Yes the draft including females would very much be academic to you. Man made global warming is a steaming pile of BS and I say that as a scientist. The earth is COOLING and has been for nearly 20 years. The global climate is driven by the sun. Paying scoundrels like Al Gore for “carbon credits” and taxing people to do so is ridiculous. I see all the doom and gloom here and I really don’t believe you guys truly believe such nonsense.

How do I favor inequality? If you mean the CEO of a public traded company shouldn’t be paid more than 4 times the average company wage, then yes I guess I do. However you supported that suggestion. Or have you forgotten?

bnw, why do you keep doing that? Why do insist on telling me how I think or feel about an issue? Especially after I’ve just corrected you on your error? I’ll say it one more time: No. It’s NOT academic to me. Get it? Matters of war and peace are extremely important to me. Always have been.

As for global warming. Virtually NO scientist agrees with you that the planet is cooling. Crackpots, yes. Serious scientists, no. You might be able to find one in one hundred. And virtually no scientist believes climate change is driven by the changes in the sun. You might want to study the Greenhouse effect and get back to me.

And the carbon credit idea? That came from the Republicans, from conservatives, and was embraced by the Democrats as a “market-based solution.” Virtually no leftist is in favor of it. We’re in favor of implementing strict laws that make corporate pollution illegal, period. No need to reward people for doing their duty. And we also favor massive investment in clean, green, renewable energy, green, clean agro, transport and cleanup. And work toward ending capitalism, which is THE main cause of our environmental disasters.

We agree on the 4 to 1. But you mocked the idea that inequality was a problem for America, so I based it on that. The two things seem to be in conflict.

Oh, well.

Even the Pope only speaks for 1 billion. Still have to disagree regarding parents vs. non parents. For instance the military draft, as in making females also subject to the draft. I would fight against it as I do not want my daughter forced into something she doesn’t want. For someone without a daughter of draft age the topic is academic. For myself it would not be so.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. It’s not “academic” in the slightest to me. I want peace in the world. No draft for anyone, male or female. I want an end to empire, wars, the surveillance state, nuclear proliferation, weapons proliferation of any kind. I want a safe planet, a verdant planet, a livable planet.

You don’t even acknowledge that we’re polluting ourselves to death and causing massive climate change and heating up the planet. You think that’s all a hoax. That means you don’t want to do what is necessary to bequeath a healthy planet to your own children, much less billions of others, and into the future.

You favor unlimited proliferation of guns, which also endangers your child and everyone else’s. I favor strict controls to ensure the safety of every child.

You love capitalism and have said here that you don’t have any problem with inequality. Inequality actually kills humans, radically decreases their lifespans, and guarantees terrible lives for billions. Capitalism does that. Capitalism guarantees poverty, famine, homelessness and massive pollution and waste.

I could go on and on. In short, I think you favor numerous policies (and an economic system) that make life much, much worse for future generations, and are against doing a host of things that would make life a great deal better for future generations. And you’re a parent.

Detest is a strong word but if that is your opinion of me, OK. I fail to see what is difficult to understand regarding those with children or grandchildren caring more for the future course of this country than those who don’t have children. The children are the future and assuming one is a good parent (apparently that had to be said?) you work your present for their future. People without children really only work for themselves in the now IMO since the effect of bad policy on the next generation does not affect them. Of course skin in the game can be had without being a biological parent such as an adoptive parent, guardian etc.

Bnw,

Are you serious? I didn’t direct the word “detest” at you. I directed it at Trump. I detest him.

As for the rest: I care about all of humanity, deeply, profoundly. Always have. Its history. Its present. Its future. I care about the earth, deeply, profoundly. Always have. Its survival well into the future and beyond. It wouldn’t change a thing (overall) if I had kids.

Of course, I’d have a different relationship to my kids than to the rest of humanity, for a host of reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that I’d actually be living with them, and our daily interactions would have direct and immediate impact on each other in a way that can’t possibly happen for a parent in Tennessee and a child of other parents in Malaysia. I’d have a focused love for them unlike the non-focused love of humanity and the planet in general. But I wouldn’t suddenly have greater care toward children who aren’t my own than I do now. I already have that.

As in, yes, you are going to care deeply about your own children in a way that no one else likely ever can, but, in turn, you won’t be caring about other children not your own in the same way, either. By definition. Being a parent doesn’t suddenly equip you with transcendent powers of love and compassion for all the children in the world, or the future. No one needs to be a parent to care about other humans. Your concern will be, however, directed overwhelmingly toward your own children, and their well-being, which means seven billion other human beings aren’t going to be on your daily radar — at least not to the same extent.

My focus IS on that seven billion.

Yes and I don’t think it applies.

Using that quotation in this context amounts to saying that yeah Trump has done bad shit but what rich people haven’t.

No, he’s worse.

