Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Sept 29, 2014 22:00:37 GMT pjohns1873 said:

If we are going to have a serious discussion, it is incumbent upon us both to be at least reasonably respectful of each other. Your insistence that I "support Jim Crow" (and would want African-Americans to do the same) does not meet that minimal test.

Neither does your insistence that "the true reason" for my support of voter-ID laws is to suppress the vote in a community that votes overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic candidates.  Whereas I most certainly wish to ensure that voter fraud is reduced--especially in communities that vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates--that is hardly the same thing as voter "suppression."  (By the way, I notice that you have gone back to the polemic that "49,000" African-Americans would be "prevented" from voting according to Wisconsin's voter-ID law.  Not long ago, it was down to 4,900--you had admitted that 90 percent of those 49,000 people would probably obtain the obligatory ID--but now the number is evidently back up to 49,000 again.) 

Your insistence that Republicans shoud attempt to "reduce racism and oppression of minorities" today is (apparently) grounded in your belief that such "racism and oppression" is widespread in 2014; based, presumably, upon the statistical "studies" that you have previously cited.  Frankly, I find "racism and oppression" in the America of 2014 to be about as widespread as, say, support for our implementing Sharia law in place of the US Constitution. 

And why might you suppose that Republicans--oh, those hated Republicans!--would be more congenial to the idea of our using the word, "marriage," to define same-sex unions (and then extending government benefits to those couples) than they are to merely extending government benefits to same-sex couples, without the change in language?     

My apologies but understand that just because you refuse to recognized the fact that the Voter ID Laws don't reduce voter fraud because statitistically voter impersonation is virtually non-existant doesn't change the fact that most Americans recognized them as Jim Crow voting laws.

I'm also supportive of voting laws that reduce voter fraud but there is no evidence that voter fraud is more widespread among conservatives or liberals. We also need to differentiate between "voter fraud" that can fall into numerous categoris and "election fraud" that effects the outcomes of elections. For example registration of "Mickey Mouse" is voter registration fraud but it isn't election fraud because Mickey Mouse never votes. 

Let me ask some questions.

Voter impersonation at the polls is currently a felony and the instances of it happening are so rare that most states (e.g. Wisconsin) can't even document a single case of it happening. If the current laws that already make it a felony are very effective in preventing it then why impose the only requirement in the United States for a person to present government issued ID to exercise a Constitutionally protected Right? Why is a government issued ID required to exercise a Constitutionally protected Right of a US Citizen?

How does reducing early voting by US Citizens prevent election fraud? This is also a common "voting law" being passed by Republicans.

In the defense of DOMA the GOP argued that couples legally married under State Law should be denied equality in America. Explain that one.

Sept 30, 2014 18:32:13 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Sept 29, 2014 23:25:20 GMT ShivaTD said:

My apologies but understand that just because you refuse to recognized the fact that the Voter ID Laws don't reduce voter fraud because statitistically voter impersonation is virtually non-existant doesn't change the fact that most Americans recognized them as Jim Crow voting laws.

I'm also supportive of voting laws that reduce voter fraud but there is no evidence that voter fraud is more widespread among conservatives or liberals. We also need to differentiate between "voter fraud" that can fall into numerous categoris and "election fraud" that effects the outcomes of elections. For example registration of "Mickey Mouse" is voter registration fraud but it isn't election fraud because Mickey Mouse never votes. 

Let me ask some questions.

Voter impersonation at the polls is currently a felony and the instances of it happening are so rare that most states (e.g. Wisconsin) can't even document a single case of it happening. If the current laws that already make it a felony are very effective in preventing it then why impose the only requirement in the United States for a person to present government issued ID to exercise a Constitutionally protected Right? Why is a government issued ID required to exercise a Constitutionally protected Right of a US Citizen?

How does reducing early voting by US Citizens prevent election fraud? This is also a common "voting law" being passed by Republicans.

In the defense of DOMA the GOP argued that couples legally married under State Law should be denied equality in America. Explain that one.

 

When have I ever argued in favor of "reducing early voting"? (That seems clearly like a red herring.)

Before the SCOTUS struck down DOMA, it was "the law of the land," as those on the left like to phrase it.  As Wikipedia puts it:

[quote]The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)...is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples.  (Bold in original)

For whatever reason your post was corrupted when I tried to use it but I will try to respond.

The House GOP opposed equal rights for same-sex married couples in fighting to defend DOMA Section 3 so your argument that Republicans would willingly and proactively address granting equality to same-sex couples in changing thousands of laws throughout the United States is clearly a false agrument. Never once that I'm aware of has the Republican Party ever proactively attempted to grant equality under the law for same-sex couples. They've even fought agianst civil-unions in the past.

I didn't state that you supported the Republican imposed restrictions on early voting but it is a part of the Republican strategy. It's apparent that the Republican legislatures addressed the voting habits of African-Americans, which include the fact that they are more likely to vote when early voting is allowed, and then crafted the laws to prevent this voting. They looked at the fact that African-Americand disproportionately don't have government issued ID (25% don't compared to 7% of whites as I recall) and then crafted the law that would disqualify 25% of black voters. The Republicans are using African-American voting information to craft laws that will prevent them from voting. If I can see this then why can't you.

The poll you provided was on voter registration and not on voter ID laws. Of course you don't believe in polls (per your statements) so why do you refer to any poll if you don't believe in them? Are they only valid if they support your arguments? In your favor I do accept the poll results that state that 78% of likely voters believe that proof of citizenship should be required when a person registers to vote and I also believe the poll that established that 78% of Republicans expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice because I'm not a hypocrite.

