The Republican Party of Iowa

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Please go out and vote against these sorts of people! I know you folks are frustrated, but how will anything ever change if you don't punish insanity like that? Every time they win on their crazy platform, they feel validated. Every time they win, the Democrats think they need to move closer to their craziness. It's only getting worse if you don't go out to vote, people!

Well on the bright side there are a couple of things I can agree with:

But then of course you get shit like this:

And then there's the just plain funny:

The tl;dr of it is that they're a bunch of nuts. There are a few nuggets in there, but the vast majority of the text on that page is an unending trail of "natural fertilizer" with a good amount of conspiracy theories thrown in. Also, I laughed out loud at the Sharia Law plank, only because they basically advocate imposing Biblical law. But at least they openly admit their bias.

Katatori-kun:
Starting a discussion that is still loosely hanging on to the thread topic.

Ah well, being a student I guess you could say I dont have a whole lot of experience, but both my Father and my Grandfather are teachers and as far as I can see the US Meritbased pay system has only failed because there arent really the big requirements to become a teacher there as say, other places. If you had to go through an 8year education I guess meritbased isnt as important as if you pretty much let them right in.

That being said, 'if' the US has the long education for teachers im talking of with an improved degree of whatever they want to teach and some psycology and childcare education. 'Then' I would think it abselutely stupid to do meritbased payments.

If they dont, well... Then I support the meritbased payment until they 'do' get such an education because seriously. It helps the teachers a lot and roots out most of the bad eggs (The ones that hates children or cant teach for their life mainly)

I believe that if you have a group of teachers who all got their job to actually 'teach' kids. And all are willing to spend time outside work (As a teacher you know that this 'is' a requirement. But some of the more crappy teachers tend to forget that and use the internet to do their job for them. And ends up performing utterly crap. Or teaching directly from the book, and ends up performing utterly crap) You wouldnt, or rather. As seen in countries with theese requirements and without meritbased payments. You wont have the need for a meritbased system that could potentionally (And by that I mean surely) be played.

Get a longer mandatory teachers education instead of just an exam and remove meritbased payment system. The idea itself is good but there is simply too many things that can go wrong with it depending on how its set up. Corruption/Loopholing/Lying to tell a few that has worked a lot in the past, specially in the US.

Stagnant:
http://iowagop.org/platform.php
-snip-

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are both bad law stemming from a social engineering phase in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Abortion SHOULD be left up to the individual states since it is not a federal matter, nor is Congress empowered to do anything about reproductive health.

Minimum wage is a nice sentiment but it doesnt actually help workers since companies simply raise their prices in order to compensate for the lost profits through higher wages (thus leading to buying power staying the same.)

Brett Dumain:

Minimum wage is a nice sentiment but it doesnt actually help workers since companies simply raise their prices in order to compensate for the lost profits through higher wages (thus leading to buying power staying the same.)

Yeah, I don't think so. Things are measurably better now than they were before minimum wage. I understand that the GOP wants to stop illegal immigration by making Americans willing to work for illegals' wages, but anyone else should see it as the bad idea it is.

arbane:

Brett Dumain:

Minimum wage is a nice sentiment but it doesnt actually help workers since companies simply raise their prices in order to compensate for the lost profits through higher wages (thus leading to buying power staying the same.)

Yeah, I don't think so. Things are measurably better now than they were before minimum wage. I understand that the GOP wants to stop illegal immigration by making Americans willing to work for illegals' wages, but anyone else should see it as the bad idea it is.

I make minimum wage where I work. At full time after taxes( full time being 37.5 hours after figuring in 5 30 min unpaid lunch/dinners) I bring home about 220 dollars, which is 880 dollars a month. No single person can support themselves on that, unless they live in some shithole in the inner city with ample access to public transportation and an employer who is willing to work around a bus schedule.

Thats without even mentioning, again, how prices rise (both due to inflation and profit hunting) when the minimum wage rises.

Lastly (for now), it devalues labor since it demands everyone essentially start at the same wage. I have more knowledge and experience than the majority of my coworkers (most of whom are under 18) but due to the labor laws not only do I make the same amount of money as these ungrateful bastards, but IM expected to do more work on top of it. How exactly is that protecting workers from unethical buisness practices?

Brett Dumain:

Stagnant:
http://iowagop.org/platform.php
-snip-

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are both bad law stemming from a social engineering phase in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Abortion SHOULD be left up to the individual states since it is not a federal matter, nor is Congress empowered to do anything about reproductive health.

No, but it does have a thing or two to say about personal privacy. For example, that a woman's uterus is her own, and doesn't belong to anyone else.

Minimum wage is a nice sentiment but it doesnt actually help workers since companies simply raise their prices in order to compensate for the lost profits through higher wages (thus leading to buying power staying the same.)

Historical context disagrees with you, but what's more, I have very little doubt that a removal of minimum wage today would lead to many "McJobs" paying far less, with prices not getting much cheaper.

LetalisK:
Wow. I say I might just vote for the Democrats and your response is to tell me how stupid I am for not doing it all along.

Get out the vote, guys. -_-

Not stupid. Misguided, maybe, but definitely not stupid. The fact is, though, that if you aren't voting Democrat, you might as well be voting Republican. That's just how this stupid, broken, first-past-the-post system works.

w9496:
The ONLY things I could even support in any way would be merit pay for teachers, because there are some dumbass teachers in my school, which leads to dumbass kids.

The implementation of merit pay is essentially an impossible feat.

I don't think we should allow shariah law, either. Isn't it really extreme? Like, killing people for most "crimes" extreme?

Yes, it is. The problem, and why I brought that up as insane, is because it's an affirmation against something which we never went for in the first place. It's like saying "We strongly stand against the implementation of feudalistic law"... Or at least would be, were it not for the anti-muslim background it's coming from.

KittensTiger:

Amnestic:

KittensTiger:

Telling schools they're allowed to treat some students as abnormal or subhuman: They didn't say that at all... They're saying they don't want their children told specifically that LGBT lifestyles are normal. As someone who is bi I agree, I don't want schools saying any lifestyle is "normal", I'd like my children to make their own decision.

Perhaps it's my tired brain, but I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between saying "This is normal" and "This is not abnormal".

I don't want the schools to render any opinion at all. I want them to say, all of these sexualities/lifestyles/etc exist, then stop.

Two problems with this.

The first and most obvious is that they are rendering an opinion, and that opinion is that homosexuality is abnormal.
The second problem, which you should be aware of either way, is that the suicide rate among gay kids is exceedingly high in states like Missouri or Iowa exactly because of policies that forbid talking about homosexuality and/or refer to it as abnormal. And you know what? I'm sorry, but your opinion is disgusting. A school is supposed to be a place for safe learning. Gays very often don't feel safe in public schools because they aren't seen as normal or just like everyone else. Because they're different, and to many wrong. Failing to provide protection and support for homosexuals is tantamount to encouraging bullying... But hey, they also supported scrapping anti-bullying legislature, so I'm left wondering if you're actively trying not to make the mental connections on purpose or just really can't figure it out.

KittensTiger:
To be perfectly clear: I don't want them to say being straight or gay or lesbian or bi or transgendered etc etc etc is normal or acceptable, I want them to say these all exist and not put out any opinion as to their normality or acceptability.

And if doing exactly this, or rather failing to enforce the idea that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality, endangers this minority and makes school a hostile, dangerous environment for them? Because it does. And if you don't think that that's reason enough to change SCHOOL POLICY, then there's something wrong.

KittensTiger:
Against year-round schooling: Iowa has and still does have a significant agricultural industry. Schooling used to be structured around agricultural schedules (i.e. students would be let out of school for harvest time among other things) so that the children in farmers' families could help with the harvest without missing out on education.

So children should miss parts of their education to work? Ah, that good ol' Dominican Republic work ethic!

Sex Education only with parental consent: These children are the children of their parents and their parents are, by law, their guardians. Therefore, parents are responsible for what their children do. Therefore, parents should be allowed to control what their child is exposed to if they so choose.

I reject this idea entirely. I feel that parents should not be allowed to teach their children whatever they want, especially when the "whatever they want" causes serious harm. For example, failing to teach teenagers proper contraceptive use (or worse, teaching them NOT to use them) has been shown to cause very high rates of teen pregnancy. Failing to teach a child about sex and how it works is like failing to teach them about street signs and how they work - if that happens, the responsible party should be brought to task for willful negligence (and possibly accessory to vehicular manslaughter).

Repeal of mandatory minimum wage: From a standpoint of economics minimum wage doesn't do a whole lot to help workers really. It may increase the amount of dollars in their pockets but it does not usually increase their purchasing power because of inflation.

And minimum wage rises to meet inflation. More than that, though,

Life begins at conception: The scientific jury is still out on this. This is likely due to the fact "life" is difficult to define. Therefore, this point is merely taking a standpoint on an issue where science has not rendered a full answer on the topic.

It's the baggage attached that worries me. Like, the idea that the morning-after pill is tantamount to murder. Or that miscarriages are equivalent to manslaughter. Or that a woman has no control over the contents of her own body after she gets knocked up; her uterus becomes the joint property of her child and the state.

Oppose EPA's control of energy production: I actually don't see anything wrong with their argument on this. Despite the EPA most of our energy still comes from dirty polluting fossil fuels and clean safe nuclear energy has been mostly blackballed.

They want to get rid of the EPA completely. Do I have to state why this is a bad idea?

Opposition to federal regulation of oil drilling: More oil produced here means less we have to buy from countries that use the oil revenues to prop up oppressive regimes.

My my, we do have short memories. Deepwater Horizon ring any bells? These guys are not opposing some business-crushing legislature that only allows for drilling in the texas desert. These guys are opposing legislature that prevents us from drilling in places where an accident would be absolutely devastating.

They are strawman arguments because you attribute their opinions to mental instability or mental deficiency rather than a difference of opinion. It's an ad hominem attack for the same reason.

Jesus christ, and I thought I was bad at reading.

Warforger:

Stagnant:

We support the establishment of a no-activities night on Wednesdays.

Wait a minute, what?! This one actually puzzled me for a while. Then I learned that, get this, baptist churches generally have something going on on Wednesday night.

...Wow.

Ok? That's a bad thing how? I mean all the others are bad and all but this is just plain trivial.

Well, it's not that that's a coincidence. It's that it's the root cause. They instated this because the churches have things like choir or congregation dinners on Wednesday nights. Is that legal? Jeez, I fucking hope not.

Brett Dumain:
Lastly (for now), it devalues labor since it demands everyone essentially start at the same wage. I have more knowledge and experience than the majority of my coworkers (most of whom are under 18) but due to the labor laws not only do I make the same amount of money as these ungrateful bastards, but IM expected to do more work on top of it. How exactly is that protecting workers from unethical buisness practices?

So how would getting rid of minimum wage fix any of that? I'm a little unclear on the causality. We need a livable wage and tighter regulation on businesses because they have consistently proven that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

Anyway, that is one big mess o' crazy. It's a giant hoedown of conspiracy theories, would-be theocracy, isolationism, arrogance, bigotry, and just general douchebaggery. The Republican party really is America's worst enemy.

As a Republican, but not from Iowa, I think i need to point out some things.

Now I am a Christian, but I'm not a Baptist. It's the Baptist denomination that seems to cause the most controversy. Hence the West Baptist Church in my home state. My point is there needs to be distinctions made, not all Repubs are Christians, not all Christians are Baptists, and not all Baptists are as militant as what comes to light.

Now I will proceed to share my thoughts on the OPs highlighted statements. They are my views which are similar to the Republicans I associate with and it seems to be very close to standard according to Tea Party members.

-Many Republicans are pro life because they believe that life starts at conception. My rationalization pro life is, give the kid a chance. It may be an unplanned pregnancy but that kid may go on to do something worth while.

-States rights are what made this country great. It focuses government and rights, namely property rights.

-Minimum wage is very similar to Unions. There doesn't need to be a standard for the quality of work, legally. The thought is if minimum wage wasn't around, companies, mainly small businesses, would spend less on bad workers. And hopefully provide incentive of working better for better pay.

-Many government agencies are a burden, but I believe a standard of safety in the work place is necessary. If I could say in good faith that this standard could be upheld by a private entity, I would say kill the OSHA, but I can't.

-I have no input on year round school. I have many thoughts on our school system, but this isn't the thread.

-I support merit pay for teachers. I see no downside, if you suck at teaching, tough. At least your aren't a burden on the state.

-Sex ed should be between the parents and the children. This raises a parenting issue in our country that I can go off on, but to keep it simple: parents need to parent about sex. The kids can learn about anatomy in school, but not about contraception.

-I personally believe in a mix of Intelligent Design and Big Bang. No one can definitively say what caused the big bang. I think there was a higher power involved. And evolution happened afterward.

-Again, Baptists do shit on Wednesdays... Fine... must be a big Baptists population in Iowa. Separation of church and state on that.

-Baptists have problems with gays, I don't. I'm not gay, but others can be, no problem.

-Global warming, it's a whole thread. In my view, it's a sham. The biggest fascists of our time are Environmentalists. Back in the 60s it was global warming, then it was global cooling, then back to warming... just like 10 years ago it was global cooling again. They tried to call it climate change to keep their story straight. I just think that there is not enough RECORDED information to say we are at an all time high. Humans have been around for what? 2 million years? And only have kept written records for a few ten-thousand? We can hypothesize from scientific data all we want, but how can we be sure we are 100% correct that there was never a time our average temps were as high as they are now?

-EPA is a waste of money. They are also getting too powerful.

-We should take advantage of our resources in our own borders. When we stop buying crude oil from sketchy nations, watch places like Dubai shrivel up.

-I don't like the idea of a North American Union. I like being independent, as much as we are now.

Many of my liberal friends are baffled by how reasonable I am. They see all these sites and places talk about how intolerant and bigoted the Republicans are. When really, it's just the Baptists...

Smokeydubbs:
-Many Republicans are pro life because they believe that life starts at conception. My rationalization pro life is, give the kid a chance. It may be an unplanned pregnancy but that kid may go on to do something worth while.

