I'm just curious, and wanted to start a thread about this. Why do politically conservative people write about sex and then vote for social conservatives? Is it that they value their economic interests more or do they feel that things like abortion, gay marriage or birth control should be banned anyway? I'm quite liberal but I am always willing to listen, which most people in EITHER party cannot do. Please share your thoughts.
It may well be because they aren't mutually exclusive. However, I strongly suspect the real reason is the media portray people as being at either end of the political spectrum when the reality is most are in the middle. The problem with that is the most vocal are at the ends of the spectrum.
One of the major oddities of political life is most people think of, and portray, the NAZI party as extreme right wing, yet their party name was (translated into English) Nationalist Socialist Party - please note the middle word in the name. The bulk of the NAZI party was stolen directly from the Communist Socialist Party doctrine which Adolph Hitler used to be a member of in Austria. Where the NAZI Party differed is world communist saw one world government and the NAZIs saw a strong nationalist government, but they also had the same aim as the socialists of one world government.
Anyway, the main aim of both extremes is to have a very strong government that rules according to the limited views of those in charge and everyone else obeys or dies. Most people don't agree with that. I suspect most people what a lot more personal autonomy and less government interference and are willing to live by the Biblical Golden Rule of Live and let live which, sadly, is rarely followed by any church leaders.
Today, the majority of those leading the socialist supporting parties are very much into taking money from everyone with any money to buy votes from people without money so they can get control in a way to allow them to alter the rules and stay in control. They don't care how much they screw up the economy and the personal lives of people as long as they can get control. And the last is also true of most of the religious militants leading the terrorist organisations.
Why didn't McCain win then? that's what confuses me, he was very conservative economically but moderate socially.
Why didn't McCain win then? that's what confuses me, he was very conservative economically but moderate socially.
That's exactly why he didn't win. While fiscal conservatives will support a social conservative in the general election as the lesser of two evils, the social conservatives won't return the favor in the rare event that a fiscal conservative wins the primary.
Do you honestly think Palin was his first choice for VP?
None of the better know social conservative candidates were willing to take second seat to McCain.
Why didn't McCain win then?
Why is it few who are personally extremely rich don't win? Simple, the corporate leaders who control the funds to the less rich party leadership don't want anyone they can't control with bribes to get in.
I self identify as a conservative leaning libertarian.
What you have to understand is that the Republican party base (not necessarily the the party establishment) is split between fiscal conservatives who value small government and social conservatives.
The problem is that right now at least, the social conservatives have enough of a majority that a fiscal conservative candidate has little chance of winning a primary.
The fiscal conservatives will support a social conservative candidate in the election for one reason only. As far as the issues they value go a democratic candidate would be even worse than a social conservative.
I disagree with some of what Ernest said. I believe people are mostly moderate but the idea that the republican party is conservative both economically and socially is a relatively new phenomenon. I grew up in the south and the southern democratic party was dominant and very conservative. When President Johnson supported civil rights 70% of those persons moved from the democratic party to the republican party over the next 20 years. I am a southern republican but vote primarily democratic because many of the republican candidates have become almost reactionary and shifted farther and farther from center to the right. The ideological control of the republican party has shifted to the far right and in the south has a hidden racist agenda. In action in the House of Representatives it has almost become Nihilist.
When I was growing up most republicans and democrats were close enough to the center that you could have a presidential campaign in which you could vote for the man rather than the party. Sadly today the polarization of both parties is such that neither offer any decent choices.
Yeah you're right. It's just hard on me because I have a sibling who is gender queer. They go by they/them pronouns and they have received death threats weekly. So for me the social issues matter more and while economically I may lean right, I can't vote it until the party comes around.
I may lean right, I can't vote it until the party comes around.
I hear you. I mostly gave up on the Republicans after the fiscal disaster that was G.W. Bush. By the same token, I can't stomach supporting any of the democrats.
When the system collapses and we have to start over from scratch, we should make sure to explicitly ban political parities. Build a zero party system.
And Jim that was very well written and I agree with it. That's the type of discussion I want here. Thanks for contributing. I'm still going to identify as liberal but that's not the point. I appreciate you pointing out the new trends of the republican party which have drawn me away from it.
When I was in College I was for a two party system. A party on Friday night and a party on Saturday.
There are countries with multiple parties and they have a lot of trouble putting together a governing majority. The USA had four parties in the 1860 election, Lincoln won with under 40 percent of the vote and we got the "War of Northern Aggression" as a result. Israel has some strange policies because one minority party in the government is very religious and their positions are incorporated into national policy because the government would fall if they left the coalition. One party governments are terrible. Look at the US with effectively only the Republicans during reconstruction. Or any Communist or Whatever the Nazis and Italians under Mussolini, and the Spanish under Franco were. Fascist. Britain has at least three, some of the nationalist parties like the Scottish Independent movement may make four or more. But the Socialists or the Conservatives mostly put together a coalition with the Liberals, or manage to get a majority on their own. Canada has multiple parties some that come and go but mostly more than two. I know of some Canadians who aren't all that happy with how the government gets put together, they always have to keep the French speakers happy. Weird laws like immigrants to Canada have to learn to speak French, even if they already know how to speak English.
Sometimes the Democratic and Republican devils you know are better than adding more devils you don't know. With some exceptions, neither party gets all that it wants, the civil service (aka civil masters) run the government while the politicians issue public statements. The system was set up, before there were parties, Washington hated the idea of parties, the idea was it was going to be hard to pass any law unless everybody compromised about what was going to be legislated.
Winston Churchill is quoted as saying democracy is the worst system of government invented, except any other that was in use.
With some exceptions, neither party gets all that it wants,
The biggest problem with our two party system, is that the few things they do agree on you can be pretty sure are not good things for We The People. Where do you go to oppose those things?
Lobby, agitate, or rebel. Or you could run for office. Publicly advocating your position or ideas could gain enough support to get changes. However the devil is so often in the details. Campaign finance reform looked like a good idea, until they decided to implement it to help established candidates have a better chance against potential challengers. One problem is most people are unhappy about Congress but like their own congressman and vote to retain him. Or congresswoman, or if there are any congress critters that are neither, they support the congress critter from their own district. Term limits make too much sense for politicians whose real job in their own opinion is to get reelected to ever support term limits. Seniority in Congress is the path to power. Power corrupts. Lots of seniority corrupts a lot.
Lobby, agitate, or rebel. Or you could run for office.
