And the mortality rate for colorectal cancer in Britain is about 40 percent higher than it is in the US.

Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

Are you saying that you would rather face a life threatening illness in Canada than in the US???

Others have difficulties so it doesn't make sense to improve my own situation.

If you feel that Obama and the Dems plan will improve US healthcare I guess that is fine. I don't think it will and that is because I cannot think of a government run healthcare system that is better than what we have here in the US. Can you?

Or...

Maybe you could point to something in their plan that you feel would improve healthcare for everyone in the US.

Please reply to my ridiculous talking points.

"ridiculous talking points"????

"Others have difficulties so it doesn't make sense to improve my own situation."

I am all in favor of improving "my own situation" but I do not think what Obama and the Dems are trying to do will improve my situation.

If you can tell me what they are doing that will improve my situation I would love to see it....

Does anyone have that cartoon that's a bar graph with President's sitting on their tax percentage, Eisenhower to Obama?

wildsnowllama: Does anyone have that cartoon that's a bar graph with President's sitting on their tax percentage, Eisenhower to Obama?

Why would you want such a nonsensical graph like that. It truly means nothing if you do not take into consideration what the deductions in gross pay are for the time and the other taxes paid out. This change affected the effective rate paid per each quintile thus negating a graph solely based on marginal rates effectively.

My point (new window)

While not exactly what you wanted (new window) if you look at the 79 and on, the top rate started at 70% and dropped to the current 35%. While the graph that I prefer has over this timeframe shows the top percent paid ~37% and over that time dropped to ~32%.

Happy New Years everyone.

I think I will forever marvel how Democrats can continually snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


I belong to no organized political party -- I am a Democrat.
-- Will Rogers

Wait what? Posts in the politics thread? Awww, nothing really approaching discourse. I miss reading the days long discussions by Whedby and dottedmint. What happened to you guys, you used to be cool.

What do you mean I "used to be cool"? I always have been and always will be "cool".

LOL

I must admit that I am somewhat sorry that this thread does not get more comments because I also enjoyed the days long discussions that we had here.

I'm always open for new (or even old) issues to debate on here.

Anyone?

Aaaah ya' don't see much more than a whisper here because all the libbies are in complete shock, their liberal utopia Mass. was all a sham and now we see Harvard Square's true colors fly free waaaaa haaa haaa, let's have a beer summit, bye bye one term Barry weee heee heee Blumberg/Christie '12!!!!

aaah maybe it was something about going to a gulag that torpedoed the "sweet" smell of the national socialized medicine party, I mean, where were these people born? where were they schooled? This is the United States for pete's sakes!! It's always the same lot's and lot's of rhetoric no viable plan.

Bloomberg/Christie '12 - my bad

I was just thinking about reinstating paygo and the keeping of some of Bush's tax cuts (been reading about the budget that was submitted to congress today). If we instate paygo how do the dems get the money to afford tax cuts for the lower 80% (not sure on the percentage, might be close so work with me)? Keeping the Bush tax cuts should be considered a cut and not the resumption of a program being that they are slated to expire, and the money coming from the people who will see their taxes resume to the 2000 levels should not be used for new programs because they are slated for ending so they should not be considered as a new revenue flow.

Any other theories on how the end of the Bush tax cuts should be treated in conjunction with paygo?

Well actually you could consider the cuts to be the continuation of a program so thus does not need to be paygoed and the raise in one demographic's taxes is free and clear to be used for new spending... but how fiscally responsible is that route.

... Welp what are y'alls idea on how should the federal govt treat the coming ending of Bush's tax cuts in relation to paygo. Should the new money coming in be treated as new money and can be spent whilly nilly or should it be considered off limits because it is the end of an unfunded program?

Or how about what really defines centrism in America?

My take is that the tax cuts were unfunded and any new revenues that come online should not be considered as an offset for new programs and that keeping of any of the tax cuts should be considered as spending.

On centrism, I consider it to be pragmatism that is devoid from dogmatic adherence to any party platform. Also it irks me when people try to redefine the center by comparing the US to European standards. We are different, we see the role of the govt in the governed lives differently. We have a different history. When Europe was looking at their govt for help during the 1800's and 1900's we were looking west. We are different... get over it already.

This channel is dead, WTF does it take to get a converstion started?

"This channel is dead, WTF does it take to get a converstion started?"

I've been wondering that for awhile now.

As far as Bush's tax cuts, I think it is a horrible idea to raise taxes when the economy is in such poor shape.

The economy sucks and the federal government wants to take more money out of the economy?

That'll sure jumpstart a recovery.