Here's a "voter ID law" that I would possibly support. When a person registers the voter registration office should mail them a voter ID card based upon validation of their voting status. Anyone already registered would have their voter ID card mailed to them. The person should present that ID card to vote but if they don't have it on them then their vote should be cast as a provisional vote subject to validation based upon their voter registration. No one would be denied their Right to Vote under this criteria as all votes would be validated based upon either the presentation of the "voter registration card" or by a provisional ballot that is later validated by the Registar of Voting. No voter impersonation would escape this safety net and no US citizen would be denied their Right to Vote.

Would you accept that?

Oct 2, 2014 0:27:52 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 1, 2014 13:59:17 GMT ShivaTD said:

 

For whatever reason your post was corrupted when I tried to use it but I will try to respond.

The House GOP opposed equal rights for same-sex married couples in fighting to defend DOMA Section 3 so your argument that Republicans would willingly and proactively address granting equality to same-sex couples in changing thousands of laws throughout the United States is clearly a false agrument. Never once that I'm aware of has the Republican Party ever proactively attempted to grant equality under the law for same-sex couples. They've even fought agianst civil-unions in the past.

I didn't state that you supported the Republican imposed restrictions on early voting but it is a part of the Republican strategy. It's apparent that the Republican legislatures addressed the voting habits of African-Americans, which include the fact that they are more likely to vote when early voting is allowed, and then crafted the laws to prevent this voting. They looked at the fact that African-Americand disproportionately don't have government issued ID (25% don't compared to 7% of whites as I recall) and then crafted the law that would disqualify 25% of black voters. The Republicans are using African-American voting information to craft laws that will prevent them from voting. If I can see this then why can't you.

The poll you provided was on voter registration and not on voter ID laws. Of course you don't believe in polls (per your statements) so why do you refer to any poll if you don't believe in them? Are they only valid if they support your arguments? In your favor I do accept the poll results that state that 78% of likely voters believe that proof of citizenship should be required when a person registers to vote and I also believe the poll that established that 78% of Republicans expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice because I'm not a hypocrite.

Here's a "voter ID law" that I would possibly support. When a person registers the voter registration office should mail them a voter ID card based upon validation of their voting status. Anyone already registered would have their voter ID card mailed to them. The person should present that ID card to vote but if they don't have it on them then their vote should be cast as a provisional vote subject to validation based upon their voter registration. No one would be denied their Right to Vote under this criteria as all votes would be validated based upon either the presentation of the "voter registration card" or by a provisional ballot that is later validated by the Registar of Voting. No voter impersonation would escape this safety net and no US citizen would be denied their Right to Vote.

Would you accept that?

As for your last point: I would indeed accept that proposal.

Yes, early voting does tend to favor those who tend to vote as Democratic client groups.  But I nonetheless am fine with the concept.  Probably the most reasonable argument I have heard against early voting, to date, is not merely that if benefits one particular party--clearly, it does--but that it unnecessarily disrupts a communal act.  (Quite a few years ago, George Will made this point, in arguing against early voting.)  And I believe it is, indeed, a reasonable objection; still, on balance, I think the weightier argument is in favor of the early-voting concept.

When did I ever suggest that I do not believe in polls? To be as clear as possible:  I do not believe in tendentious "studies" that argue backwards from preconceived conclusions.  But I have never had any animosity toward polls in general. 

Let us concede your point that "[t]he House GOP opposed equal rights for same-sex married couples in fighting to defend DOMA Section 3." That said, my question--which you have never yet attempted to answer--remains: Why would those same GOP lawmakers be more congenial to the idea of fundamentally altering the definition of the word, "marriage," so as to ensure that these same-sex couples would receive government benefits, than they would be to simply granting those benefits?  In other words, if they were already opposed to the latter, why would they be more likely to embrace the former?   

While you may not support the restrictions on early voting it has certainly been targeted by the GOP state legislatures because African-Americans are more likely to vote when there is early voting. As I've noted it was like the GOP looked for specific voting criteria that fit the African-American voting profile and then targeted those to stop black voting and that is representative of Jim Crow voting laws.

Two other targeted voting behaviors that were passed by the GOP in North Carolina was just struck down yesterday. Registering to vote on the day of the election and voting at the wrong precinct

North Carolina will now be required to reinstate same-day voter registration, as well as allow voters to cast ballots even if they show up to vote in the wrong precinct.

In a two-to-one ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that "whether the number is thirty or thirty-thousand, surely some North Carolina minority voters will be disproportionately adversely affected in the upcoming election" and that it was important to act now, since "there could be no do-over and no redress" once the election was over.

The appeals court ruled that the lower court "failed to adequately consider North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination" and said the new law eliminated "voting mechanisms successful in fostering minority participation."

"The injury to these voters is real and completely irreparable if nothing is done to enjoin this law," the ruling said.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/north-carolina-voting-restrictions_n_5914634.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Just because a study favors a particular "partisan" position does not imply it was based upon preconcieved conclusions. For example the studies on racial prejudice did not have any preconceived conclusions but instead merely let the chips lay where they fell. There was no way on earth that the test could pre-determine who would say they're a Republican or a Democrat nor was there any effort to choose participants based upon political ideology. As we explored there are questions that can determine racial prejudice (e.g. questions addressing false stereotyping) and I've always used the "explicit" as opposed to the "implicit" measurements because explicit (what the person says) is objective while implicit (what the person implies) is subjective in nature. The 2003 study by the German marketing company didn't have any preconceived conclusions when it measured discrimination due to racial prejudice in hiring practices. Compiling of law enforcement and criminal justice statistics doesn't have any preconceived conclusions.

