rickyp wrote:A couple of years ago we had an arguement about the course of Gay Marriage in the US. I argued that demographically,that Gay marriage was inevitable. Now, the arguements against my position were of the ; biblical objection which was a non-sequitar and of the "t'll never happen here because we're a conservative nation"....

Funny: you used "non-sequitar" (sic) and then just went into unrelated matters.

The fact is that today gay marriage is a reality in 7 states, that if DOMA goes to the Supreme Court the DOJ won't defend its constitutionality, and that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage. All thats happened in only a couple of years.

Gay marriage has never won a single popular vote. Period.

That DOMA (which I think to be unconstitutional) will neither be enforced or defended by the DoJ is just another evidence of the lawlessness of this Administration. If they believe it to be unconstitutional, they should push it to the USSC. However, where in the Constitution does the President have the right to enforce only the laws he/she likes?

Right now, the election is about the economy and what to do about it.

More ADHD.

What was the topic of discussion again? The nature of the Republican Party.

As it goes on, that will mean a constant reminder of "How we all got in this mess".

You can only hope. If they actually look at the President's performance, he loses in a walk. He has to make this about Bush, otherwise he gets creamed. All he has in personal likability. His record is a joke.

Purple wrote:referring to is medical marijuana (except he never shows that word here!). Legalizing marijuana and supporting the availability of medical marijuana are very different things. RJ didn't lkimit his desire to legalize to medical marijuana.

Perhaps I was being overly broad in my interpretation but I think it is the steps that count not just the final destination. The more liberal northeastern aspect of the Party tends to support full legalization. Further, if you talk to the libertarian wing of the Party, the tend to support full blown legalization as well. I will see if I can find a better poll.

Purple wrote:Second, he actually mis-interprets and mis-represents his own same-sex marriage poll. He wrote here: "with 68 percent saying they supported civil unions or gay marriage. This includes 54 percent of Republicans." The actual lines: "In general, a majority of Pennsylvanians support some form of legal recognition for same sex couples, with 68 percent saying they supported civil unions or gay marriage. This includes 54 percent of Republicans." Those republicans support some form of legal recognition for same sex couples, not full-blown civil union or gay marriage. RJ said he supports full-blown marriage, not just civil unions, not just "some form" of legal recognition.

Well, I copy and pasted the line directly from the article hence the quoting. However, what other forms of legal recognition is there? I mean seriously, when you ask John Q. Public if they support legal recognition of same sex couple what do you think they are going to assume? Either civil unions or marriages. Therefore it is a perfectly acceptable position to state that a Northeastern Republican would be in the middle of the party if they support either civil unions or gay marriage. You may not like that because it doesn't fit in with your assumptions about the Republican party but it doesn't make it less true.

Purple wrote:Finally, the gun poll refers to "Assault" weapons. Banning those is not quite as far a step as repealing the second amendment, as RJ apparently supports.

That is not how I took his comment. I did not interpret it as a desire for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Rather I read it as supporting some gun control and going through the Amendment process if that is required. If I was wrong Mea Culpa.

Purple wrote:I haven't the foggiest idea what motivates ARJ and Dr. Fate to want to think that the Republican Party is pro-gay marriage, anti-2nd-amendment, and pro-legalization of all marijuana. What fantasy is this??

Really? I haven't said this. I said Northeastern Republicans tend to support these position. I made no comments about the Party as a national organization. I was talking specifically to RayJay whom I know to live in the northeast and who knows I do as well. Now you are the one putting unintended meanings on my words.

Purple wrote:As for Archduke Russell John [snip] In my limited time here I have twice shown him to have posted arrant nonsense, and he's not taken either opportunity to admit his mistake like an adult and a gentleman. I can only assume he is neither and advise you accordingly to ignore him. I won't spend any more time making that seem a more decidedly wise course.

Sorry you feel that way Purple. I have not apologized because I felt that I specifically answered your charges. In Fast & Furious you accused me of saying your ATF report was debunked 2 years ago. Your response was the report was only a couple of months old. Doctor Fate provided a post showing that the information was based on a 2009 ATF report. I then posted a link to a Stratfor article from 2009 that showed the report was incorrect.

