State of the union address, 2004

[Longinius 1]

Stop it, Denoir. You know it doesnt work, it never has, never will. There is no way you can get FS to admit that he is wrong, regardless how many examples you provide him with.

Anyway, the sex thing is interesting. If you tell a kid that he can't do something, most kids will go and do it as soon as possible. Because someone told them they couldn't do it. Abstinence isnt the answer, neither are condoms. Its common sense, combined with all other measures. Without common sense, nothing will work. And common sense is not something the government can effect, thats up to parents and society.

[OmniMax 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is no way you can get FS to admit that he is wrong, regardless how many examples you provide him with.

Quote[/b] ]Abstinence isnt the answer, neither are condoms. Its common sense, combined with all other measures. Without common sense, nothing will work. And common sense is not something the government can effect, thats up to parents and society.

Well, common sense isn't so common.

But I think we can start our campaign here...

Lesson one:

Few; adj. (Fewer, Fewest):

Amounting to or consisting of a small number: one of my few bad habits.

Being more than one but indefinitely small in number: bowled a few strings.

Many; adj. (More, Most):

Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.

Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.

I hope you all enjoyed the lesson...

And use a jimmy hat.

Kthx.

(I wasn't paid to say that)

[denoir 0]

Stop it, Denoir. You know it doesnt work, it never has, never will. There is no way you can get FS to admit that he is wrong, regardless how many examples you provide him with.

I know that. He really outdid himself this time though, so I felt a responsibility to cram it down his throat. Now while FS has shown on many occasions that he may not be the brightest crayon in the box, this is even low by his standards.

I find it amazing that Aristotle defined the rules of logic that are fundamental in all math and most languages over 2,000 years ago and yet there are people today who have not yet embraced them.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, the sex thing is interesting. If you tell a kid that he can't do something, most kids will go and do it as soon as possible. Because someone told them they couldn't do it. Abstinence isnt the answer, neither are condoms. Its common sense, combined with all other measures. Without common sense, nothing will work. And common sense is not something the government can effect, thats up to parents and society.

The problem comes when your society and your parents have objections against it on a religious basis. So they won't talk to their children about it and won't give information. When you remove reason and rationality, there is little hope that "common sense" will prevail.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]neither is abstinence. it was idea that came before condoms. and yet throughout history people still made out.

I don't recall teen pregnancies being a problem in the 1960s or 70s (maybe because I wasn't alive, but still).

Apparently the "Free Love" era isn't in the curriculum of today's History classes.

Ignoring sex doesn't make it go away. It just makes it all the more tittilating. (Pun intended).

With education comes safety. With education funding comes programs that show kids theres more to do in the afternoon then bang. (Though admitedly that would be a tough sell).

[ericz 0]

What a load of steaming cow manure!

Here we go again, life according to liberals.

We already have "sex education" classes in the U.S.

We already have countless ads advising safe sex.

We already hand contraceptives out to any who will have them.

We already have spent millions of dollars on "sex education".

But Noooooo! Liberals want to spend more money, more, more, more. Afterall, its not little Billy Jackass's fault that he got little Mary Rottencroth pregnant! Nooooo, it's the governments fault for not zipping up his pants for him.

When are people going to get a through their pointy heads that ACCOUNTABILITY is the solution to this problem. Parents should be held to blame for the poor job of instilling morals and self-control in their brood. The morons who got the girls pregnant as well as the girls should be held accountable for their decisisons and not bailed out by society.

You all are all clamoring for more education, enlighten me on exactly what kind of information isnt available now that I should spend more of my tax dollars on.

BTW, Any "man", married, divorced or not, who won't support his own children financially should be put into forced labor.

[Akira 0]

What a load of steaming cow manure!

Here we go again, life according to liberals.

We already have "sex education" classes in the U.S.

We already have countless ads advising safe sex.

We already hand contraceptives out to any who will have them.

We already have spent millions of dollars on "sex education".

But Noooooo! Liberals want to spend more money, more, more, more. Afterall, its not little Billy Jackass's fault that he got little Mary Rottencroth pregnant! Nooooo, it's the governments fault for not zipping up his pants for him.

