[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

[Doom]

(not worth the thread derail)

[K]

Sometimes I wonder K, what color is the sky where you live? It must be an off color, puce, perhaps, because there are times when your understanding of history is slightly off, and in the most bizarre ways.

The Articles of Confederation did not fail because of a lack of a standing army. It failed because of a lack of a standard currency.

The Articles did not give the government taxation powers, thus they could not have the standing armies necessary to enforce tariffs and other foreign policy issues. This was deemed "an issue."

Currency was also an issue too, but the failure of the Articles was actually quite complicated and involved things like wanting to keep the new states from becoming merchant states like England, but it's all up for debate since that shit is hundreds of years old and people were really bad at keeping records.

You should read more, especially the bits about the Supreme Court, and stay away from the revisionist Tea Party bullshit (for starters, answer why anyone would allow the Marshal court rulings to stand since the court was newly created and could literally be ignored by the government or the court dismantled.... the answer is "they couldn't steal any power, so they actually didn't").

I know the Founding Fathers get you hard and you'd like to get into fapfest over the scholarly debates and what "real America" is supposed to be, but you've missed the point I was making entirely which is that the only thing the FF's did right is to realize that the wealthy hate to pay taxes even when it was in the best interest of society and themselves.

Oh speaking of infrastructure. (Oh I know you will get a kick out of this.) The roads that the Founding Fathers travelled were PRIVATE.

Yeh, the FFs made a lot of shitty compromises because the population loved to rebel every time someone mentioned taxes and there wasn't a lot of money to do things.

Your point?

[Psychic Robot]

this isn't some collectivist euro gay pride parade, this is america. our government's job isn't to go about making everyone's lives happy and comfortable, it's to safeguard freedom and let the citizenry go about their lives. if you want some welfare state diversity hellhole, move to california. otherwise piss off because the federal government is big enough as-is.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I would gladly trade my "freedom" for more prosperity if given the offer. Freedom isn't free, and I'm tired of starving because some rich dude wants to embezzle his millions.

[DSMatticus]

I would gladly trade my "freedom" for more prosperity if given the offer.

It's not even trading freedom. The sort of freedom PR talks about is the freedom to not pay taxes, which is a freedom you never had to begin with and you in fact never will nor never should have.

As for the actual personal liberties people actually care about (speech, religion, entertainment, information, all that good jazz), paying more taxes does not interfere with any of those. At all. PR does not actually hate government for liberty's sake. He hates government for hating government's sake.

[Psychic Robot]

He hates government for hating government's sake.

when I did begin to see its corruption, I did begin to hate it so. not that I despise the law or authority, but I merely distrust the government, which is the natural position for anyone who is not an idiot

As for the actual personal liberties people actually care about (speech, religion, entertainment, information, all that good jazz)

the freedom to keep your own money is a freedom people don't care about? liberallogic.jpg

[Doom]

, but I merely distrust the government, which is the natural position for anyone who is not an idiot

The core reason PR isn't getting along with a few folk here. PR, you underestimate the power of indoctrination. Allow me to suggest some reading.. Really, just pick a chapter (I'll recommend "The New Dumbness"), it's all fascinating, and will help you to understand much of the reactions here.

[Koumei]

Nobody says you have to trust the government, or even like them. You just force them to do their job, assume they're usually lying, and try to keep corporations from buying their government.

Having a government in charge, that can be booted out by the people (via vote or revolution), is the least bad of the options. The rest involve cutting out the middle man so someone bigger can just fuck you at will.

[Psychic Robot]

Having a government in charge, that can be booted out by the people (via vote or revolution), is the least bad of the options. The rest involve cutting out the middle man so someone bigger can just fuck you at will.

so which of those options do we have in america

cryingeagle.jpg

[Count Arioch the 28th]

the freedom to keep your own money is a freedom people don't care about? liberallogic.jpg

It's a freedom that I've never had, my parents and grandparents never had, and no one in my family ever had (I've done the research, my ancestors were serfs owned by some dude living near Dresden). I get the idea that you haven't seen the ugly side of life very much at all.

