The Political Discussion Thread

[Womble]

I wouldn't sell conservatism short because of a current fad of right wing populism that has taken hold of the GOP.

Progressives hate conservatives the way the car's engine hates the brakes. If it weren't for the brakes, what glorious speed could be reached! Until the first sharp turn, anyway.

Not to defend your white devils, but expecting people to take the hard pill of ignoring murder because others don't believe it is murder is a bit....what's the word? Naive?

I believe the word is "disingenious". It does not work the other way round; the political forces you call "liberals" (a misnomer really) do not believe that THEIR beliefs are optional and are not to be imposed upon the society through laws.

I just hope Congress realizes that Trump is off his rocker and decides not to rubber stamp everything just because he's Trump. It's the best we can do right now.

I'm really hoping that an alliance of Democrats and Trump-immune Republicans in the Congress will be large and stable enough to put up genuine resistance should the need arise. But if we have learned anything during the Obama years, especially in cases of Obamacare and the Iran deal, it is that a sufficiently determined and dishonest POTUS will find a way to sideline the Congress.

P.S. Regarding "raising sheltered snowflakes". Every time I hear or read that, I am reminded of an aphorism by Stanislaw J. Lec:"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible".

[Falcon Horus]

maybe the LSOS wants to rival Kim Jong in his egotism

Great, now I have to remember your LSOS is Trump and Annoyed's is Obama. This could become confusing after a while.

And second, Kim Jong Un has perfected that to an artform. Trump might come in second right now, and lets not forget about Erdogan and Putin.

...belief in creationism (at least in those who are actually theologically educated) is not about evidence and proof. It's about faith.

And what then of those that are not "theologically educated"? Where do they fit in?

To be fair, the Liberal agenda is just as bad as the conservative. Conservatives want to defund education. Liberals want to make it all about raising little sheltered snowflakes. Both don't mind testing kids to death.

Betsy DeVos wants privileged -- what's the opposite of a snowflake? -- students instead.

Liberals have a serious case of Attention Deficit Disorder when it comes to that.

ADD? Really?

That's what you're going with.

Not to defend your white devils, but expecting people to take the hard pill of ignoring murder because others don't believe it is murder is a bit....what's the word? Naive?

What murder are we talking about?

Or is it the kind where you want to dictate what others do with their bodies?

What was that again about the US not being a Christian nation?

Not everyone who is against it believes in sins. Take Annoyed and Garhkal. They are agnostic...and very anti gay marraige.

True, they believe in traditional marriage -- the contract to further ones position in society, to gain land and wealth (and more power over the fiefdoms).

Not the actual contract between two people which gives them access to benefits for married couples, things like power of attorney, bank accounts, inheritences, custody of children born in or out of the marriage, ... you know the things straight folks take for granted.

I just hope Congress realizes that Trump is off his rocker and decides not to rubber stamp everything just because he's Trump. It's the best we can do right now.

Naive much...

If I recall my history lessons correctly, government control of the education system was the first step in the establishment of an authoritarian regime...if the government controls the education system then it can control what gets taught by "banning" certain books from being used in schools

So from where I'm sitting I'm not exactly too thrilled with the entire concept of government controlled education. If I recall it was the parochial schools that used to educate the indigent.

Guidelines are not actual rules.

the liberal agenda is good for everyone? so taxing everyone into an equal level of poverty, which is what the liberal agenda typically supports (having taxpayers pay for pretty much everything) is good for everyone? having a long arduous and exceptionally burdensome tax code that only seeks to punish those who've worked hard to become successful so that the gangbangers can leech off taxpayer money is good for everyone? you have a strange definition of "good for everyone"

I see, you support the 1% that don't pay taxes.

[SoulReaver]

Great, now I have to remember your LSOS is Trump and Annoyed's is Obama. This could become confusing after a while.

Obama? who's Obama?
ah yes some random chap...also ex president or something...why would anyone mention him now go figure :/

[Falcon Horus]

Obama? who's Obama?
ah yes some former president or something...why would anyone mention him now, go figure :/

Well, yes because Trump is going to erase him from the tables. He will be undone.

[pookey]

Is Trump Q then?

[Gatefan1976]

Q is actually intelligent, the only thing they share is their narcissism.

[SoulReaver]

Well, yes because Trump is going to erase him from the tables. He will be undone.

ain't the only thing the LSOS will erase
he'll also erase the americans' sense of self & teach them the lyrics of the Gimn Russijskoj

Is Trump Q then?

Q is omnipotent, the LSOS is just omnipresent (in the media)

[Annoyed]

So you want to punish me and take my salary because your NY teachers are ineffective when I and my colleges are effective? How is that in any way right? Why should I even bother, why should PA or MD teachers even bother if they'll still get punished because some NY teachers don't do a good job? And why should the federal government be involved in the first place? I'm ignoring a few issues with your POV btw...