When are people going to get a through their pointy heads that ACCOUNTABILITY is the solution to this problem. Parents should be held to blame for the poor job of instilling morals and self-control in their brood. The morons who got the girls pregnant as well as the girls should be held accountable for their decisisons and not bailed out by society.

You all are all clamoring for more education, enlighten me on exactly what kind of information isnt available now that I should spend more of my tax dollars on.

BTW, Any "man", married, divorced or not, who won't support his own children financially should be put into forced labor.

I don't think it has anything to do with liberals vs. conservatives.

But as far as tax dollars:

-Bush has already cut education spending, and his "Leave No Child Behind" program is a farce, derided by all in the education community.

-would you rather spend billions for Haliburton contracts then?

-would you rather spend billions for Bush's personal wars of lies and deceit?

to name two.

But I agree accountability is also lacking. But then again 14 and 15 year olds don't know crap about accountability.

[WhoCares 0]

...

But Noooooo! Liberals want to spend more money, more, more, more.  Afterall, its not little Billy Jackass's fault that he got little Mary Rottencroth pregnant!  Nooooo, it's the governments fault for not zipping up his pants for him.

...

Well, TBA wants to increase (double!) the funding as well, so it is just a question of were to put the money.

Quote[/b] ]...

In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

...

[OmniMax 0]

Quote[/b] ]I know that. He really outdid himself this time though, so I felt a responsibility to cram it down his throat. Now while FS has shown on many occasions that he may not be the brightest crayon in the box, this is even low by his standards.

I find it amazing that Aristotle defined the rules of logic that are fundamental in all math and most languages over 2,000 years ago and yet there are people today who have not yet embraced them.

Thats why we love you, Denoir...

Thats why.

You're my hero.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

we are at war...the war is over... we are war.... can he please decide

[ericz 0]

In my limited experience with Liberals, I have often run into an attitude of leniency and accomodation to those among us who make bad decisions continually. Conservatives that I've known on the other hand, are more punishment oriented.

-would you rather spend billions for Haliburton contracts then?

Actually, NO.

-would you rather spend billions for Bush's personal wars of lies and deceit?

I dont agree with your characterization so we probably wont see eye to eye, however I'll bite. Which wars are you referring to? If its the war on Afghanistan...YES!, If its the war in Iraq...maybe.

But I would much rather spend my money on bullets and bombs that keep our military the most powerful military in the world, than paying for some lazy, irresponsible, slug's brats.

BTW, lets see, if I sit here an think about it, I just might remeber what it was like to be 14 or 15, whew that's a long time ago! Oh, yes here we are. Did I have unprotected sex..NO. Did I do drugs...NO. Funny, I don't remember having sex education class. I do remember, my parents telling me about these things and threatening dire consequences such as kicking me out of the house or calling the police after a thorough spanking with a belt if I transgressed. I guess that was enough for me to be careful.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

But I would much rather spend my money on bullets and bombs that keep our military the most powerful military in the world, than paying for some lazy, irresponsible, slug's brats.

The funny thing is that your military is already powerful to nuke the planet 10 times. What are you people so afraid about?

Terorists? Sure....as you have seen a military doesnt help much!

[SpecOp9 0]

Your wrong, all wrong wrong!!!

CORRECT State of the Union Address video

[FSPilot 0]

Stop it, Denoir. You know it doesnt work, it never has, never will. There is no way you can get FS to admit that he is wrong, regardless how many examples you provide him with.

I know that. He really outdid himself this time though, so I felt a responsibility to cram it down his throat. Now while FS has shown on many occasions that he may not be the brightest crayon in the box, this is even low by his standards.

I find it amazing that Aristotle defined the rules of logic that are fundamental in all math and most languages over 2,000 years ago and yet there are people today who have not yet embraced them.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, the sex thing is interesting. If you tell a kid that he can't do something, most kids will go and do it as soon as possible. Because someone told them they couldn't do it. Abstinence isnt the answer, neither are condoms. Its common sense, combined with all other measures. Without common sense, nothing will work. And common sense is not something the government can effect, thats up to parents and society.