In my opinion, the system has become too corrupt to fix from within. The only hope is to burn it down, salt the ground it sprang from and start over from scratch.
However, I'm too old and too out of shape to be a rebel.
overseas
Where is there overseas to go that isn't even worse than the US from a libertarian perspective?
Where is there overseas to go that isn't even worse than the US from a libertarian perspective?
depends on what you want, you can try China or the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Ukraine - either side, Brazil - do your own research. How about Canada or the UK, or Sweden?
China or the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Ukraine - either side, Brazil - do your own research. How about Canada or the UK, or Sweden?
Very funny. I ask where I can find a libertarian friendly state. and you list a bunch of countries with totalitarian and / or socialist governments. Oh, and Canada doesn't qualify as Overseas.
Canada doesn't qualify as Overseas.
It's outside of the USA. If you're looking for a more socialist style state as in gov't supplied health care etc, you can try New Zealand or Australia or the UK -I think Sweden is the most socialist type state at the moment - I mean socialist not communist socialist.
If you're looking for a more socialist style state
No, I am looking for almost the polar opposite of a socialist state. Minimal government, low taxes very few laws and little to no government provided social services. Something that isn't a totalitarian one man rule, but values personal liberty above strict majoritarian rule.
Minimal government, low taxes very few laws and little to no government provided social services.
Heard Island might suit you - it has no local government at all, or Fiji or Norfolk Island.
Heard Island might suit you - it has no local government at all
So it has no local government, that doesn't mean minimal government if it's under the control of an expansive national government.
Besides, Australia has declared it basically off limits.
This prohibition was implemented on 13 May 2014 under regulation 12.23 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. It applies to all persons at all times, except for: officers, servants and agents of the Commonwealth acting in the course of their duties, persons authorised in accordance with subsection 12(2) of the Environment Protection and Management Ordinance 1987 (HIMI), and persons authorised by the Director of National Parks.
Besides, Australia has declared it basically off limits.
But they don't even have anyone there to check on squatters, and only check it out every other year, so you can hide for a couple of days and they miss you. But it may get a tad cold in winter.
Norfolk Island
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Island#Government_and_politics
No, I am looking for almost the polar opposite of a socialist state. Minimal government, low taxes very few laws and little to no government provided social services. Something that isn't a totalitarian one man rule, but values personal liberty above strict majoritarian rule.
The problem is, that such places very often fall under totalitarian one man rule because it lacks the very things needed to prevent it - the things you list as undesirable in government. Libertarian ideals are great. Libertarian actuality is law of the jungle, and the biggest predator makes the rules.
The problem is, that such places very often fall under totalitarian one man rule because it lacks the very things needed to prevent it - the things you list as undesirable in government.
I don't accept that as necessarily true. However, even if it is, it should be possible to get a lot closer to that than what the US is today.
Very Well Aged has stories that recommend the Philippines. English is one of their two official languages and even if you are poor here, living on savings and social security, it would be rich there. As long as the government doesn't bother you, and why should they? It looks like a democracy at least they have voting. Not much of a safety net, they can't afford one.
No, I am looking for almost the polar opposite of a socialist state. Minimal government, low taxes very few laws and little to no government provided social services. Something that isn't a totalitarian one man rule, but values personal liberty above strict majoritarian rule.
I used to suggest Somalia for that, but I think they may be starting to re-evolve an actual government.
No, I am looking for almost the polar opposite of a socialist state. Minimal government, low taxes very few laws and little to no government provided social services. Something that isn't a totalitarian one man rule, but values personal liberty above strict majoritarian rule.
Lebanon fits that description. The government is a bunch of thugs that do nothing for the country and squabble over who's going to steal the most from the government's coffers.
They have no real income taxes and almost no government services. Supposedly the Lebanese civil war ended back in 1992 when Syria occupied the country, and was supposedly kicked out in 2005. In those 23 years they didn't manage to have reliable electricity (12 hours of rolling blackouts daily), or any kind of basic infrastructure. They don't even have addresses on homes and no street names! Try to order pizza in that country.
They have no running water anywhere, they have no sewer system (all sewers go into rivers polluting everything).
The latest government scandal is garbage collection. The ministers are fighting over who gets the collection contract and they currently have mountains of garbage everywhere in the capital.
the country's actual Lebanese population is around 2 Millions, but the country contains about 5 million people. The others coming from the ravaged neighbour Syria to Sudan and most of Africa. They don't stop anybody from coming into the country and the government collect the foreign aid for those 'refugees' and doesn't give those refugees anything.
It's a huge mess.
Lebanon fits that description.
The fact that there are dysfunctional governments that fit the description does not prove that it is impossible to have a functional government that fits that description.
There are plenty of countries with expansive intrusive governments that are just as dysfunctional. See Greece.
The fact that there are dysfunctional governments that fit the description does not prove that it is impossible to have a functional government that fits that description.
No, you're right, that there are dysfunctional governments of any stripe, doesn't prove anything one way or the other about functional governments of any stripe.
What proves that functional governments that fit your criteria are impossible is that there's never been one, ever.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
--- Sir Winston Churchill, 11 Nov. 1947
What proves that functional governments that fit your criteria are impossible is that there's never been one, ever.
Sorry, that doesn't prove anything either.
The government is a bunch of thugs that do nothing for the country and squabble over who's going to steal the most from the government's coffers.
They have no real income taxes and almost no government services.
I read that and thought you were talking about Greece.
I keep looking at the title of this topic and want to say something about how republicans reproduce. Pretty much like other members of the species, most mammals in fact. Of course what comes out is not necessary a Republican. Even when they reach voting age their concerns and interests aren't much like their parents. If you aren't pretty close to rich and have something to lose, high taxes and government regulations aren't one of your concerns. I guess Republicanism is more like a virus that only strikes some of the vulnerable. If you aren't exposed to it, it would be difficult to have it affect you, and even then if you have been infected with other ideology even if you have money, you may grow up to be like a Kennedy.
I keep looking at the title of this topic and want to say something about how republicans reproduce.
I thought hard core republicans breed the same way as hard core democrats - fission like any other low life bacteria.
I'm 75 and a life-long US citizen, resident of the western states. I've never yet met a Libertarian or Republican idealogue who has refused to drive over a government-funded bridge, call for help from the neighborhood fire department, attend a community-sponsored picnic in the park, or line up to take advantage of Social Security or Medicare benefits when they reach old age. About the only thing they do readily refuse is to acknowledge the tax burden that supports police and fire departments, public roads and bridges, parks, Social Security and Medicare. Their grandparents may have been immigrants but now they want immigration stopped for anyone but White Christians of a non-Socialist persuasion.