[DSMatticus]

when I did begin to see its corruption, I did begin to hate it so. not that I despise the law or authority, but I merely distrust the government, which is the natural position for anyone who is not an idiot

But corporations are infallible entities we can trust; there's no need for the existence of an entity to protect us from the greed and financial power of wealthy individuals, because they would never hurt us.

Your probable response: the mechanism for protecting us from corporations is individuals acting together against them.

Real-life counter example: Wal-Mart destroys small businesses and the corresponding jobs. Everyone bitched about this forever. Everyone still shops at Wal-Mart. Any mechanism that depends on people forfeiting individual benefit (cheap goods) for collective benefit (people not losing their jobs) is instantly a failure.

the freedom to keep your own money is a freedom people don't care about? liberallogic.jpg

Tell me again about how you have to be paying exactly $0.00 in taxes every year to be free.

PR, you underestimate the power of indoctrination.

Stop being a condescending fuckwit; it wouldn't bother me so much if you had a good idea in there somewhere, but so far my experience has been that you run out of good ideas, and fall back on, "you poor, poor brainwashed child," and repeat this over and over.

So, who here sounds more indoctrinated? The one making logical, evidentiary arguments, or the one failing to do so and falling back on a chanted mantra that demonizes the other side?

[Psychic Robot]

which is precisely my point, a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow. I have said some variation of it before and I will say a multitude of variations of it again in the future: you cannot make the poor rich through taxes. you cannot make anyone rich by living off another man's wealth. to produce societal wealth requires the population to have well-paying jobs and for them to invest in society. the problem is that people are now taking their wealth and investing it in other societies (i.e., mexico) while leaving americans with low-paying jobs.

this is why we're in a shit. if we fix this, more social problems will evaporate than all the government subsidies in the world can alleviate.

[Psychic Robot]

But corporations are infallible entities we can trust; there's no need for the existence of an entity to protect us from the greed and financial power of wealthy individuals, because they would never hurt us.

Your probable response: the mechanism for protecting us from corporations is individuals acting together against them.

Real-life counter example: Wal-Mart destroys small businesses and the corresponding jobs. Everyone bitched about this forever. Everyone still shops at Wal-Mart. Any mechanism that depends on people forfeiting individual benefit (cheap goods) for collective benefit (people not losing their jobs) is instantly a failure.

fuck you I'm not a republican

Tell me again about how you have to be paying exactly $0.00 in taxes every year to be free.

is that what I said no shut up and stuff your face with dicks

[DSMatticus]

fuck you I'm not a republican

I'll admit, I was only guessing. You like unions, so I assumed you would like the consumer equivalent (consumer boycott organizations?). Unfortunately, unions and boycotts are historical failures without government assistance.

But you're welcome to suggest actual mechanisms for the citizens (employees AND consumers; don't forget both sides of the equation) to protect themself from corporations without government involvement. Because if you don't have them, then you are trading a government tyrant for a corporate one.

is that what I said no shut up and stuff your face with dicks

So you think we should pay taxes, and you in fact agree that "the freedom to keep all your money" is not one we have, despite your earlier implication that it is? Just want to be clear on this.

[Psychic Robot]

But you're welcome to suggest actual mechanisms for the citizens (employees AND consumers; don't forget both sides of the equation) to protect themself from corporations without government involvement. Because if you don't have them, then you are trading a government tyrant for a corporate one.

publicly financing elections and revoking the status of corporate personhood. corruption should be a capital offense.

So you think we should pay taxes, and you in fact agree that "the freedom to keep all your money" is not one we have, despite your earlier implication that it is? Just want to be clear on this.

a man does have the right to keep his money. I never said "all"; I do recognize that taxes are a necessity in today's society. we could probably downsize a lot of government to reduce the tax burden however. (and some of that would fall right in line with your liberal ideals as I would end the drug war and let the rest of the states decide what drugs are legal, and then I would close down the DHS and end all foreign wars. of course I'd end all foreign aid too so you'd win some and you'd lose some with me)

[Count Arioch the 28th]

which is precisely my point, a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow.

Since when? A man has never been entitled to the seat of his brow, there's always been a rich fuck there to take it with him, either because there were heavily armed knights beside him ready to chop you into tiny bits if you didn't give him your grain, or there were rich stockholders demanding more and more return on investment and demanding that your wages were lowered so they could.

Things will never be different.

[K]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so I posted it here.

Type into Google "Is Obama"

The auto-suggest gave me:

"Is Obama a Muslim"
"Is Obama the Antichrist"
"Is Obama a US citizen"
"Is Obama a good president"
"Is Obama Gay"

I knew Republican propaganda machines were working overtime, but this shit is just epic.

[DSMatticus]

a man does have the right to keep his money. I never said "all"; I do recognize that taxes are a necessity in today's society.

And I don't think there's any widely held liberal policy advocating 100% tax rate.

we could probably downsize a lot of government to reduce the tax burden however.

We can raise taxes 10% and increase the purchasing power of the dollar by 20%. Is this a tax burden that needs to be reduced, y/n?

(and some of that would fall right in line with your liberal ideals as I would end the drug war and let the rest of the states decide what drugs are legal, and then I would close down the DHS and end all foreign wars. of course I'd end all foreign aid too so you'd win some and you'd lose some with me)

Drug Wars, agree. Federal legalization because states are slow and stupid, and having marijuana be legal in one state next to a state where it is not is going to cause ridiculously stupid interstate traffic problems that hurt everyone. Foreign wars, agree. Foreign aid, mostly agree. A nation's obligation is to its members, so I'm fine with letting foreign aid evaporate if we can instead use that money locally. I'm pretty sure it's a net moral wrong to invest in infrastructure locally instead of feeding starving Africans, but morality isn't worth much to begin with. Now, some foreign aid is just simply in our interests. Cutting that is stupid.

to produce societal wealth requires the population to have well-paying jobs and for them to invest in society. the problem is that people are now taking their wealth and investing it in other societies (i.e., mexico)

The second you try to stop that directly, the foreign entities holding our debt will recall it, and our economy will tank. Any talk about fixing our international trade policy begins with fixing our debt problem, and that begins with taxing the people who can actually afford it and spending money on things that can't be outsourced, like developing infrastructure.

We can't even get to where you want to start without using dirty socialist policy to get there. Which suggests maybe the dirty socialist policy is just better in the first place.

[Psychic Robot]

We can raise taxes 10% and increase the purchasing power of the dollar by 20%. Is this a tax burden that needs to be reduced, y/n?

depends on who you're going to tax. if it's the middle class, then fuck off. if it's the ultra-wealthy then I don't really care. if it's congressmen then absolutely.

Drug Wars, agree. Federal legalization because states are slow and stupid, and having marijuana be legal in one state next to a state where it is not is going to cause ridiculously stupid interstate traffic problems that hurt everyone. Foreign wars, agree. Foreign aid, mostly agree. A nation's obligation is to its members, so I'm fine with letting foreign aid evaporate if we can instead use that money locally. I'm pretty sure it's a net moral wrong to invest in infrastructure locally instead of feeding starving Africans, but morality isn't worth much to begin with. Now, some foreign aid is just simply in our interests. Cutting that is stupid.

no because the federal government doesn't have the right to tell the states what to do. just because you want marijuana legal doesn't mean that you have the authority to tell the states how they can run their shit.

The second you try to stop that directly, the foreign entities holding our debt will recall it, and our economy will tank. Any talk about fixing our international trade policy begins with fixing our debt problem, and that begins with taxing the people who can actually afford it and spending money on things that can't be outsourced, like developing infrastructure.

We can't even get to where you want to start without using dirty socialist policy to get there. Which suggests maybe the dirty socialist policy is just better in the first place.

socialism better than capitalism? lolno. more government is not what we need. making people employees of the government is a feeble attempt to circumvent the fact that the private sector is ailing because of corporatist policies. as in we need to deal with the corporatist policies because making everyone employees of the government is abysmally stupid.

the fact that you are willing to compromise and wring your hands rather than dealing with the consequences of our actions is pathetic. we've fucked up and it's time to pay the piper. we need to let things get worse before they get better. if you are against this, then you are in favor of the status quo which means you hate the poor, middle class, and the american dream

[Doom]

fuck you I'm not a republican

What's really interesting is you've stated repeatedly in this thread what you are, but there's just no way to get through his cemented labelings, there's just so little room for new knowledge. More than once, you've said but...it can't get through. This behavior is not random .

no because the federal government doesn't have the right to tell the states what to do. just because you want marijuana legal doesn't mean that you have the authority to tell the states how they can run their shit.