I didn't apologize because I felt I had sufficently responded to your request for proof. I even asked you if you were satisfied by the information provided. You have not yet responded to that (or at least I didn't see it) As most here will tell you, I am pretty meticulous about acknowledging when I am wrong.

However, if you still wish to ignore me. Feel free. It is no skin off my back. There are posters here that I tend to ignore as well. As a matter of fact, I will go so far as to explain that you can go into your profile and set me up as a Foe so the content of my posts do not even appear on your screen. All that would appear is my name and avatar and wording "This post was made by Archduke Russell John who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post." I mean I don't go that far with anybody but feel free to do so if you like. This is an forum for discussion and enjoyment. If you aren't enjoying, then do what you need to make it enjoyable.

Ray Jay wrote:Yes, but in Texas I am seen differently, and it is a national Party.

Yes but you are not in Texas and while it is a national party, not all aspects of the party are the same. Wouldn't you agree that you tend to fit more with the Republican Party of Massachusetts then the Democratic Party of Massachusetts? I believe I have heard you make allusions to that prior. If I am wrong, mea culpas.

Ray Jay wrote:ARJ, wouldn't you agree that there are many people in the Republican Party who are trying and succeeding in moving to the right and would consider me a RINO or worse.

I would also agree this is an accurate statement. Heck, I have been called a RINO by Republicans who are not actually involved in the party. However, the only reason they are succeeding is because those who don't agree with them don't stand up and fight. It is not that I miss the days of Rockerfeller Republican influence, it is that I refuse to believe it is gone forever if those of us who still ascribe to it are willing to stand up and fight for it.

This is why, as much as I like Michael Smerconish, I lost a lot of respect for him when he left the party. I mean he was a life long Republican could have used is stature and influence the direction of the party. Instead, he gave up and quit.

ARJ:

Ray Jay wrote:

Yes, but in Texas I am seen differently, and it is a national Party.

Yes but you are not in Texas and while it is a national party, not all aspects of the party are the same. Wouldn't you agree that you tend to fit more with the Republican Party of Massachusetts then the Democratic Party of Massachusetts? I believe I have heard you make allusions to that prior. If I am wrong, mea culpas.

That's a good point. I'm a registered Independent (I think that BB hit the nail on the head), but my left leaning friends think I'm a right wing Republican. I'm also somewhat of a novelty around these parts.

Ray Jay wrote: I'm a registered Independent (I think that BB hit the nail on the head), but my left leaning friends think I'm a right wing Republican. I'm also somewhat of a novelty around these parts.

Your friends think you are a right-wing Republican? That goes to show how nutty liberal this State is.

Have me over for a BBQ. They'll realize how moderate you are!

too funny ... yes, there would be some fireworks ... i think we are due to actually meet each other sometime this summer

Ray Jay wrote:too funny ... yes, there would be some fireworks ... i think we are due to actually meet each other sometime this summer

Let me know the next time you are heading to LBI and we will meet. Sorry I missed you the last time.

"Whether you graduate high school, get to college, avoid meth, and
plan for pregnancy is somewhat up to the individual, no? "--RJ

Yes and no. As an individual you should not make excuses for your circumstances, justify criminal activity based on poverty, not go to school because you don't have it easy as someone who is rich, etc. I kind of like Ayn Rand's ideas on individual achievement (believe it or not), but public policy has to reflect that when you put a group of people into difficult circumstances many of them will fail

Let me try to be more precise. Good paying jobs for those with a high school education are decreasing at a rapid rate Let's say you took a small town with a steel mill. Steel mill closes. What happens? I would suggest a lot of social problems happen. People start looking for ways to make money (viola! meth or crack cocaine in the 80s). If you're a poor woman and local men cannot get good jobs, well maybe you could pregant and get a government check . Human beings adapt to their situation. Yes, you could take away the government checks I guess, but it doesn't solve the fact that guys with high school educations are not getting good enough jobs so that they can afford to get married. So, yeah, government can disclaim responsibility when high school graduates cannot get good jobs, but government will be faced with the social problems that result, no matter how much government wants to ignore them. And the fact that college education rates are correlated with income means circumstances external to the individual who is poor is affecting their ability to improve their circumstances by getting a college degree and government should be concerned about putting everyone on an equal footing.

freeman2 wrote:"Whether you graduate high school, get to college, avoid meth, and
plan for pregnancy is somewhat up to the individual, no? "--RJ

