Is there any independent candidate who appeals to both left and right?

[Cache Landing]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If the right to lifers are about morality, then they should make sure than each baby gets everything they need to live a happy life. They need to take full economic responsibility if necessary. To say it is a moral issue, then abandon the child once born because of economic reasons, is showing a lack of consistency morally speaking.

If the right to lifers oppose euthanasia or PAD, then they should pony up the $$$ to make sure the end of life process is as humane and pain free as possible.

What I find is the right to lifers are concerned with abortion and not allowing end of life by anything but unnecessary suffering are not demonstrating real compassion of concern for life itself.

But did you not ever consider that the right to life stance merely protects one's opportunity for happiness. Not necessarily to guarantee it.

You argue that because there is a chance that someone might have a hard life, we should eliminate their opportunity.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

So you are anti abortion, only if the taxpayer has to pay for it?

Sorry...but that is some inconsistent morality working there...

The problem is that we as a society, do not see to it that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are achieved by allowing a crack baby not to get all the requirements to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Pay now, or pay a heck of a lot later...

I find it morally inconsistent to force a woman to have a child for the sake of the child, knowing full well that the child is going to suffer a miserable life.

We send irresponsible people to jail all the time, but we force irresponsible women to have babies against their will because they can't afford it?

Again, it is inconsistent logic to preach the sanctity of life, then ignore the quality of life once a baby has been forced born.

Good golly, the woman can't afford an abortion or the right to go to a free clinic...but that woman will be able to afford the proper pre-natal care, and post birth proper care of a baby?

Wha??

I just stated that I support the current laws, bruh.

And again, like the rest of us, the only thing the child gets is

life( the opportunity to continue to survive, not grow up like Paris Hilton)

liberty ( the opportunity to get an education and/or learn a skill to sustain itself)

the PURSUIT of happiness ( we do not stand in the way of any opportunities within the boundaries of our current laws, that it provides for itself)

So, under our present system, might that child grow up poor? Absolutely.

Might that child also have a chance to become someone great?

I am not pro-lfe, I am pro responsibility.....and pro being able to do anything as long as you are willing to accept the consequences. I think people would in fact benefit from living life without a net. Believe it or not.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"I think people would in fact benefit from living life without a net."

So you personally are living without a net of any kind, living day to day, like animals in the jungle?

Quote from RCG Trader:

Wha??

I just stated that I support the current laws, bruh.

And again, like the rest of us, the only thing the child gets is

life( the opportunity to continue to survive, not grow up like Paris Hilton)

liberty ( the opportunity to get an education and/or learn a skill to sustain itself)

the PURSUIT of happiness ( we do not stand in the way of any opportunities within the boundaries of our current laws, that it provides for itself)

So, under our present system, might that child grow up poor? Absolutely.

Might that child also have a chance to become someone great?

I am not pro-lfe, I am pro responsibility.....and pro being able to do anything as long as you are willing to accept the consequences. I think people would in fact benefit from living life without a net. Believe it or not.

 

[denner]

Quote from Cache Landing:

So you are saying that we should reward the fully irresponsible drug addicted welfare leaches, by paying for the services so they can continue on their rampage without consequence.

But the semi-irresponsible married 30 year-old with two kids who (with her husband) doesn't feel like they have the financial resources to raise another child... She doesn't deserve any help covering the procedure because she can technically afford it?

Right, they will only assist when a person/family is flat broke. This way they have complete control over that segment of the population. When election time comes around, they make some noise about the Republicrats "cutting essential social services" which scares the shit out of the wards of the state and ensures a vote for the party of handouts.

This intentional bankrupting of this country and its citizens seems like a very co-ordinated effort to make the vast majority of the populace wards of the state with a smaller, yet highly influential faction of oligarchs running everything else, including the bidding for and privatization of once public assets.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"I think people would in fact benefit from living life without a net."

So you personally are living without a net of any kind, living day to day, like animals in the jungle?

Hmmm, I see I will have to define parameters as you regularly confuse literal and figurative.

Living without a net means, you no workee, you no eatee.

The only exception to this is that the there is clear and compelling evidence that you cannot work, or the non-worker is exhausting all available means to find a job. In other words, finding a job becomes his job.

 

[Hello]

Well said, lefties have no interest in creating a middle class that does not involve government, if they actually had an interest in that they would be pushing alot harder for initiatives which created a middle class through the private sector. The progressives want to create a middle class fully reliant on government, as evidenced by the obscene wages government employees currently make, and the staggering growth of government over the past three decades. This version of their "middle class" ensures that the people in the middle class are reliant on government. Then on top of that they hand just enough free government cheese to the poor, to keep them voting but poor. And of course this is all on the backs of the private sector tax payers.

Given the fact that progressives control the media, and they are handing out ever larger amounts of government cheese to people off the backs of a segment that is becoming smaller by the day, it is a damn miracle that anyone even supports small government anymore. This is proof of just how unpopular big government is to the people who are not accepting the the bribes.

Quote from denner:

Right, they will only assist when a person/family is flat broke. This way they have complete control over that segment of the population. When election time comes around, they make some noise about the Republicrats "cutting essential social services" which scares the shit out of the wards of the state and ensures a vote for the party of handouts.