But isn't it interesting that his approach is all about power to central authority; the concept of power being assigned to individual states is not one he's been told much about. Again, check that link: there's a reason he can only have this point of view (much like all words that mean 'rebellion' were removed from the vocabulary of Oceania).

So, who here sounds more indoctrinated? The one making logical, evidentiary arguments, or the one failing to do so and falling back on a chanted mantra that demonizes the other side?

I personally think logical, evidentiary arguments are the way to go and I'll continue with that tactic, but we seem to disagree. Anytime you want to stop with the mantras and demonizing is fine by me. Your refusal to read/understand any new material and chuck mindless vulgar insults repeatedly doesn't present much hope, however, and I don't expect anything else from you for many years.

[K]

, but I merely distrust the government, which is the natural position for anyone who is not an idiot

The core reason PR isn't getting along with a few folk here. PR, you underestimate the power of indoctrination. Allow me to suggest some reading.. Really, just pick a chapter (I'll recommend "The New Dumbness"), it's all fascinating, and will help you to understand much of the reactions here.

Thanks for providing me with my weekly allowance of irony. There are few times when I have seen a piece of anti-intellectual propaganda that so completely disguises itself as an attack on anti-intellectual propaganda.

Seriously. The author admits that he doesn't have "facts" and that he uses "intuition" to come to his conclusions. He apparently has had a psychotic break (you can tell from the stream of consciousness writing style) because he couldn't handle being a public school teacher and has now abandoned the very idea of using facts as a means of drawing conclusions and decided that public school and education is the reason for the world's ills.

I appreciate that the cranks of the world see themselves as unappreciated geniuses, but until they have ideas that are even remotely based in reality the world is going to see them as they are: the mentally ill.

[Doom]

Well, at least you read a little; I do recommend reading more. I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that "public school and education is the reason for the world's ills" is the thesis of the book no matter how brief a reading you gave. Consider starting from the beginning, particularly the title.

It's excellent that you have an issue with scholarship and other things. I'd love your intelligent and well-founded responses.

Which statement of fact are you calling fraud? A book that's been around for so long should have had such facts identified by now, I trust this will be easy for you to do. He makes claims about the intentions of people long dead; as he acknowledges, he doesn't have facts that prove intentions, it's impossible to factually prove such things, but he does present evidence. I'm most eager for you to identify fraud here.

You should read his biography; he was a public school teacher for 30 years, and did win Teacher of the Year in 1991...that's a 'can't handle it' situation many folks would envy. So what are you basing your claim on, exactly?

Again, your assertion of a psychotic break needs a citation. He's written a few other books and currently, even at the age of 75, working on another large project. I'd love to your see documentation of your claim, much appreciate!

It's interesting that you consider him a crank...can you cite one line anywhere in his work that a sane person could conclude that Gatto considers himself an unappreciated genius?

[DSMatticus]

depends on who you're going to tax. if it's the middle class, then fuck off. if it's the ultra-wealthy then I don't really care. if it's congressmen then absolutely.

You can tax the middle class 10%, and raise the middle class's purchasing power 20%. This means an 8% increase in the net value of every dollar they have. Is this a tax burden that needs reduced, y/n?

(Though, as it turns out, you're right and we should be taxing the ultra-wealthy instead; they can handle it better.)

no because the federal government doesn't have the right to tell the states what to do. just because you want marijuana legal doesn't mean that you have the authority to tell the states how they can run their shit.

You're implying rights are not a concept invented and applied by man to achieve results. Which is sort of a stupid implication. The federal government can do whatever society says it can by not stopping it. We have some formal codes of conduct legitimizing this, and we change them as the needs see fit. Recently, we've made a move towards federal government over state government. Recently as in since the civil war. These have been some of the most prosperous years our country has had. As you so eloquently put it, "deal with it."

socialism better than capitalism? lolno. more government is not what we need. making people employees of the government is a feeble attempt to circumvent the fact that the private sector is ailing because of corporatist policies.

