Quote :

"bgmims: For the love of God, link this kind of shit. You can't just claim this. I'm not saying it isn't true, but you have to cite research when you use it. Think of the children."

You should start here:

Quote :

"Key findings: A one-year, universal, high-quality preschool program in California would, for a $4,300-per-child cost beyond current public preschool spending in the state, generate: 1. $11,400 in benefits per child for California society, for a net benefit of over $7,000 per child, or $2.62 for every dollar expended, under the baseline assumptions of the research 2. between $2 and $4 in benefits for every dollar expended, under a range of different assumptions 3. other potential benefits for the California labor force, the competitiveness of the state’s economy, and economic and social equality."

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9118/index1.html


Another link for you that isn't all about money:

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/topsyn3.html

9/22/2006 4:37:58 PM

The second link provides some insight, but I'm having trouble with the first. They assert those numbers is much of the same way as you did in your first post.

Quote :

"Benefits of universal preschool were based on scientific evidence of the effects of high-quality preschool on disadvantaged children. These effects include reduced remedial education services and increased educational attainment by program participants, reduced abuse and neglect of participants, reduced victimization by crimes committed by participants, increased wage and salary compensation of participants and increased taxes realized by government, and reduced need for child care for participants. Other likely benefits of preschool participation were not included because of data limitations. Adjustments were made for lower-risk children and for children already enrolled in preschool under the existing system who would likely realize fewer benefits under a universal system. All future benefits and costs were discounted to present values at 3 percent per year."

Are all the children in their sample (70% of the general population) disadvantaged? I think not. Second, who the hell are these people? I wanted to read the findings instead of a summary, but they wanted me to payhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG349/index.html
$25 to do so. What kind of research is that?

9/22/2006 4:48:30 PM

Quote :

""I'm a fiscal conservative who supports same-sex marriage and the availability of abortion and birth control." That's it. Maybe decriminilization of pot. Maybe. So that's all it means. "Social progressivism," particularly in terms of fiscal conservatism, isn't that PROGRESSIVE. Anyway, are there any other "socially progressive" ideas that fit in with fiscal conservatism? Cause I'm socially progressive, and I'd like to see public preschools...but that's not fiscally conservative...see where I'm going with this, guys? "

Let me show where you conflated the two.
Social progessivism in response to education can mean two things. People want to progress to a privately funded and administered education system or people want to progress to a universally funded, all-inclusive education system.

The progressivism part comes from the fact that it is a change from what the current system entails to something different. The liberal part comes from wanting it to be run by the government and the conservative part comes from wanting it privately run.

You see, your public preschool is a socially progressive idea with a liberal direction of progression.
The opposite viewpoint would be a socially progressive idea with a conservative direction of progression.

9/22/2006 4:51:59 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: Let me show where you conflated the two. Social progessivism in response to education can mean two things. People want to progress to a privately funded and administered education system or people want to progress to a universally funded, all-inclusive education system. The progressivism part comes from the fact that it is a change from what the current system entails to something different. The liberal part comes from wanting it to be run by the government and the conservative part comes from wanting it privately run. You see, your public preschool is a socially progressive idea with a liberal direction of progression. The opposite viewpoint would be a socially progressive idea with a conservative direction of progression."

You accused me of confusing social liberalism and social progressivism, but in response to my request for you to show me my confusion, you didn't mention social liberalism at all. Try again. Here's a place for you to begin so you don't look like the confused one.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 5:12 PM. Reason : CODE IS COOL!]

9/22/2006 5:08:38 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: Second, who the hell are these people? I wanted to read the findings instead of a summary, but they wanted me to pay $25 to do so. What kind of research is that?"

Why don't you read about RAND at their website?

You can also read about RAND at wikipedia where it lists criticisms of militarism.

RAND has a history of being unpopular with the left.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 5:31 PM. Reason : SO COOL!]

9/22/2006 5:29:31 PM

Quote :

"i can't be expected to look after my health if i break my leg, or have a heart attack, or get mono. i have to go to a doctor for that."

Why not? You manage to feed yourself. Sure, you didn't do it by becoming a farmer, you bought it from someone else. Why can you be expected to buy food from Food Lion but it is inconceivable that you should be expected to buy healthcare from Tri-Care?

Nevertheless, it seems to me that quite a bit of the population is more libertarian than people realize, but that doesn't make them Libertarians.

But it cannot be denied that libertarians have historically found their home in the conservative and Republican parties, just as Greens have historically found their home in the Democratic party. It isn't a mistake and it isn't a delusion, in the two-party system libertarians are and should be Republicans.

Quote :

"Under Libertarianism, whites could also use homeowners associations to deny non-whites access to their neighborhood. I don't like that."

Yep, as bgmims said, "A great basis for all laws, amirite?"
More accurately, so what? They are only hurting themselves by reducing the trade value of their homes. non-whites will simply find housing elsewhere, increasing the value of non-racist property.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/22/2006 6:10:33 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: More accurately, so what? They are only hurting themselves by reducing the trade value of their homes. non-whites will simply find housing elsewhere, increasing the value of non-racist property."

How does this work? Seems to perpetuate segregation to me.

9/22/2006 7:11:52 PM

Quote :

"RAND has a history of being unpopular with the left. "

Being a leftist tool wasn't the attack I was making. I was attacking the specific research and the fact that this study was done by some unknown, people with noticeably missing credentials and cost money to view. The "study" said that research proved something without any decent explanation. AND, what little explanation they gave leads me to think they over-estimated the monetary benefits associated with public pre-school education.

I could care less which side of any debate they take, but I want to be able to sort through their research so that I can decide if it followed basic research methods.

9/22/2006 8:18:52 PM

Quote :

"I'm suggesting that a lot of these people who claim to be Libertarians would probably be the ones filing complaints,"

Why do you think libertarians would be filing these types of complaints?

Quote :

"Under Libertarianism, whites could also use homeowners associations to deny non-whites access to their neighborhood. "

Gov't never limits itself to just what you want. So it ends segregation, but you also end up with quotas, affirmative action, animosity among the races, forced associations etc. If the gov't decides that the feelings of blacks require federal intervention, then everyone's feelings must be considered..and then there will be no end to the gov't interference in our social lives.

Quote :

"same with roads. i'm not going to build my own road from my house to work. hence, public benefit"

You probably wouldn't build your own automobile, or television, or house either. Does this mean the rest of us also have to pay for these as well for you?

9/22/2006 9:25:18 PM

Stop with this sense-making stuff.

9/22/2006 10:09:58 PM

Quote :

"A true libertarian would suggest you kindly ask them not to prance around naked. If they refuse, consider building a fence beating that ass."

9/22/2006 10:18:45 PM

^Are you serious?

Quote :

"bgmims: Being a leftist tool wasn't the attack I was making. I was attacking the specific research and the fact that this study was done by some unknown, people with noticeably missing credentials and cost money to view. The "study" said that research proved something without any decent explanation. AND, what little explanation they gave leads me to think they over-estimated the monetary benefits associated with public pre-school education. I could care less which side of any debate they take, but I want to be able to sort through their research so that I can decide if it followed basic research methods."

I wasn't saying that you were attacking it as leftist. I was giving you information because you asked, "Who the hell are these people?"

You can research RAND more if you're not satisfied. I'm sure that part that they want you to pay for has been published somewhere else on the internet for free. There was another link I gave you about the effectiveness of quality public preschool...did you disagree with that too?

I'll bring more links for you to look over later because there are tons.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Why do you think libertarians would be filing these types of complaints?"

Rewind...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: I'm suggesting that a lot of these people who claim to be Libertarians would probably be the ones filing complaints,"

It's a negligible portion of my post. Just pointing out that few people are actually true Libertarians. They call themselves that because they don't want to pay taxes or have the government in their business...but they'd totally object to other people's expressions of freedoms.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:29 PM. Reason : sss]

9/22/2006 10:23:37 PM

^
Ahh..got it.

Very astute observation.

9/22/2006 11:04:04 PM

Quote :

"The second link provides some insight, but I'm having trouble with the first. They assert those numbers is much of the same way as you did in your first post"

I figure you just missed this, so I won't be an ass about it.

9/22/2006 11:30:44 PM

Quote :

"It's a negligible portion of my post. Just pointing out that few people are actually true Libertarians. They call themselves that because they don't want to pay taxes or have the government in their business...but they'd totally object to other people's expressions of freedoms."

I'd make the same argument about true republicans, democrats, greens, whathaveyous

No one follows a party completely. You're right that some people who claim to be libertarian would be upset about that. But I don't think wanting censorship of your nude neighbors constitutes anti-freedom. There's a reason we don't allow murder, theft, etc.
Banning obscenity in some forms can simply be extensions of that.