The problem comes when your society and your parents have objections against it on a religious basis. So they won't talk to their children about it and won't give information.  When you remove reason and rationality, there is little hope that "common sense" will prevail.

Yes denoir, you're acting like a kid again. Hope it feels good. Maybe one day you'll explain your point instead of just insulting the other side.

[ericz 0]

I know this is getting off topic so I'll leave it alone after this.

-Albert Schweizer

"The funny thing is that your military is already powerful to nuke the planet 10 times. What are you people so afraid about?"

You are quite right in that we have a large nuclear capability, but what I am referring to is a keeping a lead in CONVENTIONAL capabilities. This edge is not a static thing. It must be continually improved upon and augmented in order to keep the edge sharp.

While you are right when you imply that the terrorist threat continues, I believe its a result of our soft approach to this issue. If you look back at the occupation of Nazi Germany, you will find that the resistance to U.S. troops lasted quite a while ( I think about 3 years, if my memory serves) but it was ultimately crushed by many techniques which included summary executions, mass punishment etc. Since this is no longer possible in this more sensitive world, you must invest in technologies that will accomplish the mission without the loss of life. MUCH more expensive!

Plus there's always North Korea.

[Placebo 29]

Get this thread back on topic and civil ASAP please or it can be closed.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]In my limited experience with Liberals, I have often run into an attitude of leniency and accomodation to those among us who make bad decisions continually. Conservatives that I've known on the other hand, are more punishment oriented.

Then you can call me a "hard-ass-borderline-liberal."

Quote[/b] ]I dont agree with your characterization so we probably wont see eye to eye, however I'll bite. Which wars are you referring to? If its the war on Afghanistan...YES!, If its the war in Iraq...maybe.

We should take that discussion to the Iraq thread.

Quote[/b] ]But I would much rather spend my money on bullets and bombs that keep our military the most powerful military in the world, than paying for some lazy, irresponsible, slug's brats.

As stated we already have the state of the art conventional and non-conventional army, yet it's not really doing very well in this form of conflict. Training and intelligence would be a far more apt use for money then getting the biggest baddest tank on the planet.

Quote[/b] ]BTW, lets see, if I sit here an think about it, I just might remeber what it was like to be 14 or 15, whew that's a long time ago! Oh, yes here we are. Did I have unprotected sex..NO. Did I do drugs...NO. Funny, I don't remember having sex education class. I do remember, my parents telling me about these things and threatening dire consequences such as kicking me out of the house or calling the police after a thorough spanking with a belt if I transgressed. I guess that was enough for me to be careful.

I had sex education classes from third grade until about eighth grade (must be from being a military brat), and I still did all that. But I was a little more careful I suppose.

But in any case, the education I refer to is not just sex education but education in general. Most school districts are primarily supported by property taxes, but there isn't a lot of property tax revenue in the inner cities and poor districts, and low and behold, thats where the majority of teen pregnancies are, particularly inner city minorities. What else do they have to do then bang away? They have no after school programs, marketable skills programs, higher education programs, not many sports programs, and a lot are still using out-of-date text books.

What does this tell a child their standing in life? Or their prospects for a successful future?

Yes there are always exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions not the rule.

Increasing education funding, particularly for the inner cities, and not just the already rich districts, would give these kids prospects for jobs, higher education, and a successful future, and show them there is more than getting high and schleppin' away.

And in the end we all would benefit from that.

[denoir 0]

In my limited experience with Liberals, I have often run into an attitude of leniency and accomodation to those among us who make bad decisions continually.  Conservatives that I've known on the other hand, are more punishment oriented.  

Indeed. It's called social evolution. We don't burn witches today, we don't allow torture in jail and we don't summarily execute people the state doesn't like. When those things were abolished, the conservatives of that time loudly objected.

Conservatives, as the name implies are advocating the preservation of the current social organization ("values", they would say). Had man kind had only conservative leaders we'd still be living in caves. Every single social development in the history of man kind has been achieved when people questioned the existing system and suggested improvements. The two founding events of today's western democracies, the French Revolution and the American Revolution were based entirely on liberal ideas.

It is really beyond my comperhension that anybody would willingly declare themselves as "conservatives". I personally use it to insult other people.

There is a good biological explanation:

Near the brain stem is the R-Complex, the seat of aggression, ritual, territoriality and social heirarchy, which evolved hundreds of millions of years ago in our reptilian ancestors...

This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family.

On the outside, living in uneasy truce with the more primitive brains beneath, is the cerebral cortex...Civilisation is a product of the cerebal cortex. It is what separates us from the more primitive animals. The cerebral cortex is all a about adaption and change. Problem solving. Scientific observation and interpretation is done there. And this is the centre of liberal ideals: pacifism, humanism, science and individualism.

Is all change to society good then? Of course not. Most changes fail. For a very concrete example, you can take communism.

That doesn't however mean that we should by principle oppose social change. If we had done that throughout history we would probably live in cages, or have slavery etc Change is necessary for progress.

[Gollum1 0]

As an aside, they need birth control for men. (pill, once a day to prevent pregnancy. )  Doesn't solve the STD issues, but I imagine most males would gladly embrace it. (And redundancy in "safety" devices is always a good thing.)

Mmm, but then you're not considering that it's not (most) men's ass on the line (so to speak), women would never ever trust their men to take pills every day. Not when it really comes down to it, it would constantly be a nagging thought in the back of their heads and I think they would prefer to take the pills themselves to be sure, and not have to resort to supervising their partners when they take their pills.

I sure as hell wouldn't take a pill every day, condoms work for me.

And sorry if I'm missing something, but why would you suddenly change the pill-usage to men, would it be more effective than women on pills or what?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

In my limited experience with Liberals, I have often run into an attitude of leniency and accomodation to those among us who make bad decisions continually.  Conservatives that I've known on the other hand, are more punishment oriented.  

Indeed. It's called social evolution. We don't burn witches today, we don't allow torture in jail and we don't summarily execute people the state doesn't like. When those things were abolished, the conservatives of that time loudly objected.

Conservatives, as the name implies are advocating the preservation of the current social organization ("values", they would say). Had man kind had only conservative leaders we'd still be living in caves. Every single social development in the history of man kind has been achieved when people questioned the existing system and suggested improvements. The two founding events of today's western democracies, the French Revolution and the American Revolution were based entirely on liberal ideas.

It is really beyond my comperhension that anybody would willingly declare themselves as "conservatives". I personally use it to insult other people.

There is a good biological explanation:

Near the brain stem is the R-Complex, the seat of aggression, ritual, territoriality and social heirarchy, which evolved hundreds of millions of years ago in our reptilian ancestors...

This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family.

On the outside, living in uneasy truce with the more primitive brains beneath, is the cerebral cortex...Civilisation is a product of the cerebal cortex. It is what separates us from the more primitive animals. The cerebral cortex is all a about adaption and change. Problem solving. Scientific observation and interpretation is done there. And this is the centre of liberal ideals: pacifism, humanism, science and individualism.

Is all change to society good then? Of course not. Most changes fail. For a very concrete example, you can take communism.

That doesn't however mean that we should by principle oppose social change. If we had done that throughout history we would probably live in cages, or have slavery etc Change is necessary for progress.

That is a total overinterpretation of the term "conservative". In politics this term often relates to protecting religious values and ethics. Therefore most conservative parties around the world are parties representing more the "believing" part of the population.

But conserving what? . Well familiy unity, moralty, dignity, social obligations to elder generations, honesty, diligence, discipline. Those are values that many western Conservatives try to protect. And I have to admit when I watch MTV and other garbage channels I may wish more people to be a little bit more conservative.