So you can object to studies that begin with a preconceived conclusion but the problem is that you can't establish that the studies began with a preconceived conclusion and have no evidence of that occurrring. The last study I'm aware of that was exposed for having preconceived conclusions was the study on the effects of smoking under the Clinton adminstration which is still being used as the foundation for the harmful effects of secondhand smoke today. That study was conducted over 20 years ago and was exposed as being tendentious and based upon preconceived conclusions but none of the studies on racial prejudice and discrimination in America have been found to be invalid.

What I've found expressed by other conservtives is that they have this weird assumption that any study addressing racism in America or that contradicts the "Republican point of view" is somehow automatically "tendentious and based upon preconceived conclusions" although there is no evidence to support that belief. It's like your assumption that just because a study is conducted by Harvard University that it must be based upon preconceived conclusions by liberal professors when you don't have a clue as to whether the actual study was headed by a "conservative" or "liberal" professor and you have absolutely no evidence that there were any preconceived ideas, much less conclusions, related to the study.

I've repeatedly challenged "conservatives" that live in denial of the results from studies to show evidence of anything that would invalidate the study's conclusions such as a study that establishes different percentages of racial prejudice by Republicans and Democrats. I've even asked for "estimates" of what the percentage of explicit anti-black racial prejudice there is in the Republican Party from those that dispute the 79% established by the 2012 study and I've not had a single person offer any other number. I've never read a study that established a percentage for explicit anti-black racial prejudice among libertarians but based upon statements alone I'd estimate it at over 50%. Surely a "Republican" could do the same although this would be harder for someone that has racial prejudice to do. If a person doesn't recognize racial prejudice it is hard for them to see it in others.

As for equality for gays and lesbians please provide a single example of any law that used the word "marriage" as a qualifier (e.g. the bankruptcy law) where Republicans have proposed an amendment to change the criteria to extend the identical benefits to same-sex couples. You claim that they would so show me even one single example. When, for example, have Republicans backed adoption for children based upon the civil union of same-sex couples? I believe you're going to be hard pressed to find any examples of Republicans support for equality for same-sex couples and it would require a proactive stance for equality to change the thousands of laws to remove the work "marriage" as a qualifier for privileges and benefits and they don't have "years" because every single day that passes the right of equal protection under the law is being violated.   

Oct 3, 2014 0:59:14 GMT pjohns1873 said:

If time is of the essence for gays, as regarding government benefits for same-sex couples, I shall continue to inquire: Why might you suppose that Republican lawmakers are more likely to vote to change the definition of the word, "marriage," in order to ensure those benefits, than they are to simply vote for those benefits?  The latter may indeed be unlikely; but why would you consider the former to be any likelier?  (Note:  This question cannot be addressed simply by noting the history of GOP lawmakers as regarding the latter.  You need to address the former point, in a straightforwar manner.) 

Your frenzied attempt to tar Republicans with the "Jim Crow" label strikes me as little more than mere attitudinizing.  It would be far better to simply argue the point at hand, rather than trying to smear others. 

I regret that North Carolina's restrictions against same-day registration were struck down by a three-judge appeals court.  Same-day registration is typically done by marginal, low-information voters, who have been caught up in the Democrats' fervid get-out-the-vote efforts.

How can you assert (with a straight face) that I simply cannot know whether a "study" by Harvard University was headed by a liberal or a conservative professor? That makes about as much sense as it would to suggest, say, that one can have no clue as to whether the next quarterback for the Tennessee Titans will be a man or a woman.

I really cannot know, with even a reasonable degree of certainty, what percentage of Republicans are guilty of racial prejudice. But I would be quite surprised if it is very much north of the 10-15 percent mark. (Perhaps some "study"--using abstruse methods--may come to a different conclusion. But that would be my best guess.)    

I don't believe Republicans, in general, would EVER support equality for gays and lesbians at all. There has been no evidence of Republican Party political support for LGBT community at all and, in fact, many are outright hostile towards it. The Republican Party has never supported providing equality to gays and lesbians by any means. In both Californian and Washington, where I've lived, the Republican Party even fought against civil unions. For you to imply that the Republican Party would support equality for gays and lesbians is simply false.

It doesn't matter if a person is a "low information" voter. It only matters that they're a US Citizen. Why do you oppose the Right to Vote for US Citizens? Is it because they're often African-Americans or possibly Hispanics that will almost certainly vote for Democrats because of the anti-black and anti-Hispanic Republican agenda?

In your analogy of Harvard and the NFL are you suggesting that there are no social conservative women college professors at Harvard? We know that there are no women in the NFL but we have absolutely no knowledge of how many social conservatives are professors at Harvard. You provided a source that stated there were fewer social conservative college professors but it didn't imply there were none. Harvard isn't like Congress where there isn't even one elected African-American Republican in either the House or Senate (there is one that was appointed) or the NFL that prohibits women from playing.