Not only is this biologically questionable, the fact of the matter is that such legislature still robs a woman of her rights and her basic human worth. The running joke that "Between a woman, a fetus, and a corporation, the republicans think only the woman isn't a person" has quite a grain of truth at its center.

-Minimum wage is very similar to Unions. There doesn't need to be a standard for the quality of work, legally. The thought is if minimum wage wasn't around, companies, mainly small businesses, would spend less on bad workers. And hopefully provide incentive of working better for better pay.

...And the corporations, noticing the vast imbalance between supply and demand for labor, will slash their wages across the board, and pocket the profit because people need jobs one way or another. This isn't rocket science. Letting the free market reign in terms of wages is nice in theory, but there needs to be controls in place because the equation is so hilariously lopsided.

-Many government agencies are a burden, but I believe a standard of safety in the work place is necessary. If I could say in good faith that this standard could be upheld by a private entity, I would say kill the OSHA, but I can't.

Wow, that's surprisingly reasonable. ^_^

-I support merit pay for teachers. I see no downside, if you suck at teaching, tough. At least your aren't a burden on the state.

The problem with merit pay for teachers is very complicated. The first and most obvious problem is fair implementation - what are you measuring? Improvement? If the class is already doing extremely well, the teacher is gonna have trouble improving it further. Overall grades? If a class is terrible and goes from across-the-board D or F averages to across-the-board C averages, the teacher clearly is doing something right, but C is still a relatively lousy grade. And of course, there's the problems with the students not wanting to learn, and inner-city schools being swamped... Yes, there needs to be more safeguarding to ensure that teachers do their jobs. But implementing a merit pay system for teachers is almost bound to be a complete disaster.

-Sex ed should be between the parents and the children. This raises a parenting issue in our country that I can go off on, but to keep it simple: parents need to parent about sex. The kids can learn about anatomy in school, but not about contraception.

Parents need to parent about sex much in the same way that they need to parent about fire - if they don't, and their kid suffers for it (gets a 13-year-old girl pregnant / burns down the school), then there is a problem.

Now imagine for a minute that entire swathes of parents, citing "moral grounds", refused to teach their children about fire safety, and the result was a gigantic number of child-borne fires, causing millions in damages, much of which the state has to deal with. Is it still a "parenting issue"? At what point does the government get to step in and say, "You know what? Even if you guys do it right, we're going to make double sure, because if we don't, we're going to have to fit the bill, and our society will be worse for it." The kids should damn well learn about contraception in school, because removing sex ed doesn't mean that they aren't going to have sex, it just means that they probably aren't going to have protected sex. I am a staunch opponent of this ludicrous belief that parents can teach their kids whatever they want, the consequences be damned. If I taught my kid that murder was okay and they went on to kill a classmate, I'd be in big fucking trouble. But for some reason, if I teach my kid that condoms are evil and they knock up a 13-year-old, I'm just a good religious parent doing what any good religious parent would do.

-I personally believe in a mix of Intelligent Design and Big Bang. No one can definitively say what caused the big bang. I think there was a higher power involved. And evolution happened afterward.

Not in science class. Intelligent Design is a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis with no evidence behind it. The entirety of its arguments are appeals to ignorance (We don't know how X happened, therefore god did it), and it has been shown in court that intelligent design is nothing more than a shoddy rebranding of creationism.

I mean, do you understand the difference between Intelligent Design and the Big Bang Theory? The Big Bang Theory has a clear, falsifiable core hypothesis, which is backed up by all of the evidence pertaining to it and refuted by none. Intelligent Design has no evidence for it - all it has managed to do is come up with logical arguments as for why the other explanations are false (and these logical arguments fall horribly flat). However, even if the logic made sense (it doesn't), that wouldn't make intelligent design more probable, it would simply mean that we need a new falsifiable hypothesis with evidence backing it to explain reality - a criteria which intelligent design fails miserably.

-Global warming, it's a whole thread. In my view, it's a sham. The biggest fascists of our time are Environmentalists. Back in the 60s it was global warming, then it was global cooling, then back to warming...

NO! NO NO NO NO NO! GOD DAMMIT PEOPLE CAN WE PLEASE STOP PERPETRATING THIS FUCKING MYTH?!

No, it was never global cooling. There were 7 scientific papers published in the 70s predicting a possible global cooling. In the same time period, there were 44 published predicting warming. In the time since then, the science has only solidified.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.352477-The-Problems-with-the-Global-Warming-Debate

I highly recommend checking this thread out, because the idea that the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling in the 70s is not just wrong, but has been completely debunked by numerous sources. Peter Hadfield, AKA Potholer54, did an entire video just taking apart this myth.

just like 10 years ago it was global cooling again.

Really? Who said that? Nature? Science? The IPCC? Because every source I've seen has these last 10 years as the hottest ever on record. Or do you mean a "source" like Fox News, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, or some other popular news source? Because if you do, let me give you a pointer - popular news almost always gets it wrong.

They tried to call it climate change to keep their story straight. I just think that there is not enough RECORDED information to say we are at an all time high.

Nobody's claiming an all-time high, last I checked. Certainly the highest since we started recording, and certainly extraordinarily high, with an extraordinarily fast rise in temperature over the last 50 years (historic warming events generally took far longer to arrive) despite solar activity dropping off somewhat.

Humans have been around for what? 2 million years? And only have kept written records for a few ten-thousand? We can hypothesize from scientific data all we want, but how can we be sure we are 100% correct that there was never a time our average temps were as high as they are now?

We don't have pure measurements from millions of years ago. What we do have are temperature proxies - natural formations that are very good at keeping track of the temperature. For example, antarctic ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years, if not more, match our own temperature measurements incredibly accurately. The measurements we get from tree rings (including fossilized tree rings) match up beautifully until the CO2 in our atmosphere starts spiraling out of control. There are multiple temperature proxies we have that all converge on a similar line for prehistoric temperature, and that's pretty damn good as far as prehistory goes. Discounting that is all but unreasonable.

Seriously though, if you looked into the science, you'd see that man-made global warming is not a scam, but is happening as we speak. The vast consensus among climatologists is that this is happening, and that this is a problem. And yet, for some reason, the republican party is content to call these climatologists frauds. They've gone so far as to attempt to dishonestly slander their names - remember Climategate, where leaked emails were quoted out-of-context to offer a completely dishonest perspective on the scientists? This is something that really pisses me off about the republican party - the modern science doesn't seem to matter; they seem hell-bent on ignoring it, the costs be damned. To then turn around and call us fascists because we pay attention...

The Republican party has come down hard against science. They've opposed the funding of useful research projects, they've advocated taking time away from science classes to teach things that are quite clearly NOT science, and they have ignored or tried (and failed) to discredit leading modern scientific theories. If you don't consider this a problem... Then that in and of itself is a problem.

-EPA is a waste of money. They are also getting too powerful.

I don't suppose you mind breathing smog?

-We should take advantage of our resources in our own borders. When we stop buying crude oil from sketchy nations, watch places like Dubai shrivel up.