Left-leaning people love to bring up red herrings like fire dept's, public libraries, parks, etc. into the socialism discussion.
Maybe you don't know what the Constitution allows the federal gov't to do. Nor do you seem to care about the difference between federal and state laws.
Fire Departments -- state or local gov't responsibility, NOT FEDERAL.
Public Library -- sometimes provided by PRIVATE funds, most often by LOCAL gov't, if there is even one in a community.
Public Works, which include roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc -- construction/maintenance of highways and associated bridges are authorized by the Constitution, but most funding for them comes from state and local gov't taxation, unless the highway is part of the Interstate Highway System or is a US highway. Sidewalks, bike paths and the like are provided by LOCAL gov't, not the Federal.
Subways and other mass transit -- Generally the responsibility of state and/or local gov't, NOT the FEDERAL gov't (another red herring). Many were originally built with private funds, and then bought out by LOCAL gov'ts. Railroad companies are still privately owned, and the consumers of their services pay taxes to gov't as part of the cost of those services. There is a gov't-owned passenger rail system, called AMTRAK, which should be eliminated since there's nothing that authorizes the gov't to provide such services in the Constitution.
Port Authority, at least partly, is authorized in Article I, section eight of the Constitution, where the congress is authorized to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. It's not socialism. It's a taxation arm of the gov't (and some of the money goes to local and state gov'ts).
Parks -- Most national parks were originally set up by philanthropists like the Rockefeller's, and most of their maintenance costs come from admission fees and concession royalties from private enterprise. State parks and city parks also originally set up on lands donated to gov't (for a tax deduction) for those parks. State parks are maintained by admission fees.
U.S. Armed Forces are authorized by the Constitution as part of providing for the common defense and creation and maintenance of an army and navy. They have nothing to do with "socialism" but are a constitutionally mandated expense.
Welfare (which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, etc., and subsidies to any entity) is clearly socialist in nature, since the gov't takes money from some people and spreads it around as it sees fit. No such expenditures have ever been authorized by any part of the U.S. Constitution.
Electric Co-Operatives are not even gov't entities. They're privately owned organizations consisting of members who are assessed a fee for membership, which covers construction and maintenance of generating facilities, transmission lines and local wiring. They stem from a socialist idea of common ownership of equipment for the benefit of the members, but no gov't authority is used to force people into membership.
There's absolutely NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution which permits the federal gov't to provide "health care" for the general public. Employees of the federal gov't, including members of the Armed Forces, like employees of any firm, are offered health care benefits as a part of their salary/wage package. But the federal gov't isn't authorized to take over, own, and direct the health care decisions by doctors. It never has been.
But the federal gov't isn't authorized to take over, own, and direct the health care decisions by doctors. It never has been.
One of the sad things about federal governments (be it the USA, Australia, or any other country) is the they will take over and control anything they damn well want to unless it is forbidden for them to do so in the constitution. They don't have to be given authority to do something, just not have the item listed as something they can't do.
As to who does what in the USA today, what you have is the result of a couple of centuries of hodgepodge compromises between the various legal authorities and lobbiest fights for power and funds.
For those who are interested, there is not one single government provided service that was not provided by the citizens or a paid private organisation in the past, at some point. Most have ended up as government provided services due to the government wanting to control it and justified it taking it over on the grounds of either a cheaper service due to economies of scale or needed to be controlled by the government due to it being critical to the operation of the country.
The welfare type services are in place for one reason and one reason only.... to keep people dependent on their gov't and to get the endless votes by those recipients so that those services will never cease to exist.
That said, there's nothing wrong with services to help those in need from unexpected problems/disasters, etc. But to make it a way of life is just plain wrong on so many levels.
The welfare type services are in place for one reason and one reason only.... to keep people dependent on their gov't and to get the endless votes by those recipients so that those services will never cease to exist.
Yep.
Much better to let them either die from starvation or ill health or prey on those that have what they need.
Got to love the middle ages.
I personally like the system in A Perfect World. Everyone's needs are met by the government. Food, shelter, clothing, education, health etc. If you want more than the bare minimum then you work for it. If you try to screw the system, or rip off or attack someone else then you will pay a significant price. No plea bargains, no deals, no parole.
Personally a Federal Government is a good idea- the problem is the State Governments.
Keep the Federal Government for the country, and keep local councils & shires for providing government services at the local level; but get rid of state governments. Big expense for very little return.
Much better to let them either die from starvation or ill health or prey on those that have what they need.
That isn't even what happened in the middle ages. Ever hear of alms http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alms
Before governments took over providing services to the poor there were churches and private charities that provided those services. And just as there were then, there are people now who refuse to take advantage of those services.
The vast majority of the long term homeless in the US are people who for one reason or another refuse to accept either government assistance or private charity. The can not be helped, because they don't want to be helped.
Before governments took over providing services to the poor there were churches and private charities that provided those services.
And they depended on donations to provide those services. Areas that were rich with generous donors, they got (some) support). Areas lacking in wealth, tough titties.
The vast majority of the long term homeless in the US are people who for one reason or another refuse to accept either government assistance or private charity. The can not be helped, because they don't want to be helped.
No argument with that.
You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped.
I can't remember the actual figures, but here in the NT (Northern Territory) something like 85% of hospital Accident & Emergency admissions are drug related (alcohol the biggest percentage by a country mile) either driving in to trees, rollovers or just beating the crap out of each other with blunt & sharp objects. All because they're falling down blind drunk, or flying high, or both.
And it's not their fault/ they can't help themselves/ they made me do it.
Etc, etc, etc...
No argument with that.
You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped.
I can't remember the actual figures, but here in the NT (Northern Territory) something like 85% of hospital Accident & Emergency admissions are drug related (alcohol the biggest percentage by a country mile) either driving in to trees, rollovers or just beating the crap out of each other with blunt & sharp objects. All because they're falling down blind drunk, or flying high, or both.
And it's not their fault/ they can't help themselves/ they made me do it.
Etc, etc, etc...
Bull shit. Funny thing, everyone in the drunk ward had something to drink recently.
Areas that were rich with generous donors, they got (some) support). Areas lacking in wealth, tough titties.
As if that is much different than the situation today with the government in charge. Do you imagine that welfare benefits are the same in Arkansas and California?
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/welfare-payout-numbers-state-by-state-that-you-might-find-stunning
If welfare were a federal program, rather than 56 federally imposed state programs, the the benefits would be the same. And as it is, I expect the benefits in Sacramento and Los Angeles, and in Little Rock and Eureka Springs to be the same.
As if that is much different than the situation today with the government in charge. Do you imagine that welfare benefits are the same in Arkansas and California?
Federally, yes I would.
State based ones no.
I guess that's one of the differences between the US & Australian systems.
In Australia, Federal support schemes apply across the whole country, unless they are specifically for a particular region.
Federally, yes I would.
State based ones no.
As to the US, you would be wrong. All federal entitlement programs (except Social Security) are basically run as grants to the states, and the individual states are supposed to supplement the federal funding and administrate the actual payment of benefits. Even Medicare and Medicaid are run this way. That important in part as the basic cost of living varies significantly from one state to another. Payment levels that would be barely enough to survive on in California or New York would be well above median income in Iowa or Arkansas.
As to the US, you would be wrong. All federal entitlement programs (except Social Security) are basically run as grants to the states, and the individual states are supposed to supplement the federal funding and administrate the actual payment of benefits.
Here in Australia Federal programmes are Federally funded & delivered, no state involvement.
The Federal government is responsible for most taxation & that income is dolled out to the various states & territories through a system of various formulae & screaming & yelling and tantrum throwing and name calling by the state leaders & treasurers.
Other than specific grants, that general disbursement of taxation money is up to each state/territory to decide how to spend it.
Over the years the ability of the states to raise their own taxes has been cut back.
Payment levels that would be barely enough to survive on in California or New York would be well above median income in Iowa or Arkansas.
Federally funded services generally don't take in to account regional costs of living. However there are personal tax rebates and allowances that are based on regions and districts to offset their higher costs of living.
And they depended on donations to provide those services. Areas that were rich with generous donors, they got (some) support). Areas lacking in wealth, tough titties.
Historically, the poor and needy were looked after by the other members of their local community. If a man was able to work and refused to the community would look after the dependants while ostracising the man.
Now, the issues you mention in the NT are an issue across Australia as a whole, just a bit more so in the NT. The root of the issue is more to do with the uneven way the Federal Government welfare system works in some situations due to lobbying bullshit and politicians too scared to do what's right.
politicians too scared to do what's right.
And, presumably, and as here, disagreement as to exactly what IS right, ranging for abolishing any form of assistance completely, to something like a universal dole, as described above in the cite to "A Perfect World."
The vast majority of the long term homeless in the US are people who for one reason or another refuse to accept either government assistance or private charity. The can not be helped, because they don't want to be helped.
On what do you base that assessment? I'd like to see some citations of actual statistical analysis, not right wing propaganda.
As to churches and other private charities, they help some, but nowhere near enough to deal with the problem.
As to churches and other private charities, they help some, but nowhere near enough to deal with the problem.
It is hard to deal with the problem when those taking advantage of handouts find it more convenient and to their financial benefit to keep taking the handouts instead of working and getting less. Welfare has become a career for many of the recipients.
It is hard to deal with the problem when those taking advantage of handouts find it more convenient and to their financial benefit to keep taking the handouts instead of working and getting less. Welfare has become a career for many of the recipients.
Find me one statistically valid study that confirms your contention. (finding one person won't do it, whatever one's position on anything one can find one or two people who live up/down to it.) In the meantime I'll continue to read such statements as right wing propaganda with no facts to back them up.
Find me one statistically valid study that confirms your contention.
I seriously doubt if I can find any study that has people admitting to defrauding the government. However, I can say that I have heard many people talking about how they make more money in welfare benefits than they can make at a real job.
I seriously doubt if I can find any study that has people admitting to defrauding the government. However, I can say that I have heard many people talking about how they make more money in welfare benefits than they can make at a real job.
On top of that, it's common damned sense. If you give money to poor people simply because they are poor and don't build into the program incentives to encourage them to get out of that situation, they will simply accept their checks and wait for the next one to come in and they won't make any attempt to dig themselves out of that situation because if they even try, they lose the money the government gives them before they are financially ready to lose it. Studies or no studies, it happens all the damn time.
And one common factor that many "common damned sense" pronouncements have is that they are mostly, if not entirely wrong. And, BTW, I've never known a rich person to turn down free money either.
because if they even try, they lose the money the government gives them before they are financially ready to lose it.
And how is that the recipients fault?
"My welfare doesn't pay me enough to more than just get by, but if I try to supplement it enough for an occasional luxury, say TWO cartons of milk a month, my benefits get cut."
And how is that the recipients fault?
It's not the recipients fault, it's the systems fault, but anyone who tries to fix the system gets accused of just wanting to hurt the poor.
There are some issues that are the proverbial "third rail" (the one on subways that are electrified and will kill you if you touch them when grounded) in politics. Most of the social benefit issues for programs that have been in force for long enough for voters to expect eligible people to receive them, things like social security or Medicare, are too hazardous to getting re-elected to expect politician to do anything to "reform" them. Benefit increases are about the only popular thing that can be done. I am amazed the retirement age got increased, but note the early retirement age is still 62, you just get less money.
The vast majority of the long term homeless in the US are people who for one reason or another refuse to accept either government assistance or private charity. The can not be helped, because they don't want to be helped.
I'm sorry, but I've got to call you on this one. I simply don't believe that's true. There's a lot of 'temporarily homeless', people with good jobs who lose their homes (foreclosures) or who are evicted, and then there are the mentally ill, who are what most of us imagine when we consider the homeless living in public parks. But aren't those incapable of working who we should most be helping, rather than hanging over millions to those already making billions?
The schizophrenic population, though highly visible, is an incredibly small percentage of the total population, and those unwilling to take their medication on a regular basis are even smaller than that. So I find it difficult to believe that "the vast majority of the long term homeless" refuse government assistance. If anything, we need better laws allowing us to treat those mentally ill so they can become productive citizens, rather than laws protecting their ability to make bad personal decisions based on their declining mental health.
Actually, Ernest's point about state control is spot on. The failure with the U.S. war on poverty is that, being state based, it restricts the poor to their current impoverished conditions. During the Great Depression, and the multitude of smaller depressions before that, the poor would flee areas they couldn't get jobs, seeking out large metropolitan areas like California and New York, where they generally succeeded, improving their, their families and the states' economies. By requiring all SS benefits to be awarded by the state, we've set up a permanent class of the poor. If we made benefits federal, the chronically underemployed could pick up and move to wherever was currently hiring, allowing for the free flow of goods and services.
Historically, the poor and needy were looked after by the other members of their local community. If a man was able to work and refused to the community would look after the dependants while ostracising the man.
I also bed to differ with this. It's not like everything was rosy for the poor in the Middle Ages, or even in the 1800s, with the churches taking care of everyone. Instead, the churches minister to certain select groups, often ignoring anyone unlike them (either different religious groups, or people of different ethnic backgrounds), or they provide benefits to expressly keep them out of THEIR neighborhoods! It was because of the failures of the private welfare system that we (the U.S.) devised the public welfare system. If it worked so ideally, there'd have been no need.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, far from it, but rather than blaming the victims, we should try to fix the problem. The problem with Social Security isn't that it's an unsupportable system, it's that the State and Federal Governments have systematically stolen money from it to cover their unwillingness to pay their own bills via taxation. That's happened every single year since it's inception, and now that it's time to pay the piper for this wholesale theft of the public's services, we (mostly conservative groups) are blaming the poor for not being independently wealthy, or for not having decent jobs to provide for themselves.
There's a lot of 'temporarily homeless', people with good jobs who lose their homes (foreclosures) or who are evicted
The key work their is temporarily. W
hen I said long term homeless I was not referring to the persistence of a aggregate population where individuals might come and go, but to individual homeless people who have been homeless for many years. The number of long term homeless people in the US is much smaller than most people think.
then there are the mentally ill, who are what most of us imagine when we consider the homeless living in public parks. But aren't those incapable of working who we should most be helping, rather than hanging over millions to those already making billions?
Yes, those are the ones we should most be helping. However, many of them believe that those trying to help them have nefarious purposes and refuse help.
I also bed to differ with this. It's not like everything was rosy for the poor in the Middle Ages, or even in the 1800s, with the churches taking care of everyone.
As if everything is rosy for the poor today.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, far from it, but rather than blaming the victims, we should try to fix the problem.
I'm not blaming the victims. I'm blaming the system itself.
he problem with Social Security isn't that it's an unsupportable system, it's that the State and Federal Governments have systematically stolen money from it to cover their unwillingness to pay their own bills via taxation.
This is just plain false. There has never been any money in the SS trust fund to steal and the states aren't in a position to steal anything from it if it did.
Despite the fact that it has been billed as social insurance, SS functions nothing like insurance. It is and always has been a pay as you go system. Current worker's payroll taxes pay current beneficiaries benefits.
From the first day of SS under FDR, SS is required by law that created SS to invest every dollar in the trust fund in investments as least as safe as US sovereign debt. Since in the eyes of the government nothing else qualifies, the only thing in the SS trust fund is US treasury bonds (IOUs).
As with the purchase of all other treasury bonds, the real money ends up in the US government's general fund. This is the way SS was designed to work from the vary beginning under FDR.
This is just plain false. There has never been any money in the SS trust fund to steal and the states aren't in a position to steal anything from it if it did.
The SS system is a federal mandate, passed on to the states. While the states don't actually collect it, the funds for it are passed on to them. For the most part, it's Congress that's been syphoning funds from the SS reserves, consistently since the system began, until they've essentially bled it dry.
However, the most recent material I've read point to the lack of mobility of SS recipients for it's lack of success (by typing the poor to low-opportunity areas, rather than encouraging them to search for work in other states). And the reason why those restrictions apply are because SSI is a federal system, applied by each state, rather than a purely federal or state operation.
As far as the sanctity of SSI funds, I suggest you research it again. Congress has been using those funds to float their spending for years, and recently (the last dozen or so years???) they've made it obvious by putting the money into the 'general funds' available to Congress to spend from.
The SS system is a federal mandate, passed on to the states. While the states don't actually collect it, the funds for it are passed on to them. For the most part, it's Congress that's been syphoning funds from the SS reserves, consistently since the system began, until they've essentially bled it dry.
This is not true.
1. SS checks are issued directly by the federal government to individual recipient. Unlike general welfare and AFDC SS is not administered by the states.
2. There are no SS reserves.
However, the most recent material I've read point to the lack of mobility of SS recipients for it's lack of success (by typing the poor to low-opportunity areas, rather than encouraging them to search for work in other states). And the reason why those restrictions apply are because SSI is a federal system, applied by each state, rather than a purely federal or state operation.
There's the misunderstanding You are talking about SSI rather than SS. The main SS program is strictly retirement payments. Those retirement payments are issued directly by the federal government.
SSI on the other hand is for disability. It's really a separate program but managed by the SSA at the federal leval.
As far as the sanctity of SSI funds, I suggest you research it again. Congress has been using those funds to float their spending for years, and recently (the last dozen or so years???) they've made it obvious by putting the money into the 'general funds' available to Congress to spend from.
I suggest you re-read my prior comment. The "money" in the SS trust fund is all invested as a mater of law going back to the creation of SS in the 1930s in US treasury bonds. That the real money ends up in the general fund is not some new invention, it has been that way since the creation of the Social Security program.
By requiring all SS benefits to be awarded by the state, we've set up a permanent class of the poor.
CW, I'm not in the US so I don't know if this is the case, or not. However, a person I know in the US said, the other day, an old friend of theirs couldn't afford to move from one state to another even if someone else paid for the shift because if they moved states they had a waiting period to qualify for welfare support in the new state, which meant no food or utilities or anything during that waiting period. If this is true, then it's another big reason why most poor don't move around much while the homeless who don't get help can and do move around a lot.
The problem with Social Security isn't that it's an unsupportable system, it's that the State and Federal Governments have systematically stolen money from it to cover their unwillingness to pay their own bills via taxation.
I don't know what it's like in the US, but thought it worked like a pension scheme from what I've seen people say about it. However, here in Australia it's supposed to work something like that. Back in the 1960s the federal government instituted a social security scheme to pay welfare payments, they increased the amount of taxation a few percent to pay for it and pushed it as a pension style scheme for everyone. By the time I started working full-time in 1970 the welfare budget was running at just above 30% of the total federal government budget, thus 30% of my taxes were for welfare. At one time it grew to be near 40% of the total budget, then Medicare was added and the taxes raised to cover that, but it was seen as a non-welfare item because it had it's own tax levy - never did understand that logic.
Anyway, based on the welfare system being 30% of the federal budget, I figure 30% of what I paid in taxes over the decades is what I invested in the welfare system. I'm now on a disability pension and collecting a welfare payment. Going on 30% of how much I paid in taxes for 40 years, divided by the amount of pension I get each year, without even trying to adjust for inflation etc, I'm entitled to to get a pension for another 50 years before they pay me back what I paid them - some how I don't think I'll be around in 2066 at 112 years of age.
The government has never put aside any money to cover down stream welfare payments, and have introduced new compulsory private pension systems to try and keep people off the welfare system because it's growing too fast now with the baby-boomers moving out of the tax-payer group to the welfare recipient group.
the problem is the State Governments.
That's the problem here in Australia because the Aust constitution is an agreement between the states and the people are only recognised via their recognition as a citizen of an individual state. Today, we really need to do away with the state governments and have everything managed at the local government level or the federal government level only. How they get split is open for discussion and debate, but the is not one government service delivered by the state government that can't be done by the local or federal government and isn't already duplicated by one or the other and that duplication costs the taxpayers a fortune each year.
One of the sad things about federal governments (be it the USA, Australia, or any other country) is the they will take over and control anything they damn well want to unless it is forbidden for them to do so in the constitution. They don't have to be given authority to do something, just not have the item listed as something they can't do.
Except that the structure of the US constitution is such that the Federal government can do only those things explicitly listed or necessary to carrying out the listed powers. All other things are explicitly reserved as powers of the states.
ETA:
Of course the US federal government has explicitly ignored this reality since FDR.
All other things are explicitly reserved as powers of the states.
Please state exactly which section of the US constitution states that principle. The US Constitution isn't an agreement between the states, but one between the citizens of the country. Which is what a lot of people forgot in 1860. Since then there have been some situations where the US Congress has passed laws pushing something back onto the states because they wanted them and feds agreed to let them.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
Thanks, I'll look into that.
There's also Article 4, but that's mostly restricting state powers rather than granting them.
Please state exactly which section of the US constitution states that principle.
10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The US Constitution isn't an agreement between the states, but one between the citizens of the country.
Ernest, This is actually wrong. The constitution is very much an agreement between the states. See Article 5 of the US constitution.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[2]
This is the procedure for amending the US Constitution.
Note that in addition to Congress being able to propose amendments the state legislature may request a call for a convention for proposing amendments.
Note also that amendments are ratified not by a vote of the people, but by the state legislatures. While theoretically, a state could call a state convention to ratify an amendment, this has never actually been done.
The big problem about both parties is that they refuse to abide by the constitution. The Dems are communist in all but name and the Repubs are working toward a theocracy.
The Libertarian idea is that the purpose of government is first and foremost to protect the people from outside influence. Local and State government is to be the intermediary with the Federal, not the servant. One of the biggest violations of the constitution is the amendment that authorized the income tax.
The duties the fed government has acquired have expanded exponentially since that amendment passed. The whole war on drugs is an example of overreach. No matter how much money and manpower are invested in the so called war there are only negative results (not negligible, negative). The drug trade is bigger and more profitable every year.
Neither party in charge is going to change that any more than they are going to radically change the tax structure which gives them so much power. A tax code thousands of pages long benefits only those in charge of it.
The war on poverty is no better. The largest employer in most counties across the country is government.
I feel that a strong third party is the only chance our present government has to survive long enough for my granddaughter to have a bright future.
A tax code thousands of pages long benefits only those in charge of it.
Multi-national corporations.
Benefits lawyers and tax accountants and others who get paid to interpret and enforce it. There is a reason its the Infernal Revenue Service.
A tax code thousands of pages long benefits only those in charge of it.
10s of thousands of pages. You'd have to go back 40 or fifty years for the tax code to be merely thousands of pages.
I feel that a strong third party is the only chance our present government has to survive long enough for my granddaughter to have a bright future.
Does a potential Trump totalitarian party qualify?
I feel that a strong third party is the only chance our present government has to survive long enough for my granddaughter to have a bright future.
Sorry. You would be competing with many countries for exactly those services, she was not American and the Iron Lady, Maggie Thatcher, is dead
Your comment does not seem to have any connection to the part of sagacious' comment that you quoted. What services and what would Margret Thatcher have to to with it?
Your comment does not seem to have any connection to the part of sagacious' comment that you quoted. What services and what would Margret Thatcher have to to with it?
You were looking for a strong third party which sounds sagacious to me.
Maggie, the Iron Lady, was "not for turning" having forceful ideas and getting the vast majority enforced. She would also be a "third party" to your entrenched politicians. I heard a lot of foreigners asking for us to export her so that she could put their countries straight
Why do politically conservative people write about sex and then vote for social conservatives? Is it that they value their economic interests more or do they feel that things like abortion, gay marriage or birth control should be banned anyway?
Since nobody has bothered to even attempt to answer your question, instead electing to talk about Nazi's, homeless people, three party systems versus one party systems and republican policies versus democratic, I will make an attempt to give an opinion on what you actually asked.
First, I consider myself to be both fiscally and socially conservative when it comes to politics and voting preferences and yet, I do read and write dirty sex stories. Why?
It's the difference between fiction and reality. Sexual promiscuity when overindulged in outside of fiction (on a large and unencumbered scale) breaks down society. Some people like to say that they 'don't believe in monogamy'. Okay, fine. I can comprehend the argument against humans being 'monogamous' when you look at monogamy in a literal sense, but let's look at what would happen if nobody was faithful ever. (I know this is taking it to the extreme, but let's suppose for a second). First off, most men and women can't handle the idea of their spouses having sex with someone else. Jealousy becomes such an issue that divorce is almost always inevitable. If fidelity broke down to virtually zero, the family unit would crumble and the backbone of society would decay at such a rapid rate that (in my opinion) lawlessness and anarchy would soon become the ruling law.
To keep it simple, yeah. I write sex stories that are really ruanchy and commonly break society's rules. That doesn't mean that I think real life should reflect the stories I write. I write them as an escape from reality not to transpose reality itself.
@gridiron2393
Why do politically conservative people write about sex and then vote for social conservatives? Is it that they value their economic interests more or do they feel that things like abortion, gay marriage or birth control should be banned anyway?
I think that this was covered in considerable detail in one (?doover) story on SOL.
In essence an aspiring politician promotes him/herself for one, perhaps two points considered to be considered important by the electors. The electors individually have 10, perhaps 20 elements which they would like to know the candidates' views on but which the candidates will never disclose.
The result is that 55% of the electors agree on just one, even two points but on other points (say religion, rubbish removal, legal brothels, sex )the electors have different views on those unanswered questions ranging to as much as 100% opposite to those of the candidate they voted for.
Have you ever heard a candidate answer the question put to him/her unless it is an apparent plant?
The result is that 55% of the electors agree on just one, even two points but on other points (say religion, rubbish removal, legal brothels, sex )the electors have different views on those unanswered questions ranging to as much as 100% opposite to those of the candidate they voted for.
What does any of that have to do with the O.P.'s question? The question isn't about why a conservative votes a particular way or why. The question (essentially) was how does a conservative who writes sex stories justify himself in doing so when he votes or supports conservative ideology. My reply was an attempt to answer that question, not to vindicate or condemn how or why politicians act or vote with or against their constituents. Those are two separate and unrelated topics.
Dominions Son and Richardshagrin,
That depends on what you mean by "reform". The way most right wingers seem to use the term it seems that "reform" seems to be a synonym with "abolish".
Now an acceptable reform of welfare might be to not cut benefits if the beneficiary gets some money on the side, e.g. gets a part time or seasonal job.
Here is another idea I have seen proposed.
Eliminate or greatly reduce traditional welfare payments and the minimum wage. Expand the earned income tax credit into a more general negative income tax for people earning below a certain level.
Set it up with multiple negative tax brackets, so they get a bit extra for more earned income below the cutoff point.
Now an acceptable reform of welfare might be to not cut benefits if the beneficiary gets some money on the side, e.g. gets a part time or seasonal job.
The problem is how to prevent cheats, people earning too much to get any payments, but arranging to get paid so they can get welfare on top of a decent income. The government in general does a shitty job of fraud prevention.
The government in general does a shitty job of fraud prevention.
Yeah, every year you read about how there are some addresses that receive a very ridiculous number of tax refund checks. You would think that it would be easy to incorporate a very simple counting subroutine that sound an alert when one address gets more than say 10 refund checks. This would trigger for some large families, but prevent 300+ checks going to a 2 bedroom apartment somewhere.
Yeah, every year you read about how there are some addresses that receive a very ridiculous number of tax refund checks.
Errors originating with the government are not the same thing as fraud. There are plenty of real tax cheats that get away with it or only get caught after many years and many fraudulent tax filings.
The problem is how to prevent cheats, people earning too much to get any payments, but arranging to get paid so they can get welfare on top of a decent income. The government in general does a shitty job of fraud prevention.
Don't worry about them, they're an insignificant problem.
I suggest you re-read my prior comment. The "money" in the SS trust fund is all invested as a mater of law going back to the creation of SS in the 1930s in US treasury bonds. That the real money ends up in the general fund is not some new invention, it has been that way since the creation of the Social Security program.
One reason for that was so that payments could start going out immediately in January 1940, before they'd collected one cent.
Don't worry about them, they're an insignificant problem.
So the government claims, but their claims to that effect should not be trusted.. Do you have any independent data to back that up?
Not handy, but every statistically valid study I've ever heard of has concluded that the amount of fraud is mostly less than the standard deviation. What's more a lot of the anecdotes* the anti-welfare people bring up are manufactured.
*And please note, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Not handy, but every statistically valid study I've ever heard of has concluded that the amount of fraud is mostly less than the standard deviation. What's more a lot of the anecdotes* the anti-welfare people bring up are manufactured.
You know, I'm not really in the habit of studying statistical data in regard to this topic, but I can tell you this much. I am friends with a lot of people at many different levels of income. Quite a few of these people make more money than I do and somehow they qualify for foodstamps. I find it very difficult to believe, if you have seen studies concluding that the fraud is 'less than the standard deviation', that the study is accurate. If there is no fraud, and we currently have 35.4% of (according to census 2014), than we are doing something wrong, no matter how you look at it. I would almost prefer that it be because of fraud, than have it be legitimate.
Not handy, but every statistically valid study I've ever heard
Sorry, I have heard about a lot of studies in this area and once you actually start digging into the details of the study, none to almost none of them are statistically valid.
Statistical validity is a subject all by itself. In general the larger the sample size the more valid, but that also depends on the population the samples are taken from. Other distributions than the normal curve apply to some populations. The cost of taking the samples can vary significantly depending on what you are measuring and how precisely. Height to the nearest inch, or half inch is not that expensive, relatively speaking, compared to height to the nearest micron, which will vary with the time of day. And takes some sophisticated and expensive measuring devices. For peer reviewed studies that appear in scientific literature, statistical validity is usually one of the questions addressed and if the samples are small, it should be pointed out the confidence level of the validity presented. Political or Corporate sponsored sampling can have inherent bias. Political polls prior to say 1950 based on telephone answers were skewed because poor people didn't have phones.
Depending on what is studied and by whom, you probably are right about the lack of statistical validity. Once you determine who wanted the study done and how much they were willing to spend on it, you may not need to do a lot of statistical analysis to determine whoever did it never took a class in statistics.
*And please note, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Of course it's not because data isn't the plural of anything. As it's used in the English language, data is a mass noun and as such it is singular and has no plural form.
Mass nouns are used for things that are measured rather than counted.
Of course it's not because data isn't the plural of anything.
Actually, it is. Data is plural for datum, which is originally a Latin noun meaning 'something given'.
Actually, it is. Data is plural for datum, which is originally a Latin noun meaning
In Latin data is the plural of datum. Last I checked we are using English, not Latin. In English, data is used as a mass noun and is therefore singular with no plural.
Edited to add:
Here is a simple test. Where X is some number and UNITS is some unit of measure applicable to information (bytes, Kilobytes, Megabytes, gigabytes)
Would you say:
1. I have X data.
Or
2. I have X UNITS of data.
If you use 2, you are using data as a singular mass noun. Personally, I have never heard any English speaking person use the word data with form 1.
Last I checked we are using English, not Latin.
Oxford Dictionary:
Definition of datum in English: noun ( plural data ).
Definition of datum in English: noun ( plural data ).
No one uses datum and no one uses data as a plural of datum.
Here is a simple test. Where X is some number and UNITS is some unit of measure applicable to information (bytes, Kilobytes, Megabytes, gigabytes)
Would you say:
1. I have X data.
Or
2. I have X UNITS of data.
If you use 2, you are using data as a singular mass noun. Personally, I have never heard any English speaking person use the word data with form 1.
Point to any English language document of any type anywhere using data in form 1 rather than form 2.
The use of data points doesn't count X data points is a disguised version of for 2 where points is the units "X data points" is equivalent to "X points of data".
Would you say:
1. I have X data.
Or
2. I have X UNITS of data.
If you use 2, you are using data as a singular mass noun. Personally, I have never heard any English speaking person use the word data with form 1.
Point to any English language document of any type anywhere using data in form 1 rather than form 2.
The use of data points doesn't count X data points is a disguised version of for 2 where points is the units "X data points" is equivalent to "X points of data".
A "unit of data" is a datum. And I would say, "this data is derived from a sample of X".
A "unit of data" is a datum.
Yes, but how often would you use the word in that meaning?
Perhaps more common is the use of datum as being the base point of measurement. For example the datum point for the measurement of tide heights is often tied to Low Water Springs. For those of you close to rivers or lakes there is probably a marker somewhere showing water heights above a datum. Airfields have datum altitudes below which pilots are advised not to attempt to fly.
I use the word data in that meaning every time I use it (excepting when it's the name of a Star Trek character).
Perhaps more common is the use of datum as being the base point of measurement. For example the datum point for the measurement of tide heights is often tied to Low Water Springs. For those of you close to rivers or lakes there is probably a marker somewhere showing water heights above a datum. Airfields have datum altitudes below which pilots are advised not to attempt to fly.
Did you do a find and replace of "datum" for "average"?
BTW I don't even know what the phrase "Low Water Springs" means, do you mean low tide line? The phrases I'm familiar with in those contexts are mean high tide, mean low tide, and mean sea level, each of which are derived by measuring the actual water levels four times a day, twice for high tide and twice for low tide, with each measurement being a datum for calculating the averages.
Did you do a find and replace of "datum" for "average"?
No, the datum would be a reference point, not an average.
Here is a description of how datum is used in mapping:
The Earth is shaped like a flattened sphere. This shape is called an ellipsoid. A datum is a model of the earth that is used in mapping. The datum consists of a series of numbers that define the shape and size of the ellipsoid and it's orientation in space. A datum is chosen to give the best possible fit to the true shape of the Earth.
https://www.maptoaster.com/maptoaster-topo-nz/articles/projection/datum-projection.html
Low Water Springs
Google be thy friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_low_water_spring
The average of the levels of each pair of successive low waters during that period of about 24 hours in each semi-lunation (approximately every 14 days), when the range of the tide is greatest (Spring Range).
BTW I don't even know what the phrase "Low Water Springs" means, do you mean low tide line? The phrases I'm familiar with in those contexts are mean high tide, mean low tide, and mean sea level,
Averages and mean figures are useless for navigation.
The sun and moon affect the sea by pulling the water. If the sun is over a particular point then the water rises there (high tide)and when it is at the other side of the world the water "drains away" giving you low tide. The moon similarly affects the sea but to a lesser extent. If the sun and moon work together then the water rises and falls more (spring tide) than if they are in opposition (neap tide).
A chart shows the depth of the water at various places and that depth is based on a datum point which is close to the very lowest that the water ever reaches (low water springs).
Tide tables let you know for any port the height above the datum point of the water at high and low tide for every day of the year so you can calculate at what time you can take a ship which needs 10 feet of water into a harbour which shows a depth (at low water springs)of 8 feet
(Before anyone complains I have grossly simplified that explanation)
No one uses datum and no one uses data as a plural of datum.
You are incorrect, or at least uninformed. While it may not be used by the general populace, datum is used quite often in the scientific community.
From the NOAA educational website:
"Students will be able to explain how a datum of reference points may be used to describe the location within the area covered by the datum."
From the University of Texas CIS course:
"When we reserve bits of storage for a given datum..."
It doesn't really matter because data, in it's current form, is used either way. My argument was that DATA is plural for DATUM, even in English, as opposed to your blanket statement that:
... data isn't the plural of anything.
It doesn't really matter because data, in it's current form, is used either way. My argument was that DATA is plural for DATUM, even in English,
Okay, so Datum is used, but still if you can't find a reference to X data then data is not being used as a plural of datum.
@tppm
"this data is derived from a sample of X"
Is still using data a grammatically singular mass noun. Other wise you would have to say "these data are derived from a sample of X"
I always thought that Data was a Star Trek Character and that the plural for Data was his brother Lore.
Datum, fuckum, and forgetum.
LMAO! Every now and then you come up with a good one.
Please! Don't encourage him! :O :P
Is it possible to get back to discussing writing, rather than arguing about what something is, or whether advise is justified or whether everyone just ignores it.
It doesn't look possible to me, but maybe your appeal will work. Good luck. Perhaps if you start a new thread there might be less drift on it. Perhaps something homonym related, like the difference between advise and advice. Other than the S or C.
t doesn't look possible to me, but maybe your appeal will work. Good luck. Perhaps if you start a new thread there might be less drift on it.
My issue wasn't with thread drift (though that's a constant issue), rather it was with the lack of focus on writing issues, and the arguing about the validity of writing topics.
I guess I was feeling frustrated that the discussions didn't seem productive. I started trying to understand an issue, and ended up defending the very issue I was unsure of. That's about the ultimate in frustrating arguments.
My issue wasn't with thread drift (though that's a constant issue), rather it was with the lack of focus on writing issues, and the arguing about the validity of writing topics.
The problem is that the initial post is just total flame bait. gridiron2393 was looking for a flame war and he got one.
gridiron2393 was looking for a flame war and he got one.
I've seen & been involved in Flame Wars.
What happened here didn't even qualify as smouldering, it barely got warm.
What happened here didn't even qualify as smouldering, it barely got warm.
You could says: "It was the smoking none."
edit ti add: no typo in the above.
Well, to be fair, this entire thread hasn't been anything but thread drift since the original post. I made one attempt to bring it back to its original meaning, but when you include a question that starts with a political slant, you are pretty much begging for incessant conversation that never leads anywhere.
Personally, I was finding some humor in how long a bunch of old farts could sit around and talk about the words data and datum. he he he.
To answer the OP, because they're hypocrites.
And sejintenej
A chart shows the depth of the water at various places and that depth is based on a datum point which is close to the very lowest that the water ever reaches (low water springs).
It's either data point, or datum, not datum point.
finding some humor in how long a bunch of old farts could sit around and talk about the words data and datum.
That's because they have nothing else to do unless someone is prepared to date 'em.