Just because a study is hard for you to understand (i.e. abstruse) doesn't invalidate the study. Even without PhD's we've agreed that there are questions that can easily measure explicit racial prejudice. Don't you believe that a team of PhD's could also figure this out and create a valid study that can measure explicit racial prejudice? We also know that these studies are being reviewed by social conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and they have never provided any contradictory studies or peer reviews that claim these studies are invalid. Brilliant "social conservative" minds review these studies but they haven't put forward any arguments claiming the studies are invalid so how do you reach the conclusion the studies are not valid?  

Ironically the Heritage Foundation acknowledges that racial prejudice and discrimination is extensive in America but then focuses on "government" discrimination which is the least of our problems. I've not found any Heritage Foundation publications that make any proposals for our government to reduce racial prejudice and discrimination in society. It acknowledges it exists, going so far as declaring it's unconstitutional, but then offers no proposals to reduce it. I also found it interesting that when it comes to government contracts it imposed the criteria of "any qualified company" but when it comes to college admissions and employment in imposed the criteria of "most qualified person" in it's proposals. Why should a company only be "qualified" while a student or worker must be "most qualified" is a contradiction IMHO. If "qualified" is good enough for enterprise then "qualified" is good enough for education. Sadly we also know that a black person is generally assumed to be "less qualified" when it comes to employment in America because of anti-black racial prejudice so often the "most qualified" person for the job doesn't get it because they're black. The Heritage Foundation proposes absolutely nothing to address this problem.

Oct 3, 2014 23:11:48 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I have already conceded that it is "unlikely" that the GOP will ever vote to extend government benefits to same-sex couples. So your continued hammering away at this point (as though it were in dispute) amounts to little more than a talking point on your part.  What I have asked--repeatedly--is why you would consider it any more likely that the GOP will support a re-definition of the term, "marriage," so as to facilitate this flow of government benefits to same-sex couples.  Given that you have repeatedly tap danced around this question, however, I must assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing it.

I do not "oppose the Right to Vote for US Citizens."  (Bold in original)  Rather, I am unenthusiastic about those frenzied last-minute efforts to register uninterested, low-information citizens to vote, just so the party of Big Government may win more elections. 

Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic as regarding my analogy between conservative Harvard professors and the likely gender of the next Tennessee Titans quarterback.  But only a little.  I rather doubt that the percentage of conservative professors at Harvard is a whole lot greater than the percentage of female NFL quarterbacks. 

And perhaps I would have been better served if I had chosen the word, arcane, rather than "abstruse."  Basically, I just meant something that is obscure because of its (clearly) esoteric nature.  In fact, you have admitted that its methodology is really unknown.  (By the way, if a person should answer that blacks are more likely than whites are, on average, to use illegal drugs, I certainly would not regard that as evidence of "racism."  Misinformation, perhaps.  But not racism, in any meaningful sense of the word.  Only a hatred of another race, or the belief that one's own race is inherently superior to another race, may properly be seen as racism.  From Dictionary.com:  dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t
  
I believe that the standard for all should be that more qualified trumps less qualified.  If that were not the case, why shouldn't secondary schools, as well as colleges and universities, forever retire the grade-point system, and go instead to a system that awards everyone either a "Pass" or a "Fail"?

By the way, if a truly more-qualified person is passed over for employment simply because of his (or her) race or ethnicity, then he (or she) should bring a lawsuit.  Immediately. 

Apparently I'd missed your previous statement that the GOP would never grant equality to same-sex couples (which is an admission that the GOP opposed equal protection under the law for All people that is a Constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment).

I would suggest that the definition of the word marriage has already changed. According to Marriam-Webster the definition is:

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ 
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
: a similar relationship between people of the same sex
: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

It goes on to establish that marriage is a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. In the big picture what the GOP is opposing, by it's opposition to same-sex marriage, is the Right of Liberty which is the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right by the Person. We do, and justifiably so, limit the "Liberty" of a Person that would violate the Rights of another Person but same-sex marriage does not violate anyone's Inalienable Rights. No opposite-sex couples, nor anyone in society, is harmed in any manner by the marriage of a same-sex couple. The prohibitions against same-sex marriage were always nefarious as they didn't protect anyone in society from any violations of the Inalienable Rights but these laws most certainly violated the Right of Liberty of those denied equality under the law. Let us also remember that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are all of recent origin. They are not "traditional" laws but instead laws passed after 1971 and the case of Baker v Nelson that revealed that the State laws of marriage around the nation did not prohibit same-sex marriage. Social customs denied same-sex marriage before 1971 but not the law.   

So you're opposed to "get out to vote" campaigns by political organizations. Is that what you're saying? I was LMAO this morning to learn that Arkansas Attorney General  GOP candidate Leslie Rutledge is apparently one of your "uninterested, low-information citizens" as her voter registration has been invalidated by the GOP voting laws in Arkansas.

thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/02/3575137/arkansas-attorney-general-voter-registration/

These studies of social opinions and beliefs are neither "arcane" or "abstruse" and the methodology is well known. Even I know the general methodology (it was taught in Sociology 102 when I was in college) but not the finer points of the methodology to ensure the validity of the studies. Of course no study hinges on one question and instead it requires numerous questions to address the opinions of a person. For example questions differentiating whites from black related to drug use, work ethics, and intelligence could all be used to determine racial prejudice.

You must also differentiate between overt racism (the definition you provided) and (racial) prejudice that results in unintentional (racial) discrimination and oppression. dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice?&o=100074&s=t

Just because a person has anti-black racial prejudice does not imply they're a White Supremacist. Acting upon their racial prejudice might result in white supremacy (and it does in America) but that doesn't imply that they're actively endorsing white supremacy. It is unquestionably true that WASP male supremacy has always existed in the United States and that is easily proven by history.      