Instead of raising taxes perhaps the feds should stop spending so much money on non-stimulating stimulus packages.

Hey farkers and farkettes. Something you might need to use for future political threads that involve northern state candidates.



When that day comes.

wtf is this shiat?

Schfanzst!: wtf is this shiat?

It's a street light.

Holy crap dottedmint is still here. Is whidbey still here too?

Haven't been here in like 3 years.

Conversation starters:

- Liz Cheney is an idiot. Representing unpopular defendants is a hallmark of the American justice system and lawyers cannot be ascribed the beliefs of their clients.

- Healthcare Tort Reform is a red herring considering malpractice lawsuits constitute 2% of total healthcare costs according to the CBO.

- The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

- Every time McCain sponsors idiotic legislation like the Enemy Belligerents Act, God kills a kitten.

- Israel and Palestine will never function as two states and the only viable solution is one state where Israelis and Palestinians live together as equal citizens. There I said it.

Cleveland-Steamer "The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and should be repealed."

This caught my eye. Can you explain to me what part of The US Constitution it violates? I'm curious.

Soup4Bonnie: Here, let me Google that for you.

Well that was a persuasive argument.

So do you think DOMA is unconstitutional because the fed govt will not recognize certain marriages from states? or That the govt is misapplying the FFC? That there is a fundamental right to marriage so equal protection is being violated?

You may want to constrain the argument so that someone can converse against your postulate. The law is pretty broad in it's scope.

I was more interested in having Cleveland-Steamer explain why it is unconstitutional instead of doing a google search.

So lets say that Iowa (sorry. had to pick a state) decides that it is legal for a man to marry his (adult) daughter. Should every other state in the US be required to recognize that "marriage" as legal? This is if you are arguing on the basis of the full faith and credit clause.

The same question can be asked if you are arguing on the basis of the equal protection clause.

IF it should be legal for two men to marry then should it also not be legal for a man to marry his brother?

IF you cannot limit who can or cannot marry then basically ANYONE can marry ANYONE.

If you are going to say that there should be "limits" on who can marry then there is nothing wrong with saying gays cannot marry.

Right?

Saiga410: You may want to constrain the argument so that someone can converse against your postulate.

You may. I don't. Go ahead. Go crazy. I gave up discussing anything with that particular moron a long time ago.

Why am I not surprised? Can't win an argument so let's resort to name calling.

dottedmint: I was more interested in having Cleveland-Steamer explain why it is unconstitutional instead of doing a google search.

So lets say that Iowa (sorry. had to pick a state) decides that it is legal for a man to marry his (adult) daughter. Should every other state in the US be required to recognize that "marriage" as legal? This is if you are arguing on the basis of the full faith and credit clause.

The same question can be asked if you are arguing on the basis of the equal protection clause.

IF it should be legal for two men to marry then should it also not be legal for a man to marry his brother?

IF you cannot limit who can or cannot marry then basically ANYONE can marry ANYONE.

If you are going to say that there should be "limits" on who can marry then there is nothing wrong with saying gays cannot marry.

Right?

No not right. Everything you just said could have also been asked in regards to interracial marriage. I mean if any old white guy can go around marrying any old black girl then anyone can marry anyone, right? No, not right.

DOMA violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Just like there was no compelling government purpose to criminalizing interracial marriage, similarly there is no compelling government purpose to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and choosing your partner in marriage is a fundamental right.

As to your slippery slope argument, allowing gay marriage does not open the flood gates to allow anything. There are two reasons for this: 1) there are very obvious and legitimate government reasons, such as health problems, for outlawing opposite sex incestuous marriages that do not apply to gay marriage; and 2) there are very obvious and current social issues with incestuous and polygamous marriages that do not apply to gay marriage. Or put another way, if we accept that the law is in some respects a reflection of social values, gay marriage is a lot more socially acceptable than brother/brother marriage or a polygamous marriage, and we will not be seeing calls from a large portion of society for legalizing these things as we are now seeing for gay marriage. For instance, polygamy is based on the concept of females as property of their men, a concept we as a society have thankfully put behind us. And I think we can all agree that the vast majority of this country, like 99.99999%, think marrying your brother or marrying your dog is, to put it bluntly, totally gross, and wrong. Contrary to gay marriage which a whole bunch of people really don't have a problem with. (And before you say "well what if society's standards change?" I'd respond, well so what if they do?)

For both of these reasons I don't foresee allowing gay marriage as "opening the floodgates" since we've never really been close to ever accepting the other things you brought up, and there are public policy reasons to outlaw them. Unlike gay marriage which is purely a religious/moral issue.

