Thursday, February 24, 2005Some friends and I have been having an online debate, brought on buy some comments on of them made, about which political party thinks "humanity sucks" more. i thought it might be an interesting thing to post here. Any comments are welcomed.
All names are changed to protect the ignorant.
Guy 1: (quotes refer to comments made by guy 2)
"It seems to me there is a basic divide in politics, more fundamental than Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. It derives from a simple enough question: is the majority of humanity trustworthy? Does each man really possess the conscience necessary for self-government? Or, to put it plainly, do people suck?"
being really general:Republican- a political party that stresses less government involvement.
Democrat- a political party that believes in more government involvement.
i take his to mean that at the foundation of the republican viewpoint, people don't suck!
Actually, that's pretty wrong from a scholastic point of view.
Republicans tend to form the majority of the more conservative religious right. Conservative Christian theology has a focus on original sin; a doctrine which states man is inherently corrupt and can only be rescued from himself by God's intervention.And Republican's certainly don't stress less government involvement, they just stress it in a different way. Otherwise you wouldn't see Republicans favoring big tax breaks for corporations and such.
When it comes to welfare, a common argument by Republicans is that if someone works hard enough, they can get everything they need without government help. I'd say that implies that all poor people are lazy - definitely a "humanity sucks" point of view.
I'm not saying all Republicans feel this way - but I would say there tends to be more "humanity sucks" people in Republicanism.
Republicans stress tax breaks for everyone, not just corporations. And don't tax breaks take money away from the government? Tax breaks for all businesses work because they take away financial and bureaucratic roadblocks put in place by the government and let the individual of individuals running the company make decisions based on what will benefit their employees, customers, and bottom line, instead of making decisions based on the premise that successes are taxed and losses are rewarded.
I disagree with your welfare argument. Giving people a check every month to do nothing encourages laziness and sends the message that these are people who are incapable of making responsible family planning decisions or supporting themselves. Democrats think humanity sucks, but government can fix things. This same mentality is what has led us to our current welfare state where families are rewarded for making less money, having more kids, and not having a father in the household--which leads to a higher crime rate, lower educational rate (which leads to lower educational standards in the liberal run system), and the continuation of this perpetually effed-up cycle.
While you are correct that Republicans form most of the religious right, it would be wrong to think that the religious right makes up most of the Republican party. I don't know any christians who go to the ballot box thinking that man is corrupt. Even the "relligious right" doesn't want a theocracy, they want the freedom for all man and all religions to express symbols of their views and beliefs without the government censoring them.
1) There is no empirical evidence that people on welfare have no motivation to work. 2) Currently, in order to recive TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, what I assume you are referring to as "welfare") you must be a parent of at least one child, and be working a certain number of hours per week. Social Security/disability, on the other hand, has issues, but we won't go there right now.
Actually, the problem is that a person working 40 hours a week at minimum wage is still well below the poverty line, and the poverty threshold is already ridiculously low. It also doesn't factor in childcare exepenses. Yes, I realize that people are responsible for their actions, but it is easy in our society to dig yourself into a hole you can't escape from with one mistake, or one bad turn of chance.
It's an interesting debate, and I used to share a lot of your opinions, until I learned that they were wrong :-)
What i'm refering to as welfare is AHCCCS(which does not require you to work, infact in the eligibility process it penalizes you for working[my mom is an eligibility interviewer]), food stamps(also don't require you to work[my mom is a former eligibility interviewer]), and Section 8 housing(does not require you to work).
The fact that you would need "empirical evidence" shows a complete lack of common sense. Liberals always need a study to state the obvious. My evidence is that I grew up in the welfare state. Countless numbers of my peers fell into the cycle of getting pregnant and recieving welfare instead of recieving the free education that our tax dollars afford them.
You are just plain wrong. By our poverty standards, in 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as "poor" is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000. Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded(another relative term). Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
The average "poor" American has a third more living space than the average Japanese and four times as much living space as the average Russian. These comparisons are to the average Russians and Japanese, not to those the government classifies as poor.Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36 percent of the entire US population enjoyed air conditioning.
Ninety-seven percent of "poor" households have a color television. Nearly half own two or more color televisions. Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; almost one in five has two VCRs. Sixty-four percent own microwave ovens; half have a stereo system; and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the US, 84 percent of the poor say their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat; while 3 percent report they "often" do not have enough to eat.
These are census reports form the past two years that they were taken.
Poor Americans are better housed, better fed and live better than previous generations, despite the lower standards for the definition of "poverty".
Wednesday, February 23, 2005Mi amigo, The Gringo, tienes un artículo muy bien--ah, eff it...Gringo has found some ultra-paranoid, race-baiting, Spanish language propaganda from various sources, translated it, wrapped it in a nice, pretty package for all to rip to shreds like it was Christmas morning. So it's time to turn down the lights, turn up the ranchero music, and get to fisking.
Let's take Univision anchor Maria Elenas Salinas' BS one paragraph at a time:
Once again, lawmakers are making the American people believe that they are fighting to make the country more secure, when in reality what they are doing is covering up the incompetence of the federal government and hiding behind the supposed war on terrorism to promote their anti-immigrant agenda.
In Arizona quite the opposite is true; The American people are having to fight to make lawmakers believe that an "anti-(ILLEGAL!!!)immigrant" agenda will make the country more secure. Hell, out of desperation we Arizonans even resoundingly passed the lackluster Prop. 200 just to get the point across to our elected officials that illegal immigration is a problem that we will not tolerate. The federal government Ms. Salinas' writers claim is hiding behind the war on terrorism, is in-fact doing next to nothing in order to secure the gaping holes in our border security.Once more, immigration has become one of the most divisive issues in the United States and once more it is unfairly mixed with the national debate on security. Denying drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants will not make the nation more secure; on the contrary, it will make the streets and freeways of our cities unsafe. Increasing the requirements for those seeking asylum will not keep terrorists out; what it will do is burden even more those who legitimately suffer abuses and are victims of tyranny, many of the same tyrannies that Bush has promised to defeat.
Since Arizona is one of the states hardest hit by immigration, I will again have to relate this one to home. Immigration is not the most divisive issue in the United States. This is comparable to when liberals claim that partial-birth abortion and gay marriage are divisive issues, but when voters actually get to choose on these issues, they are defeated effortlessly by wide margins. As I mentioned, Prop. 200 passed by about a 2/3 majority. If by divisive they mean divided in thirds, and only taking home 1/3, then yes, this issue is very divisive. In my experience the people that most dislike illegal immigrants are legal law abiding immigrants who get a bad rep due to the behavior of illegals.
Denying drivers licenses to illegals is exactly what any responsible state will do. Can you imagine this lame-ass argument being used in any other realm. Giving criminals concealed carry permits will make us safer. Maybe we should just give a pilot's license to any Arab on an expired student visa who want to fly commercial airlines.
Giving illegals licenses will not make them buy insurance, stay at the scene of an accident they've caused, pay taxes, stop driving 35 on I-10, and it definitely will not make us any safer.
And adding another three miles to a wall on the Mexican border will not stop those who really want to do harm to this country. It isnt only a waste of tax dollars, but a completely absurd idea. How far are we going to go with this? Maybe the next step will be to build a wall around the entire country, along with a giant dome with a special opening for international flights. Rather than securing our borders, the REAL ID Act seems to be a harsh trick with the intention of finding a quick solution to the complex problem of immigration that the country faces. And the conflicting messages from the White House dont help at all. First the President asks Congress to eliminate the anti-immigrant provisions from the 9/11 laws passed last year, and then he gives his complete support to the REAL ID Act, which includes those same measures. What Congress should do is make our institutions more effective and make sure they respond to their own intelligence. Recently declassified information from the 9/11 Commission shows that from April to September 2001 the FAA received 52 warnings of threats from al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Five of those warnings specifically mentioned al-Qaedas training to carry out airplane hijackings. Two also mentioned suicide operations. Congress shouldnt only ask why these warnings were ignored but also why the Bush administration prevented declassification of the full report for more than five months.
I agree that the wall probably doesn't do much to stop illegals from crossing over, but I also love liberals who want us to support every bum that crosses over start telling me what a "waste of tax dollars" is. Aren't these the same people that want us to put of government funded snack bars in the middle of the barren Sonoran Desert so that the illegals immigrants, who didn't have the foresight to bring some water along on their little pleasure walk through the wasteland, don't get dehydrated? Thanks, but no thanks for the advice.
Nothing can assure us that acting on these warnings would have prevented the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, retaliating against immigrants and victims of tyranny and building useless walls will not lessen future attacks. The United States should focus on rebuilding its weakened diplomatic alliances and renewing the international coalition against terrorism that existed before the war in Iraq. And once and for all, to start an open and fair national debate, one that leads to a wide immigration reform that takes into account the anxieties on both sides of the dispute.
Is John Kerry running the teleprompter? America can not depend on it's alliances to protect it's national security. And for the record, I want manly policies--not estrogen soaked politically correct reforms that take "anxieties" into account. As for national debate, I'm fine with that--as long as the voters have the chance to decide the winner of that debate.
Just a liitle update. I think I'm back now.
On the tapes, recorded over the course of the two years before Bush became the Republican presidential nominee, Bush discusses strategy for his presidential run and appears to acknowledge past drug use. He says he will refuse to answer questions about using LSD, cocaine and marijuana because "I don't want any kid doing what I tried to do 30 years ago."
While the quote is correct, it is purposefully used out of context. It was not regarding the use of LSD or cocaine, it was regarding past marijuana use. This is a blatant attempt to insinuate that President Bush has used LSD and cocaine. The point of the article should have been to report--without slandering the president--the fact that Wead is giving the tapes to Bush and donating the proceeds of his book to charity, but the idealogues that make up our mainstream media just can't help themselves.
It's too bad that Wead recognized the err of his ways too late, but it's even worse that the press fells the need to twist Bush's words into damning confessions that don't really exist. Remember, this is the same media that tried to twist the very graphic and damning Lewinski tapes into a non-issue.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005NEWSFLASH!
Apparently republicans are better at making, and managing money, than democrats.
And this is what the outgoing Terry McCauliffe called the best state of the DNC ever.
I understand completely that depressing photos showing various degrees of pain and suffering can be intriguing and thought provoking, but can it possibly be true that in 50 years there has not been a single inspirational or spirit-raising photo that deserves to win photo of the year?
This goes far beyond merely photos. Modern "journalism" as a whole sees it as it's responsibility to bring pain into their readers' lives. They teach empathy. Empathy to terrorists, empathy to criminals, empathy to victims of American imperialism. Meanwhile, the stories--and photos--of victims of terrorists and criminals, and those who are liberated through America's sacrifice are far more scarce.
Modern journalism is a joke, and the jokes on them. Fight the system; be happy.