While you have your opinion on the number of conservative Harvard professors even you must admit it's not based upon facts but instead it's based upon uninformed prejudice. We don't have any actual information on how many professors at Harvard are conservatives and, in fact, it might even be the bastion of "conservative professors" in America today. Without any factual information the truth is that we simply don't know and any opinion either of us have is based upon prejudice as opposed to facts.

So government contract should not be placed based upon the "low bid" but instead should be given to the "most qualified" enterprise (even if those qualifications are unrelated to the actual item being produced). That goes against what I've read from the Heritage Foundation which advocates simply granting a contract to the enterprise that is barely qualified but that provides the lowest bid. Of anecdotal interest is that I've worked as a key member of the Material Review Board that addresses manufacturing defects for a major defense contractor and they were not qualified to produce the parts/assemblies that they had a government contract for because their manufacturing processes were incompetent at the time the contract was granted.

We do have a "pass/fail" criteria in our secondary schools, colleges, and universities and it is the final definition of performance. It's called a diploma. If a person has a high school diploma they are qualified to attend college. All other criteria is nefarious.

Speaking of college, what is your opinion on student loans? I learned last night that just taking the slice of student loans from between 2007 and 2012 that after all expenditures are accounted for (i.e. the loan, adminstrative costs, and bad debt) the federal government is going to "earn" over $80 billion in net profit. Do you believe that student loans should be a "for profit enterprise" of the federal government?   

On your final point on bringing a lawsuit I have to ask where the person is supposed to come up with the evidence that a less qualified person was given the job or promoted based upon race alone? It's unlikely they know the qualifications of the person hired or promoted. It is unlikely that the have any physical evidence that the "decision" was based upon racial prejudice even when it was. You can't bring a lawsuit without compelling evidence and when racial prejudice and ever overt racism is involved there is rarely any evidence that can be presented in a court of law. The manager, for example, can privately tell a black person they're not getting the job because of their race (i.e. overt racism) but that statement would not be compelling in a court of law because the manager would simply deny making it. Rarely is there enough evidence to bring a racial discrimination lawsuit when racial discrimination occurs and that is a serious problem for the social-conservatives and libertarians that repeatedly cite recourse to the courts to resolve problems of racial discrimination.

Oct 4, 2014 21:20:19 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 4, 2014 12:03:19 GMT ShivaTD said:

Apparently I'd missed your previous statement that the GOP would never grant equality to same-sex couples (which is an admission that the GOP opposed equal protection under the law for All people that is a Constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment).

I would suggest that the definition of the word marriage has already changed. According to Marriam-Webster the definition is:

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ 
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
: a similar relationship between people of the same sex
: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

It goes on to establish that marriage is a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. In the big picture what the GOP is opposing, by it's opposition to same-sex marriage, is the Right of Liberty which is the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right by the Person. We do, and justifiably so, limit the "Liberty" of a Person that would violate the Rights of another Person but same-sex marriage does not violate anyone's Inalienable Rights. No opposite-sex couples, nor anyone in society, is harmed in any manner by the marriage of a same-sex couple. The prohibitions against same-sex marriage were always nefarious as they didn't protect anyone in society from any violations of the Inalienable Rights but these laws most certainly violated the Right of Liberty of those denied equality under the law. Let us also remember that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are all of recent origin. They are not "traditional" laws but instead laws passed after 1971 and the case of Baker v Nelson that revealed that the State laws of marriage around the nation did not prohibit same-sex marriage. Social customs denied same-sex marriage before 1971 but not the law.   

So you're opposed to "get out to vote" campaigns by political organizations. Is that what you're saying? I was LMAO this morning to learn that Arkansas Attorney General  GOP candidate Leslie Rutledge is apparently one of your "uninterested, low-information citizens" as her voter registration has been invalidated by the GOP voting laws in Arkansas.

thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/02/3575137/arkansas-attorney-general-voter-registration/

 

These studies of social opinions and beliefs are neither "arcane" or "abstruse" and the methodology is well known. Even I know the general methodology (it was taught in Sociology 102 when I was in college) but not the finer points of the methodology to ensure the validity of the studies. Of course no study hinges on one question and instead it requires numerous questions to address the opinions of a person. For example questions differentiating whites from black related to drug use, work ethics, and intelligence could all be used to determine racial prejudice.

You must also differentiate between overt racism (the definition you provided) and (racial) prejudice that results in unintentional (racial) discrimination and oppression. dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice?&o=100074&s=t

Just because a person has anti-black racial prejudice does not imply they're a White Supremacist. Acting upon their racial prejudice might result in white supremacy (and it does in America) but that doesn't imply that they're actively endorsing white supremacy. It is unquestionably true that WASP male supremacy has always existed in the United States and that is easily proven by history.      

While you have your opinion on the number of conservative Harvard professors even you must admit it's not based upon facts but instead it's based upon uninformed prejudice. We don't have any actual information on how many professors at Harvard are conservatives and, in fact, it might even be the bastion of "conservative professors" in America today. Without any factual information the truth is that we simply don't know and any opinion either of us have is based upon prejudice as opposed to facts.