[ericz 0]

-Denoir

You answer your own statement "It is really beyond my comperhension that anybody would willingly declare themselves as "conservatives". I personally use it to insult other people" when you say "This is the centre of conservative ideals: pro military, nationalism, religion and family"

Although the values I cherish are not in that order, more like Family, nationalism, religion, pro military. I might ask you to use your liberal "openess" to consider that subscribing to those value does not preclude pursuing science, humanism, or individualism. In fact, it is an issue of BALANCE.

The problem with many liberals is that they have lost sight of some very core values and in their rush to pursue more enlightened goals have left us with a society full of people lacking responsilbity, integrity, decency and good work ethics all building blocks of a stable society and community.

The idea the change is always for the better is fallacious as you point out. Which is the reason I argue for accountability and responsiblity.

Another bright example of liberal thought in action is the program we had in California of Social Promotion. The program made allowances for children who failed a grade in school to continue to the next grade with his classmates at the parents discretion. This was done to prevent him from being "traumatized" by his failure. Very progressive! So now we have illiterate kids in our school system courtesy of our enlightened liberals. Thank God, they are doing away with this program as we speak.

[toadlife 3]

It is really beyond my comperhension that anybody would willingly declare themselves as "conservatives". I personally use it to insult other people.... Is all change to society good then? Of course not. Most changes fail. For a very concrete example, you can take communism....That doesn't however mean that we should by principle oppose social change. If we had done that throughout history we would probably live in cages, or have slavery etc Change is necessary for progress.

Denoir, you speak of Conservatives as if the worlds problems would be solved if they didn't exist.

Yes, without liberals we would be stuck in caves thinking the world is flat, but on the flipside, without conservatives we would probably be in no better shape. Use your imagination to envision a world of radical change upon radical change without any serious thought to the possible consequences.

Two sides are required to make a debate.

[denoir 0]

Although the values I cherish are not in that order, more like Family, nationalism, religion, pro military.  I might ask you to use your liberal "openess" to consider that subscribing to those value does not preclude pursuing science, humanism, or individualism.  In fact, it is an issue of BALANCE.  

The idea the change is always for the better is fallacious as you point out.  Which is the reason I argue for accountability and responsiblity.

I agree that in practice balance is reached, but on an ideological level those things are opposites.

You can't both enforce traditional family values and at the same time support individualism. Either you accept that people are individuals who can decide if they're going to try to get laid and support the consequences of it or you enforce your vision of family values and support abstinence programs. Either you enforce the traditional marrige or you allow homosexual marriges because of the equal rights of all individuals.

You can't pursue science and at the same time ban the theory of evolution in schools because its findings doesn't agree with your religion. Science and mysticism (such as religion) are irreconcilable from a political point of view.

You can't claim to cherrish peace while you arm yourelf to the teeth and start wars.

Humanism is based on the idea of equal principles for all men. It doesn't work at all with nationalism and territorial behaviour.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with many liberals is that they have lost sight of some very core values and in their rush to pursue more enlightened goals have left us with a society full of people lacking responsilbity, integrity, decency and good work ethics all building blocks of a stable society and community.  

And what many conservatives fail to see is that the society is changing. Responsibility. integrity, decency and good work ethics do not mean the same thing they meant 100 years ago. We have a huge industrialized society that can more or less provide for it's citizens. And it's more and more automated (this can especially be seen in Europe, but it's coming sooner or later to America too). You can for very little human work get a lot. You don't have to work 12 hours per day in the field to have food on your table. Society is changing, and so must our values.

I'm not saying that it is an easy transition, but it's an inevitable one. Right now, here in Sweden, you can live a pretty good life, without moving a finger. Sure we have higher taxes, but it's no problem. The change of the overall quality of life develops faster than any such econoic burden. We in the industrialized world are going to a point where people won't have to work at all to make a living. And with such a reality, you can't very well cling on to your antiquated values of "a honest day's work" etc etc

Quote[/b] ]Another bright example of liberal thought in action is the program we had in California of Social Promotion.  The program made allowances for children who failed a grade in school to continue to the next grade with his classmates at the parents discretion. This was done to prevent him from being "traumatized" by his failure.  Very progressive!  So now we have illiterate kids in our school system courtesy of our enlightened liberals.