9/22/2006 11:33:04 PM

Quote :

"How does this work? Seems to perpetuate segregation to me."

Really? How does this work? In a free-market, scarcity gains pricing power and thus cash.

Now, the price of something is rarely a measure of the items value, it is usually a measure of options. If I can find equal housing elsewhere for $1000 a month then you cannot charge more than $1000 in rent for your property. However, by restricting where Asian people are allowed to live you are restricting their alternative options and thus their ability to avoid high prices, therefore their rents will rise. On the other hand, whites will have numerous alternatives available and will therefore be able to play land-lords against each other to reduce rents (better to collect $800 in rent than not rent a $1000 apartment).

Therefore, white tennents will pay very low rents and black tennents will pay very high rents.

Given this rule, market forces will try to correct this inefficient use of resources. Renters are being given a simple formula: give up being a racist and earn an extra $2,400 a year! Now, some racists will see this and refuse black tennents, but most will not. Especially when a housing surplus occurs and rents in general fall. It is during this cyclical events that we would see racist (and incompetent) land-lords going bankrupt and the only people willing to buy their property will be non-racists which can count on higher rents.

So, after a few decades we should expect to find very little segregated property left in the city. But what we will find are a lot of destitute racists which have lost all their property and their businesses to non-racists, which just happen to be very wealthy and prosperous. This tendency will form a stereotype which we today take for granted. The word "Racist" conjures up visions of poor unkempt individuals often angry at life. Wouldn't you be if market forces were keeping you down?

Of course, as you know we did not allow the market to kill our racists, we used government to do it, which means we never actually killed them we just made them illegal. By making racists rent to non-whites a rent differential never developed which means the racists never went bankrupt and society never learned racism breeds failure. Instead, we learned racism breeds police and lawsuits, a much more confusing message.

9/22/2006 11:34:23 PM

^haha...lessons in citizenship from the Almighty Dollar. Education is expensive, no matter how you get it.

Quote :

"It's a negligible portion of my post. Just pointing out that few people are actually true Libertarians. They call themselves that because they don't want to pay taxes or have the government in their business...but they'd totally object to other people's expressions of freedoms."

i think you mean to say that relatively few people are out on the fringe of libertarianism. Relatively few take it to its ideological extreme, which is evident by the fact that the big-"L" types are fairly small in number, especially relative to the number of people who share their general sentiment but remain GOP or Dem simply because the Libertarian party is too extreme.

all ideologies are like that, though...very few people live at the far edge.

9/23/2006 8:33:15 AM

Quote :

"More accurately, so what? They are only hurting themselves by reducing the trade value of their homes. non-whites will simply find housing elsewhere, increasing the value of non-racist property."

Bullshit. The home-owners would probably expect to see their house prices maintain a high price or increase in value. (They might suffer some penalty if they made the policy that obvious, but thats about it.)

Of course, maybe the whole white flight thing doesnt actually exist.

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 10:46 AM. Reason : ]

9/23/2006 10:42:00 AM

Quote :

"Of course, maybe the whole white flight thing doesnt actually exist"

It doesn't. The flight you are referring to is a rich flight, not a white flight.

Rich people don't like to live next to poor people, white, black, or mexican. They don't like to live in areas of high crime. White crime, black crime, they don't care.

The white flight myth is just because some people refuse to do any base rate statistics before they make an argument. Its pretty racist, IMHO, because they simply label the people as black or white or whatever without taking into account all of the other characteristics about them that might affect their lives in one way or another.

9/23/2006 11:47:37 AM

Clear5, I refer you to my post exactly two posts above yours.

It doesn't matter whether you are "secret" about it or not. At some point a non-white individual will be standing in front of you offering to rent/buy your property and you will turn them down. As time passes and this happens a lot you will eventually notice your rents/prices are below those of your competitors.

9/23/2006 12:20:53 PM

^Your scenario completely ignores the reality of people's preferences, demographics, income indistribution, etc.

If, you, as the property owner (or as part of a group of property owners) allow a certain number of non-whites to move in, then suddenly all of your white tennants are moving out. You are then left with a smaller market that doesnt have as much money.

Our communities are racially segregated nearly everywhere. If you keep your community only open to the largest and richest demographic, then you will probably fair a bit better than the guy who let the first non-whites move in and shifted the demographics of the neighborhood to a smaller, less wealthy group.

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2006 1:07:53 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: It doesn't. The flight you are referring to is a rich flight, not a white flight. Rich people don't like to live next to poor people, white, black, or mexican. They don't like to live in areas of high crime. White crime, black crime, they don't care. The white flight myth is just because some people refuse to do any base rate statistics before they make an argument. Its pretty racist, IMHO, because they simply label the people as black or white or whatever without taking into account all of the other characteristics about them that might affect their lives in one way or another."

What interest do you have in denying something so obvious? It had everything to do with race. Don't kid yourself; white flight exists--you mentioned statistics, did you have some you wanted to share?

(Oh, and you're so fucking classic when you turn it around and accuse others of being racist for not considering money--you do realize lower middle-class whites fled too, right? Yes, money is a factor but only as an extension of race.)

Next you're gonna say that redlining wasn't racially motivated either.

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 1:41 PM. Reason : sss]

9/23/2006 1:31:34 PM

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

9/23/2006 2:33:37 PM

^Because of something I said?

9/23/2006 3:37:25 PM

No, it's the sappy liberitarian circle jerk that made me gag.

9/23/2006 9:26:36 PM

Quote :

"If, you, as the property owner (or as part of a group of property owners) allow a certain number of non-whites to move in, then suddenly all of your white tennants are moving out. You are then left with a smaller market that doesnt have as much money."

Ahh, true, I did simplify the market a bit. However, you failed to take the next logical extension of the market. Once again, do the analysis. Whether it is others limiting my choices or me limiting them myself is irrelevant. So, white racists in a free market will endemically pay higher rents than non-racist whites. Now, this system does not have a conclusion like it does for land-lords (renters do not go bankrupt). But the financial incentive is the same: racists pay thousands more a year in rent for crappier apartments.

This system works whenever someone limits their own options in the marketplace. Racist employers will pay higher wages for lazier employees than non-racists (giving non-racists a sustainable competitive advantage). Racist employees will receive lower wages and work harsher jobs.

But once again, these statements are only true when people are allowed to hang themsleves with their racism.

9/24/2006 8:57:08 AM

But, Loneshark, its a price most people are willing to pay. And, because so many are ready to pay to seperate themselves from minorities, it has tremendous consequences for both the racists and minorities.

The South, before the civil rights era, was perfectly willing to suffer tremendous economic damage due to its racism. It didnt occur with just the jim crow laws, it occured in the private sector as well.

And, as with the housing problem, people will fail to realize why they are being penalized or what they are actually paying for. When you ask those whites who move out, they will have a thousand almost entirely illusory benefits as to why they made the move. Just as if you asked whites in the south before the civil rights era the reasons why they were behind economically, racism would almost never emerge as an answer.

To get a lesson on racism from the market, you have to be able to rationally examine the situation. Very few people are ever going to be able to do this, so its doubtful that any lesson can be learned.

Government, on the other hand, can teach the lesson a lot easier: stop acting racist or we will shut down your business and put you in jail.

Edit: Id also like to add that its the same lesson. I doubt if someone recognized that the market was going to penalize them for acting racist, that they would drop their racist beliefs as your initial post suggests.

[Edited on September 24, 2006 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ]

9/24/2006 10:34:17 AM

Quote :

"Government, on the other hand, can teach the lesson a lot easier: stop acting racist or we will shut down your business and put you in jail."

Take care with this type of thinking.

If it is OK with you to use the powerful and deadly hand of gov't to force people to your will, then others will see no problem with using gov't to prevent you from doing things that they think is immoral, unhealthy or unfair.

Using gov't to fix the social ills of the country sounds fine but almost always carries unwanted consequences and opens the door to further tyranny.

[Edited on September 24, 2006 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

9/24/2006 11:28:03 AM

pragmatism, one step at a time

9/24/2006 11:39:33 AM

Quote :

"If it is OK with you to use the powerful and deadly hand of gov't to force people to your will, then others will see no problem with using gov't to prevent you from doing things that they think is immoral, unhealthy or unfair."

My guess is that they will see no problem with using government for those things regardless of what I think.

9/24/2006 12:05:55 PM

Quote :

"its a price most people are willing to pay"

Well, you are ignoring one of the main arguments against the free-enterprise system. When racists go buy a product, odds are they didn't take the time and effort to find out if it contains any non-white labor. So, even in a purely racist society, non-racist manufacturers and businessmen can utilize cheaper and harder working non-white labor and rely on the apathy of their customers.

As I said before, this cheaper and harder working workforce will give non-racist businesses a sustainable competitive advantage to underprice and eliminate racist competitors. Of course, this is where government comes in. If you want to know why none of this happened in the pre-civil rights era, government is the answer. You see, in 1938 the federal minimum wage was created which effectively eliminated all the wage advantage of southern blacks, rendering most of them permanently unemployed for decades since they could no longer offer wage savings to overcome white racist tendencies without breaking the law.

Also, some southern states instituted disclosure requirements, making it nearly impossible for businesses to hide the black labor content of their products.

Quote :

"And, as with the housing problem, people will fail to realize"

In this respect you are correct, people are unlikely to test enough of the market to find out why, even if they manage to realize they are paying more than others. But that is what the press is for, informing the public about the state of their world.

But once again, Government cannot be left out. Through the use of zoning laws and police harassment, non-racist land-lords needed to contend with a hostile regulatory environment, not to mention that Police protection was not provided in many black-serving neighborhoods.

9/24/2006 12:17:19 PM

Bridget, maybe reading isn't your strong suit, but I didn't say they didn't leave ONLY because of people being poor.

Quote :

"Rich people don't like to live next to poor people, white, black, or mexican. They don't like to live in areas of high crime. White crime, black crime, they don't care. "

Lower-class people also don't like to live next to criminals. (Don't try to make this look like I said black people are criminals - criminals are criminals) So it would only make sense that they left as well.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~platt/papers/blackbox.pdf
This paper makes several points about white flight. It is pretty fair as well, and it talks about the race premium that has been accompanied with white flight.
Prior to 1960, the premium was entirely explained by race-class (socio-economic) differences in the neighborhoods, but it seems that 1/3 of the premium following 1970 is unexplained by income differentials. There does seem to be some case of white flight at that time, and this paper attributes it to race-related crime that came during desegregation and civil unrest.

It does show that at some point in history, some people moved because they wanted less diversity in their communities. Does it mean they hate blacks? Some probably do, but a lot of it was due to the benefits of living in a homogenous neighborhood when it came to schools, etc.

I would think that if this paper went back and controlled for racial differences in student quality from 1950-1970, the vast majority of this race-related housing premium would disappear.

**WARNING: If you aren't used to reading economics papers, read only the introduction and the conclusion, the rest of it will be dry and difficult for you to understand. Like me, trying to read something on particle physics**

[Edited on September 24, 2006 at 1:05 PM. Reason : warned]

9/24/2006 1:03:16 PM

^ I'll read it later, but for now my response to almost everything you just said is...



Again, what interest do you have in denying the truth? What do you gain by saying that it was all about crime and money and nothing to do with race (you concede a little bit of it had to with race but not enough to be significant...LOL)?

Furthermore, why are you attacking my reading skills? I already pointed out that lower middle-class whites left as well. So why put the "rich" in bold, like I missed something? Are you implying that rich whites were moving away from poor people, but poor whites were engaging in white flight?

[Edited on September 24, 2006 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ?]

9/24/2006 2:50:29 PM

Quote :

"Again, what interest do you have in denying the truth? What do you gain by saying that it was all about crime and money and nothing to do with race (you concede a little bit of it had to with race but not enough to be significant...LOL)? Furthermore, why are you attacking my reading skills? I already pointed out that lower middle-class whites left as well. So why put the "rich" in bold, like I missed something? Are you implying that rich whites were moving away from poor people, but poor whites were engaging in white flight? "

I have no interest in denying the truth. I have an unlimited interest in illuminating it. It seems like the one with the interest in slight of hand is you and those in favor of that viewpoint. Why is it so hard for you to believe that there are other reasons for people's actions than being racist? Its like your "well, they were black, you know" trump card should destroy all semblance of actual reasoning.

Furthermore, I attacked your reading skills but apparantly the comprehension skills are what are lacking. You see, I highlighted the part of my sentence that dealt with the rich to show that my "it was somewhat about money" applied to the wealthy, not the lower-middle class. Yes, they did leave as well, but it was more about crime and other factors than money.

I do find it funny that your response to science is
whereas your response to vague assertions made carelessly by others is

9/24/2006 3:14:04 PM

Quote :

"More accurately, so what? They are only hurting themselves by reducing the trade value of their homes. non-whites will simply find housing elsewhere, increasing the value of non-racist property. "

This is not necessarily true. As long as there are some whites who perfer living with other whites black homeownership confers a negative externality on white neighbors.

