The Gaming Den

I'm in line with Frank on the whole abortion issue. Philosophical or not I demand consistency from people who make the claim that abortions should be stopped by law or that it is equivalent to killing someone. IF you are going to say killing a fetus is wrong because it is a "potential" life form then I'd expect you to feel the same about any "potential" life form. If you're going to say that an aborted fetus, that early in its development, is any different wasted sperm or the egg lost during a period I'd at least expect some kind of consistent basis for that reasoning. Tagging an argument as "philosophical" is not license for someone to start spilling out whatever herp derp they want to because it sounds deep. You should at least back your bullshit up with consistent bullshit.

Oh, right, here's where I read about how the free-market sells student loans when they aren't being paid to do so by the government.

-Crissa

subprime = more people can get it, but at a much higher interest rate = scam

subprime = the area between letigimate loans and organized crime.

Not to be confused with credit card comapnies becuase they are basically the same thing.

That is all America is these days is organized crime. Who can legitimize taking something form another person via some loophole in the laws.

Crissa wrote:Yeah, that's the point, shad. Frank just tends to say it in Communist lingo.

Tavish, the idea is to make sure they have the advantages so they do not have to depend upon the parents, and can pay tax (or whatever) to support others as they become incapable of supporting themselves.

The right-wing is all about limiting these advantages to people they approve of who are related by blood, which limits people's incentive to do community help on a personal level. While at the same time, they disable the ability of society at large to help individuals.

Once again, free public schooling, food for the hungry, and healthcare are important parts to greasing the wheels of society.

-Crissa

My point (whee reinstalling my OS three times in a row) was just that it's really hard to guarantee any given individual (i.e. parents) cares about anyone and that any non-distributed mechanism thus had this issue. My comment was not aligned against, as muddled as the wording might have been. I don't think I was thinking very clearly that night.

Well, Tavish, according to Republicans, only people related by blood can care for each other. And they should have veto power, even when perhaps they don't care.

Which leads to gender-dysphoric children being buried under their birth names and other such abuses as blood is stronger than contract law in many states.

-Crissa

No Crissa. According to Republicans, only people with enough money are allowed to do anything. Some republicans are cheaper than a tank of gasoline.

Well, people related by blood get to skip taxes and nullify contracts with their relatives.

But yeah.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Well, Tavish, according to Republicans, only people related by blood can care for each other.

Fucking bull shit Crissa. I know of no republicans who believe this, I know of no republicans who have ever stated this. Republicans adopt, they remarry and take care of their children from previous marriages and so on and so forth. Just because they do not believe in the grand institute of the supreme Nanny State to take care of all of us and make us all play nice which each other by ... time outs ... doesn't mean that your statement has even a shread of credibility.

Funny, tzor, once again you pull out the 'none of the Republicans you know'.

When I specifically know this was the official policy of the last administration. If you recall, they even wanted to give federal money to churches because people don't donate enough to them.

-Crissa

PS: Adoption is related by blood for Republicans. You can't adopt an adult. I'm not sure how your argument even faces my statement.

tzor wrote:

Crissa wrote:Well, Tavish, according to Republicans, only people related by blood can care for each other.

Fucking bull shit Crissa. I know of no republicans who believe this, I know of no republicans who have ever stated this. Republicans adopt, they remarry and take care of their children from previous marriages and so on and so forth. Just because they do not believe in the grand institute of the supreme Nanny State to take care of all of us and make us all play nice which each other by ... time outs ... doesn't mean that your statement has even a shread of credibility.

Where do you live, cause your Republicans that you know, much be doing it wrong compared to the ones I know.

The ones I know DO want someone else to take care of their kids. They had them for tax write-offs anyway.

But then again both of those stupid parties do the same thing.

Yeah, do we need to repeat the lesson whereby my household pays ~$9K more in annual taxes just because we aren't married?

That's quite a bill we're footing compared to the Republican family.

-Crissa

Something fucking crazy is going on in this thread because with this last page...
Shadzar is totally fucking right about republicans.
As well as America.

That is all America is these days is organized crime. Who can legitimize taking something form another person via some loophole in the laws.

Course I live in Texas so the Republican thing is in my face all the time.
So much so tht I dont' like liberal agenda's either.
What it ends up looking like is that both parties are lying constantly and care more about "tradition" and "agenda's" that getting any thing that looks remotely to "a better world".
Damn. I need frikken superpowers.

... Here's the thing.... the average republican or democrat has actually no idea what they're party believes or is trying to do.
The thing is they just think they have a knowledge of what the other party wants to do and is agaist it!
"Guys on the left, we hate the guys on the right" and vice versa.
Truth is no one who's job isn't high level policy making has any idea what the fuck is going on. Except what they see on the bias confirmation shows they happen to tune in to. It really all very moronic.

Meanwhile all those people whose job it is to make policy? What are they doing? Busily living in an oligarchy, with all it privilege traveling the world, fucking anything that moves, and giving "fervor" speeches about how the other guys are trying to ruin the world. It's actually tragic. The u.s. will fall because everyone wants someone to "Hate"/Blame" and someone to "follow". So ... yeah...

Crissa wrote:Funny, tzor, once again you pull out the 'none of the Republicans you know'.

I would love to cite all the Republicans I don't know, but I don't know them. I am pretty sure they exist only in the mind of the "tingle up my leg" mainstream media story tellers.

Crissa wrote:When I specifically know this was the official policy of the last administration. If you recall, they even wanted to give federal money to churches because people don't donate enough to them.

But was the last administration really "Republican?"

(One of the reasons why the party is lost in the wilderness these days.)

Crissa wrote:PS: Adoption is related by blood for Republicans. You can't adopt an adult. I'm not sure how your argument even faces my statement.

Isn't that an age problem, not a blood problem. You can't adopt an adult because you can only adopt those who are not legal adults.

Crissa wrote:Yeah, do we need to repeat the lesson whereby my household pays ~$9K more in annual taxes just because we aren't married?

The only reason you pay more is because the normal penalty that a married couple paid was eliminated. Don't worry, that elimination will end in 2010 and they will be the ones paying the penalty, not you.

From 1913 to 1969, married couples had an advantage when it came to income taxes. However, because of the 1948 income-splitting tax-code which many thought was unfair to singles, the law was changed in 1969. The tax raise of 1993 made matters even worse for married couples. Married folks also took a hit by some targeted tax cuts enacted in 1997.

Prior to 2003, if both spouses earned about the same amount of money, then they ended up in a higher tax bracket and were penalized for being married. Actually, the smaller the difference between what they each earned, the higher the marriage penalty. However, if one spouse earned a good salary, and the other didn't, then they weren't penalized. The marriage penalty could affect couples in all income brackets, though. A couple who married could lose earned income tax credits that they had received as singles.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 1996 the average marriage tax penalty was about $1,400 which adversely affected 42% of all married couples. Many believe that some couples chose not to marry because of the tax penalty.

In 2003 the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 reduced the impact of the marriage penalty on married couples who choose to file jointly on their income taxes. Depending on how Congress handles tax relief, the marriage penalty could be reinstated in 2010.

tzor wrote:The only reason you pay more is because the normal penalty that a married couple paid was eliminated. Don't worry, that elimination will end in 2010 and they will be the ones paying the penalty, not you.

Except, of course, that's irrelevant and I don't earn an equal amount to my spouse and probably never will.

Idiot. Once again, citing things which are only tangentially related to the discussion and completely unrelated to the point he's trying to refute.

Like the Republicans he doesn't know because he doesn't actually 'know' any of them who are elected. WTF.

-Crissa

But was the last administration really "Republican?"