When I say socialism, I mean the Ameican concept of socialism. Which is not socialism at all, and has nothing to do with government employment. "more government is not what we need" is also an objective claim, and I seriously invite you to provide supporting evidence for it, because I can provide pretty awesome evidence that governments are capable of stepping in and doing pretty sweet things and effecting positive change. In our history and in other countries.

What we're actually talking about (the American concept of socialism) is just plain ol' private sector regulation with public sector action.

the fact that you are willing to compromise and wring your hands rather than dealing with the consequences of our actions is pathetic. we've fucked up and it's time to pay the piper. we need to let things get worse before they get better. if you are against this, then you are in favor of the status quo which means you hate the poor, middle class, and the american dream

What the fuck are you even babbling about for fuck's sake?

America's banks implement a clever banking scheme that singlehandedly drives our economy face first into the ground and makes them a profit. Your response: "it's your fault that these other people did this thing to you that you are now suffering for. So now we must punish ourselves for a great depression." "You got raped, so climb in the jail cell, you dirty rapist. How dare you let that crime happen under your watch? Don't you know how terrible rape is?"

But here's the big thing; the way you want to let things get worse first won't make them any god damn better. It will make them super-fucking worse, and then worse, and then more worse. Your false dichotomy of "status quo" or "economic collapse" is non-existent. Because everyone already has ideas that are A) not the status quo, and B) not economic collapse. You are ignoring them because you think people should suffer, and then recover. Instead of just recover. Which is pointless and sadistic and will in fact make the recovery harder.

You have bad ideas, and they seem to revolve around hurting people for your own satisfaction.

@Doom
We get it. You are a crackpot with no real evidence or facts to support your view (your links have me torn beteen lol'ing and weeping for humanity, by the way), so your only weapon at this point is to discredit the people with the facts. But if you're going to delude yourself, you really don't need to involve us in that process.

If you really need to know why you are a crackpot and the sources you are citing are lmaodiculous, I can do that for you. With the first page you directly linked to.

the mass dumbness which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of; it isn’t real.

He loses points for using the word 'dumbness.' He forfeits the game by failing to realize that education is not about combatting 'dumbness' but rather spreading knowledge, like how to read and write, do mathematics, and basic scientific understanding, which public education has had a measurable, factual effect on in this country and other's.

See: education in the third world. Is building schools in Africa helping, y/n?

At the age of twelve, Admiral Farragut got his first command. I was in fifth grade when I learned of this. Had Farragut gone to my school he would have been in seventh.

This is an invalid comparison, unless you think living in the 1800's is exactly as complex living in today's world with 200 years of scientific advance, like penicillin and T.V. and microwaves and washing with soap.

It's also factually wrong. Farragut's father pulled strings to have him put on a navy ship, and after a few years of irrelevant services they gave him the super-important command role of handing out paychecks. Ten years later, they gave him actual important command. When he was in his 20's.

So, yeah, of the two summary paragraphs I've read, I have found 0 that do not contain significant bullshit. He can't even advertise the content of each chapter without spewing manure in the reader's face. If you think there's gems of truth in there, you're welcome to dig through the feces for them, but I'm through.

[K]

Well, at least you read a little; I do recommend reading more. I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that "public school and education is the reason for the world's ills" is the thesis of the book no matter how brief a reading you gave. Consider starting from the beginning, particularly the title.

It's excellent that you have an issue with scholarship and other things. I'd love your intelligent and well-founded responses.

I have to call a reading comprehension fail on you. His entire book is a long rant on how public schooling is evil and if you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you. I can't teach you reading comprehension.

This is why the comments section is filled with home-schooling advocates and experimental school advocates. I can only assume the other school officials are just burn-outs, but that's an assumption based on the content of his book and may not be true.

Which statement of fact are you calling fraud? A book that's been around for so long should have had such facts identified by now, I trust this will be easy for you to do. He makes claims about the intentions of people long dead; as he acknowledges, he doesn't have facts that prove intentions, it's impossible to factually prove such things, but he does present evidence. I'm most eager for you to identify fraud here.