In fact the only people that seem to think alot about marrying their brothers or their dog these days are folks against gay marriage. Strange...

As an aside, to be honest I would not really care if polygamous marriage was legal. Although traditionally it has been used to further patriarchal dominance in society and has also traditionally been based on the concept of male ownership of females as property, if a polygamous relationship was not founded on these principles it wouldn't really bother me. For instance if a woman had 10 husbands and they were all cool with it, everyone was treated fairly and everyone in the relationship had an equal stake in the community property, would I care? Not really. Now the polygamous camps in the Southwest, they bother me, but not because they are polygamous but because they are all batshiat crazy religious nuts who view women as their property and in general go along with all the other fundamentalist "bad" things associated with traditional polygamy. I've never thought too deeply about this so if someone else can enlighten me on other clearcut public policy reasons for outlawing polygamy I am all ears.


DOMA may violate the FFC, but not for the reasons most people think. I'd posit that it violates FFC because a) the FFC does not grant Congress the power to prescribe the manner in which States may choose to not follow other state laws, but only the manner in which states must follow other state laws (otherwise what good is the FFC?); and b) the law was unnecessary in the first place due to the public policy exceptions that already allowed states to not recognize marriages that went against that states declared public policy.

"Just like there was no compelling government purpose to criminalizing interracial marriage, similarly there is no compelling government purpose to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and choosing your partner in marriage is a fundamental right."

OK so if a man chooses to marry his brother that should be his "right"?

"1) there are very obvious and legitimate government reasons, such as health problems, for outlawing opposite sex incestuous marriages that do not apply to gay marriage;"

Marriage does not mean reproduction. Both of my brothers are married and neither one of them have children, nor will they ever have children. A man could marry his sister and NEVER have children with her.

"Or put another way, if we accept that the law is in some respects a reflection of social values, gay marriage is a lot more socially acceptable than brother/brother marriage or a polygamous marriage, and we will not be seeing calls from a large portion of society for legalizing these things as we are now seeing for gay marriage."

This may be true but straight marriage is (as you put it) "a lot more socially acceptable" than gay marriage. So if society does not want gay marriage then whats the problem? In some states "bans" on gay marriage have passed by more than a 2 to 1 margine. So clearly in these states society does not want gay marriage. Or do you think if one state allows gay marriage that the states that banned gay marriage by 2 to 1 should be forced to allow gay marriage?

And if the equal protection clause allows for gay marriage then one would think it would allow all the other types of marriage that I mentioned. After all IF one has a "fundamental right" to decide who they can marry would that not apply to EVERYONE or do ONLY certain people have that right

On a side note I wish I was able to get on the PC more often like I used to be able to... Oh well.

dottedmint: "Just like there was no compelling government purpose to criminalizing interracial marriage, similarly there is no compelling government purpose to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and choosing your partner in marriage is a fundamental right."

OK so if a man chooses to marry his brother that should be his "right"?

Are you concerned they might inbreed?

wyrlss "Are you concerned they might inbreed?"

I don't think it is possible for a man and his BROTHER to reproduce.

In any case I was told that people have a fundamental right to marry the person that they want. So I am simply trying to ask if that means a man can marry his brother or not. IF it is indeed a right then that would apply to everyone equally. Right?

And if a man married his sister that does not mean they would automatically reproduce. So should they be able to marry?

It's similar to saying we have freedom of speech, but not freedom to say anything you want. All rights have limits based on public interest principles. It's illegal to incite a crowd to lynch someone. This makes sense. I see valid government reasons to ban incestuous marriage and polygamy, just as I see valid reasons to ban speech inciting an imminent crime. But, the burden is on the government to prove why they limit our liberty in these ways, as it always should be.

I don't see any valid government reason for banning gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a moral/religious hangup. It's not the government's job to outlaw things that make you squeamish.

dottedmint: wyrlss "Are you concerned they might inbreed?"

I don't think it is possible for a man and his BROTHER to reproduce.

In any case I was told that people have a fundamental right to marry the person that they want. So I am simply trying to ask if that means a man can marry his brother or not. IF it is indeed a right then that would apply to everyone equally. Right?

And if a man married his sister that does not mean they would automatically reproduce. So should they be able to marry?

Uh, yeah. Duh. To quote the Prime "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."

Cleveland-Steamer "I see valid government reasons to ban incestuous marriage and polygamy,"

Such as?

"I don't see any valid government reason for banning gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a moral/religious hangup. It's not the government's job to outlaw things that make you squeamish."