If the externality is internalized through a homeowners association then being white becomes an asset. That is you can achieve better housing at a lower price because your whiteness is valuable to other white neighbors. A black neighbor would have to pay a premium because he would be destroying the all white value of the neighborhood.

Disallowing white only neighborhoods would cause a real economic loss to all white people, even the ones in integrated neighborhoods, because their whiteness is a real option. That is they have an option to move into a white only neighborhood at no premium even if they choose not to exercise it.

The market effeciently satisfies preferences but there is no constraint that the preferences be non-gruesome.

If people have a preference for abusing children then the market will produce some quantity of abused children. The child pornography industry is case in point.

9/24/2006 5:25:39 PM

Quote :

""I'm a fiscal conservative who supports same-sex marriage and the availability of abortion and birth control.""

that comes close for me, lol
basically i want the government to leave me the hell alone, as long as i'm not endangering anyone else. which is pretty well summed up in this post :

Quote :

"Fiscal Conservative: I want the financial freedom to keep and do as I wish with the money I earn. Spend it on my family instead of having it taken away and spent on someone else. I want the gov't to take as little money from me as possible and spend it only on the things permitted by the Constitution. Social Progressive: I want the freedom to live my life as I see fit. As long as I am not initiating fraud or force, the gov't has no authority to control my actions. My body belongs to me, it is not the property of any politician."

9/24/2006 6:02:31 PM

you are endagering your unborn children by sucking them out of your uterus and letting them die a painful death

9/24/2006 6:05:02 PM

That's where there is room for debate Josh.
Some fiscally conservative, socially progessive people think that the unborn are living and deserve rights. Other equally well meaning fiscally conservative, socially progressive people think that the unborn don't count as living. There's the spectrum in between of people who think they are living, but only at a certain stage.

That debate will go on for a long, long time. Much like other debates, but unfortunately this one gets very heated because those who feel one way feel that murder has been legalized and others see it as a fundamental right of women.

9/24/2006 6:12:37 PM

Quote :

"fundamental right"

our military gave us those rights.

9/24/2006 6:21:09 PM

oh look

a one liner that contains nothing

9/24/2006 6:34:32 PM

I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this, but from now on every post you make that fits the general description of trolling will only be met by my post of troll protest, with no other response.

The same will apply to all trolls.

9/24/2006 6:34:54 PM

kwsmith2, when I said "Trade Value" and then later "Value" I was referring to the items cash value, not the objective emotional value. Usually I don't deal with non-monetary value because it is so subjective and hard to measure, but I do recognize it is an element in the world of truth that is the market.

9/24/2006 7:22:00 PM

i guess we can all agree on one thing, if we cant settle the moral issue:

economic liberalism/socialism is a prescription for death.

9/24/2006 8:42:36 PM

no, birth control is a Rx for death.

9/24/2006 8:44:58 PM

Quote :

"economic liberalism/socialism is a prescription for death."

Is this a way of saying economic freedom is bad because it promotes abortion?

However you fall on the issue of abortion, one thing to keep in mind is that the federal gov't shouldn't be involved in the issue. The Constitution has no authority to legislate on abortion at all. Only three crimes are listed: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. The federal gov't has no authority to be involved with common crimes such as murder and theft.

If you feel it is something that should be handled by the feds, then you need to pass an amendment.

9/24/2006 10:59:37 PM

Quote :

"economic liberalism/socialism is a prescription for death."

wtf. Keep dreaming.

9/24/2006 11:42:26 PM

liberal "death" agenda:

-abortion
-euthanasia
-allowing us to be open to more terror attacks
-socialized medicine

9/25/2006 1:27:06 AM

man, you sure do have a boner for the euthanasia issue.

i don't see what the big deal is.


^^^

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=400982

[Edited on September 25, 2006 at 1:40 AM. Reason : asdfad]

9/25/2006 1:35:47 AM

man, some of you people sure like to attack me at every turn. i dont think ive been big on that issue at all.

i dont feel like bringing up terri schiavo and arguing why that was such a landmark case with this right now.

9/25/2006 1:39:20 AM

it's just a relatively small-time political issue, but i've noticed you bring it up several times recently.

9/25/2006 1:41:45 AM