What a bunch of lefty liberals we are.
Just waiting for Intrepid, FlyMike and Blue Flame to post their results...
Just waiting for Intrepid, FlyMike and Blue Flame to post their results...
The bail out wasnt a "bail out". It was a "robbery". A few days after the American bailout, the terms of which read "My mate at Goldman and Sachs does not need to ever disclose where the money is spent" Goldman and Sachs executives commissioned 6 new Lear Jets.
The concept of a bailout was rushed through the American senate in the 2 weeks before Bush's presidential term came to an end on the previso that "we need to do it now and we need to do it urgently or the American economy will crash" - leaving no time to ask the necessary questions like 1) Do we nee to bail the banks out? 2) Are we even in a crisis?
It wasnt a bail out, it was a robbery perpetrated by a president at the end of his tenure. That's why the terms of the bail out ensured that no future decision could overturn the rule that the banks did not have to disclose where the money went.
This was not done by a lefty politician as you claim, but by George W. Bush, who as you can see on the political map above, is one of the most right wing politicians to have held an office in a major state in recent times.
So dont go blaming the bailout on the left, most lefties are already wanting a piece of Bush's face on their palm over the whole affair as it is.
Just dropping by, carry on.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
a bit surprised, thought I'd be more to the right
btw, easy to cheat here
btw, easy to cheat here
Well, Bush right-wing? depends how you look at it. He was part of an office that saw a gigantic rise in national debt in % of GDP. Promises of smaller government were trumped by even more big government under his tenure. Under Bush the American state grew... not shrank... which is certainly not part of the right-wing economic ideology. It's a fallacy to believe otherwise. Left or right... politicians always want more power. Part of (not all) the tea party movement was a rejection of the Republican's move to big government.
Of course you are right, the bail outs were one big con that everyone on the political spectrum should be furious with.
What political spectrums do is over simplify the situation. They are a fallacy. Banks for example are as anti-capitalist (right) as they are anti-socialist (left). They work on their own terms with magic money - fiat currency.
Big state spending however has left us all exposed. And this is something libertarians of a free-market persuasion have been warning us for a very very very long time. Hence my avatar... have u noticed the price of gold recently
Couple questions there I wish there was an 'I don't know' button.. but anyway
http://www.politicalcompass.or ... ph?ec=-4.88&soc=-5.95
http://www.politicalcompass.or ... ph?ec=-4.88&soc=-5.95
Pretty Normal. One question that really got me was: "People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce." - Am I a bad person for even considering 'agree' ?
I'll see you in hell then, because I clicked agree on that too.
Saying agrees however means that you are ok with:
- governments doing abortions and sterilizations to disabled people
- you would also need to have some kind of laws and punishments against those who get pregnant but shouldn't
Where would you draw the line anyways? Heart defect? Blindness? Diabetes?
Also worth mentioning is that being able to reproduce and an individual having total control over it is considered a very very basic human right.
What he said ^^
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62
Human rights don't exist, you get human privileges. When you murder someone, you lose your human privileges.
When you have a horrific genetic defect, you shouldn't procreate. It just creates more people born with horrific genetic defects. Of course I am also an avid believer of euthanasia. Use some of that humanity you show your pets on humans.
Sure, morals and human rights are just something that change over time and some things get forbidden while other stuff isn't so horrible anymore. So in that context humans rights which are result of human moral are not absolute.
Anyways, murder someone how? What era are we talking about? In all western civilizations today even the worst prisoners have rights. I consider my human rights to be rights. Not priviledges. There is totally different ring to having priviledge to vote to having right to vote for example...
What's "a horrific genetic deficit"? Where do you draw the line? Plethorix? Down syndrome? The question is not about should strongly disabled children be allowed to be born. It's about should strongly disabled parent(s) be allowed to have children.
I'm a supporter in euthanasia as well but I don't see how it has anything to do with this?
Of course, link to the Nazi's in an attempt to prove a point, because no other country has tried it have they? I realise it will always be a controversial subject, but where I used to live there was a care home of sorts for seriously damaged people, most were in their 20s and several were pregnant. Now they weren't capable of looking after a child because they were under 24 hour care already.
Another child which will have to be raised by the state, which will damage them in itself.
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23
Well shouldn't poor people have the right to have children then also be taken away? Poverity is after all the biggest and baddest guarantee for a child to have rough criminal life, end up without a job and never be able to purchase full s2 license. The rich people live longer and healthier life too.
Sure they have, the practice in various forms goes back into antiquity. Godwin's law doesn't apply to those though and someone had to mention it real quick for tradition's sake.
In my opinion, the minute a State assumes absolute and direct power over its citizens' lives (selective sterilization, death sentence, etc) then it automatically becomes the enemy of its citizens.
I draw the line at if a disabled person is unable to successfully able to take care of their own child, they shouldn't be allowed to have one. Or if the genetic abnormality will cause the child excessive suffering. So being a dwarf for example, wouldn't fall into the category. as you can still happily raise a child.
On the same subject, if you know there is a high risk you'll give birth to a child with a genetic disorder which would permanently disable it and/or lead to an early death, you shouldn't be allowed to then either.
There is a simple solution to this though and that is to deepen the gene pool. As it stands you can wade through the gene pool in most countries because people interbreed. This leads to genetic mutation which caused a lot of the problems in the first place.
When you're unable to take care of a child because your "right" to a child means it is dependent on the state, you become drain on the public purse.
On the same subject, if you know there is a high risk you'll give birth to a child with a genetic disorder which would permanently disable it and/or lead to an early death, you shouldn't be allowed to then either.
There is a simple solution to this though and that is to deepen the gene pool. As it stands you can wade through the gene pool in most countries because people interbreed. This leads to genetic mutation which caused a lot of the problems in the first place.
When you're unable to take care of a child because your "right" to a child means it is dependent on the state, you become drain on the public purse.
What kind of disability is that? Search some wiki pages and come back with some specific examples please.
If you are looking at costs of various diseases you may be unpleasently surprised about the costs of perfectly treatable and relatively harmless diseases that just cost lots of money to keep in check...
So the state should not only sterilize its own people but the state shold also get to choose with who you can have children? ...Finding the perfect genetic match. Hope she is good looking
..What should happen to these unworthy individuals then? Should old retired people suffer the same consequence as well?
He already said he's in favor of euthanasia.
Well at least it is volantery then
Treatable is no bother, if it is actually treating the cause and not just hiding symptoms, which a lot of medication does, but that is a whole other debate about how pharmaceutical companies are massive dicks. But lets say Canavan's Disease, if you knew you had the genes that give you a high probability of a child being born with it, you're selfish for taking that risk because it isn't just your life you're gambling with.
Now you're taking what I'm saying out of context. What I said is us as individual humans should widen our search for a partner, rather than sticking to a very narrow search band which means you're more than likely quite closely related to the person you breed with.
Now you're being silly. Although there is a point where old people who have no life due to various illnesses, shouldn't be forced to suffer on to their death bed. If your pet dog became a vegetable, you'd put it down in a heart beat because it is the humane thing to do. But with a human you'd just leave them in a nursing home to slowly die.
How right wing are you?
(105 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG