Jump to content


The Democrat Utopia


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

RD, you are moving into the 'ridiculous' with that last statement in order to defend one of the holy doctrines of liberalism.  Human sperm by itself isn't an 'organism' capable of developing into a full human.  I'm not talking about individual cells, or an organ and you know that.  I'm talking about a separate life form - the fetus which in itself is capable of developing into a RedDenver or a TGHusker. 

 

I'll take back the word 'unchecked' but there are many in the Dem party who want it to be unchecked and  some who wish it to be extended beyond live birth

The bold is fear-mongering, as people are obviously opposed to that, including the pro-choice crowd. If you can find those people (I seriously doubt they even exist), then you'll also easily be able to find a whole bunch of both pro-life and pro-choice people that are opposed to them.

 

The reason I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of consider human sperm as needing to be protected is I'm reducing your argument to it's logical absurdity (i.e. reductio ad absurdum). If you're going to use "any stage of human life" as the basis for your argument, then you have to include every stage of human life. If there are exceptions such as not considering individual cells or an organ, then it opens the door to other exceptions like a fetus.

Link to comment

There was a post  someplace in which it was rightfully noted that the Repubs have gone from deficits hawks to 'the deficits don't matter'. 

Well I guess it works for progressives as well when it fits their agenda.  This Politico article notes Cortez's argument that the govt can

just print money to pay for all of her loony tune ideas.   What are her loony tune ideas?  See the 2nd link below and a summary in the 3rd.

 

 

Ocasio-Cortez boosts progressive theory that deficits aren’t so scary

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-budget-1143084

Quote

 

The Democratic Party's base is rallying around calls for massive social welfare programs like Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee and a Green New Deal — all of which would cost trillions of dollars and potentially bust the budget.

Yet a small but growing chorus of progressives say that policy makers are thinking about deficits all wrong: The red ink, they say, is not that big of a deal.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.), told Business Insider last month the notion that the government needn't worry about balancing its books should be “a larger part of our conversation.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Congress’s current system of finding savings to offset spending increases “doesn’t make any sense.” It is “clear that we need to rethink our financial accounting for the United States,” she said.

“There’s no question in my mind but that [the idea is] gaining traction, just based on my inbox, my voicemail,” said Stephanie Kelton, a leading proponent of a new theory behind deficit spending who served as an adviser on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. She pointed to an uptick in inquiries from Hill staff, members of Congress and journalists.

 

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

https://www.atr.org/green-new-deal-air-travel-stops-becoming-necessary

This morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released an

 overview of her “Green New Deal” which threatens "a massive transformation of our society."

Below are the details of the proposal.

Rebuild every single building in the U.S.

“Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.”

Will end all traditional forms of energy in the next ten years.

The Green New Deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

Plans to ban nuclear energy within 10 years if possible.

“It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!

“Build out high speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”.

Don’t invest in new technology of Carbon Capture and Storage, just plant trees instead!

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.”

Mandates all new jobs be unionized.

“Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local.”

May include a carbon tax.

“We’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal.”

May include cap and trade.

“…Cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan.”

How much will it cost?

No estimate of the total cost of implementing the Green New deal is offered by Ocasio-Cortez.

However, as Ocasio-Cortez admits, “even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.”

She does provide one estimate that the cost to “repair and upgrade infrastructure U.S. infrastructure” alone will cost “$4.6 trillion at minimum.”

How will it be paid for? Don’t worry about that.

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t provide any insight into how the trillions of dollars in spending will be paid for other than claiming, “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit”.

Bus as Ocasio-Cortez says, “the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity”.

 


 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The bold is fear-mongering, as people are obviously opposed to that, including the pro-choice crowd. If you can find those people (I seriously doubt they even exist), then you'll also easily be able to find a whole bunch of both pro-life and pro-choice people that are opposed to them.

 

The reason I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of consider human sperm as needing to be protected is I'm reducing your argument to it's logical absurdity (i.e. reductio ad absurdum). If you're going to use "any stage of human life" as the basis for your argument, then you have to include every stage of human life. If there are exceptions such as not considering individual cells or an organ, then it opens the door to other exceptions like a fetus.

OK we are arguing over a phrase and missing the bigger picture of what I'm saying.  We are talking about the fetus and not individual cells  - and maybe there is a better way of stating without saying 'any stage'. When I use the term 'any stage' I'm not talking about a single cell or an organ - I'm talking about a life form that in itself has within itself the ability to develop and grow to a full human. Sperm can't and an organ cannot.  So if you have a better phrase, I'm more than happy to use it.

 

Regarding the bold 'fear mongering' quote look up Peter Singer - no small voice in progressive circles.  You will find quotes by him on post birth abortion.  The 'logical conclusion' is if we take many pro-abortion arguments to their logical conclusion we eventually end up with his world view.  This may not be the world view of most pro-choice people.  However, it can become the slippery slope ending for those who want unrestricted abortions to be the rule of the land. 

 

from Wiki

Quote

 

Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book Animal Liberation (1975), in which he argues in favour of veganism, and his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", in which he argues in favour of donating to help the global poor. For most of his career, he was a preference utilitarian, but he stated in The Point of View of the Universe (2014), coauthored with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, that he had become a hedonistic utilitarian.

On two occasions, Singer served as chair of the philosophy department at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996 he stood unsuccessfully as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004 Singer was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. In 2005, the Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.[3] Singer is a cofounder of Animals Australia and the founder of The Life You Can Save.

 

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/peter-singer-princeton-bioethics-professor-faces-c/

 

Quote

 

Disability activists have launched a petition demanding Princeton University professor Peter Singer resign over his outspoken support for euthanasia and infanticide.

Mr. Singer, who teaches bioethics at the private Ivy League university, has for years promoted public policy that would legalize the killing of severely disabled infants, the petition states.

On his faculty page, Mr. Singer argues: “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

“Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies,” Mr. Singer continued. “My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”

More recently, in an April interview with WND’s Aaron Klein, Mr. Singer said bluntly: “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

 

 

 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Rebuild every single building in the U.S.

“Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.”

 

Will end all traditional forms of energy in the next ten years.

The Green New Deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

Plans to ban nuclear energy within 10 years if possible.

“It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

 

Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!

“Build out high speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”.

 

Don’t invest in new technology of Carbon Capture and Storage, just plant trees instead!

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.”

 

Mandates all new jobs be unionized.

“Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local.”

 

May include a carbon tax.

“We’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal.”

 

May include cap and trade.

“…Cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan.”

 

How much will it cost?

No estimate of the total cost of implementing the Green New deal is offered by Ocasio-Cortez.

 

However, as Ocasio-Cortez admits, “even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.”

 

She does provide one estimate that the cost to “repair and upgrade infrastructure U.S. infrastructure” alone will cost “$4.6 trillion at minimum.”

 

How will it be paid for? Don’t worry about that.

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t provide any insight into how the trillions of dollars in spending will be paid for other than claiming, “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit”.

 

Bus as Ocasio-Cortez says, “the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity”.

 

So... this is a willful misrepresentation of the GND?

 

"Rebuild every single building in the U.S." The line they quote directly below this heading belies the heading. The very first word is "upgrade."

 

"Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!" The line they quote doesn't say anything like this. It's pretty easy to interpret as a domestic travel plan.

 

"How much will it cost?" She hasn't laid out the plan, but this piece is painting this poorly by citing the cost to... billionaires? Really? Even if the cost is "$4.6 trillion" to repair US infrastructure, is that an outrageous cost? Is that market value? Is it a bad thing to reinvest in American infrastructure? It's presented as bad... why is it bad? And why would conservatives (at whom this piece is aimed) balk at a figure like that? Do they have a problem spending that kind of money to reinvest in America? Because they sure don't seem to have a problem blowing that kind of money on pointless wars.

 

Maybe before we preemptively dismiss everything the woman says as "loony tune ideas" we should actually, I don't know... listen to her ideas?

 

People gripe about "Washington" and claim we need new blood in Congress. Then we get it and they're torn down before they have a chance to change anything.

 

And then we wonder why we have the problems we have.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

11 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I guess today is my day to pick on the Dem party.    Neither party is living in Utopia

 

 

The point of the thread title “Republican Utopia” was that they had the Senate, the House, and the presidency, and we would see what they did with it.

 

The ”Democrat Utopia” title was created out of ignorance. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

There was a post  someplace in which it was rightfully noted that the Repubs have gone from deficits hawks to 'the deficits don't matter'. 

Well I guess it works for progressives as well when it fits their agenda.  This Politico article notes Cortez's argument that the govt can

just print money to pay for all of her loony tune ideas.   What are her loony tune ideas?  See the 2nd link below and a summary in the 3rd.

 

 

Ocasio-Cortez boosts progressive theory that deficits aren’t so scary

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-budget-1143084

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

https://www.atr.org/green-new-deal-air-travel-stops-becoming-necessary

This morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released an

 

 overview of her “Green New Deal” which threatens "a massive transformation of our society."

 

Below are the details of the proposal.

 

Rebuild every single building in the U.S.

 

“Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.”

 

Will end all traditional forms of energy in the next ten years.

 

The Green New Deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

Plans to ban nuclear energy within 10 years if possible.

 

“It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

 

Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!

 

“Build out high speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”.

 

Don’t invest in new technology of Carbon Capture and Storage, just plant trees instead!

 

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.”

 

Mandates all new jobs be unionized.

 

“Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local.”

 

May include a carbon tax.

 

“We’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal.”

 

May include cap and trade.

 

“…Cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan.”

 

How much will it cost?

 

No estimate of the total cost of implementing the Green New deal is offered by Ocasio-Cortez.

 

However, as Ocasio-Cortez admits, “even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.”

 

She does provide one estimate that the cost to “repair and upgrade infrastructure U.S. infrastructure” alone will cost “$4.6 trillion at minimum.”

 

How will it be paid for? Don’t worry about that.

 

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t provide any insight into how the trillions of dollars in spending will be paid for other than claiming, “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit”.

 

Bus as Ocasio-Cortez says, “the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity”.

 

 

 

 

 

Is this real life? Ocean trains sound pretty dope. Mandatory unions would last about an hour. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

There was a post  someplace in which it was rightfully noted that the Repubs have gone from deficits hawks to 'the deficits don't matter'. 

Well I guess it works for progressives as well when it fits their agenda.  This Politico article notes Cortez's argument that the govt can

just print money to pay for all of her loony tune ideas.   What are her loony tune ideas?  See the 2nd link below and a summary in the 3rd.

 

 

Ocasio-Cortez boosts progressive theory that deficits aren’t so scary

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-budget-1143084

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

https://www.atr.org/green-new-deal-air-travel-stops-becoming-necessary

This morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released an

 

 overview of her “Green New Deal” which threatens "a massive transformation of our society."

 

Below are the details of the proposal.

 

Rebuild every single building in the U.S.

 

“Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.”

 

Will end all traditional forms of energy in the next ten years.

 

The Green New Deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

Plans to ban nuclear energy within 10 years if possible.

 

“It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

 

Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!

 

“Build out high speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”.

 

Don’t invest in new technology of Carbon Capture and Storage, just plant trees instead!

 

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.”

 

Mandates all new jobs be unionized.

 

“Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local.”

 

May include a carbon tax.

 

“We’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal.”

 

May include cap and trade.

 

“…Cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan.”

 

How much will it cost?

 

No estimate of the total cost of implementing the Green New deal is offered by Ocasio-Cortez.

 

However, as Ocasio-Cortez admits, “even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.”

 

She does provide one estimate that the cost to “repair and upgrade infrastructure U.S. infrastructure” alone will cost “$4.6 trillion at minimum.”

 

How will it be paid for? Don’t worry about that.

 

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t provide any insight into how the trillions of dollars in spending will be paid for other than claiming, “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit”.

 

Bus as Ocasio-Cortez says, “the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you read the FAQ, or just someone’s derisive take on it?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Is this real life? Ocean trains sound pretty dope. Mandatory unions would last about an hour. 

 

 

Point out in the FAQ where it suggests we build trains across the ocean. 

Link to comment

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I asked you to point out where the thing you’re making fun of by asking if it’s real life actually happened. Not salty at all. That’s a pretty lame response, though. 

How will trains cross oceans (maybe his point)?AOC says and believes in things that make it easy to make fun of her. She is similar to Trump in that regard, although not on the same level. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Waldo said:

How will trains cross oceans (maybe his point)?AOC says and believes in things that make it easy to make fun of her. She is similar to Trump in that regard, although not on the same level. 

 

 

So make fun of what she’s saying, not the words someone else is putting in her mouth.

 

IMO it is worded stupidly, and they should be trying something more palatable instead of asking for the world (although the whole point is to save the world).

 

In the thing that TGH posted everything is out of context. Some of it still sounds bad regardless, but some doesn’t. That happens to Trump occasionally (being taken out of context) but for the most part he sounds like a fool when you have the whole context. Also, he has a lot more power than a junior member of the House.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...