Yes, and the problem is, once again, that we're advocating drilling in the worst possible locations. Again, have we already forgotten Deepwater Horizon?

-I don't like the idea of a North American Union. I like being independent, as much as we are now.

Hey, I don't like it either (It would be really nice if Canada remained independently sane), but the problem here was not their opposition to it, but rather the fact that they stated it as though it was really something to worry about. I mean, imagine if, instead of their opposition to the NAU, they had said something like "We oppose the plans of the lizard people to take over the world". Same thing. ^^

Many of my liberal friends are baffled by how reasonable I am. They see all these sites and places talk about how intolerant and bigoted the Republicans are. When really, it's just the Baptists...

Unfortunately, it is, at best, a loud minority in your party. More realistically, a loud majority.

Especially the last bits... If it was anywhere else I'd grin and call it a good joke, but with US republicans, I know they're most likely serious if they talk of NWO-like conspiracies.

w9496:
The ONLY things I could even support in any way would be merit pay for teachers, because there are some dumbass teachers in my school, which leads to dumbass kids.

But they key is implementation. Most schools are pretty small, the lines of authority are short, people know eachother. Merit pay only really works with sufficient distance between people working at a place. In a place like a school you'll typically have only a principal and the teachers, right? That means the principle will unavoidably get challenged and the working relations go sour as he's perceived as the sole judge (and dictator) of their wages.

And lacking a good manipulation-proof way of measuring performance of teachers, there's no way external oversight would do the job either.

Smokeydubbs:
Now I am a Christian, but I'm not a Baptist. It's the Baptist denomination that seems to cause the most controversy. Hence the West Baptist Church in my home state. My point is there needs to be distinctions made, not all Repubs are Christians, not all Christians are Baptists, and not all Baptists are as militant as what comes to light.

Among the rank and file, yeah. But come on, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Republican who currently holds elected office who doesn't make reference to Jesus as often as he wears an American flag lapel pin.

-Many Republicans are pro life because they believe that life starts at conception. My rationalization pro life is, give the kid a chance. It may be an unplanned pregnancy but that kid may go on to do something worth while.

The reason that logic doesn't hold together is because the same argument could be made that the kid could become the next Son of Sam. The burden ultimately falls to the mother (and depending on their relationship sometimes the father), and it's a horrible decision to have to make, but sometimes bad things happen to good people and you have to do what you can to get through it. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, especially in cases of rape and incest is basically telling her that you don't believe she possesses the mental, moral, or intellectual capacity to make this decision for herself, so you're going to make it for her.

-States rights are what made this country great. It focuses government and rights, namely property rights.

States rights are also often a shield to allow fringe elements to continue being assholes and claim exemption from the whole "majority rules" thing that's part and parcel with a democratic society. I especially think that the argument is bullshit when you start talking about human rights. That's something too big and important to leave to a bunch of ass-backward rednecks.

-Minimum wage is very similar to Unions. There doesn't need to be a standard for the quality of work, legally. The thought is if minimum wage wasn't around, companies, mainly small businesses, would spend less on bad workers. And hopefully provide incentive of working better for better pay.

And yet, it countries with no minimum wage, that hasn't happened. Why do you think that is?

-Many government agencies are a burden, but I believe a standard of safety in the work place is necessary. If I could say in good faith that this standard could be upheld by a private entity, I would say kill the OSHA, but I can't.

So you recognize that there are things corporations can't do better than a public program. Okay good, we're getting somewhere.

-I have no input on year round school. I have many thoughts on our school system, but this isn't the thread.

I have many too, but that's never stopped me. If only for a conversation between you and I, please elaborate.

-I support merit pay for teachers. I see no downside, if you suck at teaching, tough. At least your aren't a burden on the state.

Katatori did a very good job of explaining why implementing that system is currently highly impractical.

-Sex ed should be between the parents and the children. This raises a parenting issue in our country that I can go off on, but to keep it simple: parents need to parent about sex. The kids can learn about anatomy in school, but not about contraception.

Unfortunately, we cannot regulate parenting like we can regulate a school curriculum. And unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid people in this country. If you let them have their way too often, that's going to drag down the standard of living for everyone.

-I personally believe in a mix of Intelligent Design and Big Bang. No one can definitively say what caused the big bang. I think there was a higher power involved. And evolution happened afterward.

That falls under the category of theology. Theology is neither a life science, nor is it a physical science. Therefor it does not belong in a science class. You can teach theology in philosophy courses. But if you use a science classroom to tell my child that the Bible is a scientific document, there's going to be a fight.

-Again, Baptists do shit on Wednesdays... Fine... must be a big Baptists population in Iowa. Separation of church and state on that.

-Baptists have problems with gays, I don't. I'm not gay, but others can be, no problem.

Good, we've avoided two social hurdles.

-Global warming, it's a whole thread. In my view, it's a sham. The biggest fascists of our time are Environmentalists.

Do you know what a fascist is?

Back in the 60s it was global warming, then it was global cooling, then back to warming... just like 10 years ago it was global cooling again. They tried to call it climate change to keep their story straight.

It never occurred to you that you didn't get the accurate version of the story?

I just think that there is not enough RECORDED information to say we are at an all time high.

How much data have you looked at?

Humans have been around for what? 2 million years? And only have kept written records for a few ten-thousand? We can hypothesize from scientific data all we want, but how can we be sure we are 100% correct that there was never a time our average temps were as high as they are now?

Actually, we have lots of ways we can tell. Would you like me to pull up the geology records? Because I totally can.

-EPA is a waste of money. They are also getting too powerful.

How?

-We should take advantage of our resources in our own borders. When we stop buying crude oil from sketchy nations, watch places like Dubai shrivel up.

Dubai isn't really a threat to us in any sense of the word, so I don't know why you named them. What about the development of renewable energy?

-I don't like the idea of a North American Union. I like being independent, as much as we are now.

Good. Because there's not going to be one. It's a cockamamie conspiracy theory cooked up by people who think David Icke is a visionary and Alex Jones is the smartest man in the world. That's what people are face-palming about.

Many of my liberal friends are baffled by how reasonable I am. They see all these sites and places talk about how intolerant and bigoted the Republicans are. When really, it's just the Baptists...

And the corporate whores. And the super evangelical protestants. And the Objectivists. And let's not forget that some people are just garden variety assholes.

The Thinker:
Snip.

Yeah, I understand that, but the solution is not to just vote for one of the two parties. I probably should have been clearer, but I'm implying that the only way to force politicians into changing the first past the post/electoral college is to pressure them by voting for third party candidates (particularly for Senate and House seats). If only a handful of third party Senators got together, they could start pushing hard for legislation to change the system up because they would be the swing vote. While a third party President is a pipe dream, a third party Senator is not out of the question.

Brett Dumain:
Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are both bad law stemming from a social engineering phase in the history of the United States Supreme Court. Abortion SHOULD be left up to the individual states since it is not a federal matter, nor is Congress empowered to do anything about reproductive health.

That's not true. Human rights and civil rights are both a matter of the national level of government. Besides, everyone knows moving it to the states is just a bullshit excuse to gain more ground in the GOP war on women. They'll never ban abortion on the federal level, but may on the state level.

Wanting abortion on state level = being anti-abortion = GOP war on women. There is no middle ground behind which to hide, either one is content with how it is, or one wants to gain religious control over all women's sexuality.

The GOP Iowa should show some balls and some honesty and be clear about it. Either they're clear about being okay with abortion, or clear about their fascist intentions to deny citizens even the most freedom known to mankind.

Brett Dumain:
Minimum wage is a nice sentiment but it doesnt actually help workers since companies simply raise their prices in order to compensate for the lost profits through higher wages

Uhm, how does that mean minimum wages don't help? That's an argument that would only work if own workers spent 100% of their income on products from the company where they work, and the company relies on it's own workers for revenue for a 100%. Only then is it a closed system that compensates any changes by itself. So, much like with all classical liberarist/republican assumptions about economy, it's heavily unrealistic, and the supposed problems aren't problems at all.

Because any scenario other than what I described, and a decent minimum wage (the US minimum wage is not decent right now) is a good way to safeguard people can actually live from their job. The redistribution of prices and goods corrects itself automatically and there's no problems anywhere.

Alrighty, lets take a look at this trainwreck......

Stagnant:
We affirm that science has now proven that life begins at conception. On day one (1) a baby's genetic code and DNA are formed. That is the beginning of life.

We affirm that the unborn child is a living human being, with rights separate from those of its mother regardless of gestational age or dependency. We believe abortion should be illegal.

I agree with them on that last statement, with the add on of "except in extreme cases, ie, rape, incest, or the life of the mother." But I have never been very fond of the whole "Personhood" amendment that some people are trying to pass.

We disagree with Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton as settled law, therefore we call for the return of the rights to the states to determine their abortion laws.

I agree with them on this.

We call for the repeal of all mandatory minimum wage laws.

...The hell??

We call for the elimination of the Federal agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

What? Just, what?

We oppose mandatory year-round school.

Completely agree with them on this.

We believe in merit pay for teachers. We support efforts that would link teacher salaries to performance not tenure, and provide firm procedures to remove ineffective educators.

Also agreed on this

We believe that Intelligent Design theory, or Creationism, should be included with all science instruction along with the Darwinian theory. No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other.

We recommend that tax funded school libraries include creation science or intelligent design materials on their bookshelves.

....thats strange...

We believe that sex education should not be taught as a mandatory course in public schools. The teaching of sex education in any form, at any grade level to any student shall be with written parental consent only. When taught it should stress abstinence outside of marriage as the surest way to prevent pregnancy, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and associated psychological problems.

I dont know about Iowa, but in Kansas you can get parental permission to skip the class, and if not, you go in automatically, so why not just do that.

We support the establishment of a no-activities night on Wednesdays.

And this is a problem because.........?

We oppose the teaching of homosexual behavior as a normal or acceptable lifestyle in our public schools.

We believe that sexual orientation should not be allowed to be a basis for any school clubs, such as the Gay Straight Alliance, at any level of the public school system.

We oppose the "Bullying Law".

What. *dumbfounded*

We believe that claims of human caused global warming are based on fraudulent, inaccurate information and that legislation and policy based on this information is detrimental to the well being of the United States.

While I dont exactly agree with that, I do believe some people are pushing for overkill on stopping global warming.

We oppose the use of the Environmental Protection Agency or any other regulatory body to dictate the type of energy that will be produced and used. Energy production should be based on practical economics.

Agreed here. The EPA is actually pretty bad at its job, too quick to throw the book at any and all pollution, without really checking on it, and all energy options should be open.

We believe Congress and the President should remove all legislative and regulatory obstacles to the production of oil and the construction of refineries in the Caribbean, in Texas, in Alabama, in Alaska, in Colorado, and the Williston Basin.

Agreed.

We oppose the proposed North American Union, which would do away with our borders and sovereignty, and we are opposed to the Amero, which would do away with our currency and sovereignty.

We oppose so-called "World Government" and support full constitutional sovereignty of the U.S.A.

We reject the "1972 World Heritage Treaty", which sets up 20 heritage sites within the United States to be governed by a United Nations mandate.

We oppose any effort to implement Islamic Shariah law in this country.

Conspiracy theries for the win? Again, What.

This is what the republican party is and supports.

This is what the Talking heads that are the leaders of the republican party supports. Just becuase you ARE Republican doesnt mean you agree with them (just look at my responses.)

The GOP is fucking insane, and I'll go even further: those who would vote GOP are also insane.

Hey! Not everyone is. Its just the more polarized ones that are insane. I DO NOT agree with what alot of the Republican party does. To that end, I wanted to vote for Huntsman (before he dropped out) and ended up voting for Romney (because he was the more moderate.) I still had a soft spot for Gingrich though. Very good Ideas guy. Might make a good VP.

BOOM headshot65:
Hey! Not everyone is. Its just the more polarized ones that are insane. I DO NOT agree with what alot of the Republican party does. To that end, I wanted to vote for Huntsman (before he dropped out) and ended up voting for Romney (because he was the more moderate.) I still had a soft spot for Gingrich though. Very good Ideas guy. Might make a good VP.

Then why support them? If the leading elements of my political party began taking truly retarded views, I wouldn't vote for them anymore.

Especially in the context of the US. You have two choices, right wing (democrats) or ultra-right wing (republicans), so the economic choices aren't what's stopping you.

So then it must be their crazy retarded social views. Also indicated for instance by endorsing them being opposed to mandatory education, which is basically abandoning children to their fate and allowing people to grow up with very unequal chances in life.


That's not all that dissimilar for denying people their human rights for being women. The core of that idea is still that your own religious and political convictions are more important that other people, a.k.a. selfishness.

Its really hard to sell that you support some of that 'me and myself über alles' thinking that the republicans do, but deny involvement or support with the rest of their similar views.

Blablahb:
Then why support them? If the leading elements of my political party began taking truly retarded views, I wouldn't vote for them anymore.

Except I am a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Yes, I am registered Republican, but the only reason I am is because Kansas has closed primaries for both parties (meaning, you must be a member of that party in order to vote in thier primary) and I want to be able to elect someone close to my views, which would likely be Republican. However, if someone completely bonkers like Rick Santorum ended up getting the nod: "Oh....oh my. Whos the Democrat canadite again?"

So then it must be their crazy retarded social views. Also indicated for instance by endorsing them being opposed to mandatory education, which is basically abandoning children to their fate and allowing people to grow up with very unequal chances in life.

Except that I oppose that line of thinking.

That's not all that dissimilar for denying people their human rights for being women. The core of that idea is still that your own religious and political convictions are more important that other people, a.k.a. selfishness.

Whats with you and that "Abortion is a human right" strawman you keep playing? Because its not true.

Its really hard to sell that you support some of that 'me and myself über alles' thinking that the republicans do, but deny involvement or support with the rest of their similar views.

Yeah, well theres stuff that the Democrats support that I agree with too. Again, the only thing stopping me from being an Independant is because Kansas has closed primaries and I am MORE likely to agree with Republicans. The second Kansas gets open primaries (you can vote in all primaries regardless of party), then I will change my party affliation to "Independant".