So government contract should not be placed based upon the "low bid" but instead should be given to the "most qualified" enterprise (even if those qualifications are unrelated to the actual item being produced). That goes against what I've read from the Heritage Foundation which advocates simply granting a contract to the enterprise that is barely qualified but that provides the lowest bid. Of anecdotal interest is that I've worked as a key member of the Material Review Board that addresses manufacturing defects for a major defense contractor and they were not qualified to produce the parts/assemblies that they had a government contract for because their manufacturing processes were incompetent at the time the contract was granted.

We do have a "pass/fail" criteria in our secondary schools, colleges, and universities and it is the final definition of performance. It's called a diploma. If a person has a high school diploma they are qualified to attend college. All other criteria is nefarious.

Speaking of college, what is your opinion on student loans? I learned last night that just taking the slice of student loans from between 2007 and 2012 that after all expenditures are accounted for (i.e. the loan, adminstrative costs, and bad debt) the federal government is going to "earn" over $80 billion in net profit. Do you believe that student loans should be a "for profit enterprise" of the federal government?   

On your final point on bringing a lawsuit I have to ask where the person is supposed to come up with the evidence that a less qualified person was given the job or promoted based upon race alone? It's unlikely they know the qualifications of the person hired or promoted. It is unlikely that the have any physical evidence that the "decision" was based upon racial prejudice even when it was. You can't bring a lawsuit without compelling evidence and when racial prejudice and ever overt racism is involved there is rarely any evidence that can be presented in a court of law. The manager, for example, can privately tell a black person they're not getting the job because of their race (i.e. overt racism) but that statement would not be compelling in a court of law because the manager would simply deny making it. Rarely is there enough evidence to bring a racial discrimination lawsuit when racial discrimination occurs and that is a serious problem for the social-conservatives and libertarians that repeatedly cite recourse to the courts to resolve problems of racial discrimination.

I did not state that the GOP would decline to grant "equality" to same-sex couples--the use of the term, "equality," in this context, is simply a talking point for those of a particular view--but I did state that they would not likely vote to grant government benefits to same-sex couples.  Big difference.

Dictionaries merely reflect popular usage. So it is hardly to be unexpected that they would offer, as one definition of the word, "marriage," the union of a same-sex couple. (This is just another way of saying that dictionaries are descriptive in nature, rather than being prescriptive, as some would prefer.)

To point out that the law had not mentioned the gender of those to be married, prior to about 40 years ago, seems downright silly.  Up until that time, no one had ever imagined that marriage might include the union of two men, or the union of two women.  In fact, you tacitly admit as much, what with your allusion to the "ocial customs" of the time.

You still have not said why you believe it is more likely that Republicans will vote to change the definition of marriage, and thereby grant government benefits to same-sex couples, than it is that Republicans will just vote for those benefits, without voting to change the definition of  the word, "marriage."  I guess you have nothing to say about that matter, huh?

You may think of "a  diploma" as the equivalent of a "pass/fail" system if you wish. But until actual grades are no longer handed out, throughout each school year, that is not really the sort of system that currently exists.

Your assertion, "Just because a person has anti-black racial prejudice does not imply they're a White Supremacist," gave me a hearty guffaw! In theory, I suppose, it would be possible for a person harboring "anti-black racial prejudice" to be a yellow supremacist (believing Asians to be inherently superior), a brown supremacist (believing Latinos to be inherently superior), or a red supremacist (believing Native Americans to be inherently superior). But I have simply not noticed a great many of any of these forms of racial supremacy in America.

If there is simply no discernable "evidence"--your own word--that a job or promotion was given to a less-qualified person, based upon race, then of course there is no good grounds for a lawsuit. What is your point?

As for student loans, the interest rate should probably be kept fairly low, as I would not wish to see recent college graduates burdened with too much debt.  My guess is that the federal government has gone so far into debt, itself--it must borrow gazillions of dollars from China and other countries. every year, just to stay afloat--that it feels that it is necessary to squeeze every dollar out of its own citizens that it possibly can.  This, however, does not justify onerous interest rates.  It merely explains them.   

The "equality" from the government's perspective is almost exclusively about the personal-financial partnership established between the couple where income, assets, and liabilities are shared. It's "all about the money" so when you state that the GOP is not willing to provide the identical financial benefits that an opposite-sex couple recieves then you stating the GOP is not offering equality. I don't know what kind of "equality" the GOP thinks its offering but if the identical financial "advantages" of marriage are not offered then it is not equality.  

I agree that dictionaries reflect common usage of words that can change over time which is why I used it. Your comment was that the GOP wasn't willing to changed it's definition of marriage when, in fact, it has already changed.  

Up until relatively recently (historically) there was little reason for a couple to be "legally" married in the United States. Common law marriage was very typical throughout the 19th Century. Famous historical figures were "married" without it ever been a "legal" marriage such as Wyatt Earp that was "married" twice and both were apparently common law marriages. No legal or religious marriage was necessary. If a same-sex couple wanted to be "married" they only needed to live together to establish the "marriage" and it wasn't uncommon.  It was only after the government began to implement laws that provided special treatment to "legally married" couples that the importance of the "legal institution of marriage" gained importance and that was predominately in the latter half of the 20th Century. There was no reason for same-sex couples to be legally married until the government began offering special tax rules and government benefits related to the legal institution of marriage.

Of course the "church" didn't recognize common law marriages and the self-rightous "Christians" condemned those involved as "sinners" just as many "Christians" do today when it comes to same-sex marriage but religious bigotry does not dictate the laws of the land. The United States, when it was founded, rejected religious opinion as the basis for the law.