Except for the fact that society does not want it? As I have pointed out before "bans" on gay marriage have passed by more than 2 to 1 in some states. In fact has gay marriage been passed by any legislature? It seems like in every state that allows gay marriage it has been made legal by judicial fiat not by the will of the people.

IF my state bans gay marriage should it be forced to recognize gay marraige?

When will a topic be posted about Rep. Johnson's comments that under the weight of additional Marines, the island of Guam might capisize????

This is Fark, and there's no greenlight on this yet?????

Today's politics roll-up: Two from the Daily KOmmuniSt, lots of GOP hate, no Guam capsizing? Guess it's a non-story when Dems say something dumb. Since dems "never say anything dumb," you would think this would be newsworthy.

So all the sidebars are filled with Glaring eagles telling me to fight Liberal spending, or something.

dottedmint: Cleveland-Steamer "I see valid government reasons to ban incestuous marriage and polygamy,"

Such as?


"I don't see any valid government reason for banning gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a moral/religious hangup. It's not the government's job to outlaw things that make you squeamish."

Except for the fact that society does not want it? As I have pointed out before "bans" on gay marriage have passed by more than 2 to 1 in some states. In fact has gay marriage been passed by any legislature? It seems like in every state that allows gay marriage it has been made legal by judicial fiat not by the will of the people.

IF my state bans gay marriage should it be forced to recognize gay marraige?

1) I told you some reasons back in the thread (I probably told you the reasons 3 years ago when we were arguing about this...)

2) If your state bans gay marriage, I think at the very least you should respect gay marriages performed out of your state that then come into your state, e.g. let them adopt and get divorced and so on. I'm not under the illusion that the Supreme Court is anywhere near declaring gay marriage as a fundamental right, but I personally think it is.

CtrlAltDelete: I'll just leave this here for you crazy cats.

I don't think that translated well:

Raul Castro and Obama defy EU

unless they write their headlines with opposite meanings the way we do here on Fark.

Stinkyy: When will a topic be posted about Rep. Johnson's comments that under the weight of additional Marines, the island of Guam might capisize????

This is Fark, and there's no greenlight on this yet?????

Stinkyy: Today's politics roll-up: Two from the Daily KOmmuniSt, lots of GOP hate, no Guam capsizing? Guess it's a non-story when Dems say something dumb. Since dems "never say anything dumb," you would think this would be newsworthy.




Besides that, it hit the Politics tab several days before your partisan hissy fit.

C-S "1) I told you some reasons back in the thread (I probably told you the reasons 3 years ago when we were arguing about this...)"

And I don't recall any of them actually having to do with marriage? They mostly involved reproduction and marriage does not automatically result in reproduction. So why again should a man not be able to marry his sister? There is nothing that says they will reproduce.

"2) If your state bans gay marriage, I think at the very least you should respect gay marriages performed out of your state that then come into your state, e.g. let them adopt and get divorced and so on. I'm not under the illusion that the Supreme Court is anywhere near declaring gay marriage as a fundamental right, but I personally think it is."

Why? If MY state says marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman then why should they recognize a "marriage" between two men? Society decides what is or is not marriage. My state has decided (by a 2 to 1 margin) hat marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman.

Again I am curious if any state has allowed gay marriage by a vote of the people. It seems like in ever case it is passed by a judical ruling. So instead of society deciding you have a judge deciding what society must allow.

so... What happened to that wikileaks link?

dottedmint: So instead of society deciding you have a judge deciding what society must allow.

Dottedmint,

My reasoning for illegality was not just reproductive health, but also sociological. For example: Our cultural and social policies, primarily found in the tax code, are designed to encourage social mobility, wealth transference and the "nuclear family." Marriage and tax laws are social engineering designed to further these sorts of sociological interests. Outlawing gay marriage has nothing to do with the kind of social engineering that outlawing incest, for example, is designed to prevent. Gay marriage bans are purely moral and religious based, as I already said.

Second of all, making laws is not as simple as what the majority considers normal. This is a basic premise behind our system of government. Read the Federalist # 10 for some background. When something is so universally considered abhorrent, such as incest, then yes, social mores do come into play and are relevant. Alone they are a weak justification but their importance lies in their indication of actual objective reasons for them being bad, such as those that I have raised. (Health, sexual abuse issues, patriarchy, unequal distribution of property, etc.). But when you're talking about, say, 20% agreeing and 80% disagreeing, the reason we have courts, the constitution, the whole shebang, is to protect that 20% from the "capricious whim" of the majority. For instance, in the 60's a majority of Americans were against interracial marriage. Did that mean such laws were OK? Of course not.