The train wreck is the platform, right? :V

BOOM headshot65:

Stagnant:
We affirm that science has now proven that life begins at conception. On day one (1) a baby's genetic code and DNA are formed. That is the beginning of life.

We affirm that the unborn child is a living human being, with rights separate from those of its mother regardless of gestational age or dependency. We believe abortion should be illegal.

I agree with them on that last statement, with the add on of "except in extreme cases, ie, rape, incest, or the life of the mother." But I have never been very fond of the whole "Personhood" amendment that some people are trying to pass.

Something I missed earlier: "the science has now proven that life begins at conception". Oh? Really? I frickin' love these guys. They support science... But only when it goes their way. And somehow, I missed the memo that life began at conception. The personhood amendment idea is a whole other kettle of fish.

We oppose mandatory year-round school.

Completely agree with them on this.

Why? Do you even understand why school is so important?

We believe in merit pay for teachers. We support efforts that would link teacher salaries to performance not tenure, and provide firm procedures to remove ineffective educators.

Also agreed on this

Err... Might wanna read some of the rest of the thread. Katatori-Kun, a working teacher, made a brilliant post explaining why merit pay for teachers is a bad idea. I can understand where this idea comes from, but the fact is, it's just not feasible or a good idea.

We believe that Intelligent Design theory, or Creationism, should be included with all science instruction along with the Darwinian theory. No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other.

We recommend that tax funded school libraries include creation science or intelligent design materials on their bookshelves.

....thats strange...

What's strange about it? The republican party, especially on a local and state level, has been pushing extremely hard for creationism as science, court mandates be damned. It isn't strange, and the fact that it isn't strange should very well be cause for alarm.

I dont know about Iowa, but in Kansas you can get parental permission to skip the class, and if not, you go in automatically, so why not just do that.

Because you shouldn't be able to skip the class. As I said earlier...

Parents need to parent about sex much in the same way that they need to parent about fire - if they don't, and their kid suffers for it (gets a 13-year-old girl pregnant / burns down the school), then there is a problem.

Now imagine for a minute that entire swathes of parents, citing "moral grounds", refused to teach their children about fire safety, and the result was a gigantic number of child-borne fires, causing millions in damages, much of which the state has to deal with. Is it still a "parenting issue"? At what point does the government get to step in and say, "You know what? Even if you guys do it right, we're going to make double sure, because if we don't, we're going to have to fit the bill, and our society will be worse for it." The kids should damn well learn about contraception in school, because removing sex ed doesn't mean that they aren't going to have sex, it just means that they probably aren't going to have protected sex. I am a staunch opponent of this ludicrous belief that parents can teach their kids whatever they want, the consequences be damned. If I taught my kid that murder was okay and they went on to kill a classmate, I'd be in big fucking trouble. But for some reason, if I teach my kid that condoms are evil and they knock up a 13-year-old, I'm just a good religious parent doing what any good religious parent would do.

Why is it okay to make your children skip sex education when the result shown by all the research is that the only result is a higher rate of teen pregnancy and a lower rate of condom use?

We support the establishment of a no-activities night on Wednesdays.

And this is a problem because.........?

You missed the part where I pointed out that this is the case because Wednesday night is effectively church night. It's telling the schools that they need to be shaping their schedules around the whims of local churches. That's not okay. I mean, if it could be shown that they were doing this for any other institution (say, Big Bob's Playpen had special deals on Wednesday night and it could be demonstrated that this was the reason for this law), heads would roll. I don't think it being a church makes it any better, especially when you consider the first amendment.

We oppose the teaching of homosexual behavior as a normal or acceptable lifestyle in our public schools.

We believe that sexual orientation should not be allowed to be a basis for any school clubs, such as the Gay Straight Alliance, at any level of the public school system.

We oppose the "Bullying Law".

What. *dumbfounded*

Why are you surprised? Again, you seem not to be paying attention to your own party. Yeah. They don't like the gays. We saw a similar policy instituted in Missouri... Do I have to tell you what the outcome was? And yet, somehow, Iowa republicans are seeing that and thinking "Huh, you know what? We should do that too!" This isn't surprising. The republican party has been very consistent in its anti-gay policy, the costs be damned - even if those costs are the lives of homosexual teenagers who are forced, every day, into a hostile, hateful environment, and take the only way out that they can find.

There's nothing surprising about the republicans pushing a law like this. Nothing at all.

While I dont exactly agree with that, I do believe some people are pushing for overkill on stopping global warming.

That is almost a tenable position. As in, if it's unreasonable, then it's only just barely so. What they're proposing is conspiracy theory bullshit.

Agreed here. The EPA is actually pretty bad at its job, too quick to throw the book at any and all pollution, without really checking on it, and all energy options should be open.

Citation?

We believe Congress and the President should remove all legislative and regulatory obstacles to the production of oil and the construction of refineries in the Caribbean, in Texas, in Alabama, in Alaska, in Colorado, and the Williston Basin.

Agreed.

Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon. Most of the places we're not allowed to dril for oil are places that are protected environments, or places where an oil spill would be a complete and utter disaster.

This is what the republican party is and supports.

This is what the Talking heads that are the leaders of the republican party supports. Just becuase you ARE Republican doesnt mean you agree with them (just look at my responses.)

The leaders are who we vote for.

The GOP is fucking insane, and I'll go even further: those who would vote GOP are also insane.

Hey! Not everyone is. Its just the more polarized ones that are insane. I DO NOT agree with what alot of the Republican party does. To that end, I wanted to vote for Huntsman (before he dropped out) and ended up voting for Romney (because he was the more moderate.) I still had a soft spot for Gingrich though. Very good Ideas guy. Might make a good VP.

I think you missed my point - you're supporting the party of hatred, intolerance, and ignorance.

EDIT: Whoops, got ninja'd. I retract this last statement. ^^

Brett Dumain:

arbane:

Brett Dumain:

Minimum wage is a nice sentiment but it doesnt actually help workers since companies simply raise their prices in order to compensate for the lost profits through higher wages (thus leading to buying power staying the same.)

Yeah, I don't think so. Things are measurably better now than they were before minimum wage. I understand that the GOP wants to stop illegal immigration by making Americans willing to work for illegals' wages, but anyone else should see it as the bad idea it is.

I make minimum wage where I work. At full time after taxes( full time being 37.5 hours after figuring in 5 30 min unpaid lunch/dinners) I bring home about 220 dollars, which is 880 dollars a month. No single person can support themselves on that, unless they live in some shithole in the inner city with ample access to public transportation and an employer who is willing to work around a bus schedule.

Thats without even mentioning, again, how prices rise (both due to inflation and profit hunting) when the minimum wage rises.

So... you're arguing that if we get rid of the minimum wage, McJobs are going to...pay better? Prices are going to be lower?

And I'd argue that any job that isn't worth minimum wage probably isn't worth doing in the first place.