Infringing on freedom-check

Basing policy based on religion instead of, you know, thinking-check

Rampant election corruption (cough, cough, Ohio in 2004)-check

Huge favoring of the wild, free market-check

Lotsa high-ups being former Big Business guys who brought their profit-driven philosophy to government-check

Fear-mongering-check

Sounds pretty Republican to me.

Midnight_v wrote:So much so tht I dont' like liberal agenda's either.
What it ends up looking like is that both parties are lying constantly and care more about "tradition" and "agenda's" that getting any thing that looks remotely to "a better world".

Status quo. Sometimes I think each party picks a side on a hot-button issue just to get more votes because it totally will. Really, both sides will get a lot of votes for things like abortion because people fell so strongly about the issues.

... Here's the thing.... the average republican or democrat has actually no idea what they're party believes or is trying to do.
The thing is they just think they have a knowledge of what the other party wants to do and is agaist it!
"Guys on the left, we hate the guys on the right" and vice versa.
Truth is no one who's job isn't high level policy making has any idea what the fuck is going on. Except what they see on the bias confirmation shows they happen to tune in to. It really all very moronic.

I know what you mean here too. I almost never hear anyone talk about the good their side is doing, but rather, they always complain about the bad of the other side. Which makes me wonder:

- do they vote the way they do to choose the lesser of two evils?
- do they just like to complain?
- do they even know what their side is up to?

The problem is there should not be "sides". There should only be one side, America. I thought the civil war was over? North won, slaves freed...so why do we still have sides?

Just because they cannot figure out how else to vote for someone without a set multi-party system?

With the system of checks and balances of the executive, judicial, and legislative systems, why only have 2 sides or parties to make them up?

Like you say they just pick sides of an issue, rather than make the best decision, because agreeing with the "other side" would be wrong. So America always get to pick the lesser of two evils, rather than anyone of any real worth.

We don't need people arguing over hot topics. Let them buy their clothing where they want. We need people that is willing to do the job at a working mans wage.

How about a politician whose political agenda is "for the people"?

That what you just said? While it'd be nice in a way... is basically idealistic nonsense. You're talking like "America" (the u.s.) is still about Mom and God and apple pie, when we fucking KNOW life here is about Facebook, Youtube and scheming your way to the top. So lets make it relavant then. If we know that its bullshit and evil... maybe we should get a piece of that action ourselves....
which is how every "For the people" movement ends.

There's no helping "The people" because basically "people" are collectively lazy and because of that laziness? Stupid.

Then the lazy fucks should lay down and die, so that the world continue without them in the way.

Public executions for everyone over the age of 50! New reality TV show, wonder if Fox will air it in place of Dollhouse?

shadzar wrote:The problem is there should not be "sides". There should only be one side, America. I thought the civil war was over? North won, slaves freed...so why do we still have sides?

I think we have to go before the Civil War. We have two political parties (the actual parties change over time but still it boils down to two) Jefferson got into a political spat with Adams. George Washington was the only United States President who did not belong to any political party. Personally I blame Adams; he was ‘obnoxious and disliked’ (or so he thought when he was old) and not Jefferson; who could not maintain an ounce of fiscal restraint to save his life. Ironically, both modern parties come from Jefferson’s Democratic Republican party and not Adam’s Federalist Party.

Midnight_v wrote:... when we fucking KNOW life here is about Facebook, Youtube and scheming your way to the top.

I thought “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a specialty items in Farmville” was a part of the Declaration of Independence. Was I wrong?

Jefferson was our first split.

However, the current political parties do not support that split. Or the next two or three. Democrats now basically encompass all the ideas the prior parties had single dominion over. Republicans now support theocracy and oligarchy through mob rule, which were never positions of Jefferson or Adams. While they worried about mob rule vs reasoned debate and what to do about it, Republicans now encompass mob rule.

It's a serious problem for the Democratic Party, as that means all the prior party-line splits are represented, so it's hard to get them to do anything together.

But anyone who votes Republican and believes they represent anything but brownshirts and cronyism is fooling themselves.

-Crissa