This is my stance too. I'll add that there is no reason why private sector and public sector employees shouldn't have the same rights, opportunities, and protections. Government has no right in dictating how workers organize themselves. So if there are private sector unions, there should be public sector unions.

Assuming that you are a good teacher, and competent in your job, no one is proposing punishing you. You should be able to earn whatever your skills can fetch on the market, just as any other person. The "why bother" is so that you have a record of being an excellent teacher that you can use in salary negotiations with your current or a prospective employer.
That's how the vast majority of private sector workers live.

Regarding unions in the private sector vs the public sector, there is a very good reason why unions should only be in the private sector.

Competition.

In the private sector, if company A's unions push for excessive compensation, (and the company management is stupid enough to sign off on it) and it results in a less desirable product, raises cost, lowers quality, or whatever, I and other consumers have the choice of buying that product from company B. If Company A goes out of business as a result, their loss. Maybe they will be smarter next time.

(As an aside, this is the reason I so strongly opposed Bush II's bailout of the auto industry; by bailing GM & Chrysler* out, they prevented the natural consequences of union greed and management stupidity from playing out. What motivation do they have to be smarter next time? That bailout allowed both management and the UAW to completely ignore the consequences of their choices.) *This was the 2nd bailout for Chrysler; Carter bailed them out in 1979, too.

In the public sector, however, there is no competition. Citizens can't go to another vendor if the services provided such as the quality of the education suffer as a result of union demands.

This is borne out very strongly by the near universal education union opposition to charter schools, vouchers and anything else that gives a large # of parents a choice of where to send their kids. The unions will do anything they can to prevent the customers aka parents from having a choice. Why are they afraid of competition?

And, yes, I agree, NY is a special case. In many ways, more than I will live long enough to list, NY can be seen as a test lab for liberalism run amuck. And this affects education in other ways, too.

One of the most often cited reasons offered by educators for the poor performance of urban schools is the quality of the raw materials they have to work with in urban areas. But they don't bother to list the reasons for the low quality of the raw materials or students they have to work with.

Just to touch on two items, poverty and little or no parental support or effort.

So, we have a liberal state that will hand out free money to people having children they have no business having because they do not have the financial or situational resources to properly raise them. Replacing the father with the welfare check is one common situation. You end up with poorly parented students because the parent or in fewer cases, parents are not able to do the job properly.

All this money the state hands out has to come from somewhere. States can't print money like the feds can.
So, they try to tax the hell out of "the wealthy" which often means working stiffs and businesses, two of the left's favorite whipping boys. Our governor is even now proposing raising taxes on these targets.

And quite predictably, those businesses and the "wealthy" who run them take those businesses and the jobs they provide and moves them to a more business-friendly state. This goes on long enough, as it has here, there's your poverty; the state has driven most of the better paying jobs out of the state.

As I understand it, you live in PA. Are you anywhere near the border to NY? Ever notice all the people who pop across the border to PA to escape NY's high gas taxes, sales taxes and such? Businesses do the same thing.

You wonder why I am so strident in my opposition to the left and left its policies. I have lived my entire life in a near perfect demonstration of rampant, out of control liberalism.

[SoulReaver]

IT BEGINS

man I so look forward to seeing the LSOS's electors suffer...and suffer...hehe

[Annoyed]

Great, now I have to remember your LSOS is Trump and Annoyed's is Obama. This could become confusing after a while.

I've suggested that he come up with an original name for Trump, the term LSoS™ exclusively refers to the former occupant of the White House. I don't care what he calls him, but it should be original.

[Falcon Horus]

I've suggested that he come up with an original name for Trump, the term LSoS™ exclusively refers to the former occupant of the White House. I don't care what he calls him, but it should be original.

That's what I thought.

[Annoyed]

Besides, if he hates Trump even half as much as I hate the LSoS™, you would think it would be worth the effort to come up with something original.

[SoulReaver]

Besides, if he hates Trump even half as much as I hate the LSoS™, you would think it would be worth the effort to come up with something original.

any hatred in the LSOS is justified, your hatred in Obama is misplaced (why not blame the insurance companies instead)

the term LSoS™ exclusively refers to the former occupant of the White House

still living in 2008?

I don't care what he calls him, but it should be original.

if the shoe fits, wear it
if the shoe fits someone else better, let them wear it

[Gatefan1976]

Don't tempt me

[jelgate]

I've suggested that he come up with an original name for Trump, the term LSoS™ exclusively refers to the former occupant of the White House. I don't care what he calls him, but it should be original.

Orange Stalin?