His worseness, IMO, cannot be excused or written off or diminished or rationalized or downplayed.

To me people doing that come in 2 types. (1) Trump advocates, and (2) people who don’t realize yet HOW bad he is.

Again, ZN, it’s not just that Trump is odious. His party is too. It’s a package deal, with Pence likely being the actual president behind the scenes.

Just like with Ron Paul . . . if there were some things Trump would do better than Clinton, I’m guessing his own party would make sure they never saw the light of day. Even if Trump is telling the truth about things like NAFTA and wars — and I don’t believe him for a second on that — his own party wouldn’t pass it. A majority would likely vote against it, and a good portion of the Dems as well. So we’d basically be left with nothing but “Bad Trump,” and “Good Trump” would be blocked — if such a thing actually exists, and I don’t think it does. In fact, I’m about at the 99% range of being certain it doesn’t exist.

nittany ram wrote:

Dak wrote:

If journalism was still the Fourth Estate, this story would dominate the news cycle until The Donald specifically addressed his financial connections with Russia. This guy hasn’t even released his tax records.

George Will thinks Trump won’t release his records because they will show financial ties with Russia. Others speculate that Trump is hiding tax fraud. If his records are released, independent tax experts will go over the taxes even more rigorously than the IRS. Stuff the IRS has been missing could come to light and lead to criminal charges. Of course, all this is speculation, but Trump’s excuse of not wanting to release the records during an audit makes no sense. The audit is irrelevant to the release. Other candidates have released their records during audits.

All of that is true. Trump has thousands of lawsuits against him right now, most of them dealing with business fraud, cheating his partners, clients and students. He’s also lied repeatedly about his supposed charitable giving, which he likely claims on his taxes but doesn’t actually exist. The WaPo did an extensive investigation and couldn’t find any evidence that he gave any money to charity.

And another reason for him to hide them: He’s likely not a billionaire, much less a billionaire several times over. He’s been faking it until he makes it for decades, and New Yorkers have long known this. No one in the know sees him as some great titan of business. They see him as a huckster, con-man and used-car salesman. He inherited something like 40 million from daddy, but has managed to bankrupt his companies six times that we know about.

He’s afraid the tax returns will show him for the complete fraud and huckster he’s always been.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Billy_T.

waterfield wrote:

Whatever happened? Why can’t we have civil and informative debates like this one.

You might ask yourself that, W, after the garbage you pulled in the other thread, saying that people with children care more about future generations than those without them. That’s bullshit and it’s also no way to have an honest, adult debate. It’s deeply insulting and actually just passive-aggressive nonsense.

You should apologize.

You do worse against the right and republicans all the time. AS IN CONSTANTLY. See the hypocrisy encompasses you too which means way down that lefty road.

bnw,

Seriously. I have no idea what any of that means. Can you elaborate?

From blacks with Black Lives Matter to jews with scheming against Sanders based upon religion to hispanics derided via the Taco Bowl. The racism and thus hypocrisy of the left is alive and well entrenched as the highly placed emails at the DNC proves.

Your premise is faulty. You mistake the Dems for “the left,” and apparently believe the words of a few individuals actually implicate one half of the political spectrum.

That’s using quite the broad brush.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Billy_T.

zn wrote:

Semantic debate?

“Discovered” is the conventional word because it means brought to our attention when previously we were in ignorance.

Like, you discovered that there’s a mole in your garden.

The word refers to and only means “came to our awareness and attention.” Doesn’t mean you suddenly invented moles who therefore now exist for the first time in the history of the earth.

Exactly.

This may be a stretch, but it reminds me of the faux-controversy over “Black Lives Matter.” It’s always implied “too” at the end of that. Which is the point. It’s never meant “only,” added to the front of that. So the right-wing refrain of “All Lives Matter” is stupid and offensive and basically just another way to put white folks back on top.

IMO, etc.

From Merriam Webster:

noun dis·cov·ery \dis-ˈkə-v(ə-)rē\
Popularity: Bottom 50% of words
Simple Definition of discovery

: the act of finding or learning something for the first time : the act of discovering something

: something seen or learned for the first time : something discovered

I’ve always found the semantic complaints about “discovery” to be rather silly. They started rearing their angst-ridden heads when it came to Columbus and America, at least in my lifetime.

The reason it’s silly? Using the word “discovery” doesn’t mean or imply or suggest that the discoverer invented something, or was the first to know of something’s existence. It just means that they discovered something new to them, which had been unknown to them before that. That they had been ignorant of its existence prior to that discovery. Ignorance altered — at least to a degree. Like a teen “discovers” sex. It obviously existed before him or her. But it’s a brand new experience for them.

The bigger issue, for me, is that roughly half of all wildlife has been wiped out since 1970 — mostly due to us poisoning the planet.

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF