't been built or implemented because there is more money to be made without it.
That statement is completely unsupported and incorrect. Shall we compare capitalist West Germany with communist East Germany? How about North and South Korea? How about the general level of wealth in the West before and after the development of capitalism?
Always with the disingenuous comparisons. Always with the machismo and dick-measuring contests.
Stop identifying yourself by what you fear. Start taking some manner of genuine, honest pride in your principles.
Or are we done with all that bullshit about the land of opportunity, and how anyone can make it big?
Consider American wealth. Now I'm not talking about full-blown redistribution here, but eighty-five percent of the wealth is concentrated in about twenty percent of the population, leaving the remaining eighty percent to pick and fight over the fifteen percent that's left.
Imagine if that eighty percent had a quarter, or a third of the wealth.
How many more kids could have good computers and internet connections to help with their schools? How many more families could afford health insurance? How about that home ownership kick, eh? What would a doubling of the wealth in the working classes do for real estate? Or automotive? Or large-ticket consumer goods? Or school funding?
And as people enjoy those benefits and improve themselves, you'll see the abortion numbers drop. Abortion is not a political issue that can be solved with a specific law. Rather, it is a societal issue that requires societal address.
Bad schools are the result of many factors, lack of funding is far from the primary cause.
Right. It's the damn union labor. If it wasn't for the damn union labor, we could have twice as many teachers who are twice as good for half the cost. Right?
I remember recently someone was shocked at what a friend was making. "I had no idea," he explained, "that teachers were being paid so well."
Paid so well? She has a fucking
masters degree. I know people without bachelor's degrees who make more cutting hair. I know people
with bachelor's degrees who make more than twice what my friend does. Teaching is the lowest-paid advanced-degree career out there.
The teachers at my daughter's school send home a list at the beginning of every school year, detailing supplies needed for the classroom. Occasional reminders show up via email or letters home if the class needs something.
And we're talking basic hygeine here. The school is so pinched for funds that parents, not the school district, provide hand cleaner, sanitary wipes, and other things the school needs to keep our kids safe.
Of course, we also have to account for families. Their role in education is vital. Imagine if they weren't scrabbling for the next meal. Imagine if they had a little more of that wealth, so instead of spending nights running the home business out of the spare room, one could help the kids with their homework.
We have a good arrangement here; my daughter's maternal grandparents are already in the neighborhood, and my own mother will be in the area very soon. It's a total flip of a bad memory from my relationship with J. At one point, she wanted to abandon our plan against day care so I could go to work. Problem is, I don't earn a lot. Further problem, we would need child care, which isn't cheap. Further problem, she wanted me to work so I could pay rent while she went to the bar and drank. Nowhere in her equation was child care funds.
It was for capitalism that we transformed our society into one of two-income families. It's like when an article hit Seattle a decade ago about how stagnant wages were forcing people to cohabitate. Well, yeah, it's a raw deal for the moralists. They vote for Republicans, who are economic conservatives, who thrive on bad wages, with the result that people can work eighty hours a week and still not afford to live in the city where they work.
Lack of funding is not "far from the primary cause".
While your solution is to promote more discrimination and to lower standards for minorities rather than seeing to it that they can meet the same standards as everyone else. Talk about preparing them for serfdom.
No, that's just how you need to see it in order to justify yourself. I'm looking for a way out; you're working toward perpetuation.
Well, perhaps, as a conservative, you might try to do something about it instead of embarrassing yourself with juvenile, hack politics.
I advocate nothing of the sort. I advocate freedom in all areas of life. That includes economic freedom which creates the maximum potential for economic mobility.
Just as long as the middle class tax rolls support the rich.
Or, perhaps, in the future, you might spare us that sort of bullshit.
After all,
you are the advocate for the economic system that
requires a massive and growing poverty class in order to support a relatively few wealthy elite. So please,
spare us the vapid political sunshine sales job.
Look, I'm aware that you think you ought to be able to sneer and act stupid about issues without any repercussions, but not everyone is amused at needing to run a short bus alongside every thread for the people who just can't figure out how to get along in a conversation. The saying goes that there are no stupid questions, but that's just not true. When you're trying to teach children and encourage them to inquire about the world, it's a fine credo. But for adults pretending to have some useful knowledge about a subject, yes, they certainly
can ask stupid questions.
No one policy will make abortion truly rare. That requires a cultural change of the sort that—and I say this without sarcasm or malice—would probably frighten you. Your question is offensive because I'm pretty damn sure you're already aware of many of the issues I raised, and yet you don't seem to have considered any of them in formulating the proposition.
Or, simply, if we already know that two plus two equal four, why do we have to prove it again in order to figure out what four plus four equals? Every time an issue reasserts itself, it's as if the whole political discourse is obliged to lug back to square one so everyone can feel included. And if you're one of those morons back east that seems to think the juices don't get flowin' and a raped woman can't get pregnant,
no, we're not going back to square one for you.
We already know that economic factors bear tremendous influence over social conditions. Why do we have to go back and re-establish that every time you or some other conservative wants to talk about abortion, or crime, or education, or whatever?
No, really. If you're driving out to Denver, what are you going to make on the first day? St. Louis? Maybe Columbia? Okay, so if you stop for the night, when you wake up, you just keep heading toward Denver, right? Or do you go back to Indiana and start all over?
Why should everyone have to go back to Indiana? Why can't we just get up and keep traveling toward our destination?
The problem is, at least in part, that these arguments we have to keep revisiting aren't valid, and they're not going to magically become valid if you keep repeating it. There are no ruby slippers this time.
For nearly forty years the current phase of the abortion debate has carried on, and yet one might think, given some right-wing talking points, that we've never engaged the issue before.
It's almost as if truth and politics are mutually exclusive in your eyes.