Pick any part of the book. He directs the reader to a point in history or some source, and then draws wild conclusions not evident from the source.

It's like pointing to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and saying that Lincoln was a racist and a sadist who wanted a worse life for Africans in a country with no defined place for them. The conclusion does not fit the facts.

You should read his biography; he was a public school teacher for 30 years, and did win Teacher of the Year in 1991...that's a 'can't handle it' situation many folks would envy. So what are you basing your claim on, exactly?

People burn out from jobs after distinguished careers. The fact that he decided to write an entire book about how his own job was awful is a pretty good sign of burnout.

The fact that his license was pulled twice for insubordination and they kept trying to fire him in defiance of the law is a pretty good indication that he wasn't hacking it there at the end.

Again, your assertion of a psychotic break needs a citation. He's written a few other books and currently, even at the age of 75, working on another large project. I'd love to your see documentation of your claim, much appreciate!

His scream of consciousness writing style that draws inappropriate conclusions from the stated facts is a sign of psychosis. Look up the literature on psychosis on your own time.

I think the fact that he had his license to teach suspended twice for insubordination and was fired during some "medical leave" that he declines to explain is a good indicator that he was having mental health issues.

It's interesting that you consider him a crank...can you cite one line anywhere in his work that a sane person could conclude that Gatto considers himself an unappreciated genius?

Again, I direct you to the source. In several places he frames his arguments as an almost mystical search for truths that exist beyond the facts that only he has found. The whole "Putting Pedagogy to the Question" prologue reeks of arrogance and victimization, but it crops up in every section I sampled like the "I Quit, I Think" essay.

[Doom]

Trying to trim down those unreadable walls of text, but here goes. We're full-on derail anyway.

so your only weapon at this point is to discredit the people with the facts.

Uh, what? What exactly have I done to discredit you? I guess you're just still hurting from before. It's ok, let's learn something new today.

If you really need to know why you are a crackpot and the sources you are citing are lmaodiculous,

It'd be neat if you had more than blind and confused insults.

I can do that for you. With the first page you directly linked to.

Let's see how this goes.

Quote:
the mass dumbness which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of; it isn’t real.

He loses points for using the word 'dumbness.'

You lose more points for not bothering to check: it's a real word, and he's using it properly: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dumbness, definition 6. Oopsie.

He forfeits the game by failing to realize that education is not about combatting 'dumbness' but rather spreading knowledge,

And you forfeit all by not bothering to check what the actual thesis of the book is. Oopsie, as usual.

like how to read and write,

Despite what you think, 19th century (white) literacy rates were already high before government education, and the Census Bureau was forced to redefine literacy down quite a bit, otherwise it would be clear it's dropped with government education. Oopsie, again.

do mathematics, and basic scientific understanding, which public education has had a measurable, factual effect on in this country and other's.

Here you are correct, sort of. The measurable effect is a reduction; feel free to check 19th century entrance exams to see for yourself, however, what an 18 year old could do then, as opposed to now. Oopsie, again.

This is an invalid comparison, unless you think living in the 1800's is exactly as complex living in today's world with 200 years of scientific advance, like penicillin and T.V. and microwaves and washing with soap.

Yes, mastering ancient Latin--mandatory for being considered educated at that time-- is totally trivial next to operating a microwave. Go and look at an 19th century schematic for building a boat...complicated things existed then, too. Oopsie, again.

See, this is the problem with just repeating what you've been told, go and look around and you can see for yourself it's wrong.

It's also factually wrong. Farragut's father pulled strings to have him put on a navy ship, and after a few years of irrelevant services they gave him the super-important command role of handing out paychecks. Ten years later, they gave him actual important command. When he was in his 20's.

Even if what you say is true, it's curious that Wikipedia says none of this, in fact it even says he was operating a ship at age 12. Oopsie.

Let's assume you're actually right about something this time. Even if true, we've a 12 year old able to handle money dispersal in a military operation...nowadays you'd need a college degree, have to pass a bunch of tests, and have certification.

So, yeah, still shows the point: something's changed.

, you're welcome to dig through the feces for them, but I'm through.

Try harder, I beg you...think it through, open your mind, and less reciting stuff you were told, and more thinking.