This intentional bankrupting of this country and its citizens seems like a very co-ordinated effort to make the vast majority of the populace wards of the state with a smaller, yet highly influential faction of oligarchs running everything else, including the bidding for and privatization of once public assets.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

What if the living wage is no longer an actual living wage?

It seems as if you have to continually have to define your comments, as they are not clearly defined to begin with.

Most folks understand a safety net to be what happens when you need help.

I'm all for helping those who are trying to help themselves, helping the helpless, but not into handouts with no trying to be self sufficient.

The problem is that the working class is getting more and more incapable of a living wage due to decreasing wages and increasing costs...which the wealthy keep getting wealthier.

This is not a recipe for a stable society.

This is the path toward a revolution in which the wealthy are overturned.

Quote from RCG Trader:

Hmmm, I see I will have to define parameters as you regularly confuse literal and figurative.

Living without a net means, you no workee, you no eatee.

The only exception to this is that the there is clear and compelling evidence that you cannot work, or the non-worker is exhausting all available means to find a job. In other words, finding a job becomes his job.

 

[denner]

Quote from Hello:

Well said, lefties have no interest in creating a middle class that does not involve government, if they actually had an interest in that they would be pushing alot harder for initiatives which created a middle class through the private sector. The progressives want to create a middle class fully reliant on government, as evidenced by the obscene wages government employees currently make, and the staggering growth of government over the past three decades. This version of their "middle class" ensures that the people in the middle class are reliant on government. Then on top of that they hand just enough free government cheese to the poor, to keep them voting but poor. And of course this is all on the backs of the private sector tax payers.

Given the fact that progressives are handing out ever larger amounts of government cheese to people off the backs of a segment that is becoming smaller by the day, it is a damn miracle that anyone even supports small government anymore. This is proof of just how unpopular big government is to the people who are not accepting the the bribes.

There was a long while prior to the "financial crisis" of 2008 where thoughts or opinions such as they were really considered outlandish and conspiratorial. It wasn't until people witnessed firsthand the depths of the kleptocracy that it finally started to turn public sentiment more towards this notion of two distinct classes (one at the very top and one at the bottom) essentially competing in lockstep for political special interest. Of course, the very bottom of the pyramid serves not only as a solid voting block but also as a quasi-pilfering class whereby government social services enable quite a hefty skim off the top all the while garnering points from the mentally challenged fools who believe these are essential social services.

There was a point back in 08-09 where I could only laugh at the absurdity of these bailouts. One of which was this ludicrous notion that we needed to "save" the student loan industry. You know this same industry that has driven the cost of tuition to upwards of $50,000 per year for a private school and massive percentage increases for public schools over the past 10-20 years. Here we were asked as taxpayers to further subsidize programs that further rape taxpayers. I still shake my head whenever I hear the bird brains around here argue in favor of bailouts which were nothing more than brazen attempts at continuing the rape and pillage of the working class.

 

[Pekelo]

Here is an interesting scenario:

Let's say there is a charismatic, well liked blah-blah-blah 3rd party candidate, who against all odds makes it through the race with popular support and with the people's money, instead of corporations'. He is only accountable to the people. He promises everything what the other 2 parties wouldn't do.

Let's say we are 1 week away from election night and the polls are saying that he will win 40% with the other 2 trailing 30-30% of all votes. Now obviously neither established parties wants to lose to an unpredictable, uncontrollable newcomer. Let's say you are the Rep or Dem adviser and facing a pretty much guaranteed loss.

What do you do???* (beside assassination )

Well, if I were Karl Rove, I would sit down with the Dems and make a deal. 3 days before election we would announce that we reached an agreement and we vote for the agreed candidate. So we would have a public coinflip, and whoever wins that, both parties' voters are encouraged to vote for that person. The VP can even come from the other party.

Even if 15% or so of the voting block still votes to their own candidate, that would still give a 45% win over the 3rd party's 40%....

What is the point here? That the 2 incumbent parties can screw over a 3rd party candidate at the last moment, if the situation calls for it. Later they can negotiate how they are going to share the power, but letting in the unwanted guy would be averted...

* Messing with the voting machines also works, as we remember.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

What if the living wage is no longer an actual living wage?

It seems as if you have to continually have to define your comments, as they are not clearly defined to begin with.

Most folks understand a safety net to be what happens when you need help.

I'm all for helping those who are trying to help themselves, helping the helpless, but not into handouts with no trying to be self sufficient.

The problem is that the working class is getting more and more incapable of a living wage due to decreasing wages and increasing costs...which the wealthy keep getting wealthier.

This is not a recipe for a stable society.

This is the path toward a revolution in which the wealthy are overturned.

Perhaps, I only need to define them with you. A good debating tactic, nonetheless. A worthy adversary. I admire that.

As I have mentioned before, our society is beyond the event horizon. Living wages can only be brought into line with a major major shock. Especially here, as we tend not to put down our i-pads until the internet gets cut. That is the price we pay for being opulent. Rome paid that same price.

We will survive, but we are headed towards the black hole and there is no escaping it. Our system will be reset. There is no way to avoid it.