I don't know about the example above. I can see the reasoning from both points. So I won't comment on that.

There are howver plenty of examples of change to the worse. And then it gets changed again, until we get it right. Change is progress and as the society changes, so do our values. Desperately clinging to values and ideas that made sense 100 years ago isn't helping anybody.

[denoir 0]

It is really beyond my comperhension that anybody would willingly declare themselves as "conservatives". I personally use it to insult other people.... Is all change to society good then? Of course not. Most changes fail. For a very concrete example, you can take communism....That doesn't however mean that we should by principle oppose social change. If we had done that throughout history we would probably live in cages, or have slavery etc Change is necessary for progress.

Denoir, you speak of Conservatives as if the worlds problems would be solved if they didn't exist.

Yes, without liberals we would be stuck in caves thinking the world is flat, but on the flipside, without conservatives we would probably be in no better shape. Use your imagination to envision a world of radical change upon radical change without any serious thought to the possible consequences.

Two sides are required to make a debate.

I agree with you on that. Some form of inertial resistance is required to prevent too fast, too naive changes to a society. I think indeed we do need conservatives.

I just don't understand how people willingly declare themselves as such. For me as a human being the idea of chaning things (whatever that might be) for the better is the primary driving force. I don't understand how there are people who arn't interested in changing things into better.

I don't understand how people can subscribe to strong, regressive ideology. How can it be that people in today's modern technological world where science has proven its value over and over again that not so few rely on mysticism rather than rational analysis. To me conservatism is very backwards and regressive. I understand the need for it on a general basis, but I do not understand the people who are conservatives.

[ericz 0]

Ah, there we come to it. The argument of Black and White. The truth of the matter is we dont really live in a world where we have to be for one or for the other idealogical point of view exclusively.

You used the example of the American Revolution earlier as a shining example of liberal ideals. And it was, but you left out that the people that participated in it where devotely religious and subscribed to very strict familial standards concerned with decency, morality, etc.etc.

You can support the theory of evolution and yet maintain belief in a supreme being, it just requires and adjustment of understanding.

You can cherish peace and yet be prepared to kill those that would take it away from you. Thats the concept behind nuclear detterents.

You can be concerned with the well being of humans all over the world but take more interest in those in your own country. It just an expansion of the idea of family. Most of us care more for our family than strangers.

-"You don't have to work 12 hours per day in the field to have food on your table."

I had to read this one again, lol. Thank your lucky stars that you or your countrymen don't, but in the U.S. this is not uncommon. And its no just those that work in the field. I know quite a few people in white collar and blue collar jobs that work 50-60 hour weeks.

-We in the industrialized world are going to a point where people won't have to work at all to make a living. And with such a reality, you can't very well cling on to your antiquated values of "a honest day's work" etc etc

Wow, talk a utopian fantasies . That ignores two facts, increasing populations and finite resources, you do the math.

If its that good in Sweden, enjoy it while it lasts.

For all that we have "evolved" through our social progress it seems humanity is plagued by the same maladies; wars, famines, crime, greed, sloth, murder, etc, etc, etc. are all still with us and somehow I dont believe our new crop of liberals are anywhere near solving these issues. So much for enlightenment!

[canukausiuka 1]

ericz, you have said more or less what I feel. The only way progress and values are irreconcilable is when you feel that they are incompatible. Hence my dislike for both fundamentalists and far-left liberals. They have simply given up on trying to reconcile things.

I have no problem believing both in God and in evolution. I believe that abstinence is the right thing to do, but failure the educate is negligence. War can be justified, even if its not popular (remember the adage: what's right is not always popular; what's popular is not always right?). I believe that family values are essential, and that parents have certain rights and responsibilities in the raising of their children, but also that public education for children is essential. And adults have every right to be their own individual.

But of course, I think I am not only an exception, but a serious one. I would have rather lived in times past, not in times to come. I like my newspaper, I like my handkerchief, and I like old TV and music. My friends and siblings are always telling me that I make a better 50 year old than I do teenager.