At the same time the legal partnership (marriage) of same-sex couples is documented going back for over 2,000 years. It is not something "new" but it is something "uncommon" that has existed as long as most current religions.   

In fact I do believe that Republicans are more likely to accept the changing of the definition of  "marriage" than they would be to offer equality to gays and lesbians but for the most part they're going to fight tooth and nail opposing both. Over time we've seen more and more Republican politicans coming out in support of same-sex marriage but they are still a small minority. Eventually the rest will be forced to accept it because of the courts that will enforce the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment that Republicans of today oppose. 

I completely agree that "grades" should be discarded from our education system as they represent archaic instructional methods. Competancy based learning is far superior to our traditional education model that uses a grading system. As we also know the only thing that really matters is the diploma once the person is out of school.     

Of course a person can be prejudiced and not realize it. For example you've expressed the opinion that late voter registration, which disproportionately represents African-Americans that vote for Democrats, is reflective of "uninterested, low-information citizens" but no have no evidence to support the belief that they aredn't anymore of a "uninterested, low-information citizen" than millions of registered white Republican voters. Just because a person isn't registered to vote doesn't impy they are either "uninterested" or that they are a "low-information" citizen. Your opinion is prejudiced, it is generally related to African-Americans, and therefore reflects anti-black racial prejudice. There is no evidence that African-Americans that register late to vote are less interested or less informed than anyone else.

I never stated that there was no "discernable evidence" but instead stated there was little "compelling" evidence in individual cases where it will lead to a verdict of guilt. A perfect hypothetical case would be "Joe White" that owns a business and Joe is a racist that refuses to ever hire a black person. As long as Joe doesn't put anything in writing it's almost impossible to build a court case against him. There is over-whelming and convincing statistical evidence of racial prejudice and discrimination related to employment but statistical evidence is of very limited legal use in individual cases. We could document statistically that "Joe White" never hired African-Americans but it wouldn't be relevant to a single black person's lawsuit claim that Joe White didn't hire them because they're black.

A very large corporation can be found guilty of racial discrimination based upon statistical evidence of the discrimination but a small enterprise cannot because of the nature of statistical evidence. A small company of less than 100 employees (the vast majority of enterprises in the US) doesn't have a large enough sample size for statistical evidence to be used against them in a court of law.     

Of note the US government does not borrow from China. The American People that purchase more Chinese goods from China than what we sell to China are the "borrowers" and China is merely holding the IOU's of the American People in US government backed promissory notes that pay interest.  

We can certainly cite nefarious reasons why the US government is making tens of billions of dollars from college student loans but I would ask to two questions related to college education.

1) The government, through Federal Reserve, loans money for less than 1% to banks. Shouldn't college students be able to borrow money from the US government at the same rates as a commericial "for profit" bank?

2) Shouldn't every person with a HS diploma be admitted to college if they apply?  

Oct 6, 2014 1:17:52 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Are you suggesting that not very many Americans were "legally married" until "the latter half of the 20th century"? That seems to be what you are implying. (In fact, probably a higher percentage of Americans today are merely living together, "without benefit of clergy," as the old saying goes, than ever before.)

Why, pray tell, should the GOP--or the government in general--"offer" anything?  A bare-bones federal government--which is the only sort of federal government that I support--would simply get out of the way of American citizens, and try to do no harm--not try to do good things.

The secular-progressive and libertarian forces in America have, indeed, "changed" the definition of the word, "marriage."  But I do not have to accept that new definition, anymore than I would accept, say, the very concept of social justice, merely because the dictionary lists that term. 

To claim that the Founders "rejected religious opinion as the basis for law" is not entirely accurate. As John Adams put it, "It is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."  And again:  "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  (Bold added)

You have (at last) answered my question--well, sorta-kinda, anyway.  But your answer still avoids my actual question, viz.:  Do you believe that Republicans would be more likely to vote to change the definition of marriage and--and--grant government benefits to same-sex couples than they would be to grant those same benefits, without changing the definition of marriage?  (Please note that in both of the above scenarios, government benefits are being granted to same-sex couples.  If you wish to discuss another scenario, we certainly may do so; but only on a separate basis.  Here, we are limited to just two possibilities:  (1) Republicans generally favor full government benefits for same-sex couples, but oppose any change in the meaning of the term, "marriage"; or (2) Republicans generally favor both full government benefits for same-sex couples and a re-definition of the word, "marriage."  (If you believe that neither of these is likely, you may certainly begin another thread; and I will respond.  But in this thread, the choice I am offering is which of just these two options seems more likely to you.  Nothing else.)

China purchases US Treasury bonds. That is how we have become indebted to China--not through consumers' purchases of Chinese-made goods.

If "Joe White" has "never hired [any] African-Americans"; and if those African-Americans can show that he has hired less-qualified whites (or others) instead; then they certainly have an excellent basis for a lawsuit. Otherwise, they do not--regardless of any "statistical evidence."

Since colleges and universities are not the creation of the federal government--some, in fact, are private institutions; others are state institutions--the federal government has no business mandating just who should or should not be accepted, as I see it. 

If the Fed loans money to the banks for less than it loans money to students, that is not of any particular concern to me, as I am not a champion of the Fed, anyway; which is to say, I do not especially desire for it to continue to exist.       