Brett Dumain:

Lastly (for now), it devalues labor since it demands everyone essentially start at the same wage. I have more knowledge and experience than the majority of my coworkers (most of whom are under 18) but due to the labor laws not only do I make the same amount of money as these ungrateful bastards, but IM expected to do more work on top of it. How exactly is that protecting workers from unethical buisness practices?

I'd say that's your problem with your employers screwing you, not with minimum wage. Or are you saying you'd be happier working for peanuts, as long as 'those ungrateful bastards' are only getting peanut shells?

Smokeydubbs:

-Many Republicans are pro life because they believe that life starts at conception. My rationalization pro life is, give the kid a chance. It may be an unplanned pregnancy but that kid may go on to do something worth while.

WOMEN, on the other hand, deserve to have their lives ruined if they commit SIN.

Smokeydubbs:

-States rights are what made this country great. It focuses government and rights, namely property rights.

Specifically, the right of white people to keep black people as property.

I'm going to be nice here and assume you're not a big student of history, but 'state's rights' has some NASTY racist dogwhistle connotations.

Smokeydubbs:

-Minimum wage is very similar to Unions. There doesn't need to be a standard for the quality of work, legally. The thought is if minimum wage wasn't around, companies, mainly small businesses, would spend less on bad workers. And hopefully provide incentive of working better for better pay.

Out of the goodness of their corporate hearts?

Smokeydubbs:

-Many government agencies are a burden, but I believe a standard of safety in the work place is necessary. If I could say in good faith that this standard could be upheld by a private entity, I would say kill the OSHA, but I can't.

FINALLY something I can agree with. Whew.

Smokeydubbs:
-I support merit pay for teachers. I see no downside, if you suck at teaching, tough. At least your aren't a burden on the state.

Like I said earlier in the thread, "Define 'merit'."

Smokeydubbs:

-Sex ed should be between the parents and the children. This raises a parenting issue in our country that I can go off on, but to keep it simple: parents need to parent about sex. The kids can learn about anatomy in school, but not about contraception.

"Let 'em learn about it in the gutter, like we did! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!"

Have you noticed that states with abstinence-based sex ed also have the highest teenage pregnancy rates? I think there MIGHT be a correlation there....

Smokeydubbs:
I personally believe in a mix of Intelligent Design and Big Bang. No one can definitively say what caused the big bang. I think there was a higher power involved. And evolution happened afterward.

Fine. Now come up with a testable set of hypotheses and try to disprove them, and if all the scientists in the world FAIL to do so, you can call it a 'theory'. Until then, stick to church with it.

Smokeydubbs:

-Global warming, it's a whole thread. In my view, it's a sham. The biggest fascists of our time are Environmentalists.

I see a few of the other Reality-Based posters have already given this absurdity the beating it deserves, I just want you to explain how evironmentalists are bigger 'fascists' that the religious idiots trying to make us all deep-throat their theology, or the paranoid police-state bullshit Bush and friends caused.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Smokeydubbs:
-EPA is a waste of money. They are also getting too powerful.

"Clean water is for SISSIES!"

Smokeydubbs:

-I don't like the idea of a North American Union. I like being independent, as much as we are now.

Fortunately for you, it isn't even being planned outside of the crazed dreams of conspiracy theorists. Why would Canada and Mexico want to shackle their economies to our sinking ship any FURTHER?

Smokeydubbs:

Many of my liberal friends are baffled by how reasonable I am. They see all these sites and places talk about how intolerant and bigoted the Republicans are. When really, it's just the Baptists...

You're still ignorant, you're just not bigoted. As for 'reasonable'....well, at least you're _affable_ about wanting to destroy the world in the glorious name of corporate profits.

DrVornoff:

Smokeydubbs:

-Many Republicans are pro life because they believe that life starts at conception. My rationalization pro life is, give the kid a chance. It may be an unplanned pregnancy but that kid may go on to do something worth while.

The reason that logic doesn't hold together is because the same argument could be made that the kid could become the next Son of Sam.

You'll be happy to know that Armageddon has been delayed by 20-odd years, as the future Antichrist was aborted. AGAIN.

DrVornoff:

-Global warming, it's a whole thread. In my view, it's a sham. The biggest fascists of our time are Environmentalists.

Do you know what a fascist is?

Obama, right?

DrVornoff:

Back in the 60s it was global warming, then it was global cooling, then back to warming... just like 10 years ago it was global cooling again. They tried to call it climate change to keep their story straight.

It never occurred to you that you didn't get the accurate version of the story?

Surely you're not suggesting that Fox News would be INACCURATE, are you?

DrVornoff:

Many of my liberal friends are baffled by how reasonable I am. They see all these sites and places talk about how intolerant and bigoted the Republicans are. When really, it's just the Baptists...

And the corporate whores. And the super evangelical protestants. And the Objectivists. And let's not forget that some people are just garden variety assholes.

You left out the bitter bigots who are terrified that people besides straight white males are agitating to be treated as humans, and the neo-con Pax Romana maniacs, although aside from spoiling for a war with Iran, they've been a bit quiet ever since their vanity war in Iraq proved to be a fiasco.

BOOM headshot65:

I agree with them on that last statement, with the add on of "except in extreme cases, ie, rape, incest, or the life of the mother."

Spoken like someone who can relax in the happy knowledge that they will never get pregnant. :-P

BOOM headshot65:

We believe that Intelligent Design theory, or Creationism, should be included with all science instruction along with the Darwinian theory. No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other.

We recommend that tax funded school libraries include creation science or intelligent design materials on their bookshelves.

....thats strange...

No, it makes perfect sense for the Creationists. They've lost conclusively at Science, so they need to make the government cheat on their behalf.

BOOM headshot65:

Agreed here. The EPA is actually pretty bad at its job, too quick to throw the book at any and all pollution, without really checking on it, and all energy options should be open.

Maybe if the GOP stopped trying to kill the EPA and gave them workable funding, the OH WHO AM I KIDDING, the Republicans don't even believe there IS an 'environment', much less any such thing as 'pollution'! THERE IS ONLY THE MONEY.

[color=magenta] I'm going to go burn old tires in my backyard now. You're cool with that, living downwind and all, RIGHT? [/magenta]

BOOM headshot65:

We believe Congress and the President should remove all legislative and regulatory obstacles to the production of oil and the construction of refineries in the Caribbean, in Texas, in Alabama, in Alaska, in Colorado, and the Williston Basin.

Agreed.

Deepwater Horizon.

BOOM headshot65:

This is what the republican party is and supports.

This is what the Talking heads that are the leaders of the republican party supports. Just becuase you ARE Republican doesnt mean you agree with them (just look at my responses.)

And if you vote Republican in Ohio, you're telling them "YEAH! MORE of that kind of Crazy, please!"

This is one of several reasons I want to see the GOP start losing elections - they need to detoxify.

BOOM headshot65:

Whats with you and that "Abortion is a human right" strawman you keep playing? Because its not true.

Yeah, yeah, we know. Fetuses and corporations are people, women aren't.

(And Captcha says "Labour of love". You've got a sick sense of humor, Cap.)

So what exactly is their beef with OSHA?

Nielas:
So what exactly is their beef with OSHA?