Yes and no. As an individual you should not make excuses for your circumstances, justify criminal activity based on poverty, not go to school because you don't have it easy as someone who is rich, etc. I kind of like Ayn Rand's ideas on individual achievement (believe it or not), but public policy has to reflect that when you put a group of people into difficult circumstances many of them will fail

Let me try to be more precise. Good paying jobs for those with a high school education are decreasing at a rapid rate Let's say you took a small town with a steel mill. Steel mill closes. What happens? I would suggest a lot of social problems happen. People start looking for ways to make money (viola! meth or crack cocaine in the 80s). If you're a poor woman and local men cannot get good jobs, well maybe you could pregant and get a government check . Human beings adapt to their situation. Yes, you could take away the government checks I guess, but it doesn't solve the fact that guys with high school educations are not getting good enough jobs so that they can afford to get married. So, yeah, government can disclaim responsibility when high school graduates cannot get good jobs, but government will be faced with the social problems that result, no matter how much government wants to ignore them. And the fact that college education rates are correlated with income means circumstances external to the individual who is poor is affecting their ability to improve their circumstances by getting a college degree and government should be concerned about putting everyone on an equal footing.

Very well put! If these issues were truly easy we would have solved them. It is a conundrum, to be sure. I agree that it is extremely tough in our society if you don't have a college education, and often if you do.

Before we create yet another government program, can we first catalogue all of the existing programs that we do have? I'll give you a hint: there are more than 1,000.

Where does someone with a high school education get a job?

From Doonesbury today
"Romney seems to have grasped early that if our stuff can be made more cheaply in a communist country, thats just how capitalism works."

rickyp wrote:
From Doonesbury today
"Romney seems to have grasped early that if our stuff can be made more cheaply in a communist country, thats just how capitalism works."

So funny! Except, if you substitute "Obama" for Romney you have the truth.

President Obama is outsourcing jobs. He outsourced them in the Gulf. He gave loans to Brazil to drill for oil rather than push for American oil.

President Obama is the Great Obstacle to genuine recovery.,

Where does someone with a high school education get a job?

I don't know what you guys are smoking. The trades are a great place to work--still. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, machinists--and more--are in demand. The truth is many college graduates can't get jobs--in part because they pick idiotic majors.

Your personal perceptions are wrong Fate.

So if we look at the unemployment rate for high school graduates we see that it's much higher than for college grads—9.4% compared to 4.2%. But both rates have doubled from before the recession, from 4.7% and 2.1%, respectively.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... recovery_0

rickyp wrote:Your personal perceptions are wrong Fate.

So if we look at the unemployment rate for high school graduates we see that it's much higher than for college grads—9.4% compared to 4.2%. But both rates have doubled from before the recession, from 4.7% and 2.1%, respectively.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... recovery_0

Gee, I must have missed your point. Where does it mention skillsets? Or, cant you comprehend English?

You really don't engage in much thought.

I believe that this is the forum where we discussed the distinction between income inequality and absolute standard of living. According to the census bureau, in 1992 20% of American families below the poverty line had a dishwasher; 50% had air conditioning; 60% owned a microwave. In 2005, the figures were 37%, 79%, and 91% respectively.

Yes, RJ, these goods are also coming down in price compared to basics, so will proliferate. They also tend to be one-off purchases, rather than revenue-based. A microwave can be bought for what! $50? They usually last about 5 years, meaning that they can be replaced at about 20c a week.

It also would be the case that a household falling into poverty that had such goods would be unlikely to get rid of them. They depreciate quickly and new models would be cheap, so why sell it on?

Now you could argue that having a microwave means you are not in 'poverty' (of course do these households all have stoves as well might colour that argument). Certainly I don't see the need for dishwashers even though I am comfortably well off - last year we had our kitchen remodelled and at no point did we think about a dishwasher), but at the same time items like these (particularly aircon in badly designed housing in hot areas) can come to be essential. 100 years ago no-one but the fairly well off would have a phone or a radio or a gramophone or a car, or electric lighting. fridges and freezers were once luxury items and are now basics. As technology progresses, those modern wonders soon become standards. They do, of course, mean that quality of life is better than it was before, and is better than in those places where such items are still luxuries. But that doesn't mean that the people who have them are not poor in other ways.