You twist my statement. I stated that there were many Americans that were never legally married in the United States before there was a necessity to do so based upon privileges, protections, and benefits offered by government for legally married couples. That doesn't imply that the majority of couples weren't legally married but there is a caveat to the fact that the majority of couples were "legally" married. Most of those were "religiously" married in a church which, because the laws were rigged to favor religion, automatically resulted in a legal marriage. Even today we have these silly and arcane laws where anyone can become an "ordained minister" and perform a "legal" marriage. I would suggest that if all "religious" marriages (that were only legal marriages by default) were voided then there would have been very few married couples in America.

As the earliest case of same-sex marriage (Baker v Nelson) established if it wasn't for the government provided privileges, protections, and benefits related to marriage there would be no real purpose for the legal institution of marriage at all.

The choice of "Benefits provided by Marriage" v "Benefits alone" (if I can paraphrase it that way) is a simple because it's pragmatically impossible to provide the "Benefits alone" as there are far too many laws that hinge on the word "marriage" and effectively the Republicans would have to amend all of those laws to remove the word "marriage" from them completely. Effectively you're proposition requires Republicans to remove the word "marriage" from the laws completely and I think that is far less likely than allowing same-sex marriage from a purely pragmatic standpoint and Republicans won't do that.

As I've stated there were "Progressives" and "Conservatives" when America was founded and John Adams was a religious "conservative" of the times. Other founders, such as Thomas Jefferson that was a progressive, didn't believe in religious institutions at all and was arguably a deist. In the Supreme Court case addressing Freedom of Religion (Reynolds v United States 1878 ) the court established that laws cannot be based upon religious opinion alone. We can also note that even Adams separated "religion" and "morality" as many religious beliefs have all to often proven to be immoral.          

So racism and racial oppression is completely acceptable for you so long as there is no compelling evidence for conviction? Is murder also acceptable for you so long as there is no compelling evidence for conviction? No one was ever convicted of the Boston Stranger murders because of a lack of evidence for prosecution so were those murders acceptable because they were just statistics? When you start claiming that crimes are acceptable simply because there is a lack of evidence for a conviction you've opened up Pandora's Box.  

Federal Affirmative Action guidelines do not apply to colleges and universities. You know that. In fact Federal Affirmative Action guidelines address so few enterprises in the United States that they are insignificant and the enterprises effected aren't complaining about them at all. I've worked for Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing and GE that are all major defense contractors that are affected by Federal Affirmative Action and all of those major defense contractors embrace Affirmative Action! Not only do they not object to AA but believe that the Afirmative Action guidelines benefit the company. Roughly 95% of enterprises aren't affected at all by Federal Affirmative Action guidelines that are only applicable to enterprises with government contracts and over 50 employees.  

That is what is puzzling about Republicans that complain about the Federal AA guidelines. The few enterprises that are affected by the Federal AA guidelines don't object to them and actually believe they benefit their business. The Federal AA guidelines are not applicable to the States or to universities or colleges at all and don't affect the vast majority of enterprises in the United States or their employees.

In this thread you've complained about a college determining it's own admission policies where it allows qualified students to attend. Why are you opposed to the college being able to set it's own admission standards where some of those are based upon a benefit to the college and to society? I don't even think you can state that more African-Americans receiving a college education, when no "whites" are being denied a college education if they want one, is not a benefit to the American society as a whole. You can't claim that more African-Americans attending a college, where few have attended before, isn't beneficial to the college. In one breath you state that "grades" could be discarded as the criteria for college admissions and then argue against the colleges that decide that grades aren't the only criteria that should be used. On the flip side I've argued that the HS diploma should be the only criteria for college admissions and many colleges have taken a position somewhere in between our two positions. These colleges are not being forced to implement Affirmative Action at all, unless their state laws require it, but instead are using discretion in allowing admissions based upon what they believe is best for the college and the nation but apparently you oppose their use of discretion even though no "whites" are b eing denied a college education if they want one. Why do you oppose the colleges doing what is best for the college and the nation?      

China purchases interest bearing US government backed promissory notes (US Treasury Bonds) with non-interest bearing US government backed promissory notes (Federal Reserve notes) that it receives from trade. The "debt" is created by the trade deficit and all that China does is exchange non-interest bearing (US government backed) notes that lose value due to inflation with interest bearing (US government backed) notes. It would make no more sense for China to "stuff dollars in a mattress" than it would for you or I do it. They exchange the dollars that aren't interest bearing for Treasury Notes that are interest bearing and the dollars they have come from the trade deficit.

Why can't the US government provide student loans "at cost" is the real question. Better still why don't the States provide college educations for a minimal cost to the students so they don't need to borrow money at all? When I attended college I started out at a community college where the tuition was only $50/quarter. I could afford that small cost that basically only covered the admistrative costs for enrollment. Since I was provided with that opportunity I don't see why my state taxes shouldn't also provide that same benefit to HS graduates today.

Personally I believe in the "Pay it forward" philosophy where when we receive a "benefit" we should, in the future, provide a similar benefit to someone else but we also owe "interest" on what we've received and our "payback" should be ten-fold. By way of example if someone gives you $10 when you're hungry then you should give $100 to other that are hungry in the future. Our generation fundamentally received "almost free" college educations and we owe that to today's generation. Why do Republicans oppose that?  

Of note when I went to my local community college in 1967 it was virtually "all white" because it was in a "white" community. We didn't have institutionalized segregation in So. California but we also didn't have community colleges in the African-America communities effectively denying African-Americans the same opportunity for a college education that I had.