My first guess would be that it's a government regulatory organization, and that automatically makes it bad. Beyond that, they probably oppose it because they have campaign contributors who are tired of all that workplace safety nonsense cutting into their profits. Whatever happened to the good old days where you could lock your workers in a factory full of fire hazards and blame the inevitable disasters on the unions?*

*That actually happened.

DrVornoff:

Nielas:
So what exactly is their beef with OSHA?

My first guess would be that it's a government regulatory organization, and that automatically makes it bad. Beyond that, they probably oppose it because they have campaign contributors who are tired of all that workplace safety nonsense cutting into their profits. Whatever happened to the good old days where you could lock your workers in a factory full of fire hazards and blame the inevitable disasters on the unions?*

*That actually happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

Yep.

dyre:
Is that really the Iowa Republican party's website? It seems kindof amateurishly made.

I liked this one on their statement of principles

1. In the eyes of God, all men are created equal.

2. America is good.

3. The family is sacred. The husband and wife are the ultimate authority, not the government.

They should have at least gone all the way and claimed America is the best country in the world!

All men are equal. Unless they're not Christian. Or Gay. Or Communist.

OT: This is like a laundry list of everything that's wrong with the GOP. I think the Barry Goldwater quote fits well here.

Brett Dumain:

Thats without even mentioning, again, how prices rise (both due to inflation and profit hunting) when the minimum wage rises.

If you increase the minimum wage 10%, price rises will be far, far smaller.

1) Labour costs are only a fraction of production costs; a wage increase would cause a proportionally smaller overall cost increase.

2)A minimum wage increase would not cause a 10% price increase across the whole workforce, but a progressively smaller increase further from the minimum. The top 10% earn half the nation's income, it's unlikely they'd be affected. Thus the percentage total wage increases in the whole population would be a small fraction of that of the minimum.

If I were on the minimum wage and were offered a 10% pay increase for a mere (say) couple of percent increase in prices, I'd take it.

BOOM headshot65:
Whats with you and that "Abortion is a human right" strawman you keep playing? Because its not true.

Uh, the right to integrity of the own body is found in the UN rights charter, widely accepted, and found in most constitutions. The habeas corpus principle is also based on it for instance. Rape is classified as a severe crime on the basis of that principle (okay, not everywhere, raping your wife is a minor offense in most US states).

Besides, there is not a single person who is opposed to abortion and honest at the same time. Ask any self-problaimed pro-lifer if they'd like you to rape them. Anyone who says no is a hypocrite because they value the bodily integrity they want to deny women.

Stagnant:

Not stupid. Misguided, maybe, but definitely not stupid. The fact is, though, that if you aren't voting Democrat, you might as well be voting Republican. That's just how this stupid, broken, first-past-the-post system works.

I could vote anything, even Democrat, and I might as well be voting Republican. My state is so blood red there was a higher percentage that voted for Bush in both elections than even his home state. Hence why I hate the winner-take-all electoral college and generally abstain from the federal part of elections.

Edit: Derp.

Blablahb:
Uh, the right to integrity of the own body is found in the UN rights charter, widely accepted, and found in most constitutions. The habeas corpus principle is also based on it for instance. Rape is classified as a severe crime on the basis of that principle (okay, not everywhere, raping your wife is a minor offense in most US states).

Besides, there is not a single person who is opposed to abortion and honest at the same time. Ask any self-problaimed pro-lifer if they'd like you to rape them. Anyone who says no is a hypocrite because they value the bodily integrity they want to deny women.

Oh come on. I'm pro-choice and even I think you're being incredibly hyperbolic.

The issue with abortion is that it's not just her body, as you know full well. There's a 'thing' involved too, and as far as I can tell the crux of the debate between most (rational) people is where the woman's rights end and the 'thing's begins.

arbane:

w9496:
I don't think we should allow shariah law, either. Isn't it really extreme? Like, killing people for most "crimes" extreme?

Fortunately, the First Amendment specifically forbids the US to have religion-based laws. Not that that's ever stopped Christianity...

Well, christian-influenced laws aren't that bad compared to shariah law. We don't murder people for the dumbest of things and call it justice.

Mr Cwtchy:
Oh come on. I'm pro-choice and even I think you're being incredibly hyperbolic.
The issue with abortion is that it's not just her body, as you know full well. There's a 'thing' involved too, and as far as I can tell the crux of the debate between most (rational) people is where the woman's rights end and the 'thing's begins.

Uh, it is just her body. It's the only person involved, and the only one who has any rights. Also, rights are a minority over majority thing. They're not null and void because someone else wants them to be. If me and two mates think you don't deserve civil rights, it's not like your rights are suddenly 'outvoted'. They're valid, regardless what anyone else thinks of them.

Nobody can claim otherwise without being a hypocrite. Each of us kills the amount of life of an early stage fetus pretty much daily.

Mr Cwtchy:

Blablahb:
Uh, the right to integrity of the own body is found in the UN rights charter, widely accepted, and found in most constitutions. The habeas corpus principle is also based on it for instance. Rape is classified as a severe crime on the basis of that principle (okay, not everywhere, raping your wife is a minor offense in most US states).

Besides, there is not a single person who is opposed to abortion and honest at the same time. Ask any self-problaimed pro-lifer if they'd like you to rape them. Anyone who says no is a hypocrite because they value the bodily integrity they want to deny women.

Oh come on. I'm pro-choice and even I think you're being incredibly hyperbolic.

The issue with abortion is that it's not just her body, as you know full well. There's a 'thing' involved too, and as far as I can tell the crux of the debate between most (rational) people is where the woman's rights end and the 'thing's begins.

A clump of cells should never have more rights than an adult human being. Period.

When the kid's heart is beating? You have an argument. Day One? Not a chance in hell.

w9496:

arbane:

w9496:
I don't think we should allow shariah law, either. Isn't it really extreme? Like, killing people for most "crimes" extreme?

Fortunately, the First Amendment specifically forbids the US to have religion-based laws. Not that that's ever stopped Christianity...

Well, christian-influenced laws aren't that bad compared to shariah law. We don't murder people for the dumbest of things and call it justice.

Not yet.

w9496:
Well, christian-influenced laws aren't that bad compared to shariah law. We don't murder people for the dumbest of things and call it justice.

They used to. Then we had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Shariah law is basically dead, it just doesn't know it yet. The Middle East seems to be going through European history in reverse.

arbane:

w9496:

arbane:

Fortunately, the First Amendment specifically forbids the US to have religion-based laws. Not that that's ever stopped Christianity...

Well, christian-influenced laws aren't that bad compared to shariah law. We don't murder people for the dumbest of things and call it justice.

Not yet.

Yeah, I heard about that guy. I hope nobody is foolish enough to listen to him. I wouldn't want to live in this country anymore if that happened.

DrVornoff:

w9496:
Well, christian-influenced laws aren't that bad compared to shariah law. We don't murder people for the dumbest of things and call it justice.

They used to. Then we had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Shariah law is basically dead, it just doesn't know it yet. The Middle East seems to be going through European history in reverse.

Good point. It's a great thing how we changed though, isn't it? Kinda shows humanity's better side.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked